2012-11-23

Government Orders
First Nations Financial Transparency Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from November 20 consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. 
The Speaker: There are five minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question in regard to the whole issue of aboriginal discussions. We have seen a number of bills that have been brought into the chamber related to that particular issue and we have consistently told the government that there needs to be a lot more consultation prior to introduction of legislation. 
To what degree does the member feel that, prior to the bill actually being drafted, there was adequate consultation done on behalf of the government?
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is evident there has not been enough consultation done on this legislation or any legislation for that matter that the government has introduced that would impact first nations.
We believe there are already sufficient reporting processes in place, talking about Bill C-27, and funding agreements could be modified to address any worst case scenarios that arise. The government should have drawn up Bill C-27, as the member says, with full consultation with first nations, which would have made the bill more complete and legitimate than it is. It should have consulted, reflected on the advice of the Auditor General and kept the pressing needs of Canada's first nations communities in mind as it determined its legislative priorities. That would have served all involved much better.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, does the member see problems ahead for the tribal councils and other national aboriginal organizations with the funding cuts if Bill C-27 gets passed, and the kinds of supports offered to tribal councils, in particular, and first nations governments in terms of reporting?
[Interjection]
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan is a very hard worker and understands the first nations issues.
If the bill does pass, there will be a major impact on our first nations with those cuts. It will impact on the ability of first nations to comply with the legislation that the government is putting forward.
 I just received a copy of a newsletter from one of my first nations indicating that “The Resound is now going into its 11th year of production. Our paper is sent to citizens of our community living away from home, as well as our local residents. We have grown support for our paper today, and our paper enjoys 90% approval rating from our citizens when it comes to receiving timely information from the administration and council. We are a very transparent and accountable community. This is something Minister Duncan will be happy to hear”. 
They do not support Bill C-27. This is from Chief Shining Turtle. I know the minister is very well aware of Chief Shining Turtle.
The Speaker: I will remind the member not to use proper names of our colleagues. Even when quoting, members are still not allowed to do that.
The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her very thoughtful speech on this legislation that talks a lot about accountability, a topic my friends across the aisle do not know too much about.
As the member travels around her province and meets with many people from the first nations communities, what kind of concerns is she hearing?
[Interjection]
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the concerns I hear are not about the fact that the members are not getting information about the financials. They are saying that they need affordable housing, that they need their water issues addressed, that they need their education issues addressed, which is important, and that they want consultation from the Conservative government when it comes to legislation that would impact on their community. They do not want MRP. I know the minister has received over 14,700 emails from Chief Shining Turtle on the issue of MRP. I can tell members that first nations are very passionate about being able to govern their own communities.
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 would strengthen transparency and accountability by requiring that the audited consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration and expenses of a first nation be shared with the members of each first nation community, as well as the general public.
 I know the committee made amendments to the bill, which helped to clarify this point. However, I feel it is important to discuss the motivations behind the specific reference to band entities in Bill C-27.
The consolidated financial statements of a first nation include the financial statements of the entity that, according to generally accepted accounting principles, are required to be consolidated with the first nation and to be presented as a single economic entity. It is, therefore, necessary to ensure clarity around what constitutes an entity for the purposes of this act. “Entity”, for the purposes of this bill, is defined as a corporation or partnership, a joint venture or any other unincorporated association or organization. As an example, a band-owned business would be considered an entity under the proposed act.
Members of first nations are ultimately the owners of any businesses owned by their band and, as a result, should have a right to know what the values and activities of those businesses are. Although some first nations may be reluctant to provide the full picture of their financial results for competitive reasons, it is important for the users of financial statements, especially first nations members, to see summary statements that capture the range of activities of their government. 
Bill C-27 would require that an aggregate summary of the values and activities of the businesses that are consolidated into the financial statements of the first nations be published. This does not mean, however, that each individual business owned by the band would need to be publishing its own detailed set of financial statements. Instead, it is only the consolidated financial statements of the first nation to which the bill would apply. Any information concerning businesses would be highly aggregated and, in most cases, should not reveal any proprietary information.
AFN regional chief, Jody Wilson-Raybould, raised concerns about the inclusion of band entities in Bill C-27. She said during her appearance at the committee that was studying this bill:
 ...while public sector accounting standards do deal with government business enterprises, Bill C-27 seems to go further by adding definitions of “consolidated financial statements” and “entity”, as well as its own interpretation of what it means for an entity to be controlled by a first nations government under subclause 2(2). It is not clear what the intention is here. Why not just make the public sector accounting standards apply? We would like clarity, and we need to ensure that this bill does not inappropriately modify the rules that currently apply to other governments in Canada with respect to government business enterprises. 
Once again, I know that the committee made amendments to the bill that address this point and improve the language. However, I want to be clear and bring to the attention of the House that the bill does not intend to seek to put into place the same rules that apply to businesses owned by other governments in Canada. These rules are developed not by the government but by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, which are referred to in the bill. 
The new language used to define “consolidated financial statements” reads as follows:
 “consolidated financial statements” means the financial statements of a First Nation—prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles—in which the assets, liabilities, equity, income, expenses and cash flows of the First Nation and of those entities that are required by those principles to be included are presented as those of a single economic entity, as if the First Nation were a government reporting on its financial information. 
This definition includes a specific reference to the fact that the preparation of financial statements is to be done, not in accordance with the rules established by the government but by generally accepted accounting principles. These principles include the public sector accounting standards demanded by Ms. Wilson-Raybould. This would ensure that the same standards that apply to businesses owned by other governments in Canada would apply to first nations governments in precisely the same way. Furthermore, this definition also makes it clear that first nations are to be treated as governments in the manner in which their financial information is presented. 
The intention of this bill has always been to put into legislation the same practices with respect to the treatment of band entities that are currently in place in the funding agreements. It is important for the users of financial statements, especially first nations members as owners of those businesses but other users as well, to see summary statements that capture the activities of their government. 
While we would encourage first nations to provide as much detail as possible to their memberships about the specifics of band-owned entities, the overall objective of this bill does not require it. The financial information for those entities that are considered to be part of the first nations overall economic activities would be aggregated. We believe this will be enough, albeit a minimum.
Bill C-27 may be seen by many progressive first nations as an opportunity to put into place or expand upon their own practices that aim to enhance the overall accountability of their government. In this way, the bill would serve as a catalyst for change in many communities which would lead to greater confidence in many first nations governments.
The challenge has been to find language that balances both the need for precision in the legislative drafting with accounting concepts that are both complex and constantly evolving. I congratulate the committee on finding solutions that skilfully strike a balance.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech and I note that one issue has not been addressed on the other side of this House. How can they be so sure that there is a problem? From the outset, they have taken a pejorative view of the whole matter. In my riding, the first nations make a huge effort to be transparent and accountable to their members.
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I think we all know that there are many examples of first nations that are only meeting these basic transparency requirements and expectations of a government but actually exceeding them. We should applaud those first nations for doing so.
However, the movement forward with Bill C-27 is about the governments. We want to ensure that governments are fair and transparent with the individuals they deal with, just like every other government, including the Government of Canada. We expect the same of provincial governments.
As I said before, there are many examples of first nations that not only meet these basic requirements but actually exceed them. We should applaud those first nations and encourage them to all meet that same bar.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member somewhat makes the argument that many first nations today are exceeding the requirements that are written within the legislation.
The question I have for her is in regard to what the government is actually doing. On the one hand, it seems to recognize that there is some leadership within the first nations that more than exceeds the expectations and yet on the surface it would appear as if the government has not in good faith negotiated or sat down with the first nations leadership prior to introducing the legislation.
It is important for us to note that the leaders of our first nations communities can more than adequately deal with this issue. It is a question of the government having the trust and faith, and sitting down with that first nations leadership and working with them to have better legislation.
Why did the government, prior to the drafting of this bill, not sit down with our first nations leaders and work with them?
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has spent countless hours meeting and speaking with individuals who are part of first nations governments.
In addition to that, the committee has reviewed at length what the language should be in this bill and has come forward with this, striking a balance, as I mentioned in my speech. We all need to know that the committee took thoughtful time and came up with excellent language that is acceptable.
The transparency provided in Bill C-27 would stop any speculation or dispel any rumours about the salaries around first nations leaders and allow Canadians to see the reality of how well first nations governments are being funded. In addition, this would ensure that the same standards that apply to businesses owned by their governments in Canada would also apply to first nations governments in precisely the same way.
This is good legislation. I look forward to the opposition supporting it.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about first nations governments and yet the Conservative government does not actually treat them as governments.
The member also mentioned that there is this accountability in the relationship with provinces and yet I know that the Conservative federal government does not require that the provinces, for example, report accurately on how much private health care dollars are funded through the public health care system.
 The Canadian Bar Association wrote a letter to the minister saying that this legislation fails to recognize the unique constitutional arrangements between first nations and the federal government and does little to move away from the paternalism which has historically defined this relationship.
I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that there is no recognition of that nation-to-nation status in this legislation.
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about jurisdiction. Health care dollars in this country are provided to the provinces, which make decisions with respect to how they deal with those dollars. 
This government has put in place an escalator, in fact, 6%, year-over-year, in order to make sure health care dollars are made available to Canadians. I encourage the member opposite to look at those jurisdictional issues so she is clear with respect to how health care dollars are allocated in this country.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 raises a number of issues, of course. As I mentioned in my earlier question, with this bill, the government took for granted many negative and disparaging opinions about first nations in this country. Right from the start, the Conservatives noted that there was a problem with the first nations, and they imposed the view that there was indeed a problem.
 There are first nations communities in my riding. For example, there is the Kitigan Zibi reserve, where the chief and the band council make an enormous effort to be accountable and transparent with their members. In order to do so, they publish documentation on their financial statements and their accounts, they use the Internet and they reply to the many questions from their members and the band councillors at public assemblies.
 Beginning by identifying a problem, without even doing any research, is inherently problematic. It seems to me that, if you are going to discuss a problem, there must first be evidence of a problem. 
 With this in mind, I am going to give the House some statistics. First of all, is there a problem with the salaries of chiefs and band councillors? The answer is no. The average annual salary of a chief is $60,000, while that of a councillor is $31,000. Furthermore, 50% of chiefs earn less than $60,000 per year, and only 5% of them earn more than $100,000 per year. So how can anyone talk about abuse? 
 In comparison, an elected member of Parliament is paid $160,000 per year. Only 5% of first nations officials earn more than $100,000 a year, while every one of the elected members in the House of Commons earns more than $100,000 per year. So where is the problem?
 Of course, it all depends on how we see things. Is this a government in the process of negotiating with another government, a nation—whether Quebec or Canada—negotiating with another nation, or is this the daddy of Canada that is continuing with its fault-finding, paternalistic relationship with the first nations? I think that this is the attitude that is the real basis for Bill C-27. 
 Here are some other statistics: a recent regional survey on the health of first nations members showed that only 51% of first nations families had Internet access at home. Making it mandatory to publish information on a website or on the Internet does not make sense considering that the bill primarily concerns first nations members. The figure drops to 36% for families whose income is lower than $25,000.
 In Nova Scotia, the public can consult summaries of ministers' expenditures, for example, at the parliamentary library. The government of the Northwest Territories publishes only ministers' travel-related expenditures. The various levels of government are in fact less accountable than the first nations are. It is a double standard. They are expected to be more accountable than we are.
 It should be pointed out that the current Conservative government is probably the least transparent government in Canada's history, in terms of layoffs in the public service, in terms of its spending, in terms of the F-35s and a number of other things. The first nations cannot be asked to be more accountable than we are.
 We are opposed to this bill primarily for one basic reason: there has been absolutely no consultation with the first nations on this bill. I myself have done my work and asked the first nations in my riding if they were consulted with regard to Bill C-27; the answer was a resounding no. 
 How can we expect to have a good relationship with the first nations in this country if we do not even make the effort to convene an assembly of first nations or even to have a telephone conversation with the band councils about Bill C-27?
 There are a number of reasons why I am personally opposed to this bill. For instance, it imposes tougher standards than those imposed on the elected representatives in other levels of government. I have already mentioned this. There is also the minister's power to withhold the payment of any sum due to a first nation or to terminate any agreement respecting any grant or contribution payable to the first nation, in the event of failure to comply with any obligation. This is an excessively harsh penalty, especially when we know that many first nations depend on these transfers for their health and well-being. In some cases, these transfers are a matter of life and death. We absolutely must take an approach that is smarter than simply punishing first nations if they do not comply with this new bill.
 We want to see the government working in co-operation with first nations on improving their governance. That is true. Instead, we have noted that the Conservatives have eliminated funding for institutions supporting governance, such as the First Nations Statistical Institute and the National Centre for First Nations Governance. Once again, it is completely wrong, if not hypocritical, to expect supposedly better governance by the first nations while cutting budgets for institutions that support the development of governing institutions.
 We also believe that changes to the way in which audited financial statements are presented to the first nations do not require legislation. Such changes can be included in the requirements for the funding agreements that the minister had each first nation sign. Understanding the context would allow for a more personal approach to negotiating and co-operating with each of the first nations involved. 
 I am also concerned, as my party is, that this bill overlaps and breaches other legislation, including the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, both of which, let us remember, exist to protect Canadians.
 The legislative summary provided by the Library of Parliament describes the legal requirements to which band councils are already subject. The Conservatives have not proven to us that these legal requirements are problematic: there has been no conversation and no facts have been presented. Why do these requirements cause a problem? I have come full circle in my speech: we have to identify and prove that there is a problem before we can find a solution to it.
 I must say that my position—my party's position—is supported by a number of first nations groups. The Assembly of First Nations, for instance, has profound concerns about this bill. 
 The Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians issued a press release on November 24.
 I am pleased, therefore, to rise in this House to oppose this bill together with the first nations in my riding.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a common theme regarding Bill C-27, at least from our perspective in the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party believes that it is absolutely critical that we work with the first nation leadership. 
Within that first nation leadership there is a great deal of expertise and experience for dealing with accountability and transparency. We need to enable that leadership to contribute to making good legislation. Without doing that, without having the proper consultation and without enabling the first nation leadership to participation wholly in that process, we would be selling it short.
Would the member agree that the government is making a mistake because of the manner in which it introduced the bill in the first place?
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the premise of my hon. colleague's question on where the expertise is.
In a former career in academia, I worked on getting others to recognize that knowledge was not found solely in academia but also in communities all over this country. 
The reality is that if the government took the time to open its ears, it would realize that first nations in this country actually have something to teach us about governance and transparency. Just because their transparency does not look like ours, it does not mean they are not transparent.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my hon. colleague's speech, which touched on one aspect that I think is very important. Being a former employee of Statistics Canada, he talked about the elimination of the First Nations Statistical Institute. I find this particularly relevant because it shows that the government does not understand that, to govern well, it must know the populations it governs well.
Statistical institutes like Statistics Canada and the First Nations Statistical Institute play a role in providing information to the government.
I wonder if my colleague from Pontiac sees a certain pattern or modus operandi in the Conservative government's desire to reduce access to information about the people it must govern.
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. Absolutely, and I would need an hour to describe in detail all of the cuts this government has made to science and research. Take the Statistics Canada form, for instance, which was essential and was also related to this question of having more information about first nations populations. 
The fact is that first nations want information about their own populations. They want to know what is going on with Canada's aboriginal people. This information could be extremely useful when it comes to their own governance and it could be useful to scientists across the country. It is appalling that this government spends so much time attacking science.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Witnesses told us about complaints that led to the introduction of this kind of bill by the government. 
However, considering the number of first nations people in Canada there were relatively few complaints, and these were made by Canadian taxpayer associations and other conservative groups that like to criticize outrageous salaries. However, the truth of the matter is that a chief earns an average of $60,000 and a councillor earns about $31,000.
We should be more worried about the transparency of the government, with its glasses of orange juice, than that of first nations. Can my colleague talk more about this?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pontiac has 30 seconds left.
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, since this government came to power, ministerial expenses have spiralled out of control. Members of government love their privileges.
I am prepared to compare the privileges of ministers to those of first nations chiefs any time. The chiefs have no privileges.
I would like to remind members that five per cent of first nations chiefs earn just over $100,000, whereas all MPs make over $100,000. That does not make sense.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 
My hon. friend from Halifax was actually standing. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 62, I move:
 That the member be now heard. 

Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I did see another member rise, but I did not see the member for Halifax rise.
The Speaker: I can assure the member I did see the member for Halifax rising.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker:  All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen:
 Call in the members. 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #509
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for their warm reception.
We do not support the bill. I move that the debate be now adjourned.
The Speaker: We are on a time allocation motion. Under the rules of time allocation, the hon. member cannot move that the debate be now adjourned. That motion is out of order.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Hon. John Baird: Everyone, the member wants to be heard.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support from the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
My hon. friend from Scarborough—Guildwood had also risen to speak. I would be interested in hearing what he might have to say. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 62, I would move that the member be now heard. 
The Speaker: I appreciate the interest of the hon. member for Winnipeg North in hearing his colleague's speech. Unfortunately, I had heard the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia begin his remarks, so he already has the floor. Perhaps the member from Scarborough will have an opportunity some time later in the day.
The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
[Interjection]
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the games have ceased for a few minutes.
Accountability requires transparency. Not all first nations leaders are willing to release information to the community about how public funds are spent. Some choose also not to divulge this information, which results in their members wondering how much chiefs and councillors receive in remuneration.
First nations members have every right to expect a higher standard. Indeed, they deserve the same measure of accountability and transparency enjoyed by other Canadians, whose assurance of access to information about their government's activities is enshrined in legislation.
As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has noted in his remarks to this chamber, this government has ensured that Canadians have ready access to the information they need to judge our actions as parliamentarians. The first legislation we brought to the House back in 2006 was the Federal Accountability Act, which increased public oversight into how Canadian dollars are spent.
Not only do we publish public records about how every dollar is spent at the federal level each year, we also disclose the salaries of members of Parliament through the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act. These two pieces of legislation also lay out a transparent formula to calculate salaries and to provide the publication of details of both the regular incomes and special allowances added to salaries of MPs who take on extra responsibilities. Disclosure of other income and expense information is also treated under conflict of interest and ethics legislation.
The Government of Canada is not the only jurisdiction that requires the disclosure of audited consolidated financial statements and salaries. 
My hon. colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador will attest that their province has a financial accountability act that commits the provincial legislature to table public accounts each year. The province's transparency and accountability act stipulates that the ministers must account for government entities for which they are responsible each year in an annual report that includes an audited consolidated financial statement that then compares with the funds approved by the legislature's assembly. The Newfoundland and Labrador municipal act also requires that local community leaders make their financial statements and auditor's reports available to the public.
Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have similar laws. Each has a financial administration act that obliges the two provinces respective legislatures to account for public spending from the previous fiscal year and both have municipal acts that require the specifications of the types of information that must be made available to the public.
Likewise, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta all have legislation governing the duty of municipalities to prepare and publish annual financial statements.
Territorial governments also uphold this high standard. The Government of the Northwest Territories makes its annual financial statements readily available on its website. The Government of Nunavut's financial administration act requires the government to publicly account for its expenditures for the previous year by laying the public accounts before the legislative assembly.
 The precise wording of the transparency and accountability legislation obviously varies from province to province, but the fact remains that almost all Canadian taxpayers have a guarantee in law that they can access the basic financial information they require in order to hold their elected representatives accountable for their decisions and actions.
Many governments also disclose the salaries paid to elected officials, from premiers to the legislative backbenchers to mayors and town councillors. Federal employee rates of pay are posted on the Treasury Board of Canada site. The salaries of members of many provincial legislatures are set by legislation and made available to the general public. Disclosure of the income and expense information is often treated under conflict of interest or ethics legislation. 
Nova Scotia's act respecting the public disclosure of compensation in the public sector applies to the public sector as well as not-for-profit organizations receiving over $500,000 in public funding. These groups are required to post remuneration information on their websites for employees receiving compensation of $100,000 or more. If they do not have a website, they need to make the information available on a publicly accessible website.
Similarly, in Manitoba the public sector compensation disclosure act requires public sector bodies to disclose to the public the amount of compensation it pays annually to each of its officers as well as employees whose salaries are $50,000 or more. Along with this legislation, the Manitoba legislative assembly act sets out that the remuneration allowances and the retirement benefits of members be established by the commissioner. Furthermore, the regulations require that members post expense reports on the legislative assembly website.
In addition to various provincial and territorial legislation, a number of municipalities have passed bylaws requiring the release of information about the remuneration of mayors and councillors as a best practice. 
Clearly, what is being asked of first nations leaders is nothing more than what is expected of their counterparts in other jurisdictions across our great country. In fact, in some respects, this legislation demands less. Bill C-27 would focus only on the disclosure of remuneration of elected officials of first nations governments. I remind the House that self-governing first nations, under the terms of their self-government agreements—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia will have two minutes left for his remarks after question period. Right now we will move on to statements by members.
 The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

Statements by Members
Member for PapineauKellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I am concerned, both as an Ontario MP and actually an Albertan who grew up in Fort McMurray, about the comments made by the member for Papineau. He said:
 I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... 
Sir John A. Macdonald and Lester B. Pearson, both of whom were MPs from the province of Ontario, were outstanding prime ministers. I think all Canadians would agree with that.
I ask the MP for Papineau this. Are these outstanding Canadians, who founded Canada and who built Canada's international reputation, not good enough for the member for Papineau? This is just simply dangerous and also challenging information, as both an individual who grew up in Alberta and an Ontario MP, that I just find unacceptable. 
I am here for all Canadians. I think all members are here for all Canadians. We all aspire and think all Canadians should aspire and could become the Prime Minister of Canada.
Organization for Homeless YouthMr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday in my riding, the Auberge du coeur Sous mon toit celebrated its 40th anniversary with over 100 guests and about 15 beneficiaries. They were celebrating 40 years of volunteer work to help young men between the ages of 17 and 35.
The organization welcomes, feeds and provides full-time housing for about 20 young men who are homeless or in difficulty, in order to help them reintegrate into society. To date, over 2,000 young men have been able to regain control of their lives with the help of this organization. Today, they are making a positive contribution to our society. The organization's director was one of the first beneficiaries 40 years ago.
I was touched and moved by the modesty and dedication of the workers and volunteers. At the party, a single common goal was clear: to continue to help young men in difficulty. 
Congratulations to Auberge du coeur Sous mon toit and all the best in the future.
Canada Cup of CurlingMr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that Canada's top 14 curling teams will be throwing rocks next week in Moose Jaw at the 2012 Capital One Canada Cup of Curling.
With our provincial counterparts, our government jointly invested $23.5 million to help build Mosaic Place, allowing Moose Jaw to host its first ever national sports championship. Moose Jaw Ford Curling Centre will serve as “The Patch” where fans and competitors can meet and mingle. 
I would like to congratulate Danielle Sicinski and the entire committee for organizing what promises to be a successful event. I would like to wish the best of luck to all teams with a special mention for my home province team of Stefanie Lawton and many Saskatchewan athletes competing on other teams.
Moose Jaw will be surely rocking from November 28 through to December 2: Hurry hard.
Children and PovertyMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week we commemorated the UN's adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989. The fact is that many children in this country still do not have access to the resources they require for their physical and intellectual development.
Canada has virtually unlimited material resources, and yet it struggles to provide children in our communities with the tools they need for their education and their well-being. Our country is very fortunate, and we therefore have a moral obligation to, at the very least, provide our children with what they need for their personal development.
The lack of water, food, clothing and housing in some communities is unjustifiable in light of our means, and we in this House must find solutions. We speak on behalf of the thousands of Canadian children who live below the—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.
Polish Gymnastic Association SokolMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I am excited to announce that this Sunday I will be participating in the 106th anniversary of the Polish Gymnastic Association Sokol of Winnipeg. This association is a non-profit organization that has enhanced the Polish culture in Winnipeg. It has participated in our famous Folklorama and has organized the annual “Polish Fest” where there is a great turnout to watch the Polish dancing and hear the extraordinary Polish choirs.
Youth flock to the association in large numbers to practise their traditional dances and to sing in the choir. Recently, the Sokol Rhythmic dancers won a gold medal in the prestigious Western Canada rhythmic dance competition.
This is an organization that has added much value to the culture and life of Winnipeg, not only for the Polish community, but for all of us.
I congratulate the volunteers on this most auspicious occasion for their 106th anniversary.
HolodomorMs. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to mark Holodomor Awareness Week. An essential tool in preventing genocide is education. I am proud that this House gave its unanimous support to create Holodomor Awareness Day, a special day to remember the millions of Ukrainians who died in the horrific famine engineered by Stalin's regime in the 1930s. I have also written to the Ontario minister of education to ask that information about the Holodomor be included in the curriculum for Ontario schools. 
I would like to take this opportunity to call on my colleagues, on both sides of the House, to reach out to our provincial and territorial partners in an effort to ensure that school children from coast to coast to coast learn about the Holodomor and other acts of genocide. It is measures like these that can help foster understanding of the atrocities of the past so that we might prevent them in the future.
Member for PapineauMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when asked if he thought Canada was better served when there were more Quebeckers in charge than other Canadians, the member for Papineau stated, “I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so”. He then went on to say that all the best prime ministers were from Quebec.
 Is the member for Papineau actually saying that Nova Scotia-born Prime Minister Borden, who led us through the First World War, was not a great prime minister? Is he saying that Sir Charles Tupper, a founding father of this country, who served as prime minister in his seventies, was unfit to be prime minister because he was born in Amherst not in downtown Chicoutimi? Or is he saying that Robert Lorne Stanfield, the best prime minister this country never had, was unqualified because he was from Nova Scotia not from Montreal?
The member then went on to say, “This country...belongs to us”, referring to the Liberals from his province. On behalf of my constituents, this country belongs to all Canadians, not the Liberal Party and not the member of Parliament for Papineau.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while this week has been a week to forget for the Liberal Party, it has also been a revealing week for Canadians. Canadians got a look at a Liberal Party that refused to condemn the practice of theft, forgery and fraud, in a desperate attempt to protect a Liberal insider. Canadians got a look at a Liberal Party whose chief natural resources spokesperson told Albertans to go home. Canadians got a look at a Liberal Party whose leadership front-runner advances divisive anti-Alberta attitudes. The more that Canadians see the Liberal Party, the more they remember why they parked that party in the far corner of the House over there.
Addiction PreventionMr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Quebec’s drug awareness week continues until November 25. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to commend the efforts of those who are struggling with problems of this nature, as well as the families and volunteers who are supporting them on their journey.
The Centre de protection et de réadaptation de la Côte-Nord provides services to teens and adults, as well as free, confidential support services to families. An important clinical issue identified in the centre's latest annual report involves watching for new clienteles to emerge in relation to intensive economic development projects, such as those in the mining and natural resources sectors, which have a significant presence in Manicouagan.
In 2011-12, some 1,351 north shore users sought help from the additions program. I am proud to support and represent those who are struggling with such problems, as well as the families, employees and volunteers who are supporting and helping them.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's arrogant anti-Albertan attitude showed itself clearly again this week. From its senior MP from Ottawa telling Alberta MPs who defend their constituents to go back to Alberta, to the soon-to-be acclaimed leader who said that Canada is his country but he does not like it when Albertans have a say in how the country is run, the Liberals have shown that their arrogant anti-Albertan attitude runs deep in their party.
The leader gave in to public outcry and fired the energy critic, but so far he has allowed the amateur sport critic to keep his position in the Liberal Party. This anti-Alberta arrogance is offensive to people in Viking, to people in Wetaskiwin, and to people in Medicine Hat and Red Deer.
I call on the leader of the Liberal Party to be the first Liberal to listen to Albertans and fire his amateur sport critic today.
Chambly CanalTarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, the Chambly Canal is one of the jewels of the historical heritage of the riding of Saint-Jean and the entire Richelieu valley. It is essential to the survival of tourism and especially to the survival of restaurants and businesses in the boating sector, because it makes our beautiful Richelieu River navigable despite its rapids.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication of someone we are very proud of: Lise Payette, general manager of Croisières d'Iberville. Ms. Payette has been working hard for years to promote our river to tourists from all over the world. However, the canal season could be shortened because of cuts to Parks Canada lock operator positions. A significant portion of boating revenue is generated by American tourists. 
Does the minister want Canadian companies to lose business because Parks Canada has deprived American tourists of the opportunity to spend their money in Canada?
Therefore, I am asking the Minister of the Environment not to reduce the navigation schedule at the Chambly Canal for the 2013 season.
Member for PapineauMr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, members know the saying “like father, like son”. Yesterday we learned that the member for Papineau directly attacked the great people of Alberta, by saying:
 Canada is in bad shape right now because Albertans are controlling our community and social democratic agenda. That's not working. 
This should come as no surprise, as the member's father introduced the devastating national energy program that killed thousands of jobs in Alberta. Liberals always refuse to recognize Alberta as a key part of our federation, and that is why they have been downgraded to third-party status by Canadians.
These comments come days after the member for Ottawa South had to resign as senior spokesman for natural resources for telling us to go back to Alberta if we wanted to defend the interests of Albertans. These comments should come as no surprise. The Liberals have never and will never change their ways.
AdoptionHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is national adoption month. One of the most satisfying events in my life has been the adoption of our son Ian. He came into our lives two or three days after his birth, and it was a case of love at first sight.
Early on we had a glimmer that he was going to be one extraordinary human being. He is whip smart, a really nice kid, yet stubborn as stubborn can be. If he did not want to do his homework, wild horses could not make him. Consequently, he never graduated from high school. That was no problem. Ian got a computer job in a jiffy, but came to the realization after a while that being a nerd was boring. To cut to the chase, he graduated at the top of his class at University of Toronto in philosophy and physics and is now completing his doctorate at Cornell.
 By now members may have detected that I am an extremely proud father. However, none of our joys would have been possible without the courage of Ian's birth mother. It is hard to imagine the emotional and psychological turmoil of young moms who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies.
 I am extremely grateful to Ian's birth mom, a person I have never met, for her courage. I hope that other young mothers will do the same thing. Great sadness and great joy are frequently just a breath away.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what a disgraceful week it has been for the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not think they have been this embarrassed since May 2, 2011. Former Liberal MP Joe Fontana is being charged by the RCMP for stealing taxpayers' money to pay for a wedding. Next, we heard from the senior critic on natural resources about the divisive anti-Alberta attitudes of the Liberal Party that have begun seething out. 
After these comments, the member for Papineau noted his leadership campaign has been about bringing people together, not pitting regions against regions. Yesterday we heard what the member for Papineau really thought, when he said:
 Canada's in bad shape right now because Albertans are controlling our community.... 
We knew these anti-Alberta attitudes were deeply held in the Liberal Party; we just did not know how close to the surface they were. As a proud Albertan, I am proud to be part of the only party that stands in this House to defend the interests of Alberta and Medicine Hat.
AlbertansMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the people of Alberta have contributed to the success of Canada throughout our great nation's history.
From the first nations of Alberta, the Blackfoot, the Cree, the Chippewa, the Dene, the Sarcee and the Stoney, to the many great Albertans who have served our country proudly, Prime Ministers Bennett and Clark, or Premier Lougheed, who passed away this past year and who believed in sustainable development of our natural wealth, Albertans are a people of boundless energy and entrepreneurial spirit. They are people who are dedicated to the preservation of Alberta's great environment.
I am particularly proud of the work done by our great Alberta MP from Edmonton—Strathcona. I look forward to the day when, alongside her, a whole slew of NDP MPs will join her in helping to run this country. 
Let us agree to this: that having had our B.C. Lions defeated just recently, I will proudly, if reluctantly, say, Go Stamps go.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted and baffled by the arrogant comments I have heard from the Liberal Party this week.
Monday, their disgraced senior Liberal spokesperson for natural resources made outrageous comments that once again show the Liberal's anti-energy and anti-Alberta agenda, noting that Albertan MPs should “go back to Alberta” if they want to represent Albertans. As the member of Parliament for the great Kenora riding, I stand shoulder to shoulder with my MP colleagues from Alberta to defend the interests of our constituents here on Parliament Hill. That is what we were sent here to do.
Unfortunately, it does not stop there. The member for Papineau, an aspiring leader of the Liberal Party, has the same explicit anti-Alberta sentiments. These divisive attitudes are not what Canada needs or what Canadians want to see from their elected officials. That is why we are calling on the Leader of the Liberal Party to now fire their critic for amateur sport.

Oral Questions
The EconomyMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is still showing signs of a slowdown: consumer spending remains stagnant, wholesale purchases are in decline and the family debt-to-income ratio is now at 163%. 
As the time for Christmas shopping begins, Canadian companies are counting on consumers to keep the economy alive. What are the Conservatives doing to help Canadian households manage their enormous debt loads?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, as the government of this country, our priorities are job creation and economic growth.
We introduced Canada's economic action plan, which includes a number of job creation measures. Every time we bring in a measure to help the Canadian economy, the NDP votes against it.
Now is the time to recognize that we have created over 800,000 new jobs. The job is not done, and we will continue to work on our economic plan in order to create more jobs for Canadians.
Nycole Turmel: What the minister is saying does not change the fact that, today, 350,000 more people are unemployed than when the recession hit. That is the reality.
This week, the Prime Minister had the opportunity to take real action to strengthen the economy. Yesterday, Alberta and Quebec once again demonstrated that governments can work together by creating a working group on natural resource development.
If the premiers who are meeting right now in Halifax can work together for Canadians, why is the Prime Minister sitting idly by?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, our government is working closely with all the provinces and territories and creating infrastructure projects and projects that stimulate the economy. Through these projects, we have created many jobs and revitalized economic growth.
Every time we have worked on infrastructure projects, the NDP has voted against these good measures. Canada's economic action plan has created over 800,000 jobs, and we need the NDP's support to create even more.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, when the government works with the opposition to create real jobs, we will vote in favour of its measures.
When it comes to meeting with the provincial premiers, the Prime Minister has the worst track record of any prime minister since the invention of commercial air transportation. He has held only one first ministers conference in seven years. Just one.
Is the Prime Minister's vision of Canada so narrow and short-sighted that he does not think it is necessary to meet with his provincial counterparts?
John Baird: The Prime Minister has met with the provincial and territorial premiers over 250 times since he was elected.
We are working on good projects with all the premiers and the provincial and territorial governments to create jobs and good measures. That is true leadership, as evidenced by our economic action plan. We are happy with the progress we have made, but the job is not done. That is why we will continue to work hard to promote economic growth and job creation.
Intergovernmental AffairsNathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, five-minute phone calls and the odd text message will not replace face-to-face meetings with the premiers. The premiers of Alberta and Quebec showed they could co-operate yesterday. First ministers are gathering to discuss the future of the Canadian economy. The premiers extended a generous offer to the Prime Minister to meet, but he rebuffed them and has only attended one first ministers meeting in six years in office.
Will the Prime Minister put his stubbornness aside and agree now to meet with the premiers of this great country?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and this entire government have worked closely together with the provinces to ensure that the priority of Canadians, which is the economy, receives the attention it needs. We have seen that in the results, which are partly the consequence of the 250-plus meetings and discussions the Prime Minister has had with premiers. In the past year alone, more than 50 of those meetings have taken place. We have had a very positive, constructive relationship.
The result is that Canada has one of the best economies of the major developed countries. We have seen it with over 820,000 net new jobs created. We have seen it with a very strong fiscal position. We will continue to stay focused and continue to work with the provinces on that.
Food SafetyNathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, late last night news broke of a recall of products from Capital Packers Inc. This is a voluntary recall by the company of food contaminated by listeria. The CFIA has shut down production at the facility and products are under detention and control. 
Can the minister tell us when he became aware of the situation and whether any tainted food reached the tables of Canadians?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian consumers are our government's top priority when it comes to food safety. Listeriosis bacteria was detected by the CFIA in products produced by Capital Packers through surface testing introduced by our government.
Capital Packers' licence has been suspended. The plant will only reopen once the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has determined that the plant is safe.
EthicsMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party in the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie carried out a money laundering scheme. Eleven people have confirmed that they did not donate to the party, yet their names are on the donor list. There is something fishy here. We are talking about thousands of dollars in illegal donations that helped get the Minister of Industry elected.
Who is responsible? Where did this money come from? Will the government ask the RCMP to investigate?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, repeated filings were made with Elections Canada on this issue. 
What the Liberal Party needs to do is to stand in this place and address this issue. The divisive anti-Alberta comments made by the Liberal member for Papineau are much worse than the arrogant comments made by the Liberal spokesman for natural resources. When will the Liberal Party stand up, do the right thing and announce the firing of the critic for amateur sport?
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie is located in Quebec.
The Conservatives' money laundering scheme has been uncovered. We are talking about thousands of dollars that went into the Conservatives' coffers illegally and hundreds of fake names used to launder the cash.
In light of the revelations that have come out of the Charbonneau commission, can the government assure us that this money was not used to obtain federal government contracts?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite wants to talk about Quebec. We could talk about London where the mayor is under criminal indictment for stealing money from the taxpayers. However, I will not let him get away from this Alberta issue that easily.
Here is the reality. We knew that the anti-Alberta views in the Liberal Party were deep-rooted. We did not realize they were so close to the surface and so systemic. We want to know when the leader of the Liberal Party will stand in this place and announce that he has fired the critic for amateur sport for his anti-Alberta comments.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister will answer this question.
The Conservative money-laundering scheme has now reached staggering proportions. There was $100,000 in illegal donations funnelled through a Montreal Conservative riding slush fund. Eleven of the people listed so far have said that they did not even know that a donation had been recorded using their name.
 Who is fundraising in this riding? None other than Dimitri Soudas and Senator Leo Housakos. When will the government come clean on its role in this scheme and kick Housakos out of the caucus?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that on a day such as this the Liberals would decide to throw stones and make unfounded allegations. A clean conscience for a Liberal is really evidence of a short memory, a very short memory indeed. In fact, they have forgotten that just two days ago their own Liberal mayor from London, who sat in the House as a minister, was charged three times with having defrauded taxpayers to pay for his son's wedding.
When will the Liberals learn that they should stop throwing rocks when they live in a glass house?
Foreign InvestmentMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last night, the NDP held a public forum using social media to consult the public on the sale of Nexen, and thousands of Canadians participated. We learned some things. Canadians have had enough of the Conservatives' secrets. They have had enough of their irresponsible approach to the development of our resources. They have had enough of seeing the Conservatives approve another foreign takeover with no questions asked. 
Why are the Conservatives refusing to consult Canadians before letting a company like CNOOC take control of our resources?
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about this. On one side of the House we have the radical NDP who would refuse and block all transactions and foreign investment. On the other side of the House, we have the Liberal Party who rubber-stamped every transaction. 
This Conservative government will always look closely at these transactions and only do what is in the best interests of Canadians and this nation.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives refuse and block any consultation with the Canadian public and that is wrong. 
Yesterday, we were consulting with Canadians. We hosted a Twitter town hall and we took the time to listen to Canadians. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, Canadians—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has the floor. We will have a little bit of order, please.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives get very angry when we talk about consulting with Canadians. We think it is the right thing to do.
Canadians are hopping angry. They want to know why energy resources are being sold off to a Chinese state-owned company without any consultation. Canadians want public consultation. Preston Manning wants public consultation. Even John McCain wants public consultation.
We consult. We listen. Why will the government not do the same?
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the NDP for finally learning how to use social media. It does remind me a little bit about close encounters of the third grade here sometimes. 
However, I can tell the House that Canadians all know that the NDP is against all foreign trade. It would simply block all advantages for this great country. The Liberal Party on the other hand just rubber-stamps everything. I can assure the House that the minister is looking at these transactions with great scrutiny. We will do what is in the best interests of Canadians, as we always have.
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, the NDP consults Canadians to better protect their jobs and to better represent their interests.
We consulted people across the country to hear what they think about the deal between Nexen and CNOOC. The Conservatives would rather keep Canadians in the dark. They do not want to say what will happen if we relinquish control of our natural resources to a Communist Chinese government.
Another country is getting ready to nationalize the oil sands. Why hide the truth from Canadians?
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, this party, the Conservative government, will scrutinize this deal with great care. We will only act in the best interests of Canadians. That is our record.
The record on the NDP side is to simply vote no. NDP members may claim to consult Canadians, but then they come here and simply vote no to all foreign trade. The Liberals, on the other hand, vote yes. They just rubber-stamp these deals. We are looking at the opportunity to scrutinize a deal and only do what is in the best interests of Canadians. Maybe the NDP members should consult on their carbon tax.
National DefenceMathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, regarding the F-35s, people are fed up with this government saying one thing in public and doing something else behind closed doors. 
First the Conservatives tried to hide $10 billion from Canadians. Then they promised to release a supposedly independent cost estimate 60 days after the information was available. That should have been done in July, but we have since learned that this is being pushed back to 2013. So now it will be July 2013. 
When will the Conservatives finally be transparent and tell us what is going on with this file?
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think there is nothing more transparent than committing to table the updated cost estimates for the F-35 here in Parliament so that parliamentarians and all Canadians can take a look at those.
The reason for the delay was that the independent firm we hired needed more time to do the independent validation of the Department of National Defence's work. My understanding from the secretariat is that the report is forthcoming, and I look forward to sharing it with Canadians and Parliament.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, there is no oversight and transparency when the Conservatives are whitewashing the Auditor General's report. 
Yesterday, the Minister of Public Works said that the statement of requirements would be amended for the so-called options analysis. Will the minister commit to make public the new amended statement of requirements to prove to Canadians that this is not another case of saying one thing in public and doing something else behind closed doors.
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, there has been a secretariat set up that includes not only all the senior public servants who manage military procurement but two additional independent members, one of whom is a former, very well-respected Canadian Auditor General. They are overseeing this process.
All of the reports will be posted online. They will be available for the public to see. In terms of the statement of requirements, I said yesterday that the secretariat will undertake a full options analysis. The statement of requirements will be set aside while that full options analysis is done.
EthicsMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that Pierre Poutine is not the only character in the Conservative farce. At least 11 people who made donations to the Conservative association in Laurier—Sainte-Marie deny that they did so. They say it is untrue. Thousands of dollars changed hands without the supposed donors knowing anything about it. Using false names is the latest in the interminable list of Conservative violations of the law.
 Who really gave those thousands of dollars to the Conservatives? Business people? Consulting engineering firms? And what did the Conservatives promise in exchange?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, all the details the hon. member is talking about were provided to Elections Canada, which certified the information years ago. 
While I am on my feet, I know that the member across the way has been a very generous and prolific donor to the separatist cause in Quebec. I also know that there was a comment made by one of his Liberal colleagues: 
 Canada’s in bad shape right now because Albertans are controlling our community and social democratic agenda. That’s not working. 
That was the Liberal member for Papineau. I wonder if the member agrees.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish the member would quit skipping over the questions. 
This one is pretty simple. Conservatives used the good names of people to funnel money into their countless campaigns. Take Rocco Carbone. Elections Canada had him listed as a $666 Conservative donor. However, what does Mr. Carbone say? “I never gave no money to no party”.
Is this just another Conservative dirty trick used to circumvent the election law, or are they suggesting that Mr. Carbone and others just forgot they supported the Conservatives?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is not only negative, it is double negative over there. 
The reality is that they have nothing but negativity over there in order to distract from the $340,000 in illegal union money they took out of the pockets of hard-working unionized blue collar workers across the country. They still have not told Canadians why they kept those years of illegal money secret for so long. Perhaps the member could shed some light on it now. 
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, once again, he skips and tiptoes around the questions. 
This is an obvious shell game. A list of phantom donors was created, with half a million dollars donated to a sleeper Conservative Montreal riding association, then that money was transferred out to other Conservative ridings across Quebec. Who organized the event where all these dirty shenanigans happened? It was a senator, Leo Housakos, appointed by the Prime Minister. 
Has Senator Housakos explained this scheme to his caucus colleagues and will they now tell the House what he said?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. I said that all details regarding those transactions were given to Elections Canada years ago. Those details were certified by the elections agency. The question is, why did the NDP not give information to Elections Canada about the $340,000 in illegal union money it received until the NDP got caught? It took the courageous work of the member for Peterborough to expose their law-breaking for the NDP to finally come clean. 
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, I understand why the parliamentary secretary is playing the clown: the Conservative Party has been involved in in and out schemes, fraud, illegal spending, excessive election spending, straw men, and so much more.
 We know the Conservatives have given up on Quebec and on Montreal, because the money raised in Laurier—Sainte-Marie was not spent there. It was transferred to other ridings all over the province. And who got over $40,000 in this operation? It is someone who holds a frequent flyer card with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the hon. member for Mégantic—L’Érable.
 Is he going to apologize? Is he going to return the money until we find out exactly where it came from?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question. On the other hand, the hon. member has not yet answered the question in the House.
I already pointed out that the member has donated not once, not twice, but 29 times to the separatist Québec Solidaire. I know that he has very passionate views on the subject.
 Now we have comments by the Liberal member for Papineau, who said: 
 Canada’s in bad shape right now because Albertans are controlling our community and social democratic agenda. That’s not working. 
I want to invite the member to rise in his place and finally contribute to national unity by denouncing these harsh— 
The Speaker: The hon. member for Malpeque.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us try another minister. 
Conservative corruption seems to know no bounds. Now it is nothing short of money laundering. There was $100,000 funnelled through a fake Conservative campaign in Laurier—Sainte-Marie. The individuals listed, as has been mentioned, say it was not their money. Who really bankrolled this? Is this corporate money?
I ask the Minister of Public Works, did the people who actually donate the money get any government contracts?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, not only do Liberals do it in the same week as their mayor in London is charged with defrauding taxpayers, but they also ask the same member who used taxpayers' funds to break the rules in order to pay rent on a property he owned. 
As I have said before, we expect that the Liberals will regularly throw rocks even though they live in a glass house, but we just ask that they start to pay rent for the glass house they live in.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary can wave and deflect, but Canadians want government accountability. We know where some of the dirty money went. It went to the campaign of the industry minister, but that still leaves tens of thousands of dollars unaccounted for. Did the dirty money also end up in the current byelection campaigns, maybe in Calgary Centre? This tactic is akin to money laundering. 
Will the Prime Minister call in the RCMP to get to the bottom of this money laundering scandal?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, he talks about waving and deflecting. Unfortunately, when Liberals wave at western Canada, they do so with only one finger. We saw that today. We heard the comments that just surfaced, the anti-Alberta comments by the member for Papineau, who said: 
 Canada's in bad shape right now because Albertans are controlling our community and social democratic agenda. That’s not working. 
Those were the comments of the presumptive Liberal leader. 
I would expect the member to finally rise in his place, apologize and announce that the youth and amateur sports critic for the Liberal Party—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): That is pretty rich, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister of Foreign Affairs would like to apologize to the people of Toronto for calling them elites. Perhaps Conservatives would like to turn to their Atlantic colleagues and give them an apology from their leader, the Prime Minister, for calling us a culture of defeat, if they want to play that card.
Let us have a look at corporate funnelling. Let us look at the fact that—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, order. The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor has the floor.
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, first the member for Peterborough and now the member for Labrador have engaged in corporate funnelling. The member for Labrador is the recipient of the best seat sale I have seen in Labrador, and now there is the former communications director.
Where is the accountability on this?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I do not even know where to start with that scattered question. First he attacks the member for Labrador for spending too much time working in his constituency serving the people he represents, and then he refuses to condemn the anti-Alberta comments of his friend and colleague from Papineau, who claims that all of Canada's problems are the result of hard-working Albertans. I invite him now to rise and apologize for those comments.
Citizenship and ImmigrationJinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Conservatives are avoiding the premiers because they might hear things they do not like. Premier Wall called the immigration minister's reckless cuts to the refugee health care program “unbelievable”. It is unbelievable that Conservatives would deny a refugee claimant treatment for cancer. It is unbelievable that they think it is okay to stick the provinces with the bill. It is unbelievable that they would play political games with health care for the most vulnerable.
When will they reverse this reckless decision?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I reject the entire premise of that question.
We respect the provinces' jurisdiction over health care and will not interfere in any way with how they choose to provide supplemental health care benefits. It is very important to distinguish between a refugee, a refugee claimant and a failed asylum claimant. It is not true to claim that asylum claimants who have cancer are no longer covered for cancer treatments under the interim federal health program. They continue to be covered for in-hospital investigation and treatment, as well as for the drugs they receive during those treatments. They also continue to be covered for all radiotherapy treatments.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, this policy will be disastrous, and they cannot escape its effects.
Saskatchewan is not the only province that is worried and expressing its discontent. Manitoba will soon be sending Ottawa the bill for extra costs related to refugee health. Right now, even my office is working on this problem. The Conservatives have created confusion about the coverage being provided. With these changes, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is attacking the most vulnerable people and sending the bill to the provinces.
 When will he reverse this poor decision?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we have taken steps to ensure that genuine refugees and asylum-seekers from non-safe countries will receive health care coverage similar to what every Canadian receives in this country. That will not change.
What has changed is that those failed asylum-seekers who are in our country and who should return to their country of origin will not be receiving the treatments they have claimed under their status, based on the fact they are no longer in treatment.
Foreign AffairsMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, whether here in Canada or outside our borders, the Conservatives remain consistent: they always abandon those most vulnerable. The conflict in Congo, which has already claimed millions of lives, is another sad example. The rebels have taken Goma and are now threatening to take control of the rest of the country.
What are the Conservatives doing to help prevent all-out war in this African country? 
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, our government is deeply concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in the east. We unequivocally condemn the acts of the rebel group M23 and call for an end to its aggressive actions against Goma and the surrounding area. We call on any and all support to M23 to cease immediately. Neighbouring countries must work together to resolve this crisis. We will continue to call for all parties to respect human rights and allow for the safe and unhindered access of humanitarian assistance.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is an answer from a party that wants to turn development aid into business aid.
However, let us talk about protecting those civilians who are in conflict zones like the Congo. In the Congo millions have died and rape is being used as a weapon of war. The government has offered only sympathetic words but has refused to take effective action in the past.
What action will the government now take to help protect the hundreds of thousands of civilians caught up in the rebels' takeover of Goma?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Ottawa Centre said this government has taken no action in the past. Since 2006 our government has invested more than $450 million in the Congo. That is a considerable amount of development assistance. This funding has been used for humanitarian efforts to prevent and respond to sexual violence, one of the issues my friend mentioned; to improve health care; and investments have been made in long-term peace and stability and in democratic development. Since 2010 we have deployed six civilian police officers from this country, and the people of the Congo can count on Canada for its support. 
Member for PapineauMr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal energy critic recently suggested that Albertans do not belong in Parliament. This is not just one Liberal gone astray. When asked if Canada were better served with Albertans in power, the member for Papineau said he was a Liberal, so that of course he did not believe Albertans should hold power. He does not just want us out of government; he does not even want to share the country with us. He said, “Canada, it belongs to us”, to the exclusion of Albertans.
Our strong national government is made up of MPs from all across the country. Could the Minister of Public Works explain our position on national—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works.
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament from Alberta, I was very disappointed in the comments by the member for Papineau. We knew of course that this anti-Alberta attitude was deeply held in the Liberal Party but we did not know how close to the surface it was. Yesterday, I think honourably, the Liberal Party's senior spokesperson on natural resources was forced to resign after his divisive anti-Alberta comments.
I would like to ask the member for Papineau if he is going to do the right thing, the honourable thing, and also resign from his critic portfolio.
Parks CanadaMr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives definitely have a habit of going back on their word and forgetting their past promises. By closing the winter trails in Forillon National Park and leaving buildings to fall into disrepair, they are disrespecting the sacrifice of the people whose land was expropriated and failing to comply with the emphyteutic agreement that created the park, as well as the June 2010 management plan. 
Will the Conservatives fulfill their obligations under the terms of the emphyteutic lease and the management plan?
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we have said numerous times in the House, our government has an excellent track record of supporting parks across this country. In fact, we have increased protected spaces across the country by over 50% since taking office in 2006. 
With regard to the maintenance of Parks Canada spaces across the country, Parks Canada will continue to be well funded and visitors will continue to have excellent experiences through programs, such as my parks pass. We have a great track record in this area.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but we do not have an increase of 50% of the trails in our parks. We will have 0% available this winter. The Forillon Park is terribly important to the people in my riding. The sacrifice of those who were expropriated must not be in vain. The answer we just received seems to show that the parliamentary secretary does not really understand the issue. Does she even know what an emphyteutic lease is? 
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Forillon National Park, parking lots will continue to be maintained so that visitors can continue to access snowshoe trails and other trails that are in that park right now. With regard to the rest of our parks across this country, we will continue to maintain our excellent track record in funding and ensuring positive visitor experiences for all Canadians across the country.
Aboriginal AffairsJonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, while the Assembly of First Nations is preparing for the chiefs meeting about the promise in section 35 that has been broken, today, we learned that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is preparing to cut close to $56 million from first nations infrastructure. How ironic. Infrastructure for first nations communities is already chronically underfunded. This is not the time to make more cuts.
Is the minister actually going to cut $56 million from the first nations infrastructure budget?
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are in the lead up to the Assembly of First Nations meeting in the Ottawa area and that is the time when we get these kinds of stories emanating. I do not know where the member is coming from but I will take his question under advisement and let him know. 
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, communities face crumbling roads, aging water systems, mould in houses and schools, far below the standards that we expect as Canadians. However, we have heard that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development thinks he should cut back on investments to first nations infrastructure. This is both shameful and irresponsible.
Will the minister confirm that he has asked for $56 million to be cut from first nations infrastructure?
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we are making unprecedented investments in first nations education, infrastructure, particularly water, and other health and safety issues on reserve. I do not know where the members are coming from.
The EconomyJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has developed a fondness for lecturing Canadians on their household debt. Unfortunately for us, he has no compunction about maxing out Canada's credit card.
On Saturday, the Conservatives will have run up the national debt to over $600 billion; an ugly milestone if ever there was one. In a mere six years, they have added $142 billion to the national debt after being handed a $13 billion surplus by the Liberals.
When will the Minister of Finance start practising what he preaches?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has been practising very sound management of the Canadian economy, including our fiscal situation, which is why we have the strongest fiscal position of any of the major developed economies. Our net debt to GDP ratio is 33%. The net debt for the G7 average is 80% compared with our 33%. In fact, our deficit has been cut in half under our economic action plan. Those are results being delivered by our Minister of Finance and Prime Minister.
HealthHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prescription drug abuse is a public health emergency. Health ministers across Canada are unanimous. Approving a generic form of OxyContin will make it worse.
The College of Family Physicians of Canada is against it. The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police is against it. Aboriginal leaders from across the country are against it.
If the minister will not reverse her decision, will she at least ensure that generic OxyContin will be excluded from the federal drug benefit lists?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the issue of prescription drug abuse is bigger than one specific pill. That is why our government announced tough new licensing rules that will help to prevent drugs like OxyContin from being illegally distributed.
 I want to ensure that if Health Canada scientists say that these drugs are beneficial, that they will be available to patients who actually need them. Unlike the opposition, we will not politically interfere with these decisions. These decisions are up to scientists. Politicians should not be making these decisions.
Status of WomenMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, women have been waiting for fair wages from Canada Post for 30 years now. This is something they were entitled to and never received as a result of gender discrimination. One year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada Post had to compensate employees for the wage gap. Canada Post is still dragging its feet.
When will the government take action to ensure that Canada Post corrects this injustice once and for all?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to high-quality mail service for all Canadians. The crown corporation is arm's-length from government, as the member knows, and that includes its human resource issues. Canada Post officials respect the Supreme Court decision on pay equity and will implement the court's ruling as soon as possible.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we want to know when. These women have been waiting for 30 years. We are talking about the longest pay equity suit in Canadian history. The Supreme Court ruled that those women had been discriminated against and that they deserved equal pay for their work of equal value. It is now a full year after the ruling and Canada Post still admits that it does not have enough resources to start making the payments.
Where is the federal government? Thousands of women across Canada are waiting. Will the government ensure that Canada Post is supported to make these payments immediately?
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question. Canada Post is working as fast as it possibly can to implement the Supreme Court ruling. Naturally, we would like Canada Post to do it as fast as possible.
However, while I have the floor, that member is not representing men or women in her riding when she stands up and advocates for policies against the resource extraction industry, a carbon tax and other things that would harm families.
Foreign AffairsMr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are travelling more than ever before. Last year alone, Canadians took 56 million trips worldwide. That is exactly why we are modernizing and improving the scope of services to Canadians abroad.
Could my favourite Minister of Foreign Affairs please tell this House about the exciting new development that his colleagues are announcing all across Canada today, just in time for the holiday travel season?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, what an unexpected compliment from the member for Kitchener—Waterloo. 
On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs , I am pleased to announce that our government has launched an important tool to help Canadians make informed decisions when they travel abroad. Our new travel.gc.ca website is more efficient and effective than ever, a one-stop shop where Canadians will find the key information to keep themselves safe beyond our borders.
Our government cares about our citizens abroad and we encourage Canadians to be smart, safe travellers and to read up and register on travel.gc.ca.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about some worrisome situations in Africa.
The Ivory Coast appeared to be relatively stable, but this is proving not to be the case; in northern Mali, terrorist networks could start taking hold if nothing is done; and in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, a resurgence of violence is forcing thousands of families to flee their homes.
Some international initiatives are in the works to prevent, contain or resolve these issues.
Does the Government of Canada plan on getting involved—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest the member for Ottawa—Vanier has in Mali. We are deeply concerned, as he is, about the humanitarian situation and the significant amount of territory in Mali that has been taken over by terrorists. We are prepared to work with our allies and with Mali's neighbours on ways with which we can be supportive of an effort to tackle this significant challenge.
 I would be very happy to meet with the member and share some of the work that my department is working on concerning this important issue.
InfrastructureJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the plan for a secondary sewage treatment plant in Victoria has been attacked by the Liberals and now there are concerns that the Conservatives are waffling. The New Democrats have been consistent in their support for this plant. It is sad to see other parties flip-flopping on the issue of raw sewage dumping. Even the local Conservative candidate has now come out against, in opposition to his own party.
Will the minister confirm that he disagrees with that candidate and will he stand by the Conservatives' promise to invest in this project?
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of clean water and its impacts on human health and the environment. We have taken action by committing over $2.3 billion for waste water infrastructure across Canada and by implementing new federal waste water regulations. 
We are pleased to have committed over $250 million in funding to the capital regional district for a waste water treatment program. Once completed, this project will meet federal and provincial waste water treatment standards and help to protect human health and the environment.
Raoul WallenbergHon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past Wednesday was the official opening of the Raoul Wallenberg exhibit at the Canadian War Museum.
Mr. Wallenberg was an extraordinarily brave man who risked his life in order to save almost 100,000 Hungarian Jews from execution during the Second World War. In 1985, Mr. Wallenberg was granted honorary Canadian citizenship, the first ever in our nation's history. Mr. Wallenberg's heroism is and will continue to be an inspiration to all Canadians and people around the world.
Would the Minister of State for Transport  please update this House on the tribute Canada Post has unveiled in honour of Mr. Wallenberg's heroism and honourable legacy?
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that Raoul Wallenberg's legacy will be honoured by Canada Post with a Raoul Wallenberg commemorative stamp.
Our government is proud to honour Canada's first honorary citizen on the 100th year of his birth. The sacrifices he made to save tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews during the Second World War will always be remembered.
HousingMs. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, next April the Conservatives will have to explain to the UN why they are unable to honour their housing commitments in this country. They have been stalled on this issue for four years now, and in the meantime, thousands of Canadians are having to choose between paying their rent and buying groceries. 
Experts agree that Canada needs a national housing strategy. That is exactly what is proposed in my bill.
Will the Conservatives face the facts, honour their commitment and vote in favour of my bill?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if NDP members were truly serious about helping those who are in need of affordable housing, they would have voted for any number of the programs in which we have delivered just that to Canadians. In fact, in our economic action plan, 14,000 projects, which house many more families than that, were created, but, of course, the NDP voted against it. There are over 600,000 affordable homes that would not be there if it were up to the NDP.
EthicsMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one businessman told the Charbonneau commission that he had used false names to finance political parties, and we also know that some people whose names appear on the list of Conservative Party donors in 2009 categorically deny having donated even a penny. And yet, they are listed as giving $1,000 each. That looks a lot like straw men. That year, the Conservative association in Laurier—Sainte-Marie raised $288,000.
 Can the government explain this situation and tell us whether a straw man system was in use?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, all the details were provided to Elections Canada, which certified the information years ago. 
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, we have learned today that these people are claiming that their names were used falsely. They donated without really wanting to donate. That is what the Conservative government is refusing to talk about today. 
 The problem is not confined to the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie. In the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles in 2008, in just over a month, the Conservatives raised $88,000 for Claude Carignan’s election campaign; he is now a senator. The Conservatives raised those thousands of dollars from Lino Zambito himself, Leo Housakos, Giulio Maturi, other construction businesses, and many members of their families. 
 In the face of such revelations, is the government going to tell us—yes or no—whether it used false names?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the Conservative Party provided all the documents with this information to Elections Canada, which approved them years ago.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker:  I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. David Wilson, Minister of Health and Wellness for Nova Scotia.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear! 
Points of OrderPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I never like to rise on these kinds of points of order. However, during question period the member for Manicouagan made an offensive gesture with his hands. I know we have talked about people giving a particular kind of wave. This is different kind of offensive gesture. I am advised it was actually captured on the cameras, so Canadians all across the country saw it.
I would ask that the member for Manicouagan apologize for the gesture he made to the House.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, I extend my most sincere apologies. It was an inappropriate reaction to the interjections of the members opposite, and I wish to apologize.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for that.

Routine Proceedings
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, two reports relating to the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in two meetings, the first held in London, United Kingdom, from December 8 to 9, 2011, and the second held in Tonga, from April 16 to 21, 2012.
PetitionsMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions from across Canada.
The petitioners note that 400-year-old definition of a human being states that a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth. They call on Parliament to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition in support of Bill C-400. People from all over Canada, of all ages and backgrounds, are asking the government to take action by adopting a national housing strategy.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have four sets of petitions to table today.
The first petition is with respect to retired elders living stressful lives. The petitioners call for an increase to old age security pensions and the cost of living allowance.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to genetically engineered foods.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the third is a group of petitions with respect to the Grandmothers Advocacy Network's efforts to increase aid to Africa for HIV-AIDS drugs.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the last petition is with respect to animal cruelty.
Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition from constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, which basically speaks to the unregulated pipeline of child pornography and child exploitation.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact speedy legislation to change the legal terminology in section 163 of the Criminal Code from “child pornography” to “child sex abuse materials”, and to enact a mandatory minimum sentence to protect children, provide justice and deter pedophilia.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of legislation giving Gatineau Park the necessary legal protection to ensure its preservation for future generations. This petition is signed by hundreds of Canadians, primarily from Quebec. 
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by almost one hundred Canadians, mostly from Quebec and Ontario, who are urging members of Parliament to vote in favour of Bill C-398. This bill would amend Canada's access to medicines regime and, among other things, better assist people living in underdeveloped countries with the fight against HIV-AIDS.
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to present a petition signed by dozens of Canadians, among hundreds who have signed this petition.
The petitioners note that the Oshawa Port Authority has given permission to FarmTech Energy to build an ethanol producing plant on Oshawa harbour front on Crown land adjacent to sensitive wetlands containing species at risk, a wildlife preserve and a provincial park.
They call for, among other things, to divest the federal port authority to the City of Oshawa, to halt the construction of the ethanol facility, to instruct that public hearings be held and that a complete environmental assessment be conducted at the site and surrounding areas.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by many people in the national capital region who want to protect Gatineau Park. 
No federal legislation currently protects this park, and it is very important to provide this protection in order to ensure the preservation and the future of our park.
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. 
The first petition is signed by more than 100 of my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River who call for the creation of a national transit strategy.
Since Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy and it is estimated that over the next five years there will be an $18 billion gap in transit infrastructure needs, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit, to establish a federal funding mechanism for public transit and to work together with all levels of government to provide sustainable, predictable long-term and adequate funding and establish accountability measures to ensure that all governments work together to increase access to public transit.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I present today is on the topic of Katimavik.
Because the program provided such great benefits for many youth in our country and since approximately 600 youth who were supposed to participate in the program this year were not able to participate, the petitioners call upon the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to continue to allocate $14 million per year in funding to the Katimavik program to ensure that our youth have access to both languages and to thrive in those languages.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today that has been signed by many Winnipeggers, asking the government to be more sensitive in regard to our environment.
 In particular, the petitioners ask that the Canada Experimental Lakes Area be given additional consideration, given the cutback in resources for the research station, and that the money be reinstated for the research station.
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be presenting two petitions today.
The first petition supports Bill C-279 introduced by my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. The petition supports his bill to combat discrimination and the social exclusion of transgendered people, transsexuals and gender queer people. The petitioners are asking members of Parliament to support this bill.
Raymond Côté: The second petition I wish to present has to do with Bill C-400, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
In both cases, the petitioners are all Quebeckers who signed in great numbers.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 955, 956, 957, 964, 965, 972 and 975.
John McKay:  With regard to national defence: (a) what is the location and nature of any infrastructure at any Canadian Forces base, station or other establishment, which would need to be built or modified to accomodate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; and (b) what are the anticipated costs of construction or modification of infrastructure at each location? 
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC):  Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on April 3, 2012, in response to the 2012 spring report of the Auditor General, the Government of Canada announced a seven-point action plan to ensure that Canada acquires the fighter aircraft it needs to complete its core missions and to ensure public confidence in an open and transparent acquisition process. The government has put the decision to purchase any new aircraft on hold until the action plan is complete. Once the action plan is completed and the conclusions are presented to ministers on a replacement for the CF-18 fleet, the government will make a decision on replacement fighter aircraft, including the corresponding Canadian Forces’ infrastructure needs as required. 
With regard to (b), the Department of National Defence’s acquisition and sustainment project assumptions and potential costs are the object of an independent cost review that will be made public as mandated in the government’s seven-point action plan to respond to the Auditor General’s spring 2012 report on replacing Canada’s fighter aircraft. 
John McKay:  With regard to national defence: (a) what was the rationale for the date, location and timing of the July 16, 2010, announcement concerning the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter selection; (b) who was involved in the selection of the date, location and timing; (c) who selected the guests who were invited to attend the announcement and who invited those guests; and (d) when and how were the invitations sent?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the date of the announcement was determined by a number of factors, including the availability of senior officials, the venue, and Lockheed Martin’s full-scale F-35 model. 
The Government of Canada reception center at Uplands Hangar was selected on the basis of financial, logistical and security considerations, as well as its capacity to host a full-scale F-35 model and a CF-18.
With regard to (b), senior officials from several departments, including the Department of National Defence, Industry Canada, and Public Works and Government Services Canada, participated in the selection of the date, location and timing of the July 16, 2010 announcement.
 With regard to (c), the guests were selected by the Office of the Minister of National Defence on the recommendation of Departmental officials. The majority of the guests were invited by the department, while the remainder were invited by the Office of the Minister of National Defence. 
With regard to (d), guests invited by the department received an invitation by telephone and/or email on Wednesday July 14, 2010. 
John McKay: With regard to national defence: (a) what is the date and file number of each Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR) which has been written or prepared in respect of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; (b) how many criteria are in each SOR; (c) what were the reasons for any changes made to each version; (d) what was the nature of those changes; and (e) who requested or directed those changes? 
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), when the Government of Canada made a decision in 2010 to replace the CF-18s, the statement of operational requirement that informed that decision was the “Statement of Operational Requirement for Canada’s Next Generation Fighter Capability”. It is version 1.0, dated June 1, 2010, and is filed under defence services program number 00002527. 
On April 3, 2012, the government announced its seven-point action plan, which is currently being implemented by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat. One of the steps in the action plan is a requirement for DND to evaluate options to sustain a fighter capability well into the 21st century.
Work on all elements of the seven-point action plan will inform conclusions that will be presented to the government for decision
With regard to (b), the statement of operational requirement contains 14 high-level mandatory capabilities, 28 mandatory requirements, 158 tier 1 requirements and 40 tier 2 requirements. These categories are defined below.
First, the high-level mandatory capabilities are the broad capabilities required by the new resource and form the basis for deriving the mandatory requirements. The 14 capabilities, in general terms, define the various capabilities that are required by the next generation fighter capability to provide a reasonable expectation of mission success in the presence of current and assessed future threats and take into account NORAD and NATO requirements. 
Second, the mandatory requirements, comprising some 28 requirements, are capability elements that must be in the product, as their absence would unacceptably diminish the aircraft’s operational capability. Therefore, the product must meet the mandatory requirements for consideration.
Third, tier 1 requirements, comprising some 158 requirements, are capability elements without which the aircraft’s operational capability would be seriously diminished. An aircraft not meeting a tier 1 requirement would result in the Canadian Forces accepting a high degree of operational risk. 
Fourth, tier 2 requirements, comprising some 40 requirements, are capability elements without which the aircraft’s overall operational capability would be diminished. An aircraft not meeting a tier 2 requirement would result in the Canadian Forces accepting a low to medium degree of operational risk. 
With regard to (c) and (d), while there is only one version of the statement of operational requirement, the document was developed in stages. The first stage began with determining the high-level mandatory capabilities, which were then used as the foundation for the mandatory requirements. The mandatory requirements were used to derive rated requirements that were classified as tier 1 and tier 2. 
With regard to (e), there is only one version of the statement of operational requirement. 
Hon. Judy Sgro: With regard to the $16, 667 in professional and special services spent by the Minister of Labour in fiscal year 2010-2011 in her capacity as Minister of Natural Resources: (a) how much of this money was spent on legal services; (b) what was the nature, extent and purpose of those legal services; (c) was there any court case associated with those legal services and, if so, what is the citation of that case; and (d) what is the contact information, if any, such as telephone number or e-mail address, associated with those legal services? 
David Anderson:  Mr. Speaker, the information requested in the question is personal information as defined in the Privacy Act and cannot be disclosed.
Mauril Bélanger:  With regard to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, how many offices does it maintain and how many claims did each office handle in (i) 2008, (ii) 2009, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2011, (v) 2012? 
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, IRB, is concerned, the IRB maintains five offices. The offices are organized in three regions: western, two offices; eastern, two offices; and central region, one office.
 The IRB does not maintain statistics according to a breakdown of claims by office. Providing a breakdown by individual office would not be possible during the timeline specified for this request. 
Massimo Pacetti: With regard to the funding of enterprises and projects by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): (a) how many entities have received funding from CIDA while being under legal protection from creditors since 2006; and (b) in such cases, does CIDA have a policy to take action to ensure that these entities meet their financial obligations to creditors, sub-contractors, employees and stakeholders? 
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since 2006, there has been one entity in receipt of CIDA funding while being under legal protection from creditors; however, this entity continues to meet its contractual obligations and is delivering results through its programming. 
With regard to (b), while there are no specific policies that address cases where the entities are under legal protection from creditors, there are procedures in place to mitigate the risk of such instances. 
The financial risk assessment unit uses a risk-based approach to monitor the financial viability of entities in receipt of CIDA funding prior to entering into an agreement and during the life cycle of the CIDA project. Mitigation actions are immediately put in place if a recipient is under legal protection from creditors. 
Standard agreements include provisions that allow CIDA to ensure entities are performing their obligations.
Hon. Irwin Cotler:  With regard to government legislation introduced in the 40th and 41st Parliaments in either the House or the Senate and the Department of Justice Act requirement in s. 4.1 that government legislation comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: (a) on what date was the legislation submitted for review; (b) which individuals conducted the review; (c) what are the job titles of the persons who performed the review; (d) what are the qualifications of the persons who performed the review; (e) is membership in good standing of a law society a requirement for performing the review; (f) were all those who participated in the review members in good standing of a law society at the time and, if so, which law societies were represented and how many years of practice did each individual involved have; (g) on what dates was the review conducted; (h) what is the process for such a review; (i) what doctrinal and jurisprudential sources were used to conduct the reviews, specifying (i) Canadian doctrinal sources, (ii) international doctrinal sources, (iii) domestic jurisprudential decisions, (iv) international jurisprudential decisions, (v) other legal or academic sources consulted; (j) what databases are accessed to conduct the review; (k) does any external consultation occur for the purposes of conducting such a review and, if so, what kinds of individuals or groups can be consulted; (l) how many drafts exist for each review report; (m) when were the memos in this regard presented to the Minister of Justice or any other member of the cabinet; (n) what was the cost of preparing each of these reports; (o) what is the budget allotted for the preparation of each report; (p) for each year since 2006, how much money has been allotted for undertaking each review; (q) for each year since 2006, how much money has been used to conduct each review; (r) how will the positions involved in the review process be affected by budget cuts at the department; (s) to whom will this work fall if these positions are cut; (t) what measures are in place to ensure the quality of the reviews; (u) what measures are in place to ensure the accuracy of the reviews; (v) are there any circumstances in which the government would make the content of such reviews public and, if so, what are they; and (w) has the government assessed litigation risk with respect to non-compliance with s. 4.1(1) and, if so, when, and who conducted the assessment? 
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), although the chief legislative counsel of the Department of Justice certifies that government bills have been examined, they are reviewed by legislative counsel within the legislation section as well as counsel throughout the department; their review is continuous from the point of policy development to their introduction in Parliament. Review begins when departmental officials bring the subject matter of the legislation to the attention of Justice counsel.
 With regard to (b) to (f), a wide variety of counsel throughout the department with varying levels of expertise, years of call, and qualifications have worked on the various bills that were introduced in the 40th and 41st Parliaments. As a term of employment, all Department of Justice counsel must be members in good standing of a provincial or territorial bar. 
With regard to (g) and (h), review is an ongoing process, which culminates in the certification, in accordance with section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms examination regulations, that government bills have been examined. Once a bill has been introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, the Clerk of the House of Commons sends two copies of it to the chief legislative counsel, who then certifies on behalf of the Deputy Minister of Justice that the bill has been examined in accordance with section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. One of the certified copies is then transmitted to the Clerk of the House of Commons. The other is transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council Office. 
With regard to (i), over the course of the 40th and 41st Parliaments, counsel in the Department of Justice routinely used a wide variety of doctrinal and jurisprudential sources in conducting legal analysis relevant to government bills. 
With regard to (j), the Department of Justice counsel use a number of standard and specialized legal databases such as CANLII, as well as a number of internally developed databases, in order to conduct its review of legislation. 
With regard to (k), this information is protected by solicitor-client privilege. 
With regard to (l) to (q), the requested details pertaining to the review of bills constitute legal advice protected by solicitor-client privilege.
 With regard to (r) and (s), there are no positions dedicated to this review since, as stated in the response to (a) above, it is done by counsel throughout the Department of Justice as part of other employment responsibilities. 
With regard to (t) and (u), as noted above, the review process is an ongoing one that is conducted by counsel throughout the Department of Justice. Appropriate quality assurance measures are employed as required. 
With regard to (v), review material is protected by solicitor-client privilege. 
With regard to (w), this information is protected by solicitor-client privilege. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 954, 961, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 976 and 978 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:  With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: for each of September 1, 2006, September 1, 2008 and September 1, 2012, (a) how many individuals were employed by the agency as “inspectors”, including a breakdown of individuals employed as “field inspection staff”; (b) what was the specific job description of each individual; and (c) at what exact location did each of them work?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Judy Sgro:  With regard to Parks Canada: (a) what is the breakdown by each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site for annual expenditures, broken down annually from 2006 to 2011 inclusive for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada; (b) what were the number of staff employed full-time at each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site, broken down annually from 2006 to 2011 inclusive for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada; (c) what were the number of staff employed part-time at each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site, broken down annually from 2006 to 2011 inclusive for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada; (d) what are the number of paid staff hours at each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site, broken down annually from 2006 to 2011 inclusive for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada; (e) what are the positions of employment at each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site, broken down annually from 2006 to 2011 inclusive for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada; (f) what are the anticipated changes at each park, site, area, lighthouse, building, railway station and grave site, resulting from the 2012 Budget for each (i) National Park administered by Parks Canada, (ii) National Historical Site administered by Parks Canada, (iii) National Marine Conservation Area administered by Parks Canada, (iv) Heritage Lighthouse administered by Parks Canada, (v) Heritage Building administered by Parks Canada, (vi) Heritage Railway Station administered by Parks Canada, (vii) Heritage Grave Site administered by Parks Canada?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Ted Hsu:  With regard to the National Research Council of Canada (NRC): (a) how many Research Associates in each portfolio were employed by NRC in September 2011; (b) how many Research Associates in each portfolio were employed by NRC in September 2012; (c) broken down by portfolio, what are the numbers of NRC researchers charging their time against each research project time code, and what is the number of total hours charged against each research project time code, by month from January 2010 to the present; (d) broken down by portfolio, what are the numbers of NRC researchers charging their time against each portfolio time code, and what is the total number of hours charged against each portfolio time code, by month from January 2010 to the present; and (e) what are the job titles of all of the people who may edit or give approval for papers and articles to be submitted by NRC employees to peer-reviewed journals?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ted Hsu:  With regard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada: (a) what is the total amount, in dollars, broken down by year from 2006 to 2012, allocated to the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) by the government; (b) what is the total amount of funding, in dollars, external to core funding from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, secured by the ELA, broken down by year from 2006 to 2012; (c) what is the projected cost of closing or “mothballing” the ELA; (d) how was the projected cost of closure of the ELA calculated; (e) what factors were considered when assessing the costs of the closure of the ELA; (f) what means, or media, for communications is Fisheries and Oceans Canada Director General Dave Gillis allowed to employ to communicate information regarding any changes in ELA funding to (i) employees of the ELA, (ii) current stakeholders, (iii) potential stakeholders, (iv) the public; and (g) what will the consequences of closing the ELA be? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ted Hsu:  With regard to National Research Council Canada (NRC): (a) what is the department responsible for collecting royalties for patents licensed by NRC; (b) what is the breakdown, in dollars, of billing for royalties for patents licensed by NRC, by month from January, 2010 to the present; (c) what is the amount, in dollars, received by NRC from collecting royalties for patents they have licensed, by month from January, 2010 to the present; (d) what is the amount of outstanding royalties for patents licensed by NRC payable to NRC as of September 21, 2012; (e) how many outstanding bills, pertaining to royalties for patents licensed by NRC that are owed to NRC, have not been issued since January, 2010, by month, and what are each of their dollar amounts; (f) what is the total, in dollars, of outstanding royalties for patents licensed by NRC owed to NRC since January, 2010, by month; (g) where are royalties received for patents licensed by NRC allocated; and (h) which line items in the NRC budget receive how many dollars? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Frank Valeriote: With regard to National Historic Sites and the response of the Minister of the Environment to Question 773 on the Order Paper, answered in Debates on September 17, 2012, where the Minister states “the majority of national historic sites have maintained similar opening and closing dates for 2012; however, some sites opened on June 1 and will close on the Labour Day weekend”: (a) what is the exact number of sites which maintained similar opening and closing dates for 2012; (b) what is the exact number of sites which opened on June 1 and will close on Labour Day weekend; and (c) for each individual site, what were the opening and closing dates in 2011 and 2012?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Frank Valeriote:  With regard to National Defence and Militarized Commercial Off-The-Shelf (MILCOT) trucks: (a) what is the identifying number of each MILCOT truck at each base, station or other establishment; (b) how many hours, and for how many kilometres, has each MILCOT truck been in service; (c) how many hours of maintenance have been performed on each MILCOT truck; (d) what are the particulars of any accident involving a MILCOT truck, including (i) the nature of the damage to the vehicle, (ii) the cost of repairs or of writing off the value of the vehicle, (iii) the number of casualties, both military and civilian, and the extent of any injuries? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Kevin Lamoureux:  With regard to expenses relating to renovations and repairs paid for by Public Works and Government Services to real property since May 1, 2011: (a) what renovations or repairs have been made to the offices of House of Commons Members, caucus officers, or House administration at (i) 131 Queen Street, (ii) Justice Building, (iii) Confederation Building, (iv) Centre Block, (v) East Block, (vi) Howard Building (202 Sparks Street); (b) what were the costs of those renovations and repairs; and (c) what was the nature of the damage or defect which required repairs?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Judy Sgro:  With regard to national parks and historic sites, what was the total employment during the 2012 operating season, broken down by full-time, part-time and seasonal employees, for each of the following parks and sites: Abbot Pass Refuge Cabin, Alberta; Athabasca Pass, Alberta; Banff, Alberta; Banff Park Museum, Alberta; Bar U Ranch, Alberta; Cave and Basin, Alberta; Elk Island, Alberta; First Oil Well in Western Canada, Alberta; Frog Lake, Alberta; Howse Pass, Alberta; Jasper, Alberta; Jasper House, Alberta; Jasper Park Information Centre, Alberta; Rocky Mountain House, Alberta; Skoki Ski Lodge, Alberta; Sulphur Mountain Cosmic Ray Station, Alberta; Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta; Wood Buffalo, Alberta; Yellowhead Pass, Alberta; Chilkoot Trail, British Columbia; Fisgard Lighthouse, British Columbia; Fort Langley, British Columbia; Fort Rodd Hill, British Columbia; Fort St. James, British Columbia; Gitwangak Battle Hill, British Columbia; Glacier, British Columbia; Gulf Islands, British Columbia; Gulf of Georgia Cannery, British Columbia; Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, British Columbia; Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve, British Columbia; Kicking Horse Pass, British Columbia; Kootenae House , British Columbia; Kootenay, British Columbia; Mount Revelstoke, British Columbia; Nan Sdins, British Columbia; Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, British Columbia; Rogers Pass, British Columbia; Stanley Park, British Columbia; Twin Falls Tea House, British Columbia; Yoho, British Columbia; Forts Rouge, Garry and Gibraltar, Manitoba; Linear Mounds, Manitoba; Lower Fort Garry, Manitoba; Prince of Wales Fort, Manitoba; Riding Mountain, Manitoba; Riding Mountain Park East Gate Registration Complex, Manitoba; Riel House, Manitoba; St. Andrew's Rectory, Manitoba; The Forks, Manitoba; Wapusk, Manitoba; York Factory, Manitoba; Beaubears Island Shipbuilding, New Brunswick; Boishébert, New Brunswick; Carleton Martello Tower, New Brunswick; Fort Beauséjour – Fort Cumberland, New Brunswick; Fort Gaspareaux, New Brunswick; Fundy, New Brunswick; Kouchibouguac, New Brunswick; La Coupe Dry Dock, New Brunswick; Monument-Lefebvre, New Brunswick; Saint Croix Island International Historic Site, New Brunswick; St. Andrews Blockhouse, New Brunswick; Cape Spear Lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Castle Hill, Newfoundland and Labrador; Gros Morne, Newfoundland and Labrador; Hawthorne Cottage, Newfoundland and Labrador; Hopedale Mission, Newfoundland and Labrador; L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland and Labrador; Port au Choix, Newfoundland and Labrador; Red Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador; Ryan Premises, Newfoundland and Labrador; Signal Hill, Newfoundland and Labrador; Terra Nova, Newfoundland and Labrador; Torngat Mountains, Newfoundland and Labrador; Aulavik, Northwest Territories; Nahanni National Park Reserve, Northwest Territories; Sahoyué-§ehdacho, Northwest Territories; Tuktut Nogait, Northwest Territories; Wood Buffalo, Northwest Territories; Alexander Graham Bell, Nova Scotia; Beaubassin, Nova Scotia; Bloody Creek, Nova Scotia; Canso Islands, Nova Scotia; Cape Breton Highlands, Nova Scotia; Charles Fort, Nova Scotia; D'Anville's Encampment, Nova Scotia; Fort Anne, Nova Scotia; Fort Edward, Nova Scotia; Fort Lawrence, Nova Scotia; Fort McNab, Nova Scotia; Fort Sainte Marie de Grace, Nova Scotia; Fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia; Georges Island, Nova Scotia; Grand-Pré, Nova Scotia; Grassy Island Fort, Nova Scotia; Halifax Citadel, Nova Scotia; Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Marconi, Nova Scotia; Melanson Settlement, Nova Scotia; Port-Royal, Nova Scotia; Prince of Wales Tower, Nova Scotia; Royal Battery, Nova Scotia; St. Peters, Nova Scotia; St. Peters Canal, Nova Scotia; The Bank Fishery - The Age of Sail Exhibit, Nova Scotia; Wolfe's Landing, Nova Scotia; York Redoubt, Nova Scotia; Auyuittuq, Nunavut; Quttinirpaaq, Nunavut; Sirmilik, Nunavut; Ukkusiksalik, Nunavut; Battle Hill, Ontario; Battle of Cook's Mills, Ontario; Battle of the Windmill, Ontario; Battlefield of Fort George, Ontario; Bellevue House, Ontario; Bethune Memorial House, Ontario; Bois Blanc Island Lighthouse and Blockhouse, Ontario; Bruce Peninsula, Ontario; Butler's Barracks, Ontario; Carrying Place of the Bay of Quinte, Ontario; Fathom Five National Marine Park of Canada, Ontario; Fort George, Ontario; Fort Henry, Ontario; Fort Malden, Ontario; Fort Mississauga, Ontario; Fort St. Joseph, Ontario; Fort Wellington, Ontario; Georgian Bay Islands, Ontario; Glengarry Cairn, Ontario; HMCS Haida, Ontario; Inverarden House, Ontario; Kingston Fortifications, Ontario; Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area of Canada, Ontario; Laurier House, Ontario; Merrickville Blockhouse, Ontario; Mississauga Point Lighthouse, Ontario; Mnjikaning Fish Weirs, Ontario; Murney Tower, Ontario; Navy Island, Ontario; Peterborough Lift Lock, Ontario; Point Clark Lighthouse, Ontario; Point Pelee National Park, Ontario; Pukaskwa, Ontario; Queenston Heights, Ontario; Rideau Canal, Ontario; Ridgeway Battlefield, Ontario; Saint-Louis Mission, Ontario; Sault Ste. Marie Canal, Ontario; Shoal Tower, Ontario; Sir John Johnson House, Ontario; Southwold Earthworks, Ontario; St. Lawrence Islands, Ontario; Trent–Severn Waterway, Ontario; Waterloo Pioneers Memorial Tower, Ontario; Woodside, Ontario; Ardgowan, Prince Edward Island; Dalvay-by-the-Sea, Prince Edward Island; Green Gables Heritage Place, Prince Edward Island; L.M. Montgomery's Cavendish, Prince Edward Island; Port-la-Joye–Fort Amherst, Prince Edward Island; Prince Edward Island National Park, Prince Edward Island; Province House, Prince Edward Island; 57-63 St. Louis Street, Quebec; Battle of the Châteauguay, Quebec; Battle of the Restigouche, Quebec; Carillon Barracks, Quebec; Carillon Canal, Quebec; Cartier-Brébeuf, Quebec; Chambly Canal, Quebec; Coteau-du-Lac, Quebec; Forges du Saint-Maurice, Quebec; Forillon, Quebec; Fort Chambly, Quebec; Fort Lennox, Quebec; Fort Ste. Thérèse, Quebec; Fort Témiscamingue, Quebec; Fortifications of Québec, Quebec; Grande-Grave, Quebec; Grosse Île and the Irish Memorial, Quebec; La Mauricie, Quebec; Lachine Canal, Quebec; Lévis Forts, Quebec; Louis S. St. Laurent National Historic Site, Quebec; Louis-Joseph Papineau National Historic Site, Quebec; Maillou House, Quebec; Manoir Papineau, Quebec; Mingan Archipelago National Park Reserve, Quebec; Montmorency Park, Quebec; Pointe-au-Père Lighthouse, Quebec; Québec Garrison Club, Quebec; Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, Quebec; Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Canal, Quebec; Saint-Louis Forts and Châteaux, Quebec; Saint-Ours Canal, Quebec; Sir George-Étienne Cartier National Historic Site, Quebec; Sir Wilfrid Laurier National Historic Site, Quebec; The Fur Trade at Lachine, Quebec; Batoche, Saskatchewan; Battle of Tourond's Coulee / Fish Creek, Saskatchewan; Cypress Hills Massacre, Fort Battleford, Saskatchewan; Fort Espérance, Saskatchewan; Fort Livingstone, Saskatchewan; Fort Pelly, Saskatchewan; Fort Walsh, Saskatchewan; Frenchman Butte, Saskatchewan; Grasslands, Saskatchewan; Motherwell Homestead, Saskatchewan; Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan; Dawson Historical Complex, Yukon; Dredge No 4, Yukon; Former Territorial Court House, Yukon; Ivvavik, Yukon; Kluane National Park and Reserve, Yukon; S.S. Keno, Yukon; S.S. Klondike, Yukon; and Vuntut, Yukon?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
First Nations Financial Transparency Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia had two minutes remaining for his remarks and then the usual five minutes for questions and comments.
The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia. 
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that self-governing first nations, under the terms of their self-government agreements, are already required to prepare their financial statements and make them available to community members. That is why they are not included in the bill. Why should the residents of first nation communities expect anything less?
Developing healthier, more sustainable communities depends on good, democratic governance. The legislation is fair and reasonable. It is the responsible thing to do to ensure transparency, increased accountability and ultimately, more effective governance in first nation communities.
I call on all parties to give Bill C-27 their wholehearted support to make sure that first nation citizens enjoy the same rights and privileges as other Canadians from coast to coast to coast. 
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned many times that this is a very important measure for the government. I wonder why that is because the Conservatives have invoked time allocation yet again and are saying they do not want to hear all sides of the story. They do not want to hear the voices of members elected to represent aboriginal communities and first nation communities across the country. They are not investing in the things that the first nations or aboriginal communities or urban aboriginal people, such as those living in my community, are looking for. They are looking for things such as affordable housing, an increase in the affordability of food and the affordability of life in general. 
Therefore, I ask my hon. colleague, will he start focusing on those issues as well?
[Interjection]
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, we have heard countless times from those on reserve who do not know what their chiefs and councillors make. All they are asking is for the right to have that same courtesy as other Canadians do from coast to coast to coast.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, the government is being somewhat ironic bragging about the Accountability Act, when that act enshrined the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer who, years later, finds himself shut down at every corner. 
I have a question that is fairly direct. It just requires a yes or no. Given the theme of his speech was about opening up the books, which I agree with, I would like to ask him very simply, would he allow the Auditor General to look at all of his expenses as a member of Parliament? Yes or no?
[Interjection]
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, we should focus on Bill C-27, which would ensure that councillors and chiefs throughout Canada, from coast to coast to coast, would be open to their constituents. 
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's interrupted speech with some interest. We are now facing a closure motion on the bill and therefore this is the last day of debate on this section of the bill. Does he believe that this is the most important, most crucial piece of legislation facing the House at the moment? The fact that the Conservatives have only put up five speakers so far out of 160 is a bit ironic given the circumstances that we face with the closure motion in front of us. 
[Interjection]
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, it is the most important bill that we are speaking to because we are speaking to it right now. It is very important for those people on reserve who want to know the remuneration of their chiefs and councillors. For years they have been asking us for that and that is what we are going to deliver. 
[Interjection]
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question previously and I did not really get an answer, so I will try a slightly different question this time.
The answer I got from my hon. colleague was that we want to make sure that people living on reserves know exactly what their chiefs are making and increase transparency there. However, the government is not a government that is being transparent or accountable to the constituents that it represents, which include all Canadians.
Will the member have the decency to ensure that his government, his Prime Minister and all of his ministers are being truly accountable and truly transparent, that they are being the representatives of the state and are accountable to all their constituents, not just the Canadians who are friends and insiders of the Conservative Party but to all Canadians?
[Interjection]
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the member that all members on this side are very upfront with regard to what they spend. I am sure all of the ministers would be very certain of that.
Having said that, the most important bill here today is Bill C-27, which will ensure that people on reserve can understand what their chiefs and councillors receive each year through remuneration.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-27.
According to the Conservative majority, the purpose of this bill is to make first nations' finances more transparent by requiring first nations to disclose various pieces of information. 
I must begin by pointing out to the House the irony in this situation: the Conservative government lacks transparency in many areas and has no problem criticizing the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he confirms their lack of transparency.
The Conservatives also hid information that the Chief Electoral Officer had requested when the robocall scandal came to light. They hide their destructive environmental policies in mammoth bills like the budget bill voted on last June. They deceived Canadians on the real cost of the F-35 and they misled Canadians during the election. At the time, they said they would not raise the age of eligibility for old age security, yet they raised it from 65 to 67 just a few months later. 
Now the Conservatives are introducing a bill that suggests that first nations are not being transparent. This is ironic, coming from a government that is not very transparent itself.
Before preaching to others and imposing such conditions, the Conservatives should start by looking in the mirror.
Transparency is always a good thing when it comes to public funds. Canadians deserve to have their money well spent, and they deserve to have all the necessary means to know what governments are doing with that money. We must speak out against any misuse of public funds at every level of government.
This is also true for first nations, which deserve to have the funding they are given properly managed and used to develop their community. Like everywhere else, the money is sometimes mismanaged, and it is the members of these communities who suffer for it.
This bill could stigmatize first nations by giving Canadians the impression that aboriginal reserves mismanage their resources and must be put under trusteeship by Ottawa. That is insulting and disrespectful to aboriginal communities, which were not even consulted before the bill was drafted.
I would like to specify that, although it is possible that some communities mismanage their resources, this type of problem is not limited to first nations communities. Many municipalities and governments—federal and provincial—have done a shoddy job of managing public funds. We have seen this frequently in Quebec since the beginning of the Charbonneau commission. Such practices must be stopped at all levels.
We believe that public funds must be managed in a transparent manner. However, imposing transparency, as the Conservatives are trying to do today, is insulting and reminiscent of colonial times. The Conservatives are forgetting that they have a constitutional duty to consult the first nations before making changes to laws that affect them.
However, as they have been in the habit of doing since they won a majority, the Conservatives are acting unilaterally, as though the other levels of government did not exist. The Conservatives are not even trying to examine the amendments proposed by the opposition or even hold consultations with regard to their own amendments. In short, this government is continuing to turn a deaf ear.
The paternalism of this bill is also of great concern. The first nations should have the same amount of freedom as the provinces and municipalities to manage themselves as they wish.
When the federal government sends the provinces equalization cheques, does it tell them how to do their accounting? The provinces pass their own laws, and we have confidence in their justice system.
With Bill C-27, we are acting as though the first nations belonged to the federal government. We are acting as though the first nations needed to be put under trusteeship, as though they were unable to take care of themselves.
Can we require that first nations communities be transparent toward their members? Likely. However, do we need a bill that tells them exactly how to do that?
Aboriginal communities do not all operate in the same way and do not all have the same resources.
By unilaterally passing a bill that will tell them exactly what to do, we will be imposing an administrative burden that will cause problems for many of them. For example, why force first nations to have a website where the public can consult the documents this bill requires, when some of them do not even have drinking water?
For a community of 200 people, for example, being forced to maintain a community website is an unjustifiable burden, especially since the Conservative government is not offering any financial compensation. Disclosing certain information to all Canadians can also cause problems for first nations businesses, which will be put at a competitive disadvantage, as the member for St. Paul's described.
As I mentioned earlier, this bill puts a huge administrative burden on aboriginal communities that have limited means. The first nations already provide at least 168 separate financial reports to the four main federal departments and agencies—Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, the CMHC, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and Health Canada. The administrative burden imposed on the first nations is excessive, and the government is not doing anything to help them with this bill. Their resources are limited, so let us help them by reducing their spending on the administrative documents we force them to produce.
The Conservatives must stop treating the provinces and first nations with contempt. Not only does the Conservative government break our laws and frequently waste taxpayers' money, but it goes so far as to lecture others and to try to control them. A first step for the Conservatives would be to achieve transparency by providing documents in a timely manner when asked to do so by Elections Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. And the Conservatives should consult the provinces and the first nations when considering changes that affect them.
The Liberal Party is not the only one saying it: the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal and the provincial governments have an obligation to consult aboriginal peoples before making decisions that affect their rights, and that they must respond to their concerns.
So why impose this kind of legislation without consultation?
Canadians are afraid of this obsession with control. The provinces no longer have a say. The Conservatives have decided to cut transfers and services, and to increase provincial costs with complete disregard for the principles of federalism. Even the premier of Quebec, a sovereignist, was surprised and disappointed that the Prime Minister of Canada is not attending the meeting of the Council of the Federation in Halifax. We know that we have a serious problem when even a separatist seems to take Canadian federalism more seriously than the Prime Minister of Canada.
Today, the government is treating the first nations in the same way by unilaterally imposing its conditions. For the Prime Minister to have such control over his caucus that he forces them to read texts prepared by his office is one thing. But to have such contempt for Canadian federalism that he passes the costs on to the province and the aboriginal communities is, quite frankly, an insult to Canadians.
We must put an end to paternalism and the colonial mentality towards first nations. We must treat them like partners in our federation. The first nations are not government agencies; they are not the property of the federal government. The Conservatives must negotiate with the first nations in order to find common ground rather than being confrontational. The Conservative government must face the facts, reconsider its approach and take into account the opposition's concerns. 
To that end, the Conservatives should vote with the Liberal Party against this bad bill, and they should go back to the drawing board.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued. I sit on the immigration committee and we have had a chance to look at Bill C-45. The creation of electronic travel authority and the details of how the ETA would be created, the criteria for qualifying, et cetera, were not going to be in the legislation. They would be in the regulations, which of course can be changed very easily by a minister.
Why is it that, in Bill C-27, the government seems to feel it needs to put into legislation the details of the disclosure requirements for chiefs? First nations communities and chiefs have audited financial statements. New Democrats believe the audited statements should first be presented to the first nations communities. We do not need legislation to control what they do. It could be a requirement of the funding arrangements that each of the communities signs.
I would ask my hon. colleague to comment on that.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to play politics. However, we had an agreement, which was called the Kelowna accord, in 2004, when the NDP helped to make the government fall. We then had a change of government, and all of a sudden the Conservative government does not acknowledge that the Kelowna accord even exists. All of these items, whether they are targets, accountability, are in the Kelowna accord. 
As I said in my speech, we have no problem with transparency. The problem is that first nations were not consulted. As the member was saying, there are financial statements and they are audited. If the government needs these audited statements to be propped up a bit, that is fine, but it should also compensate for that added transparency with some funding. First nations have a lot of administrative burden already.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the importance of accountability and transparency, as well as with the Kelowna accord and the proposal for a first nations auditor general. 
Does my colleague think that a bill like this is necessary six years after the Kelowna accord?
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, this is a complex question and therefore not an easy one to answer. I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from St. Paul's, who is doing a great job for first nations people in her role as aboriginal affairs critic. 
If the Kelowna accord, which was reached six years ago, were in effect today, first nations people would be living in a completely different world. Our prime minister at the time consulted all first nations, which is why it was called an accord. It had a budget attached to it.
The accord included five criteria, among them transparency and accountability. It even proposed appointing an independent auditor responsible solely for the first nations file. Thus, a solution could have easily been found and we would not be dealing with the issue here today. Everyone would have had the opportunity to live together in harmony.
Ms. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, and specifically to speak about the need for Bill C-27 as a way of re-establishing basic lines of accountability between a first nations chief and council and its members.
I begin by referring to a statement made by the Assembly of First Nations, which referred to this bill as “tinkering”. In a document prepared for the Special Chiefs Assembly held in December 2011, it said:
 ...federal led tinkering around the edges of the Indian Act with legislation that addresses aspects of core governance is not the answer. It will not provide long-term governance certainty and stability for our Nations. 
Is this bill nothing more than tinkering with the Indian Act? Absolutely not. The Indian Act is silent on transparency and accountability. There is not a word in the Indian Act that deals with the preparation of financial statements and ensuring they are accessible to the public. The Indian Act is certainly not modern legislation that supports first nations governments. This is why the first nations financial transparency act is so needed.
To be clear, this bill would change the status quo. It would provide long-term governance, certainty and stability. The status quo as it relates to financial transparency is that there are currently no statutes or regulations to outline the financial transparency requirements for first nations governments or to guide the setting of salaries for chiefs and councillors. To the extent that there are any rules anywhere that require first nations to make their financial information available to their own people, it is not in that law, but in the funding agreements with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. In accordance with provisions of these agreements, first nations governments are required to provide the department with audited consolidated financial statements and a schedule of remuneration and expenses for all elected officials. However, it is also a provision of these agreements that the statements be made available to the first nations members in their own communities. These agreements do not stipulate the manner or timing for disclosure. As a result, some individuals have found it quite difficult to access these documents. The practices within individual first nations communities vary widely. Some communities may not consistently disclose financial statements or information concerning salary and expenses while others distribute the information to members or post it on community websites.
 This bill would change all of this. It would indeed change the status quo for first nations communities. Under the proposed legislation, each first nation would need to make its audited consolidated financial statements available to its members, as well as to publish them on a website. The information found in the audited consolidated financial statements relates to the major activities undertaken by the particular first nation being audited and details how the first nation expended its moneys. The statement with respect to what information is provided in these statements would be determined by the generally accepted accounting principles. Information that would be disclosed in the schedules to the financial statements include the salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honorariums, dividends and any other monetary or non-monetary benefit that chiefs or councillors are receiving. The expenses of first nations leadership, such as transportation, accommodation, meals and hospitality would also be included. Chiefs and councillors would also be required to disclose remuneration paid to them by any entity controlled by the first nation. This would reflect current practice, as first nations are already required to report the remuneration and expenses, in separate categories, paid to the chief and councillors as part of their agreements under the funding agreement with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.
The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would be required to publish the audited consolidated financial statement and schedule of remuneration, when received, for each first nation on the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada website. This would ensure the information would be available and accessible at all times, and by everyone. The department already publishes on its website a document entitled “Schedule of Federal Funding” for each first nation as a result of the Federal Accountability Act. The bill would require first nations and the department to publish the audited consolidated financial statements and schedules on their websites, as well as remunerations and expenses of first nations to which the legislation would apply. If a first nation failed to do so, anyone, including the minister, could ask a court to require a band council to publish it.
The bill would not only empower first nation members but it would also change the status quo in another fundamental area.
Currently, when first nations members raise questions or concerns about the non-disclosure of financial statements or remuneration and expenses for chiefs and council members, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada encourages them to raise these issues directly with their chief and council, respecting the principles of local community accountability.
If the department becomes aware of a situation where a first nation member cannot gain access to his or her community's financial statements, the department will work with the first nation government to ensure that the information is released. If efforts to have a first nation government release the statements to a member are unsuccessful, the department releases the financial statements or schedule of remuneration and expenses directly to the member.
Not only does this place the minister in a difficult position between the first nation council and its members, it makes no sense to require individual first nation members to have to appeal to the minister just for access to basic financial information relating to their own community that they should be able to get from their own band.
Bill C-27 would create a direct relationship with a clear line of responsibility, accountability and transparency between council and first nations members. The bill would underscore the fact that first nations governments are accountable to their own communities for the decisions they make, in addition to being accountable to taxpayers for the funds that they receive.
The bill would change the status quo by finally putting in place the same rules with respect to financial transparency that apply to other governments in Canada to first nations governments. The bill would provide long-term governance certainty and stability by creating a direct line of accountability between a first nation and its chief and council for access to basic financial information and for the decisions that led to the information that those documents contain.
It is worth noting, too, that the bill would achieve this without increasing the already significant reporting burden on first nation governments. Because the preparation of these documents is already a condition of their funding agreements, there are no new reports required. The bill proposes to place the same requirements in legislation with the only additional requirement being that some of the information already prepared for the department is posted on a website, maintained by the first nation or on its behalf, and on the department's website as well.
I know that members will agree that Bill C-27 is a necessary step forward in empowering and improving the lives of first nations members.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member say that there would be no additional work for first nations. Many first nations do not have a website and, in fact, their Internet access is somewhat spotty. Therefore, it is misleading to say that the bill would create no additional work.
I want to touch on the member's comments about long-term governance. It is interesting that the Canadian Bar Association believes that the proposed bill would not improve the capacity of first nations to assume control over their own affairs. It says, “By focusing only on the expenditures of first nations, the proposed legislation fails to address larger systemic issues of funding and responsibility for those issues”. 
The member said that posting information contributes to long-term governance. I wonder if the member could provide more details on how simply posting financial information improves governance.
[Interjection]
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, first, posting information that should be widely accessible to the members of each band means that the chiefs and leaders of that particular first nation are being accountable to their own members. I think that is something that we must remember. This is available in every other government across our great nation. Whether it is a federal, provincial or municipal government, it is a requirement. The only exception right now is first nations. The bill would actually bring them in line with the rest of Canadians.
The member asked a question regarding the absence of a website or access to a website. One of the reporting requirements would be that the information be posted on a website. However, I will point out that the legislation does not necessarily require the website to be within that first nation community. It could be tasked to another organization to post it or, as I indicated in my speech, on the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development website, which would make it compliant.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, the member wants to basically reduce the difficulty for an individual band member to find information on the band's financing. If that particular band member went to the member's office and asked to look at her books as a member of Parliament would she say yes or no?
[Interjection]
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, the member would know that all of the expenses and so forth of members are posted online for my constituents to see, as well as for constituents across Canada.
With regard to the fact that the member is concerned about the inquiries made by first nations, I would point to some statistics. There were approximately 250 formal complaints regarding the mismanagement and misappropriation of remuneration and expenses of officials that were posted or inquired upon over a period of slightly over a year.
The fact that there are complaints out there and the fact that first nations are not accountable right now, this f legislation would actually—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Roxanne James:  I see that members are getting concerned about the accountability. I want to point out that many first nations across this country actually go far and beyond exceeding the requirements required by the government. It is only a few that we need to bring in line.
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know there has been great discussion in the House about the reporting requirements in this bill. I wonder if the member could just clarify some of those disclosure requirements.
[Interjection]
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned in my speech, some of the specific requirements in the bill relate specifically to salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honorarium, dividends and any other monetary or non-monetary benefit that the chiefs or councillors are receiving.
As a side note, this bill would also require first nations to make their audited consolidated financial statements and schedules of remuneration available on a website for a period of at least 10 years. I think that is important as well, especially to the members of that particular first nations band.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 is part of a pattern that I have noticed as a non-first nations person here in the House of policies and practices of the government that are paternalistic, punishing and somewhat prejudicial. This pattern is quite disturbing to me as a non-first nations person in that the government should actually be protecting and enhancing the first nations people of this country rather than punishing them. 
The genesis of the bill, as I understand it, was a report from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation about the remuneration received by a band chief, or maybe other band chiefs, that was in excess of what we pay the Prime Minister. There are lots of corporations in this country that pay significantly in excess of what the Prime Minister makes. Whether a band has the resources to be able to pay its chiefs appropriately is not something that we should concern ourselves with unless there is some evidence of fraud or of other nefarious means. That is not the case here. There was no indication and no expectation on the part of the band that the chief was being paid in some manner that was inappropriate.
Indeed, the bill does not even touch on the appropriateness of compensation. It does not provide any guidance as to what would be a conflict of interest or what would be a conflict in terms of remuneration. Instead, it seems to punish the bands that are providing many financial statements already by making them provide even more by increasing the reporting requirements in an extreme way. That, again, seems to be a punishment for bands, perhaps for having spent so much on their chiefs.
In terms of it being paternalistic, once again we see that the government will not consult with the first nations themselves but instead prescribe for the first nations what they must do. We have heard time and time again in the House and from first nations themselves that what they want is be free to run their own affairs and, where the government provides some money, they want to be consulted. By the word “consult” we mean consent. We do not mean just spend a few dollars and bring a few people in to talk. We actually mean that the bands should give consent where there are major changes to how the government provides its services to them and the relationship between the Canadian government and the governments of the first nations people.
It gets even more paternalistic when the government says that if bands do not follow its rules it will hold back money. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government would do that to a band, to punish the children of the band perhaps if the money is for education, or to punish the mothers of the band perhaps if the money is for food or shelter. Why on earth are we punishing these people for the actions of a few? We have tried at committee to move significant amendments to the bill to deal with those issues that have been raised with us by the first nations and the issues that we can plainly read in the text of the bill, and yet every one of those amendments have been rejected by the government. As is the case in almost all the bills before Parliament, there is no attempt to be co-operative or consultative with the other parties in the House. The government does it all on its own.
The bill is punishing to the first nations because, in many circumstances, it would require the proprietary business information be released to the public. We are not talking, as the member for Scarborough Centre suggested, about ensuring that band members have this information. In fact, the requirement is that the information be made completely public and, when it is made public, if it is proprietary information, it puts the band at a disadvantage. It is punishing the band. 
Some of these bands have been quite successful in creating businesses and trying to lift some of their members out of the extreme poverty in which we often find Canadian first nation members. The government's reaction is to punish them for doing that by making them release proprietary information in their financial statements that would put them at a disadvantage to non-first nation businesses in Canada and elsewhere. That is just wrong. We should not be putting first nations people at a disadvantage.
When we talk about proprietary information, the thing that I find most ironic is that when a freedom of information request is made of the government, most often the excuse that it gives when turning down the release of information, whether it is financial or otherwise, is that it is proprietary information and protected by the privacy of the dealings with another business or entity. Yet first nations are not given the same ability to protect their information. Instead, they are being told they must disclose it or the government will step in and withhold money.
I believe the government has fallen 30 places in the world's rankings in terms of freedom of information requests. Yet it is telling first nations they have to release information. The government is not practising what it preaches. As we know, the government's accountability is always in question when the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to take the government to court in order to get information released. Yet the way the government treats first nations is to say that if they do not release information, it will withhold their education money or money for housing or food.
There are some who have spoken at committee about the punishing nature of the required information. John Paul from the Membertou First Nation on October 24 stated: 
 In addition to what we do publicly, our first nation community must also still comply with all the detailed reporting requirements as decreed by the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada reporting handbook, developed by AANDC alone, as per the conditions of the five-year multi-year funding agreement that we have signed with AANDC. The time my staff has to spend to complete these obligations is significant and is done at our own first nation's cost. 
The government does not help with any of this.
 These reporting requirements and the need for documentation seem to have increased, even though a few years ago the Conservative government committed to an improved funding relationship. The continual and increasing reporting burden on our first nation must be addressed. 
We are going in the opposite direction with the bill. We are creating a greater burden and more funding requirements, and there is no additional money to provide for it.
In terms of the policies of paternalism and some would say even prejudice toward the first nations, I am reminded of the comments of the Prime Minister when the Attawapiskat First Nation crisis came to our attention last fall. His knee-jerk reaction was to say, “We gave them lots of money. Where did they spend it?” 
That was not the problem. The problem was not that the government gave them lots of money, it was that the government did not give them enough money. It has frozen their funding at 2% raises since 2000, first by the Liberal government and continued by the Conservative government, when their population is increasing at a greater rate than that and the inflation rate in Canada is higher than that on many occasions. Every year that funding arrangement stays in place, first nations fall further and further behind. 
We are told that 85,000 new homes need to be built on first nation reserves. The Conservatives bragged yesterday about how it built 16,000 houses since 2005, which we should remind them was money that Jack Layton got out of the Paul Martin government to create new housing. In fact, the Conservatives voted against providing money for housing. Native North Americans in Canada are 85,000 houses short and yet the government is going ahead without providing any new housing infrastructure money for first nations. It is frozen at 2%.
As far as education goes and as far as we can tell, the first nations who must report on this money now are being paid half of what other Canadian children receive in terms of education dollar spending. In some cases this paternalistic attitude toward the first nation education system is such that when a first nation is given space to have a school, the government deducts the value of that space from the money it gives the first nation for education, even though it did not cost anyone anything. It is shameful that the government—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The time allocated for the member's speech is finished.
Questions and comments. The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments and I must say I disagree with the basic premise of virtually everything that he said. It is obvious that he has not been listening to this debate or to the presentations at the press conference yesterday from band members across the country, from progressive chiefs and from others.
If NDP members wish to align themselves with those people who would deny transparency and accountability, then more power to them. We are in the 21st century. These are basic expectations of the public, whether first nation band members or other Canadians. Other Canadians have this basic ingredient as part of their democracy.
I know my time is limited but I would just like to say quickly that there would be no extra burden. This is reporting that already occurs. It is all about disclosure. That is the only difference. There is no issue with the proprietary business information. It is an aggregation. This is already happening. 
Progressive first nations get it. Why does the NDP not get it?
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: We do get it, Mr. Speaker. We do not align ourselves with organizations such as the government opposite that would hide information from people, such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who must go to court to get financial information from the Conservative government. We do not align ourselves with that. The government should be more transparent than it currently is. It should be quicker in responding to freedom of information requests. It should respond. It should give the Parliamentary Budget Officer and Canadians the information we need.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, it is clearly the Conservatives who do not get it.
Thousands of letters have been sent to the minister about a variety of things. Let me pick something out here from one of the letters that was sent to the minister. The minister received a letter from Chief Shining Turtle on November 6. The chief says:
 I have written thousands of emails, and letters on issues like aboriginal and treaty rights violations, UNDRIP recommendations, Youth suicides, Auditor General Reports on band reporting requirements, MRP, health cuts, capital funding cuts for Indian Affairs Regional Offices, elections.... 
He goes on to say:
 To simply the ignore the First Nation[s] that don't agree with your political agenda on assimilating Indian Bands into the fabricate of the State of Canada is absolutely despicable!! 
We have heard this from many first nations. They believe that the Crown is trying to assimilate them.
Given the fact that the Prime Minister gave an apology on the residential schools and given his comments at the Crown-first nations gathering, could the member tell me how this piece of legislation fits in with that? 
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, it does not fit in. It is clearly the opposite direction. The bill is not the result of consultation with first nations. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a discovery by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that some first nation leaders are doing really well. We should be proud of the fact that some first nations are doing well. We should be proud of the fact that some first nations are not in the poverty that the Conservative government would like to keep them in. Therefore, we should be proud of the fact this is happening. We should not be punishing them further.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to my hon. colleague's discourse. First of all I want to congratulate him for all the great work he does in his riding. I do not think his constituents have ever had such a good representative in Parliament.
I was particularly interested in his comments on the lack of housing in first nation communities, the deplorable lack of housing in fact. Could he go further down that road and just explain to me how the lack of housing contradicts what the bill is trying to do? There is incredible poverty in first nation communities. With respect to women whose relationships break up, where exactly are they supposed to go if first nation communities are missing 85,000 homes? 
[Interjection]
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 is part of a pattern of paternalistic and prescribed regulations on first nations that may in fact be leading toward assimilation. However, it also highlights for all Canadians the problems in first nation communities, such as the lack of housing and the fact that women whose marriages break up will lose their ability to live in their first nation because there are not enough places for them to live. 
The government is doing virtually nothing to correct the 85,000 spaces that are missing in first nation communities. 
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and today it is an honour to rise to debate Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act.
Over the last six years, our government has consistently demonstrated our commitment to creating the conditions for a healthier, more self-sufficient aboriginal communities. Fundamental to achieving that are strong, stable and accountable first nations governments. Bill C-27 would strengthen first nations governance by increasing accountability and transparency, giving first nations community members the information they need to make informed choices about their leadership.
Bill C-27 complements Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, which we introduced in December 2011. Together, these pieces of proposed legislation demonstrate democratic practices and would empower first nations people.
First nations residents expect to know how funds are being spent in their communities. Like all Canadians, they want assurance that these funds are being used to improve their quality of life. Bill C-27 would improve their access to the financial statements of their governments and provide information on the salaries and expenses of their elected officials.
Indeed, democracy depends on citizens being able to call their leaders to account and ensure they represent the community's best interests. 
Currently, community members may ask for financial information related to their band but unless their leaders choose to release it, it can be difficult for them to access the information required to make informed decisions about their leadership and the direction of their community. There are still community members who have no other option but to contact the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development each year seeking assistance in obtaining this information.
A real or perceived lack of transparency and accountability from first nation leaders can also erode investor confidence and impede a community's ability to take full advantage of economic development opportunities. Ultimately, this delays or can destroy job opportunities and economic progress for the first nation and its members.
I also point out that parliamentarians already have a duty to inform Canadian taxpayers of how their tax dollars are spent, including for first nations.
A question was raised during the second reading debate of the bill on whether public disclosure of financial statements of band-owned businesses would undermine their competitiveness. It is important to note that Bill C-27 would not require each individual business owned by the band to publish its detailed financial statements. Instead, it is only the consolidated financial statements of the first nation that are covered under the proposed legislation. Some of my colleagues, in their speeches in the House today, have reiterated this point. These statements would not, in most cases, reveal any proprietary information that would undermine their competitiveness. There seems to be some misunderstanding on this. I understand that during the committee stage amendments were made to clarify these concerns.
Members of first nations are ultimately the owners of any businesses owned by the band and they have a right to know the financial position of those businesses, just as other Canadians have the right to know about businesses owned by other levels of government. The bill would ensure that this occurs. 
Although some first nation-owned businesses may have concerns about providing financial information to the public, it is important to point out that these reporting rules are not our rules but the rules set out by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. In other words, these are the exact same rules that apply to businesses owned in other governments in Canada. To be absolutely clear, the proposed legislation would not create any additional paperwork for first nation governments. They already produce audited financial statements each year as a requirement for their funding agreements with the department, and this bill would not require anything new in that regard.
Similarly, what we are asking of chiefs and councillors is no more than what we ask of ourselves as parliamentarians. For example, the Government of Canada posts its financial statements on the Internet and each of us, as members of Parliament, now disclose our salaries and special allowances to the public as required under the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act.
Furthermore, Canadians can easily find all of these facts and figures, and much more, since we introduced the Federal Accountability Act. This act has also increased the public's access to information about government activities and spending.
Provincial and territorial governments have adopted similar practices and the vast majority of them have legislation that requires municipal governments to make these documents public, as well. In addition, some provinces, such as Manitoba and Ontario, have extended beyond the legislature to require public sector bodies to disclose the public amount of compensation it pays to its employees over a certain threshold.
In short, under the Indian Act, first nation governments are the only governments in Canada that do not currently have a legislated requirement to make basic financial information public. Again, the bill would address this gap.
Some have noted that not all first nations have websites. This came up in debate in the House today. This is true, and Bill  C-27 addresses this point. A first nation will not be required to have its own website as a result of the bill. If a first nation were not able to publish the information electronically, it could ask another organization to post it on the community's behalf. Alternatively, the first nation could ask the department to post the information on its behalf. However, we should be clear that having these documents published on a website does not fulfill a first nation government's obligation to make copies of financial statements available to its members.
Many first nations members do not have easy access to the Internet, a fact the department is also addressing through its connectivity efforts. As a result, first nations will need to continue to find ways to make this information available to their members who do not have Internet access. Many already do this by distributing printed copies to households, or making the information available in readily accessible locations in the community, including band offices.
As I mentioned at the outset, the department receives many requests each year for assistance in obtaining basic financial information from their own first nations government. Enhancing the accountability of band councils more directly to its members would be achieved by making more tools available to its individuals. 
All that the bill changes is that first nations government will now join other Canadian governments in sharing basic financial information with its members and other Canadians. Once passed, the bill would also help assure potential investors that they could safely enter into joint financial agreements and business undertakings with first nations. This could and should contribute to social and economic improvements in the lives and livelihoods of first nations members.
I know members will agree that Bill C-27 is a necessary step for empowering and improving the lives of first nations members, and I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of the bill.
 I will close with some of the statements I have heard in the House today. There has been some implication that requiring transparency that is similar to other levels of government is somehow paternalistic. I would disagree with that characterization. It is very positive for the bill to undertake the step of moving first nations members in the same direction as other levels of government when it comes to the transparency in the disclosure of financial records to its members and to other Canadians.
I want to note that the proposed legislation is asking that first nations use generally accepted accounting principles, which is consistent with expectations of governments from all other levels. We are not trying to prescribe salaries or the spending habits of first nations communities with Bill C-27. It is simply to move the financial reporting requirements and transparency requirements into alignment with other levels of government across this country.
Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I know the member to be hard-working and clever. She always does the right thing, and I know she works very hard for her constituents. However, there is a bit of a disconnect in her thinking. She talks about improving accountability for first nations members, but I do not see the connection with all Canadians having to know that information.
I understand that first nations members certainly have a right, and they do now without the bill, to get that information from their leadership. It is sort of like Bill C-377, the so-called union transparency bill. If I worked 45 years for a union and I retired, if that bill passed, every Canadian would have biographical information on me and how much I make in my retirement. Quite frankly, that is not anyone else's business.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, and I know I have one second left, she also talked about all the other governments being transparent. For example, I know for a fact--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. We are running short of time. 
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.
[Interjection]
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his complimentary comments, especially on a Friday when we are all looking forward to getting home to our ridings to serve our constituents.
The comment was made about why Canadians need to know this information. I, for one, believe that first nations have the same equality, the same rights, as any other Canadian constituent who any of us might serve. When we look at standards of transparency in any other level of government across this country, there are standards for the disclosure of government expenses.
The bill moves first nations communities into alignment with that standard, and this is a very positive thing. As I talked about in my speech, this would help improve transparency. It may increase investment opportunities because of that predictability and transparency. It would also provide easier access for members to evaluate these concerns. I think it is a very positive thing. 
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order adopted on November 22 it is my duty to interrupt the deliberations and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
 The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.
Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill, however, pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, November 26 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Mr. Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Criminal CodeMassimo Pacetti:  moved that Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today in the House to support Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights). The purpose of this bill is to legalize certain combat sports that are currently illegal, but tolerated, so that they can be more closely monitored in order to prevent injuries.
It is important to amend the Criminal Code in order to eliminate any ambiguity regarding the legality of the various combat sports in Canada, which are growing in popularity.
The provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with prize fighting have not been amended since 1934. At that time, combat sports were basically limited to boxing and wrestling; however, since the end of the Second World War, they have seen unprecedented growth. For example, certain Asian martial arts, such as judo, karate and taekwondo, have become commonplace since soldiers stationed in Asia discovered them. Young Canadians across the country participate in these sports, which are all recognized by the Olympic organizing committee.
These sports are relatively new in our country and are still illegal because the only exception to prize fighting set out in the Criminal Code is boxing. The Criminal Code currently defines prize fighting as an encounter or fight with fists or hands between two persons. 
According to this definition, two young people could organize an underground taekwondo match in a basement and it would not be considered a prize fight as long as they did not use their hands. This definition is too narrow. That is why, with Bill S-209, we are proposing that feet be added to this definition. As it was established in the Senate committee, adding more descriptors to this definition, such as elbows and knees, is not necessary and could even be counterproductive since contact sports, such as hockey, could then be considered prize fighting sports. That is why the new definition is limited to fists and feet.
By modernizing the Criminal Code to permit other combative sports such as mixed martial arts and karate, we are laying the groundwork for the general acceptance of these sports across the country. In fact, mixed martial arts, for example, are tolerated in some provinces, but not in others. Some provinces have called these contests boxing matches in order to allow them. Because the hands are used, the limits of the law are circumvented, and fans and those who practice combative sports are not penalized.
However, in other provinces this language is not used to circumvent the Criminal Code, and these sports are not permitted. Consequently, even today, many groups organize clandestine contests that are not governed by provincial standards. This is a serious problem because safety standards can vary from one contest to another, which increases the risk of injury to the fighters. If the Criminal Code is amended to allow these sports, the provinces will have the freedom to regulate them to protect the safety of fighters. In fact, the bill will give the provinces a great deal of latitude to regulate these sports as they see fit. Oversight of these sports contests at both the amateur and professional levels will be enhanced.
Some people may be wondering why we should legalize these combative sports, especially mixed martial arts, which are a source of concern for many Canadians. In addition to the fact that they are widely practised, they are much less dangerous to the health of participants than other commonly practised sports such as hockey and boxing. 
As we heard in committee and in the Senate, a study by Johns Hopkins University, published in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2006, compared injuries sustained in mixed martial arts and in other sports. The conclusion was that the rate of injury is comparable to that in other combative sports.
Shockingly, injuries in mixed martial arts are generally less serious than in boxing. The reason in simple: fighters can call things off quickly, which they almost always do when they are in a position that is putting their health at risk. In boxing, fights often end with a knockout or when the referee calls it off.
Furthermore, since a large number of mixed martial arts fights take place on the ground and involve armlocks and chokes, blows to the head are less common than in boxing, in which almost all blows target the head. Over time, a mixed martial arts fighter receives fewer blows to the head, which reduces the risk of side effects.
In addition, contrary to popular belief, mixed martial arts are heavily regulated. Fighters cannot do whatever they want and must comply with a number of regulations to avoid injuries. These regulations include a total ban on blows to the eyes or head. They must also wear a jockstrap, gloves and a mouthguard, which limit injuries. Hockey, our national sport, results in just as many—if not more—injuries than mixed martial arts.
Sports must be regulated, not banned. Banning them would only increase the number of underground fights, which are dangerous for participants, since they do not always take all of the safety measures required to properly regulate such fights. This includes having a medical team that is prepared to intervene, as well as safety regulations, such as requiring gloves or banning blows to the head. Furthermore, revenue from underground fights often goes undeclared, which does not benefit taxpayers. It is in our collective interest to recognize the popularity of these sports and to legalize them to ensure better regulations.
The popularity of mixed martial arts is exploding and will produce huge economic spinoffs for Canada. Quebec's Georges St-Pierre, who is one of the most popular fighters in the world and is the Ultimate Fighting Championship world champion, draws big crowds and models the professionalism and skill of Canadian athletes. I attended his last UFC fight, and I can attest to the people's infatuation for him and the sport. 
Tom Wright, director of operations in Canada, recently told La Presse that ticket revenues from UFC 154 in Montreal were the third-highest this year, after Las Vegas and Calgary. He also said that Canada is the second-largest market for UFC, behind the United States. However, considering the difference in population, Canada has the most mixed martial arts fans per capita, ahead of countries like the United States and Brazil.
UFC fights organized in Canada have generated tens of millions of dollars in revenues for our country. Furthermore, 25% of the people watching these events on television are Canadian. Most of the highest-grossing UFC events have been held in Canada, once again demonstrating the popularity of the sport. On top of that, we have all the direct and indirect spinoffs, such as the GST and the tourists who come to Canada and spend a lot of money to attend these fights. They bring in tens of millions of dollars, which makes this sport a major tourist attraction and economic driver.
I would like to point out that UFC has only come to Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary. Considering the growing popularity of mixed martial arts, organizers are now turning to cities like Ottawa, Quebec City and Winnipeg. Needless to say, the more competitions we have in Canada, the more direct and indirect revenues we will see, especially thanks to the many tourists who will travel here to see them.
The sport is becoming increasingly popular, and it is likely that the economic spinoffs from this sport will quickly increase in the years to come, in light of this sport's growing popularity. Bill S-209 will support both fans and organizers, which will help improve the Canadian economy.
For all these reasons, I support this bill, which will add more combative sports to the list of exceptions to the prize fighting offences. This list is currently limited to boxing. Bill S-209 will help provide better regulation for these sports, which are widely practised in Canada, and will give the provinces the tools they need to regulate them. These regulations will help reduce the risk of injury and will discourage people from participating in underground fights.
Since the popularity of combative sports is growing, they are economically viable. There is no reason not to modernize the Criminal Code to reflect this new reality. That is why I support this bill and hope that my colleagues will do the same.
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in favour of Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights). 
I would like to begin by noting that Bill S-209 is a private member's bill that was introduced in the other place by Senator Runciman. It proposes to amend section 83 of the Criminal Code. Currently, section 83 makes it a summary conviction offence to engage in a prize fight, to promote a prize fight or to attend a prize fight as an aid, second, surgeon, umpire, backer or reporter. Section 83 then carves out exceptions to the prize fighting offence for certain amateur boxing contests and for certain professional boxing contests.
The exception for an amateur boxing contest arises if each glove used meets the minimum weight of 140 grams. An amateur boxing contest where the gloves to be used do not meet the minimum weight specified in section 83 of the Criminal Code can still be excepted from the prize fighting offence if the province issues a licence for the contest. Similarly, any professional boxing contest is exempted from the section 83 prize fighting offence if the province issues a licence for the contest.
Bill S-209 contains proposals to extend the exemption in section 83 for amateur boxing contests to cover other amateur combative sport contests, including contests in sports such as judo, karate, tae kwon do, kick-boxing and mixed martial arts. Bill S-209 would also clarify that the exemption in section 83 which covers professional boxing contests would include professional mixed martial arts contests. 
It is important to underscore that Bill S-209 contemplates provincial decision making with respect to both amateur exceptions and the professional exceptions to prize fights that are found in Bill S-209.
 First, I will speak about the amateur combative sport contest aspect of Bill S-209 and then I will turn to the professional boxing and professional mixed martial contest aspect of the bill.
The reforms to the amateur prize fighting provisions of the Criminal Code found in Bill S-209 replicate those that were found in former government Bill C-31 introduced during the second session of the 40th Parliament, which died on the order paper. However, Bill C-31 proposed reforms only to the amateur prize fighting aspect of section 83 of the Criminal Code. Former Bill C-31 did not propose to extend current exemptions to the prize fighting offence for a professional boxing contest that held a licence from the province to any other professional combative sport contest.
Bill S-209 would extend the exemption for amateur prize fights in a way that would respect provincial decision making.
 First, it would allow any amateur combative sport event in a sport that is on the Olympic or Paralympic program. If the province chooses, it can require that the Olympic or Paralympic combative sport contest obtain a licence from the province. 
Second, Bill S-209 would make an exception to the prize fight offence for any amateur sport contest that would be on a list of designated amateur combative sports by the province and the province could choose to require that a licence is necessary for the designated amateur combative sport contest. 
Third, Bill S-209 would make an exception for any other amateur combative sport contest for which a province had chosen to grant a licence. 
As I have said, these amendments for amateur exceptions to the prize fighting offence were found in the government's previous bill, Bill C-31. They reflected consultations between federal and provincial officials at a time when professional mixed martial arts had not developed to the point where it is today in terms of its fan base and its rules.
Turning to the current professional boxing exemption from the section 83 prize fighting offence, Bill S-209 would clarify that a professional mixed martial arts contest that was licensed by a province would be an exception to the prize fighting offence in section 83 of the Criminal Code. British Columbia has requested that the code be amended to clarify any doubt in the matter. I note that there are other provinces, for example, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, which have licensed professional mixed martial arts contests as professional boxing contests. Bill S-209 would bring clarity in respect of professional mixed martial arts contests.
The professional exception in Bill S-209 does not extend to professional combative sports other than professional boxing and professional mixed martial arts. Perhaps this is because these two professional combative sports have television coverage and it does not appear that any other combative sports are on the verge of developing in Canada a professional aspect with such a fan base and television coverage. 
We can see that where Bill S-209 would contemplate licensing, it is a provincial licensing that is identified. Bill S-209 would not try to go around the province by exempting a prize fight licensed by a municipality, for example, because a municipality is in fact the creation of a provincial legislature. If a province wished to establish a municipal body as a licensing body, it could choose to do so, but it would be for the province to decide.
As I noted earlier, the amendments to section 83 of the Criminal Code would respect provincial decision-making in the area of permitted exceptions to the prize-fighting offence. In my view, the provinces are best placed to determine public acceptance of combative sports within the range set by the Criminal Code. No province would be forced to permit an amateur combative sport or to license a professional boxing contest or a professional mixed martial arts contest. The province might decide that it did not want to permit any or all of these contests, and if such were the case, the province would not be obligated to license them.
Provinces are also best placed to determine what rules and safety measures they want to see in place prior to having a combative sport contest occur in their jurisdiction. With professional mixed martial arts, there has been tremendous development over the past decades, both in terms of fan support in Canada and the rules of the sport. There is a medical doctor who now decides when a fight should stop, rather than the referee or the coach. There are rules related to striking and holds that are barred. There are rules that permit an athlete to tap an opponent on the mat, which are not present in professional boxing, for example.
 The reforms in Bill S-209 regarding amateur combative sports and professional mixed martial arts are long awaited. The amendments in Bill S-209 would modernize the amateur combative sport contest exceptions in section 83 of the Criminal Code. They would also clarify that a province could license a professional mixed martial arts contest as an exception to the prize-fighting offence in section 83 of the Criminal Code.
I urge all members to support Bill S-209.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, this speech will depart from a series of speeches linked by a common thread, in order to highlight a matter before this House that, I must say, is in my area of practice.
 Now I am going to make amends. Some of my constituents have pointed out that, in most of my speeches in this House, there is a recurring theme. I have spoken for a number of hours in this House—many hours—at a rate of four or five speeches every week. Over the months, they add up. 
 Far be it from me to present myself as some obtuse academic, or to be narrow-minded like some of my colleagues who are told to toe the party line and how to act, and whose speeches are even written for them. I must admit that there is a recurring theme in each of my speeches. 
 I still have an ace up my sleeve, and that is what I am doing right now: I am going to use my ace and continue talking about a recurring theme: the law. I am going to talk about the philosophy of law and ethics in the fields that I studied, about 10 years ago, when I began studying law at Université Laval. 
 I will continue in this vein. I will take a look at comparative law and transpose some of these principles because I think that, rather like the recurring themes in each of my speeches, these are subjects that deserve to be examined and presented to all Canadians. This is why I sometimes emphasize these notions. I am going to speak further to these issues today.
 In this speech, I am going to draw on concepts I was taught during my training at Université Laval. It is a very good university. I want to emphasize that. The tangent I am going to take will be influenced by concepts relating to the ethical issues that fuel the social debate about prize fighting.
 As I said earlier, I began studying the law in 2001. I started here first, at the University of Ottawa, and then I continued at Université Laval in Quebec City. Over time, I saw that it was a very good university. The quality of education there is excellent. 
 In my first year, I was asked to select courses, and I turned of course toward the philosophy of law. I had one professor, Bjarne Melkevik, a Norwegian who had taught at Laval University for a number of years, who was in charge of the courses, who went into things in depth, who investigated and decided to explore issues that at the time were rather less accessible and rather less popular. As part of the program, we discussed the social costs of self-mutilating behaviour. This is just one example that is not necessarily in line with the focus of this speech. We discussed the social costs of hospitalizing people who self-harm. I remember vaguely that we also discussed ultimate fighting, back then. That was about a decade ago. It was already on the map, it was already a trend, and we had to look into it. I remember this vaguely. It was not something that came up in many classes. However, it was one subject. Mr. Melkevik, who is European, was a bit ahead of his time. I would like to send my greetings out to him, by the way, in the hope that he is watching me right now.
 At that time, the subject was a bit avant-garde. It is a little less so today. We are talking about it here, in the House of Commons. Later on, I will be discussing how the Criminal Code is a document, a tool that must be innovative and that must be updated on a regular basis. This is what we are doing right now. Canadian society has come to this point. In a broader sense, we have to take a look at these concepts that deserve to be dealt with for Canadians as a whole. 
 The mere fact that the issues involved in mixed martial arts are now included in the university law curriculum is evidence of the social changes that support revisiting the provisions in the Criminal Code covering the risks inherent in prize fighting.
 As I have mentioned on a number of occasions—I am repeating myself while hoping I am not being redundant—in my practice I focused on representing clients in the criminal sphere. 
When I went to work at the legal aid office after I was called to the bar in 2006 or 2007, I was assigned duties related to criminal law right away. That is why I was asked to focus on the Criminal Code and related laws.
Over the years and during my time in the House, I have seen that this law is constantly evolving. It is fairly long. In fact, the bound annotated version is a very large document. It is a document that is constantly evolving and adapting to changes in society. We have examined it. We have discussed it here and have had fairly animated debates regarding offences, particularly those related to technology and cyberbullying.
The Criminal Code must be updated on a regular basis, and that is what we are doing right now. What is being proposed here is simply an addition to the law, which can be summarized in a few words, particularly if we take into consideration the innovations and amendments that the Conservatives have conceived and ruthlessly applied to the principles of the Criminal Code over the past year and a half. These changes are very small.
By way of example, I will quote the bill:
 “prize fight” means an encounter or fight with fists, hands or feet... 
 The word “feet” is simply being added. That is not a huge change. However, it is required to prevent a legal void or grey area.
Several provinces, including Quebec, already have regulations that enjoy wide support. That is why ultimate fighting contests already take place in Quebec. However, this is not the case in all parts of the country. That is why the Criminal Code must be revised. This addition will allow athletes to legally practise this sport. Ultimately, the addition will eliminate grey areas.
As is my custom, I have taken eight instead of 10 minutes. I submit this respectfully. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Resuming debate, I invite the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for his right of reply.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the bill is basically a housekeeping bill to bring this section of the Criminal Code more up-to-date with today's times. The last time this section was updated was in 1934. 
This change will affect close to 100,000 Canadians who practise combat sports, not necessarily all at a professional level. Some are at the amateur level. We are not only talking about mixed martial arts. Some of the sports are recognized by the International Olympic Committee, such as karate, judo and tae kwon do. The bill tries to ensure that participants in all of these sports will be governed under a safe environment so that they will not considered to be doing so illegally under the current provisions.
 I am hoping that Bill S-209 will merely correct this oversight so that Canada can effectively regulate acceptable combat sports openly. Seeing how the bill is not controversial and is a sensible piece of legislation that clearly addresses a blind spot in the Criminal Code, I look forward to seeing the bill passed and sent expeditiously to committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 28, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 1:48 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:48 p.m.)