2013-04-19

Government Orders
Business of SupplyMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):  moved: 
 That this House call on the government to: (a) abandon its confrontational approach to First Nations, Métis and Inuit in favour of a nation-to-nation dialogue; (b) make treaty implementation, as well as the settlement and implementation of land claims, a priority, including in Labrador; and (c) begin negotiations in good faith with NunatuKavut Community Council on their comprehensive land claim that has been without a response since 1991. 
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Democrats on this important motion before the House. I will be sharing my time with the member for Manicouagan.
New Democrats have put forward this motion today because of what we have been seeing over the last many years, actually for decades, particularly under the current government, which is that first nations, Metis, and Inuit continue to have their rights overridden by the government in any number of ways. 
We have seen unilateral impositions of legislation, evidenced most recently by the fact that debate was once against shut down on Bill S-2, matrimonial real property rights. For the 31st time, the government has invoked time allocation.
One of the reasons we are bringing this forward is the context in which we are operating, but I want to put it in the context of some international documents. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 10 says: 
 Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return. 
That seems a very appropriate section of the UN declaration when we are talking about land claims. Treaties, comprehensive land claims, self-government agreements are now part of the Canadian landscape, and unfortunately, from coast to coast to coast, we have far too many examples where the government has simply refused to move forward in negotiating in good faith.
In case Canadians think that this is something new that the government should have some responsibility to take part in, I want to refer to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples where it refers to the 1763 Proclamation. The proclamation portrays aboriginal nations as autonomous political units. It goes on to say that aboriginal nations hold inherent authority over their internal affairs and the power to deal with the Crown by way of treaty and agreement. It also says that land concession is thus to be effected by mutual agreement or treaty.
One would think that a document from 1763 would actually continue to help shape and inform government policy, but sadly, in this country, nations have been forced to the courts to try to get the government to come to the table in good faith. We have any number of court decisions that continue to reaffirm indigenous rights and title. I cannot go through them all, because apparently there are about 180 of them, but there are some very key ones.
In the Calder decision in 1973, this was the first time that courts acknowledged that aboriginal title to the land had existed, and that this significant case would pave the way for addressing aboriginal title in Canada.
In Guerin, 1984, it established that aboriginal title was a sui generis right and the Crown had a fiduciary duty to protect it for aboriginal peoples.
In Van der Peet, 1996, there was established a set of criteria to determine whether an aboriginal right was protected as an existing aboriginal right under the Canadian Constitution, and just recently we had the Daniels decision that said all aboriginal peoples in Canada, including Metis and non-status Indians, are included in federal jurisdiction under 91(24) of the Constitution.
We have also had some provincial court decisions that continue to reaffirm rights and title and the duty to consult. We had the decision in December 12, 2007, where the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal delivered its decision in Newfoundland and Labrador v. the Labrador Metis Nation, and the Labrador Metis Nation is now known as NunatuKavut. 
This was a unanimous decision and the court upheld that the province has a duty to consult the respondents in respect of their asserted aboriginal rights.
Why is this important? We have first peoples in this country who have been here for millennia. They are the people who lived on this land when the settlers came. I will talk a little bit about who the people of NunatuKavut are. NunatuKavut, from their website, says:
 Our Aboriginal ancestors lived in Labrador long before Europeans set foot on North American soil. The land was part of them, and they were part of the land. 
For Canadians who are listening, these communities line the southern coastal interior waterways of Labrador. They go on to say:
 We are the more than 6,000 southern Inuit of Labrador. We are proud of who we are and what we've accomplished. Our rights are protected and enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. No one can take them from us. Our traditions resonate with the ways of our elders. Our respect for the environment, the sharing of our harvest, our knowledge of traditional medicines and practices, and our care for each other can be traced directly to our Aboriginal heritage. 
It is very important that what we have here is, from coast to coast to coast, government refusal to respect the honour of the Crown and its judiciary responsibilities, and to respect Section 35 of the Constitution, which protects aboriginal rights and title. This series of court decisions continues to reinforce that duty for Canada to come to the table and negotiate in good faith. 
Here is the reality. From coast to coast to coast, aboriginal peoples are being forced to take action to enforce their rights and title as the government refuses to negotiate or honour its duty to consult and accommodate. 
On the east coast, we have seen hunger strikes, blockades, and arrests. The NunatuKavut submitted a land claim for consideration back in 1991. To date, this claim has not been accepted for negotiation. I would like to say that this is an isolated case. However, again, what we see from coast to coast to coast is that there are nations that have been in negotiations with the government for decades. The government simply refuses to act in good faith. 
I had one elder who said to me that 70 years ago, when he was only nine years old, he sat at the knee of his grandfather. Here we are, 70 years later and his nation still does not have a treaty or a comprehensive land claim. It is shameful that we continue to have to have this conversation when we have such deep roots in our Constitution, in court decisions, in the royal proclamation that say that rights and title were reaffirmed and that the government does have a responsibility to protect and to negotiate.
We do not only have the NunatuKavut, who submitted their land claim in 1991. We heard just yesterday that the Innu will be shutting down Muskrat Falls because of the fact that racism continues in this country and their rights and title are not being recognized. Meanwhile, development continues and the NunatuKavummiut are watching it happen. They have not been consulted and accommodated. As I mentioned earlier, these are people with a very long history in what is now known as Labrador.
On the east coast, we have had this situation since 1991 where the government refuses to go ahead and negotiate the claim that was submitted in good faith by the NunatuKavummiut. On the west coast, we also have the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group being forced to take its case to the human rights commission of the Organization of American States. We have domestic court decisions that continue to reaffirm rights and title, but now we also have to go internationally because we cannot get the government to the table.
The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group has a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concerning the 1884 expropriation of over 237 hectares of resource-rich land from the traditional territories of the Hul'qumi'num peoples on Vancouver Island. The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group alleges that Canada has violated international human rights norms by refusing to negotiate for any form of redress for the expropriated lands, which are now mostly in the hands of large forestry companies, and by failing to protect Hul'qumi'num interests while the dispute remains unresolved. They go on to say that in agreeing to hear the complaint, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled that the available mechanisms to resolve this dispute in Canada, whether through the negotiation or the B.C. treaty process, are too onerous and too constrained in their protection of human rights to live up to the standards of international justice.
Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come from the Grand Council of the Crees said:
 Fair and timely resolution of land and resource disputes is essential for reconciliation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada and for closing the unacceptable gap in standard of living facing so many Indigenous communities. 
We can see that indigenous peoples in Canada are being failed consistently by the government, despite the fact that we have numerous court decisions that reaffirm the right to their lands and their right to the sharing of resources that are being developed on these lands. 
I encourage all members to support this very important motion.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Nunavut is now 20 years old. The land claims agreement in Nunavut was signed by Prime Minister Mulroney. We will be celebrating our 20-year anniversary this year. 
The challenge that we had for 13 years under the Liberal government was a lack of implementation from the government of the day, but now we are proceeding. I am quite proud of the record of our government in proceeding in creating the Nunavut Territory and implementing our land claims agreements.
I want to ask the member a question around the rights of first nations aboriginal people and Inuit that goes beyond land claims agreements. 
Aboriginal women in this country continue to fight for equal rights that the member takes for granted. Yesterday, the Minister for Status of Women was responding to a question on the matrimonial rights of aboriginal people in that they be equal to other Canadian women. I want to know why the NDP and the Liberal Party do not recognize the fact that aboriginal women do not have the same rights when it comes to matrimonial rights and why the member continues to oppose that. What are they afraid of?
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Health for that question. However, I would like to point out to her that the land claims agreement was signed in Nunavut, but now NTI and the Government of Nunavut have been forced into the courts around the implementation because the current and previous governments have dragged their feet on treaty implementation on land claims and self-government. If the Conservatives want to talk about working in good faith, perhaps they would like to withdraw their opposition to that court decision and actually begin negotiating appropriate implementation in Nunavut. 
With regard to matrimonial real property, perhaps the minister did not hear the part of my speech about rights. We have had several court decisions in this country that reaffirmed the duty to consult. The previous minister, Mr. Prentice, hired a ministerial representative, Wendy Grant-John, a well-respected indigenous woman in Canada. She came out with a very detailed report which set out guidelines for consultation. The Conservative government ignored it. 
Now we have a piece of legislation that does not reflect what indigenous women have said from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, I would suggest to the minister that perhaps she could use her influence and prevail upon cabinet to withdraw this piece of legislation.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if we look at the history of the treaties, the idea of the honour of the Crown was central to the treaties in terms of oral commitments and what was written down. Obviously what was written down did not reflect in any way the oral commitments that were made to communities. It was, in fact, an attempt to take land.
We see this notion of the honour of the Crown being abused again and again, and recently with the court case in Attawapiskat on the third-party manager. The government came in and said that their whole defence rested on the fact that it was the honour of the Crown when the judge asked. It was a case where they had no right to intervene, but they imposed a third-party manager. The notion of the honour of the Crown was laughable given the systemic abuse and the breaking of trust with first nations.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the importance of restoring honour in the Crown in terms of when we negotiate, when we make commitments, that we do not walk away from them so that communities actually have a chance to start building a future in the 21st century.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for that question and for the excellent work he has done over the years on any number of indigenous issues, including housing and education.
The relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples in Canada is fundamentally broken because the Crown does not respect the rights and titles of first nations, Inuit, and Metis in this country. We have case after case, and the most recent is the Daniels decision which reaffirmed, under section 91(24) of the Constitution, that the government, the Crown, must be at the table and respect the rights of, in that case, Metis and non-status Indians. Status Inuit are already recognized in the Constitution. 
If we want to see progress in this country, a reduction in poverty, economic development, and certainty, we need to re-infuse that relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples in this country with the honour of the Crown, with that notion of the duty to consult and accommodate, and with the notion that the government has a fiduciary responsibility. This is an opportunity for us to change the channel.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, taking into account the scope and familiar nature of the motion before the House, it is my duty to support the explicit and underlying concepts it contains.
As a result, in my speech today, I will provide some perspective on the realities addressed by the motion by focusing on the confrontational approach that characterizes the modern relationship between the Canadian government and aboriginal people across the country. I would like to read from the motion before us, which states:
 That this House call on the government to: (a) abandon its confrontational approach to First Nations, Métis and Inuit in favour of a nation-to-nation dialogue... 
First, I will talk about the confrontational approach. At the risk of repeating myself, over the Christmas break, when I was deeply inspired by the Idle No More movement, I was asked to prepare a course and to travel throughout Canada and the United States. I had to do a detour through the United States to get to certain parts of Quebec. In short, I travelled to many aboriginal communities across the country to give a course on the modernization and amendment of the Indian Act, which is related to bills such as Bill C-27, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45.
In the course introduction, I made a point of indicating that the comments made by a number of ministers and stakeholders suggest that they see the affirmation of the identity of first nations in Canada as a barrier to economic expansion. This view is shared by many other stakeholders and is due, in part, to various speeches made in the House. Some ministers and others have been quoted on this issue.
If we look closer, it is true that there is some correlation between the assertive measures that have been taken by aboriginal communities across Canada in affirmation of their identity and the dramatic drop in the stock market value of some corporate entities.
One might assume that this is a fairly simple relationship when, in reality, it is very complex. If there has been a dramatic drop in the stock value, it is because the entity in question was lax and failed to shoulder its corporate social responsibility. That is why this affirmation of identity is undermining the stock market value of these entities. In a way, this premise is flawed because it is not the affirmation of aboriginal identity itself that is creating a barrier to economic expansion; rather, it is the lack of transparency and the financial wrongdoing observed in remote areas.
Successive Canadian governments and all of the other parties have tried over the years to put Indians in a box, if I may say so. In other words, they have tried to restrict the jurisdiction, the affirmation of identity, the social, cultural and economic affirmation of first nations, in order to give economic entities more peace of mind. This government has been even more obvious about it than its predecessors and is moving forward with a corporatist agenda, primarily promoting natural resources extraction as an economic engine and key component of economic development across the country.
I simply wanted to point that out. I should technically be talking about how shocked nationalists are in Quebec right now, because they are also dealing with a conflict situation that can lead to confrontation. However, that is a different story, and I will discuss the situation with the appropriate stakeholders in due course. There you go.
This situation reveals the selective and preferential nature of the relationships between aboriginal communities and the Canadian government in 2013. The motion before us refers to a comprehensive land claim that has not been addressed since 1991, and it is not the only one. I will give some concrete examples in a few seconds. Unfortunately, this lack of dialogue between stakeholders is a reflection of the reality of a number of contentious aboriginal cases across the country.
Successive governments, and this government in particular, could be criticized for cherry-picking. In other words, the Conservatives are choosing which stakeholders they want to talk to. In some respects, although this situation is not so widespread, I find it problematic enough to bring it to the attention of the House.
There are some community management organizations and band councils that are essentially puppet governments. The Conservatives hand-picked, cherry-picked some pawns. These people were put in place in strategic communities to speak out in favour of proposed policies. This is not necessarily widespread, but it is common enough that I wanted to mention it today.
The government is trying to interfere in tribal politics. It chooses representatives. That is why some communities have really spoken out. They have such strong social, economic and cultural foundations that federal transfers and support seem marginal. These people are more autonomous.
Strangely enough, as in the case of the situation that has been going on since 1991, the current government will simply choose to ignore remote communities because they are too strong and they have developed energy policies that the government is unhappy with.
What this government wants are good, servile, submissive, accommodating and easily manipulated Indians. It is as though the government is a puppeteer making its marionettes dance.
I say this because in recent years, I have found that I often end up out on the sidewalk, strangely enough, during big community meetings.
I would like to share an example that I will continue to come back to until the end of my term. A supposedly historic meeting was held in January 2012. A number of community representatives were invited. However, the invitation was not extended to all communities, even though the government claimed to be inclusive. The government wanted to develop a new relationship with first nations peoples. I was personally escorted by intelligence officers. I was essentially kicked to the curb. As I was on the sidewalk, I realized that I was in good company. There were other representatives from several nations who were deemed unwelcome.
So much for the inclusive aspect of this new relationship. 
I think that is quite deplorable. Things like that should not be happening in 2013.
Cherry-picking and choosing pawns and representatives for community management organizations is highly objectionable. That is why, in 2013, the Conservatives are seeing a huge amount of opposition from the first nations. That is also why their economic development plan has stalled and is really struggling.
Our international reputation is plummeting, just like the stock market value of some companies that are ignoring their social, environmental and other responsibilities.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Manicouagan for that very good speech and for his very committed work. I know that he has been doing great work raising awareness on a number of pieces of legislation, including the omnibus bill, Bill C-45, and Bill C-27, the financial transparency and accountability act, which the Conservatives have pushed through. 
When it comes to NunatuKavut and other nations across the country, one of the things we observe is that while the comprehensive land claims and treaty or self-government agreements are stalled in negotiations, or not even accepted for negotiation, development is taking place on the traditional territories, whether it be forestry or mining. The people who have inhabited those lands for millennia are not benefiting from that development or are having no say when it comes to the environmental impact. 
The Fort Chipewyan First Nations in Alberta are very concerned about the environmental impact on their communities. On the west coast, we have forestry. In Ontario, there is the Ring of Fire. 
 I wonder if the member could comment specifically on why it is important to move forward on negotiating these comprehensive land claims and treaty and self-government agreements so that the people who live in those territories have a say about the kind of development that is happening. 
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
Now, again this is just my opinion, but I think the problem is that the consent of first nations is seen as a sort of stamp or seal or approval. In other words, people think if aboriginal populations are with them, they can go ahead. This is very problematic. All too often, when resource extraction initiatives are presented to a community, they are already a done deal—that is, all the actors in place have already made a deal and the last people to hear about the ready-made package are aboriginal communities. This is also truly reprehensible because the relationship is a utilitarian one that does not benefit the entire population.
That is why there is no impact, no redistribution. This is not to mention the fact that the concept of building up capital, of pooling resources within communities, is not necessarily stressed. Furthermore, no training is provided to the communities that technically should benefit from these resource extraction initiatives, but do not necessarily have the workforce, knowledge and expertise required to maximize these own-source revenues.
Now, it is also important to understand that the Canadian government—with the fiduciary relationship that is its responsibility—has a duty to ensure that first nations communities are in the best possible position to get the most out of these initiatives. However, that willingness is just not there. Native poverty is a lucrative business. Outside experts make a fortune by keeping first nations at the same level of knowledge and at the same social and cultural level. This is not true for all communities, but it is for some, especially the more isolated communities. I am thinking of my own reality at the 52nd parallel. People are getting richer by keeping these communities at a certain level.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have such great respect for my hon. colleague. I would like to ask him about the issue of treaty implementation.
I would like to ask the member about Bill C-45 and the anger and the response at the grassroots level to the government's decision to slash environmental protection of the rivers and lakes across their territory. The government treats first nations' lands as though they are some kind of colonial land. It can take it and do what it wants without consulting the people involved, damaging the rights of future generations. What is the response we are seeing across first nations communities in standing up and defending their right to be consulted and heard. It still remains land they have rights to, whether under treaty or not?
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, they are going back and forth, arguing about what exactly consultations should entail. It is a hot topic, and one that is discussed daily in my practice. 
I feel that consultation, by necessity, involves consideration of all the opinions expressed by various stakeholders. It also involves obtaining the consent of the people in general and not just the nine band council members. Again, I am talking about my own personal situation.
Even if the government meets with a few community leaders, sometimes none at all, it does not mean that everyone has been consulted. Aboriginal rights are to be exercised, first and foremost, by the members. My own community is made up of 3,000 people, not just nine leaders. If we really want to see improvements, we need to focus on the grassroots and talk to the people. However— 
The Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. member because his time is up.
Resuming debate. The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
To begin, I would like to reiterate our government's commitment to working with all of our partners. I truly believe that the best way to achieve our common goal of creating healthy, prosperous and self-sufficient aboriginal communities is by working together.
That is why, since I was appointed Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, my priority has been to meet as many aboriginal leaders, youth and community members as possible. I have met with aboriginal leaders, I have organized round tables with aboriginal youth, and I have participated in events across the country. Naturally, I intend to continue to do so.
One common refrain that I have heard across the country while visiting aboriginal communities, leaders, stakeholders, and youth is that aboriginal people want greater access to education and economic opportunities. These calls are being answered by this government's initiatives. For example, over the last several years, our government has taken concrete steps to address specific issues, such as education, economic development, and access to safe drinking water.
In recent years we have negotiated and implemented initiatives in collaboration with first nations, provinces and aboriginal organizations. These initiatives have led to progress in a number of areas to address the barriers to social and economic participation, which unfortunately are currently faced by so many first nation people.
In the last week alone, we have signed an historic memorandum of understanding on first nation education with the Province of Ontario and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation that is focused on building capacity and attaining achievement levels comparable to the general student population in Ontario.
In British Columbia, we have also signed the first Yale First Nation final agreement, bringing us one step closer toward achieving a treaty for Yale First Nation that would provide certainty about ownership of lands but also create other new economic opportunities for that community.
 I was in British Columbia last week, where I met the first nation leadership, and I have committed, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to working with first nations and first nation partners on the renewal of the comprehensive claims policy, in order to expedite the resolution of claims in a manner that is fair and would enable economic development for first nations.
Our strategy has been to focus on finding real solutions to specific obstacles, working together with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This steady step-by-step approach to reform is practical, realistic and effective. It is part of a larger strategy that would include targeted investments and partnerships, announcements to programs, and legislative initiatives. This strategy would also include immediate and collaborative action on treaty implementation and governance.
It is easy to get tired of lofty rhetoric and cumbersome processes. We want results that make a real difference while progress is being made. When we look over the situation everywhere in the country, we know and we acknowledge that there is much more work to be done and that it requires commitment and co-operation on all sides.
For example, when I met with first nations leaders last week to discuss improvements to Canada's comprehensive claims policy, we shared our concerns about the pace at which claims are being settled.
The fact is that a comprehensive claims policy has not been updated since 1993. Our government's commitment to renewing the policy will be done to better reflect the current landscape. Things have changed in 20 years.
We must take into account legal developments, the practical experience of first nations and the Government of Canada in reaching agreements, as well as other approaches to addressing aboriginal rights.
I committed to working with first nation partners, with the support of the Assembly of First Nations, on the renewal of the comprehensive claims policy to expedite the resolution of claims in a manner that is fair and enables economic development for first nations.
We all agreed that the Senior Oversight Committee the Prime Minister formed earlier this year will oversee progress on this work and will provide advice to the government on a renewed policy.
The negotiation policies must advance certainty, expeditious resolution and self-sufficiency, as the Prime Minister committed to early last year in the Crown—first nations gathering outcome statement.
Our government is committed to continue working with aboriginal partners across the country to achieve results at negotiation tables for the benefit of first nations and all Canadians. We believe the best way to achieve progress on outstanding issues is through joint work and dialogue. Successful negotiations lead to solutions that balance the rights of all concerned, promote greater self-sufficiency, certainty, accountability and transparency, and lead to economic opportunities for aboriginal communities, thus achieving this great objective of reconciliation.
However, partnership is the key word. The successful implementation of land claim and self-government agreements is the shared responsibility with all parties to the treaty. Our government remains committed to working with our treaty partners to strengthen implementation processes and promote the objectives of modern treaties. In fact, our government has listened and developed tools and structures to support a consistent federal approach to implementing modern treaties. 
As a matter of fact, this morning I was with senior officials of my department reviewing the efforts that are being made to ensure a consistent federal approach to implementing modern treaties. I wish to note that these efforts have been recognized. The Office of the Auditor General, in June 2011, noted Canada's progress in monitoring and reporting treaty obligations, the federal coordination of treaty responsibilities and the whole of government's awareness of treaty obligations.
At last year's historic Crown-first nations gathering, we reiterated our commitment to renewing and deepening the relationship with our first nations partners through ongoing dialogue and making real measurable progress to achieve our shared goal of healthier, more self-sufficient first nations communities.
 Canada and many first nations have differences of opinion on historic treaties, their content and their implementation, and those differences will not be settled overnight. However, we are doing everything we can to settle those differences together with our partners in a way that benefits everyone.
In September 2012, our government announced plans to work with its partners on a new approach to treaty and self-government negotiations in regions of Canada where no treaty exists. The current process allows negotiations to carry on for years, with no foreseeable end, creating financial liabilities for aboriginal communities and impeding economic development.
We are promoting—and I think the provinces, aboriginal groups and the private sector share this sentiment—a more efficient process in order to expedite treaty and self-government negotiations. Through this new process we are focusing our energies and resources on those negotiating tables with the greatest potential for success. This is a results-based method, not a process-driven one.
We will work with aboriginal groups and the provinces and territories to implement this new approach. At the same time, we are always prepared to negotiate with willing partners in order to obtain agreements that reflect the particular interests, as I mentioned earlier, most definitely of the First Nations, but also of all other Canadians. In fact, these agreements have significant benefits. I would like to give a few examples.
In northern Quebec, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement have resulted in the creation of businesses owned by the Inuit, Cree and Naskapi, and businesses jointly owned with the private sector in such sectors as airlines, construction, clothing, communications, software, mining, shipping, tourism, crafts, fishing and the biosciences.
In the Northwest Territories, the Tlicho First Nation has established entities to undertake economic activities in its region and to negotiate agreements that will benefit its people and their communities. In British Columbia, the Westbank First Nation, for example, is successfully developing its land, which in turn provides support for essential programs.
As members can see, the benefits of settling comprehensive claims are immense, and we need more such agreements. 
The time for action is now, as I said this week in the House. Negotiated agreements help to strengthen aboriginal communities and create new business, new investment and new job opportunities. We are working with our partners to achieve more treaties in less time so that these communities can begin to unlock economic opportunities and see results. Increasing aboriginal participation in the economy is without doubt the most effective way to improve the socio-economic conditions of aboriginal people in Canada. It is also vital to Canada's future economic prosperity. Resolving treaties quickly is one more way this will come to pass.
I want the record to be clear: it was our government that introduced legislation to streamline and improve the process for resolving specific claims, so to the prophets of doom and gloom on the other side who see nothing but darkness in their aspirations, it seems to me, in regard to these issues, I refer to that process for resolving specific claims.
In the past—and all interested Canadians were witness to this—claims dragged on for many years, but the reform this government has brought forward has changed the situation and brought about real progress. 
I am proud of how our government has tackled this important issue. We have come a long way from the state we were in when we first came to government after 13 years of Liberal rule. We have since cleared up a backlog of 541 claims at the assessment stage, doubling the number of claims in negotiations across the country, and we have settled over 93 specific claims since coming to government. 
As a matter of fact, in my home riding of Madawaska—Restigouche we have settled a specific claim of the Madawaska Maliseet First Nation. That settlement has brought about a real change in that community because of the leadership of the chief and council and also because of the active participation of the members of that community.
Claim settlements lead to new opportunities for communities and to economic development that brings long-term benefits not only to first nations members but to Canada as a whole. These investments in turn can generate spinoff economic benefits and the potential for new business partnerships with neighbouring communities, and that is a plus for all of Canada. 
Progress on specific claims is just one more way our government has demonstrated its commitment to making progress in accelerating claim resolution and treaty implementation. I have said this before and I will repeat it now: through willing partnerships, negotiations will run more smoothly, leading to more negotiated treaties and self-government agreements. We are taking action and seeing results.
Furthermore, at their latest meeting on January 11, the government and the chiefs of the First Nations expressed their will to continue the conversation about accelerating comprehensive claims and treaty implementation. 
The government has heard the appeals from people across the country, who are calling on us to take the steps needed to make progress on both historical and modern treaties. That is exactly what we are doing.
I will close by saying that it is clear that the government's intent and actions are the opposite of what the opposition motion is claiming. For that reason, we are determined to strongly oppose the motion. 
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the minister's presentation, and there were some key words and phrases that I pulled out of his presentation. One was “certainty”. One was “joint work and dialogue”. He repeated “partnership” a number of times. I have two questions for the minister.
 First, given that context, will he now review the NunatuKavut comprehensive land claim that was submitted in 1991, and begin a negotiation in good faith? 
Second, the government currently spends over $300 million a year fighting aboriginal cases in court. Will the minister instruct his department to drop that adversarial approach and negotiate in good faith?
[Interjection]
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, surely with her experience and her knowledge about comprehensive claims, the hon. member should know that there is a legal test to be met for claims to be negotiated. We know that the NunatuKavut community council's comprehensive claim was been presented in 1991-1992. At the first stage, the ruling and the advice of the Department of Justice, which it asks that we follow all the time, revealed that it did not meet the legal test necessary for these claims to be negotiated.
The government agreed to give the opportunity to the group in question to bring further evidence. We have co-operated with the group to provide us with other information, other historical evidence, and this is according to a process agreed to between the parties that is taking place as we speak. That evidence is being reviewed, and when we are ready to make a decision and on the advice of the justice department, we will.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on several occasions, the minister referred to the socio-economic conditions of many of our first nations and Métis communities, and there is absolutely no doubt that this is a critical issue in delivering justice to them. We have to improve that whole condition.
When we listen to what the government members are saying, we have to ask this question: if the government was doing such a good job, why did we see the Idle No More movement surface across this country, with individuals so concerned about the socio-economic conditions that they were pleading with the government to do something to address the issue?
Maybe I could put a very simple question to the member, which is for him to reflect on why, from his personal opinion, one of the first things the Conservatives did when they took office was cancel the Kelowna accord. That accord delivered billions of dollars. It had all sorts of agreement from first nations from coast to coast to coast. They came to an agreement on something they felt was fundamental in dealing with that socio-economic condition, something that the minister talks so much about wanting to address, so why did the Conservatives kill that accord?
[Interjection]
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting in this House about 20 years ago, and I see that the Liberals have not changed. 
If we want to attribute blame for the current state of first nations in Canada, the Liberals had that claim to office for life and forever. They were in office a long time. It is funny that during all of those years that the Liberals were in office, it was always about throwing money at the problem, and we see the results we have today. 
The very socio-economic conditions the member deplores today are not as a result of not having thrown money at the problem, but as a result of not having addressed the real issues, the barriers. That is what we are doing in an incremental and positive way, and we will continue to do so. We will not throw money at the problem; instead, we will solve the problem.
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for his thoughtful speech on an important topic.
The Liberal and NDP opposition members have been opposing the rights of aboriginal women and children. Just this week they voted against first nations matrimonial real property legislation that would protect the rights of aboriginal women, particularly in cases of family violence.
Would the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please comment on that situation?
[Interjection]
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. With all members of the House, I was a witness to the NDP and the Liberals trying to sidestep the issue, to duck the issue, to evade the issue of the fundamental rights that aboriginal families—women, men and children—living on reserve do not have.
 The opposition members still oppose giving those rights to first nation families. I hope that because of the good majority that Canadians gave us in 2011, we can re-establish equity and justice in this country for those people.
The Speaker: There will be four minutes left for questions and comments on the minister's speech after routine proceedings.

Statements by Members
Freedom of DemocracyMr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the face of the tyranny of terrorism, Boston goes into lockdown as we speak. We offer the people of Boston our prayers and good will.
 I invite members to join with the U.S. ambassador, Running Room manager Phil Marsh and me on Monday at 1 p.m. to march together to the U.S. embassy to show that we stand with Bostonians and Americans in this difficult time.
As Canadians, we stand for democracy wherever we find it. Last week I had occasion to visit Taiwan with a delegation of fellow members. A little of engine of democracy, Taiwan has seen six straight free presidential elections since lifting martial law in 1987.
 Moreover, its vibrant, colourful and democratic legislature has just rejuvenated its Taiwan-Canada friendship group. Fully 43 of its 113 legislators have already joined the group to engage Canadian parliamentarians in a joint promotion of democratic values and the expansion of the healthy relations that exist between the peoples of Taiwan and Canada.
Together we salute those who promote freedom and democracy, whether in Boston, Taiwan or elsewhere.
Canada Summer JobsMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this year, about 100 organizations from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie have applied to the Canada summer jobs program run by Service Canada.
Students hired through this program work as counsellors at summer camps, recreation workers in seniors' residences, and so on.
They gain valuable experience that will help them later as they enter the labour market. Let us remember that youth unemployment is at 14% in Quebec.
The Canada summer jobs program is also helping organizations improve the services they provide to communities, often at little cost. Unfortunately, the budget earmarked for the program is not sufficient and it has not been increased since 2009. Once again, in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie this year, only one-fifth of people's needs will be met.
We condemn the fact that the Canada summer jobs program is underfunded. That is unacceptable. Grants available for community organizations are disappearing left, right and centre. Those organizations are invaluable to our society and they are struggling. 
Once again, the most vulnerable segments of the population are the ones being affected by the Conservatives' cuts.
Korean Dance Studies SocietyMr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Korean community is a vital part of the cultural fabric of my constituency of Don Valley East.
 For this reason, it was a great pleasure to announce, earlier this year, that the Canada arts training fund was providing $60,000 of funding over two years to the Korean Dance Studies Society. Throughout the years, the training program of the Korean Dance Studies Society of Canada has allowed many young talents to fulfill their dream of having a professional career in dance.
The Canada arts training fund provides financial assistance to artistic institutions deemed to be at the highest level of excellence. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages stated, this is evidence that this government is serious about supporting organizations that enrich our community's cultural life, as well as strengths its economy.
I am proud to have received the thanks of the artistic director, Mi Young Kim, for the government's support of this organization and others that unite all Canadian cultures through the art and practice of dance.
Valérie CarpentierMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday at a very exciting singing competition, Valérie Carpentier, a young woman from Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, showed everyone just how talented she is.
In fact, the young artist won the televised singing competition, La Voix. Not only does this young singer have a beautiful voice, but she also has a sensitivity and maturity beyond her years.
I am pleased to recognize the talent of an artist such as Valérie Carpentier, who is an example of Quebec's vitality and cultural wealth. I would like to join the people of Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, a municipality in my riding, in congratulating Valérie on her achievement, which is a credit to the entire community.
While I am on the subject of Valérie Carpentier's big win, I would also like to take the opportunity to recognize all of the singers and songwriters in Canada. Well done.
Victory WalkMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, from May 14 to 23, former NHL all-star Theo Fleury will be walking from Toronto to Parliament Hill in Ottawa as part of the Victor Walk. The goal of the Victor Walk is to ask for greater victim support for children who have been sexually abused and for tougher penalties for those offenders.
This is a very difficult topic to talk about, so we must commend the courage of former victims like Theo Fleury who have become advocates to prevent the sexual abuse of children.
Our government and our Minister of Justice have worked with advocates like Theo Fleury and Sheldon Kennedy in the past and we have made necessary changes to the Criminal Code to better protect our Canadian children.
I ask members of the House to support Victor Walks in their community and to listen to Mr. Fleury and his thousands of supports when he arrives at noon on May 23.
EmploymentMr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is assumed that if people live in Toronto, they have it made, that they are on easy street. Indeed, we have made a national pastime out of trash talking Toronto.
 However, a recent report by the United Way shows that almost half of all workers in Toronto do not have stable full-time jobs. Many live in Davenport. They are cab drivers, bartenders, office cleaners, web designers, carpenters, consultants, musicians and professors. They are also workers who thought they had been hired full time, only to find that the company had classified them as self-employed or part time. These urban workers have no benefits, no pension, no job security and are of no interest to the government.
The reality of work is rapidly changing, but the Conservatives ignore half the workers in the biggest city in the country. We need measures that will make a real difference in the lives of urban workers, not more Conservative Toronto MPs sitting on their hands, stuck in the past, while this city and this country races by them toward the future of work in the 21st century.
Suicide PreventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the House for passing Bill C-300, my legislation on suicide prevention. The situation in Neskantaga only reinforces the need for a federal framework, the need to overcome the stigma that prevents conversation about suicide.
Over the past year, there have been 7 deaths by suicide and 20 attempts in this community of only 421. Our government has sent additional nursing and counselling assistance, but more needs to be done at Neskantaga and right across Canada. Suicide prevention programs must be delivered by more than just nurses and counsellors. It takes people who are able to recognize the warning signs, people brave enough to engage in conversations. 
Teachers, coaches, paramedics, pastors and police officers, even members of Parliament, we all must do our part as members of a caring community. Do not be afraid to start the conversation. It will shine light and expose hidden fears that can finally be addressed. A simple conversation can bring hope, the oxygen of the human spirit.
Canada Job GrantBernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about a key measure in budget 2013: the Canada job grant. In consultation with employers and provinces, our government will be creating a grant of up to $15,000 for unemployed Canadians to connect with available jobs. Canada is facing a skills mismatch. We have Canadians looking for work, while employers are unable to find workers with the skills they need. 
We are excited to be partnering with job creators to ensure that training for work is connected to a job that employers are looking to fill. This is good news in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore and across Canada.
 Our unwavering focus has been jobs, the economy and the long-term prosperity. The Canada job grant is a key measure to ensuring Canadians have the skills they need to fill the jobs that are in demand today.
EthicsJonathan Genest-Jourdain: As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, seaports play an undeniably important strategic role in our country's development.
Since 1999, port authorities have had some flexibility in how they manage day-to-day activities, but they are still required to represent Canada in the marine sector. 
They are shared-governance corporations, which are corporate entities without share capital for which the Government of Canada, either directly or through the intermediary of a crown corporation, has a right to appoint or nominate one or several members to a governing group.
We recently learned that at the port of Sept-Îles, an individual the Conservatives appointed to the board of directors in 2006 reported making $94,000 for the 2011 fiscal year, which is $22,000 more than any other port administrator in Quebec. We also learned that his helicopter transport company occasionally receives contracts from the port authority he runs. 
Are we to conclude that the candidates for the Conservatives' partisan appointments are exempt from complying with ethics rules and that they can scoff at the code of conduct and legal provisions that define conflicts of interest? It is a question worth asking. 
VeteransMs. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to supporting Canada's veterans. Their dedication and sacrifice to this nation is unmatched. 
I am pleased to announce that earlier this week members of the all party Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs reviewed the services provided to veterans by our neighbours to the south. We had the valuable opportunity to review the U.S. Veterans Affairs Medical Center and meet with a number of experts on shared priorities of services and benefits for veterans.
I would like to highlight for the House Canada's position as a world leader when it comes to providing for our veterans. Through funding for funerals and burials, the enhanced the new veterans charter and cutting red tape for veterans, Canada is leading the way. In fact, many experts we heard from noted that Canada is considered the gold standard when it comes to services we provide for veterans suffering from PTSD.
I was very pleased to hear that our closest allies recognize the tremendous work this government and the Prime Minister continue to do for our veterans.
Genetically Modified AlfalfaMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week a National Day of Action was held across Canada to stop Forage Genetics International from releasing Monsanto's genetically modified Roundup Ready alfalfa. I would like to thank the National Farmers Union, CBAN and many others for undertaking this important initiative. A special thanks to Colleen Ross of the NFU for organizing the rally in Nelson, B.C. 
Alfalfa is a high protein animal feed and is also used by organic farmers to build nutrients and organic matter in the soil. Alfalfa pellets are also exported to other countries. 
It is well-known among farmers and agronomists that alfalfa is an insect-pollinated perennial plant. GM alfalfa will contaminate non-GM and organic alfalfa. This poses a serious threat to farmers if markets are closed to them because of consumer rejection.
Forage Genetics International was planning on releasing GM alfalfa in Ontario. Thanks to a strong and unified voice of protest, it has backed off for now.
I strongly urge the minister to support Canadian farmers and prohibit the introduction of GM alfalfa. The livelihood of farmers depends on it.
Public SafetyMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Nova Scotia and people throughout the Maritimes were shocked that yesterday Herbert John Hawkins, the brutal murderer of the beloved Cape Breton musician Shelly Boutilier, was granted leave.
Victims do not think it is right that convicted murderers are released into their safe communities, and our Conservative government agrees.
We believe that to keep our streets and communities safe, dangerous criminals should be kept behind bars where they belong. Our government has taken several measures to ensure that the rights of victims always come first. 
We will soon bring forward legislation, the victims' bill of rights, to ensure that the rights of victims are always respected first and foremost.
Shelly did not get a second chance when he was brutally murdered and neither should his murderer. We will ensure that victims have a stronger say in our justice system so decisions like this will never be made again.
RwandaHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I commemorated the 19th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, which targeted the Tutsi population, and the Rwandan diaspora.
This unspeakable horror where one million Tutsis were murdered in a three-month genocidal onslaught, itself preceded by an orchestrated dehumanization and demonization of the minority Tutsi population.
What makes this Rwandan genocide so unspeakable is that it was preventable. No one can say that we did not know. It was the indifference and inaction of the bystander international community that made this genocide possible. While the United Nations and government leaders in the U.S. and Europe dithered and delayed, Rwandans died.
What makes this genocide so painful today is that it is being forgotten, or worse, being denied. Therefore, may this Rwandan genocide be an occasion not only to remember but to learn the lessons of the crime whose name, genocide, we should even shudder to mention.
Never again.
 Never again.
Status of WomenMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thousands of aboriginal women in our country are at a disadvantage. When going through a divorce, they can suddenly be banned from their home or watch as their property is sold without their consent and without receiving any of the funds.
That is why we introduced legislation to provide matrimonial property rights for first nation women.
This bill will allow judges to make emergency protection orders in situations of domestic violence. Every other Canadian has that right, but the NDP and Liberals are opposed to aboriginal women having that same right.
The leader of the NDP and the leader of the Liberals should apologize for instructing their caucus to vote against these rights.
Whether it is on reserve or anywhere else in Canada, I am proud to say that our Conservative government continues to stand up for the protection of women and children everywhere.
Conservative Party of CanadaCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, let us reflect on the magnitude of failure coming from the Conservative benches.
We have Senator Duffy, who has broken his promise and is stiffing the taxpayer. We have the democratic reform minister who promised on Tuesday that he would deliver legislation yesterday on robo fraud and gave us a big goose egg.
Now we learn that the big fundraising machine of the Conservative Party is not just broke, but owes a million dollars in back taxes. How is this for a fundraising pitch, “Hi, Mr. Taxpayer, could you lend me a dime?”
We are not even getting into the big backbencher revolt of 2013, as the members stand up to the little runts in the PMO.
Remember the iPod stunt where the minister went to the mall to tilt at the windmills.
This is not just about stunts. This is not about the Conservatives' ideological failures; it is about the fact that they are bad managers.
In 2015, Canadians will be able to choose a party that stands up for taxpayers, stands up for its word, that being the New Democratic Party of Canada.
The EconomyMr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that our government is squarely focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and economic growth and securing Canada's long-term prosperity. 
By implementing our economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among any of the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery. We are focused on creating jobs. We know that the NDP is committed to imposing the $20-billion job-killing carbon tax on Canadians, which would increase the cost of gas, food and just about everything. We know that this would ruin the Canadian economy.
Canadians can count on our government to fight this reckless NDP economic experiment and to keep implementing our strong job-creating measures.

Oral Questions
EmploymentMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 2.4 million Canadians are unemployed. Today, fewer people have access to employment insurance because the Conservatives have gutted it. Furthermore, under the mismanaged temporary foreign worker program, employers are replacing Canadian workers with foreign workers who are paid less.
When will the government take responsibility for this fiasco and protect Canadian jobs?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I just want to, at this time, express the support of our government for the American people and the efforts of the American authorities as they respond strongly to the difficult challenges they are facing, in particular the violent terrorist threats. Serious threats require decisive and serious responses. 
With regard to the question of temporary foreign workers, we are, of course, taking action through our economic action plan to ensure that Canadians have first crack at jobs that belong to them and that the program is appropriately reviewed and improved. 
The difficulty for the NDP is that they always say one thing and do another. They say here they have problems with the program, yet they continually write to our government asking for temporary foreign workers to be brought to their constituencies. 
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, it is the same old story. Problems were identified years ago with the temporary foreign worker program. Conservatives vowed they would fix them, and then nothing happened. In 2011, they promised to start listing employers who were banned from the program for failing to follow the rules. Well, how many are listed on the website today? None. 
How can Canadians possibly trust the Conservatives to fix this program, when all they have done so far is make it worse?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we have been taking decisive action to improve circumstances for Canadian workers and, in fact, create jobs, the most important element of that. We are doing this through a review of the temporary foreign worker program to ensure that Canadians get first crack at jobs, but we are also doing it through providing other opportunities, including, in the recent economic action plan, the Canada job grant. This is a proposal that will get governments and bureaucrats out of the way and allow employers who want to hire workers, and workers who want to work, to get access to training funds so that when someone is trained, they are trained for a job that actually exists. 
That is how we are going to add to the over 900,000 net new jobs that we have already created for Canadians since the economic downturn. 
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, Canadian workers are being replaced because of Conservative incompetence. This program tripled in size over the last decade. Successive governments have let it grow without oversight. 
The Auditor General rang the alarm four years ago. They knew full well that the program had serious problems, but it took a crisis for the Conservatives to intervene. Why did it take so many Canadians losing their jobs for the Conservatives to actually make this a priority?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party does have a track record of saying one thing and then actually doing the other. It has certainly been doing that on this file. They continually write to our government and demand that we bring in temporary foreign workers, in some cases bending the rules to bring temporary foreign workers to their constituencies. 
We are actually looking to create jobs for Canadians right here in Canada, and we are doing it through measures that they have indicated they oppose, things like the Canada job grant, the advanced manufacturing fund and expanding our hiring credit for small businesses. That one has helped create thousands of jobs across the country. We have had it in two budgets. We have it another one. The NDP is actually going to oppose it again. It says one thing and does the other. 
TaxationMr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, NDP MPs rose not to take away Canadian jobs, and that is what the Conservatives' mismanagement is doing. They should look at themselves in the mirror. 
Speaking of mismanagement, it is still costing Canadians dearly. The Conservatives have raised tariffs on almost everything while trying to distract people by claiming to reduce tariffs on hockey equipment, but hockey helmets, essential safety equipment, are still subject to tariffs. Budget 2013 will likely raise the price of hockey helmets.
 Why are Conservatives raising prices and taxing hockey players' safety equipment?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, for greater clarity, hockey helmets will be covered under the tariff relief in the budget, but let us talk about the hypocrisy of the NDP. It is this government that has reduced taxes over 150 times so that we are leaving $3,200 more in an average family's pocket. Every step of the way, the NDP, every single member, voted against those tax reductions. They should be ashamed of themselves for this hypocrisy. They ought to start supporting measures for Canadian families. 
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, as always, we are proud to vote against a budget that only increases Canadians' cost of living.
Fishing, a proud Quebec and Canadian tradition, is another sport being squeezed by the Conservatives. The price of fishing rods, reels and line will all go up. Millions of Canadians preparing to go trout fishing in a month's time will have to pay more thanks to the Conservatives.
Why do the Conservatives want to impose such a high tax on fishing?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, it is thanks to our government that Canadians' taxes are at their lowest in almost 50 years.
Instead of supporting our efforts, the NDP wants to give Chinese companies special breaks. On this side of the House, we will continue to reduce Canadians' taxes and fight for Canadian jobs and businesses.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Conservative policy on tariff taxes is incoherent and deceitful. They boastfully leaked information, pre-budget, to divert attention from sporting equipment and baby clothes, but then they increased—repeat, increased—tariff taxes on baby carriages, hockey helmets, school supplies and wigs for cancer patients.
 Why should cancer patients be punished with a new 15% Conservative tax? Why are middle-class Canadians—not foreigners, Canadians—being hit with tariff tax increases of more than $300 million every year?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy on taxes and the economy is nothing new coming from the Liberal Party, and this is yet another example, because, of course, we have brought in over half a billion dollars in tariff reductions, hundreds of items on which we have reduced tariffs, and the Liberal Party has voted against that every single time. Hundreds of times they have opposed it, but guess what? They finally decided to stand up and complain about something. What are they doing? They are saying that the government should be giving special breaks to Chinese companies. That is the one time the Liberal Party finally stands up, when it is about tax breaks for Chinese producers, never when it is for Canadians.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, tariffs are taxes. The Conservatives are ripping off middle-class families with tariff tax increases of $333 million every year. It is a naked money grab, and it is--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Wascana still has the floor.
The hon. member for Wascana.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is a naked money grab, and it is incoherent. Hockey pads might cost less, maybe, but the most vital hockey equipment, hockey helmets, will cost more, and so will half of a jockstrap. The Conservatives cannot blame the Chinese or India. They did not impose the tax, nor will they pay the tax. This is self-inflicted Conservative stupidity, and will they--
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, again, when the Liberals had a chance to vote to reduce the GST for Canadians, they voted against it. They voted against cuts for children's arts programs. They voted against cuts for Canadian children's fitness programs. They voted for taxes on Canadian children's textbooks. They voted for tax cuts for Canadian volunteer firefighters. They voted against all those tax cuts for Canadians, but now they are at the table demanding there is one place where we should be giving a tax break. Where is that one place they want to see a tax break happen, after opposing all those tax breaks for Canadians? They want a tax break for Chinese companies.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we voted against lousy budgets. Canadians are paying the tax, not the Chinese.
Once again, we see how much this Conservative government lacks substance. It announced reduced tariffs on hockey equipment in order to score points with those who play our national sport, but because of its lack of substance, it has scored on its own net instead. While on the offensive, it forgot about hockey helmets, taxes on which will go up by 70%.
Will the Conservatives revise their game plan and ensure that our young people will be protected while playing their sport?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague did not hear me the first time, so I will repeat myself in French to be perfectly clear. Hockey helmets will be covered under the tariff relief in the budget.
Once again, our government has brought in tax relief for Canadians, like cutting the GST.
Why are the Liberals fighting to obtain special tax breaks for Chinese companies? It makes no sense. On this side of the House, we are fighting for Canadian companies and Canadian families.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the number of products whose prices are going to increase because of new taxes introduced by the Conservatives in budget 2013 is staggering.
Over 1,200 everyday products will be more expensive. This money will go directly from taxpayers' pockets into the coffers of the Conservative government, which will use it to pay for ads to say that everything is fine.
Will the Conservatives put an end to this offensive charade and admit what everyone already knows—that tariff increases are the same as a hike on import taxes? When will they finally tell Canadians the truth?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, for the past seven years, this government has been trying to lower taxes for Canadians. This is important, because companies need our consumers to have the advantage.
What does the NDP want to do? It wants to give the advantage to Chinese companies. It makes no sense. Here on this side of the House, we will continue to fight for Canadian companies and Canadian families.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, it does not appear as though the offensive charade I spoke about is going to end any time soon. 
The Minister of Finance even felt the need to explain himself in an op-ed piece that appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail. In the piece, he denied the existence of a new tax on iPods. This flies in the face of everything that economists' investigations have shown to date. It has gotten to the point where the Reform Party is turning over in its grave. Now even that will be more expensive because of the new tax on coffins. 
Why do the Conservatives want to impose a tax on death?
Shelly Glover: Once again, Mr. Speaker, what the member has said is absolutely false. iPods have been coming into Canada tariff-free for many years, and this government intends to ensure that they continue to come into Canada tariff-free in the years to come. 
We are not going to do as the NDP is doing. We are not going to support providing special breaks to Chinese companies, Indian companies or Brazilian companies that have booming economies. We are going to help Canadian companies. We are going to help Canadian families. It is the right thing to do.
Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not only imposing new taxes, but they are also denying that there are any. That is pretty sad. The perfect example of the Conservatives' two-faced attitude is the tax on MP3 players. The Conservative ministers strutted about accusing the opposition of wanting to impose a tax on iPods. They were trying to outdo each other with their ranting and raving. Yet what do they do as soon as they have the chance? They impose a tariff on iPods.
Do the Conservatives realize how hypocritical they are being by imposing this new tax?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, once again, the members opposite are not listening. Here are the facts. iPods have been coming into Canada tariff-free for many years, and this government intends to ensure that they continue to do so.
Speaking of a two-faced attitude, the NDP is talking out of both sides of its mouth. Our government has lowered Canadians' taxes a number of times. The NDP voted against the family caregiver tax credit and the children's fitness tax credit. What is more, it voted against the tax-free savings account.
Andrew Cash: It is an iPod tax, Mr. Speaker, and that is a fact.
In a city with a crisis in affordable housing, the Conservatives are making it harder for the people in Toronto to afford their mortgage or their rent. They have raised the price of paint, varnish, bathtubs and sinks. One cannot even make soup without paying the Conservatives more because they have even raised the price of wooden spoons.
Why are the Conservatives making life more expensive for already squeezed urban Canadians?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that when I listen to that kind of nonsense I think Canadians at home are laughing. 
The truth of the matter is that the NDP is the party that suggested a $21 billion carbon tax. That party also suggested a $34 billion increase on our corporations, our employers, and a $10 billion increase to the GST. Let us not forget the 45 day work year, which would be another $4 billion.
We will not do as that party is doing. We will protect Canadians.
EthicsCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, two months ago, Mike Duffy, the Prime Minister's hand-picked senator from Kanata, promised Canadians that he would pay back the money and put an end to his rent-and-address housing scheme, but he has broken that promise. He seems to be taking on the “catch me if you can” attitude of his fellow senators, who continually treat the taxpayers as chumps.
The Prime Minister personally appointed Mike Duffy, just like he appointed Patrick Brazeau. What steps is he going to take to get the taxpayers' money back from Mike Duffy?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is referring to in terms of Senator Duffy. I do not believe he made those comments. We will wait for the findings of the report, of course, but our government has been clear. We have committed to ensuring that all expenses are appropriate at the Senate, that the rules governing expenses are appropriate and that the Senate does follow through on that. 
We will wait for that report. However, when it comes to people not keeping their word, I think the reason the member knows so much about it is because he is the champion of that. When we look at that member's record, he campaigned to abolish the gun registry and then stood in this House and voted to maintain it. That tells us everything we need to know about his commitment to keeping promises.
Canada Revenue AgencyCharlie Angus: Please, put the popgun down.
Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the facts, which are that the Conservatives are defending the entitlements of their buddies in the Senate while we are standing up for the taxpayer. 
Speaking of which, we now understand that the Conservatives' favourite voter contact firm, RMG, owes about $1 million in back taxes. This is the firm that handles the Conservatives' database. They are almost a virtual appendage of the Conservative Party of Canada. 
We heard the Minister of National Revenue talk about going after taxpayer deadbeats. What steps are the Conservatives going to take to make sure they pay up the money, or are they going to protect them because they know all of the secrets of the Conservative Party? Bang, bang.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister has no responsibility whatsoever in the administration of individual tax cases. Non-partisan public servants of the Canada Revenue Agency are responsible both for the administration and enforcement of the tax legislation.
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, members opposite seem to be quite touchy when it comes to their fundraisers.
We know that RMG is buddy-buddy with the Conservative Party. This is the firm that calls to collect donations for the Conservatives' latest hare-brained ideas. RMG also manages the party's database, which was used to make fraudulent calls. But its close ties to the Conservative Party should not come into play. RMG owes nearly $1 million in taxes to the Canadian people. 
Can the Minister of National Revenue assure us that RMG will not get a free pass from the Conservative government?
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, the rules will be applied fairly and equally to all Canadian companies. The government does not oversee that.
Yesterday the NDP tried to accuse others of selling out to communists, which is interesting because that member made comments about the First World War in which he suggested that if there had just been more 20th century European communists we would not have had a First World War at all. The comments have been interpreted as insulting to our veterans and to the millions of victims of communism. I invite him now to stand in his place and apologize.
EthicsAlexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, my grandfather served in the Canadian Armed Forces during World War II. He was a proud soldier, and I am proud of him. When they take a shot at me like that, they are dishonouring the memory of my grandfather and all veterans. 
Speaking of people who get a free pass, Mike Duffy has still not paid taxpayers back for the allowances that he should not have received in the first place. It has been weeks since the senator promised to pay the money back.
Canadians are paying for him to live in luxury, simply because the Prime Minister appointed him as a senator.
Will the Conservatives stop protecting their friend Mike Duffy and make him understand that he has to pay Canadians back, not in two years, not in two months, not in two weeks, but now?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member does himself any favours by screaming, hollering and tearing his shirt off on the floor of the House of Commons. He made comments about communism and about our veterans that have angered veterans across the country, and wounded them. I have given him the occasion to stand, do the honourable thing and apologize. Instead, he lost his temper. I invite him, once again, to stand and apologize and do the honourable thing for our veterans.
Democratic ReformMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really have nothing to teach us about veterans. In fact, they are the ones closing Veterans Affairs Canada offices. 
Last October, I even had to stand in for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who failed to show up at a ceremony. He did not even have the decency to inform the department that he would not be attending.
They are making a lot of noise to hide the truth. When it comes to RMG, Mike Duffy and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Conservatives' only concern is hiding the truth and their own role in these scandals. 
Last Tuesday, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform announced with much fanfare his long-awaited bill on electoral reform. Yesterday, he went back to the same old talking point: they will take the time necessary to get the legislation right.
The time for waiting is over. The changes must be in place by the next—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform.
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the NDP saying one thing and doing another. 
It was the NDP that accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars of illegal donations from unions.
We are making changes to Canada's election laws, and we will take the time to get it right.
TaxationHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is intent on taxing middle-income Canadians, but a tax on toothbrushes? Health is no luxury. The link between dental health and disease is clear.
What possessed the Conservatives to raise the tax on hockey helmets by 70%? Sports-related injuries ruin lives and cost the health care system $100 million a year.
Why will the Conservatives not cancel these punitive taxes on middle-class Canadians?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, as the Liberals continue to fight for special breaks for Chinese companies and other booming economies, let us listen to what the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters had to say about this very issue:
 The government's decision to modernize this foreign aid program by removing some countries from the GPT list is a good decision.... 
These are new industrial powerhouses, and treating them the same way that we do our other trading partners just makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government just announced a tax hike on consumer goods to the tune of over $300 million a year at a time when the economy is fragile, household debt is at an all-time high, the unemployment rate is up and salaries are stagnant. This is the worst time to be raising taxes on almost 1,300 products that Canadians need in their everyday lives.
When will the government wake up? When will it give Canadian families a break and cancel these tax increases?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, as I already said, on average, Canadian families have an extra $3,200 in their pockets thanks to our government's tax cuts.
The Liberals voted against every one of those cuts. In fact, they want to fight to give special tax breaks to Chinese companies.
Members should listen to what Michael Hart, Carleton University, said about this very issue:
 Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand really aren't developing countries and should have been graduated long ago. 

Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I loved the damage control on hockey helmets on Friday morning, after clearly forgetting about it. 
The Conservatives have increased the taxes on Canadian consumers by over $300 million a year: paints and varnishes, shampoos, deodorant, tricycles, kitchenware, tableware, ballpoint pens, toothbrushes. I could go on forever. There are 1,300 items.
When will the government give Canadian families a break and cancel these tax increases on those products?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, once again, that is completely false. It is this government that has voted time and time again to reduce taxes on Canadians. We will let the record speak for itself. 
When we created the deduction for tool expenses for tradespeople, the Liberals voted against it. When we created the medical expense tax credit, Liberals voted against. With the first time home buyers tax credit, Liberals voted against it.
I could go on and on. The Liberals will fight for Chinese companies. We will fight for Canadians.
Aboriginal AffairsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, Conservative inaction is pushing aboriginal communities to the brink. In Labrador, the NunatuKavut have waited 22 years for solutions.
 New Democrats know that Canada is stronger when we work together in partnership, so we are calling on the government to finally do the right thing and vote yes to our motion to provide all communities in Labrador with the control they deserve over their own future.
Will it listen?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I had the chance this morning to speak to this very issue, but obviously she does not want to understand. This claim was submitted in 1991, long before we came into office. The Liberals sat on this for 13 years. 
Right now, we are reviewing the facts that support the claim. When a decision is made, the decision will be announced.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, a broken promise is all we have heard from the Conservative and the Liberal governments.
 They promised action on land claims and treaty implementation. The Prime Minister himself committed to direct oversight of this important issue for the future of Canada, but three months after he made this promise to first nations leaders, nothing has been done.
Let us try this again. Will the Prime Minister agree to make treaty implementation and land claim settlement a priority by voting yes on our motion?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it takes some nerve to stand in the House to talk about rights of aboriginal Canadians when that member, at the instructions of the leader of her party, just as the leader of the Liberal Party instructed his own caucus, refused to vote in favour of aboriginal women getting the same basic rights she enjoys.
Employment InsuranceMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the real fact is that for too long Liberal and Conservative governments have dragged their heels. First Nations, Metis and Inuit deserve way better. Canadian women in the workforce also deserve better.
Conservative changes to employment insurance would make it harder for women to access the program. They ignore the fact that many women rely upon part-time or seasonal work and that women already have a harder time qualifying for EI.
Are the Conservatives aware that their reforms may lead more women into poverty?
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government will take no lessons from the NDP on finding women roles in the workplace or for finding women jobs, whether they are professional women, women who are looking to become apprentices, or women who are looking to get those skills they want so that they can move out into the workplace and have a great job. 
We are supporting the Canada jobs grant. We put in place a whole series of initiatives to ensure women can become apprentices. Why does the NDP not get on board and help those women find those jobs?
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, this government loves grandstanding, but when it comes to finding the truth, they have absolutely nothing to say.
The truth is that women will end up footing the massive bill for the government's cuts to EI.
The Fédération des femmes du Québec and other women's groups are sounding the alarm. The Conservatives' changes to EI will force women to accept lower-paying jobs and to travel further from home for a job, at the minister's whim.
When will the minister admit that these changes will widen the gap between the wages earned by men and women?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, the changes that we have to employment insurance are to better connect Canadians to available jobs. What we put forward in economic action plan 2013 is just that: opportunities for Canadians to gain the skills that they need to enter into the workplace.
I do not understand why the NDP continues to vote against these initiatives, whether the Canada jobs grant, opportunities for apprenticeships, or the 5,000 new internships that are available for postgraduates. I wonder why the NDP continues to talk about how it wants to create jobs but never ever actually supports an initiative to do that.
Child CareMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government firmly believes that parents know what is best for their children. That is why we have given parents the choice in child care, despite the objections of the opposition parties. 
It appears the Liberal Party is once again looking to dictate to parents on how children should be raised. It is promoting a private member's bill in the Senate that could turn parents into criminals.
Would the Minister of Justice please inform this House about the government's position on Bill S-214?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government opposes this unnecessary and unreasonable legislation. We do not believe that parents, teachers, and others responsible for the well-being of children should be criminalized for discipline that is undertaken in a reasonable way.
The fact is that the Supreme Court has already clarified it and provided guidance on the Criminal Code in this area.
We are focused on cracking down on real threats to children, such as tougher sentences for child sexual offences. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party voted against that legislation. This is an another example that Liberal priorities are not the priorities of the people of this country.
Employment InsuranceMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, women are being hit particularly hard by the Conservatives' massive cuts to employment insurance. Women already earn less than men. Most seasonal and part-time jobs are held by women. With the Conservatives' cuts, they will be forced to accept 30% less pay.
Of course, the minister would have known all of this if she had conducted a study. Why did she not do one?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, this government is focused on ensuring that Canadians have the skills and the training they need to be able to take on the jobs that exist today. Whether that be through the Canada jobs grant, our new apprenticeship initiatives to ensure we have harmonization across the country, or an investment in individuals who have disabilities to ensure that they can attach themselves to the workplace, these are all initiatives that this government supports and has driven forward.
 The New Democrats continually vote against these opportunities for Canadians. Shame on them.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, these changes hurt seasonal workers, regional economies and provinces, but the Conservatives' mismanagement has disproportionately hurt women, and that is a fact.
For example, a woman taking maternity leave—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. Order. 
There seems to be a steady stream of chatter when other members have the floor. I would appreciate it if members would listen to the member putting the question and in turn listen to the minister answering.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. 
For example, a woman taking maternity leave can become ineligible for EI because the government does not consider looking after a baby to be work. Experts have said 2,000 women every year are denied EI benefits because of this unfair policy. 
Is the minister really going to stand by an EI program that says looking after a baby is not work?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, this government supports families, whether it be through the children's fitness tax credit, the universal child care benefit or increases and augmentation to the national child benefit. We support families, we support parents, we support mothers. That party does not. The New Democrats have always voted against these initiatives. 
I encourage them to step up when they have the opportunity to support mothers and parents, who are doing a great job. Why do they not support them?
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is clear to anyone who is paying attention that the Conservative cuts to EI are totally inappropriate. Even the IMF, infamous for its austerity programs, reported this week that austerity is the wrong way for Canada to go and that the Conservative Government of Canada should be using EI to its full capacity.
Canada's rate of unemployment is up, and it is getting worse. Rather than giving the unemployed people of Canada a hand up, why is the Conservative government continually kicking them when they are down?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, once again I implore my colleagues across the way to actually read the reports that come out. In fact, the IMF said the following: “...Canada is in an enviable position.... The policies that are being deployed are, in our minds, broadly appropriate...”. 
That is what the IMF said about Canada, because Canada has led the way in job growth, creating over 900,000 net new jobs since the recession. We have led in economic growth, which we continue to do through our economic action plans.
Unfortunately, we see the New Democrats and the Liberals intent on providing special breaks to Chinese companies and booming economies, which would in fact lower our ability to succeed.
The EconomyMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there are still 1,450,000 unemployed people in Canada. Because of the Conservatives, Canada has gone from the top of the class to being the slacker that everyone is talking about. Against everyone's advice, including that of the IMF, they decided to keep slashing services offered to Canadians, gutting employment insurance and cutting infrastructure investment. The results are in: growth is slowing. That is what happens when the Conservatives decide to crack down without doing their homework.
When will the Conservatives admit that economic austerity does not work and that they need to foster economic growth?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, let us take another look at the Conservative government's accomplishments.
Canada currently has the best tax environment of all G7 countries. It has the lowest tax rates for new business investment among G7 countries. We have the best job creation record in the G7, at more than 900,000 jobs. We have the best banking system in the world, the best environment for business growth and job creation as well as the best credit rating in the world.
It is too bad that they want to raise taxes and destroy all—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
Canada Revenue AgencyHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' robocall company is stiffing the Canadian taxpayer by claiming bankruptcy. It appears that the Conservatives have as much contempt for Canadian taxpayers as they do for voters. At the same proceeding, the Conservative government will be both a creditor and a debtor.
Will the Minister of National Revenue assure this House that both she and the Conservative Party will attend the same proceedings in order to get Canadian taxpayers' money back?
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a very experienced politician, and he knows that the minister has no involvement in administrative individual tax cases.
Independent, non-partisan public servants with the Canada Revenue Agency are responsible for the administration and enforcement of Canada's tax legislation.
Canada PostHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I doubt that senior managers at Canada Post would agree to wait over a year and a half to be paid what is owed to them. And yet that is exactly what they are forcing thousands of employees and former employees to do, the vast majority of whom are women.
In November 2011, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision requiring Canada Post to respect the principle of pay equity and compensate a group of employees.
Eighteen months later, those employees, many of whom are now retired, are still waiting.
Why is the government allowing Canada Post to drag its feet and not correct this gross injustice as soon as possible?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post will respect the Supreme Court's decision on pay equity and implement the ruling as soon as possible.
As members know, the Crown is at arm's length from the government and is responsible for its own operations, including human resources. The issue the member is referring to is before the courts, and therefore I cannot comment further.
International Co-operationMs. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Cooperation was not concerned at all when we asked him about funding proposals gathering dust on his desk.
Now we hear that he has failed to get a big chunk of development assistance money out the door. Can the minister tell us how much of CIDA's budget will lapse this year? Is it the plan to cut CIDA's budget through the back door, or is it that the minister cannot handle his workload?
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all of the projects are going to be judged on the merit of the project.
What I want to say here is that Canadians can be very proud of the achievements their hard-earned tax dollars are making on projects abroad. Our investments are providing food, medical assistance, health care and emergency humanitarian assistance for those who need it most. We will continue to ensure that Canadians' dollars are spent in the ways that achieve the greatest results.
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, that is quite a non-answer.
The truth is that the Conservatives have made a mess of CIDA.
The minister is completely incompetent and does not know his file: funding has been cut; development assistance is now granted based on the interests of large corporations instead of the interests of the poor; and staff morale is at an all-time low. Now we are hearing that up to a third of CIDA's budget could disappear at the end of this fiscal year.
Can the minister tell us how much of the funds allocated to CIDA were not spent this year because of his incompetence?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, our government, as I said, is committed to ensuring that our development dollars are focused, effective and accountable.
Over the last number of years we have ensured that more moms and more babies have the nutrition they need. We have more children in school, and a high percentage of those are girls who are receiving an education.
We will continue to achieve real results with Canadian taxpayers' dollars.
Aboriginal AffairsMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal member for St. Paul's yelled disrespectful comments. She said that instead of having the same matrimonial right to property as all other Canadians, aboriginal women should have to live in shelters.
As a woman, I am offended. Women and children on reserves have been victimized for many years without the protections they need.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please tell the House what our government is doing to help protect them?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all thank the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar for her dedication to aboriginal women everywhere. 
Our government has introduced legislation to protect thousands of first nations women and children. This bill will allow judges to enforce emergency protection orders for the safety of the woman and the child. Unfortunately, the member for St. Paul's' comments are consistent with the position of the Liberal Party, which voted against these protections.
Opposition leaders should be ashamed, and they should apologize for instructing their caucuses to vote against these protections.
Public SafetyMr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prevention is the first and most critical element of any counterterrorism strategy, so it is deeply concerning that the government has left a major risk unaddressed. It could be fertilizer from one of our agri-retailers used in a future attack. 
While the sector struggles to secure their stores, and has asked for assistance for years, the government is turning a deaf ear to such an important security issue. Why does the government still refuse to invest funds for background checks, security training and perimeter and network protection for our agri-retailers selling fertilizer?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we do have strong regulations in place. Our hearts go out to all those affected by this tragedy, but our government is committed to protecting the safety of Canadians and our agricultural industry. In fact, in 2008, we consulted with the fertilizer industry, and we brought in new regulations under the Explosives Act to protect Canadians. These regulations reflect our commitment to ensuring public safety and security.
Aerospace IndustryMrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while a Canadian is commanding the International Space Station for the first time ever, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to avoid building on this success. For months it has been impossible to get exact figures on the Conservatives' cuts to the agency. 
The Minister of Industry promised us that the agency's future was bright. Now we are learning that 97 positions will be eliminated between 2011 and 2015.
Will the minister protect these jobs in order to maintain the level of excellence we are all so proud of?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the reason we have so much to be proud of when it comes to Canada's achievements in space and the commander of the International Space Station is that the government allocated additional funding. An additional $300 million was allocated to the Canadian Space Agency through the economic action plan. The hon. member who just asked the question belongs to a party that voted against that increased funding. She is in no position to give lessons to the government, which just launched a review.
We have David Emerson's report, which outlines the Canadian Space Agency's future direction. Indeed, the future is promising.
Sealing IndustryScott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, our government has long supported Canadian sealers and their families. While anti-sealing lobbyists in urban centres stage protests using false information and outdated pictures, our government continues to promote the truth about the Canadian seal hunt.
The seal hunt is a humane, sustainable and well-regulated activity that provides an important source of food and income for thousands of sealers and their families. Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans please update the House on our government's continued support regarding the seal hunt and its humane practices?
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, like my friend from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, I am proud to be part of a government that is standing shoulder to shoulder with Canadian sealers. Unlike the Liberals, who through the activities of Ontario Senator Mac Harb have consistently tried to destroy the livelihoods of Canadian sealers, our Conservative government will continue to fight for Canadian sealers and their families.
 I am pleased to report that sealers working in the North Atlantic Ocean are on target to increase this year's harvest by some 40%. We remain committed to supporting jobs and growth generated by Canada's humane seal hunt. 
TaxationMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' budget is full of hidden taxes. They want to increase taxes on thousands of consumer goods and are neglecting the Canadians who are hit the hardest by existing taxes, such as taxes on assistive technology for people with vision loss.
Under the current legislation, these items are fully taxed unless approved by a doctor or institution. This is unfair discrimination against people with vision loss.
Why do the Conservatives think they know best when it comes to people with vision loss?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that my colleague read budget 2013. It provides funding for libraries so that they can purchase digital materials for people with vision loss.
Again, we are providing funding in economic action plan 2013 so that we can provide some digital hubs for our libraries for those who suffer from vision impairment and for those who are blind.
Champlain BridgeMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the new Champlain Bridge was announced, the Minister of Transport has never appeared open to building a structure that meets the real needs of Quebec's metropolis and the south shore.
We really feel that the minister only wants to do the bare minimum and that he is reluctant to include public transit. However, this morning, the Government of Quebec announced its intention to build a light rail transit system in order to properly serve the thousands of people who take the Champlain Bridge every day.
Will the minister understand that he cannot build a bridge in a vacuum? Will he acknowledge Quebec's request and contribute his fair share of the funding for the LRT project?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, each province has an envelope for infrastructure.
The provincial governments and the municipalities must set their priorities with that federal envelope in mind.
If the Government of Quebec chooses to give priority to light rail transit on the new bridge spanning the St. Lawrence River, we will obviously co-operate with the government to make that investment possible.
The EnvironmentMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, when in university 43 years ago, I helped organize the very first Earth Day, but we will have little to celebrate today in Canada. The government has dismantled our environmental laws, muzzled our scientists, ripped up Kyoto and refused to take action on dangerous climate change.
For Earth Day on Monday, how about the government ending its $1.3 billion in corporate welfare handouts for big oil and big gas companies?
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in our government's commitment to combat climate change, we have put forward very stringent regulations in each of the major emitting sectors in our country's economy. For example, light vehicle passenger regulations will actually see Canadians save money through increased fuel efficiency, and for the first time, our government is seeing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, while our economy continues to grow. This, indeed, is something to celebrate.
Points of OrderCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for you as Speaker and for the members of the House, and I would like to unreservedly apologize for any additions I made in my comments today. As members, we all have to maintain a certain standard in the House. I think we can all agree that this was a particularly unsavoury question period, with numerous misrepresentations and personal attacks, but it does not make it right, and I would like to apologize to my colleagues. 

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions. 
Committees of the HouseHarold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 7th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “Urban Conservation Practices in Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. 
Business of the HouseMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP):  moved:
 That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, April 23, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders; and that the House then proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a large petition from a number of constituents from Saskatoon. They are calling on Parliament to demonstrate international responsibility by recommitting Canada to contributing 0.7% of GDP to overseas development assistance, to prioritize response funding to those NGOs Canadians support, and in the spirit of global solidarity, to grant in full the funding of $49.2 million requested by D&amp;P over the next five years. 
Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, and particularly in the rural parts of my riding. It is about genetically modified alfalfa. 
Petitioners are asking the government to call for a moratorium on the commercial distribution of genetically modified alfalfa until a proper review can be done to study the effects on trade and organic certification and to make sure that we have the tools we need to keep genetically modified and non-genetically modified alfalfa separate
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to share with the House a petition from constituents who call for the prompt passage of the faster removal of foreign criminals act.
The signatories to the petition would like to see the passage of the faster removal of foreign criminals act in order to ensure that our streets are safer and that those who do not belong within the boundaries of Canadian borders are quickly removed with as little delay as possible. 
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, today, I have the great honour of presenting a petition signed by dozens of people across Quebec that emphasizes the important role that Canada can and must play in international development. These people have been affected by the recent cuts to CIDA's budget, and they are asking the Prime Minister to reverse these cuts and restore CIDA's budget.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I rise to table a petition regarding the research done at the Experimental Lakes Area, which provides essential scientific knowledge. Since 1968, the ELA has been a global leader in conducting whole ecosystem experiments, which have been critical in shaping environmental policy and for understanding human impacts on lakes and fish. 
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of residents of British Columbia and Alberta I would like to present a petition today.
The petitioners note that Canada is a nation that has long promoted the right to equal protection and equal benefits of the law and that preventing the birth of baby girls through sex selective abortion is an affront to the dignity and equality of women and girls. They also note that sex selective abortions have denied millions of girls in Canada and throughout the world the chance merely to be born because they are girls.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to condemn the discrimination against girls through sex selective abortion and do all it can to prevent sex selective abortions from being carried out in Canada.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, petitions continue to roll in from Winnipeg and across Canada on the topic of the Experimental Lakes Area.
These petitioners call upon parliamentarians to reverse the ill-advised decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area, and to continue to finance the staff and provide financial support for this important Canadian scientific institution.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1214, 1215, and 1216.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:  With regard to fines issued for violations of the Do Not Call List: (a) for Pecon Software Ltd. and their reported fine of $495,000, did the company seek a review of the fine and if there was a review, what was the total dollar value of the fine after it was reviewed, (i) did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine and, if so, was a negotiated settlement reached and what was the total value of the negotiated settlement, (ii) what is the total dollar value of the fine that has been paid to date, (iii) has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement; and (b) for Avaneesh Software and their reported fine of $12,000, did the company seek a review of the fine and if there was a review, what was the total dollar value of the fine after it was reviewed, (i) did the company request a negotiated settlement of the fine and, if so, was a negotiated settlement reached and what was the total value of the negotiated settlement, (ii) what is the total dollar value of the fine that has been paid to date, (iii) has the company refused to pay the fine or reach a negotiated settlement?
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, with respect to (a), the fine of $495,000 to Pecon Software Ltd., the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, issued a notice of violation on October 2, 2012. In order to comply with international service requirements, the CRTC filed the documents with the Indian government’s Ministry of Law and Justice, the central authority for extrajudicial service of documents. The CRTC cannot proceed with these matters legally until Pecon Software Ltd. has been legally served. According to the Convention for Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, the Indian central authority is required to provide the CRTC with an affidavit attesting to the fact that they have legally served the documents to Pecon Software Ltd. The documents were received by the central authority in India on October 5, 2012.
The CRTC is now working with the Canadian High Commission in India to facilitate communications with the ministry and ensure the service of documents. Once the Indian ministry has attested to the fact that the documents have been served, Pecon Software Ltd. will have 30 days to pay the penalty or file representations with the CRTC.
With respect to (b) and the fine of $12,000 to Avaneesh Software, the CRTC issued a notice of violation on October 2, 2012, and Avaneesh Software accepted service of the notice and accompanying documents. Avaneesh has submitted representations as per subsection 72.07(2) of the Telecommunications Act, and a violation and review panel will be held to determine if the violations set forth in the notice of violation occurred and whether or not to uphold the administrative monetary penalty. The matter has yet to be reviewed. 
Megan Leslie:  With regard to the cancellation of the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) program and the government’s existing liability under the Memorandum of Agreement with the government of the Province of Ontario for remediation of the ELA site, in the event of a transfer of the ELA facilities to a suitable new operator: (a) has the government conducted a legal analysis of the implications of retaining or transferring its existing liability responsibilities for the ELA; (b) will the government execute a transfer of the ELA facility and research program, in accordance with its liability responsibilities; (c) will the government extend its support for the ELA, both facilities and staff, in the event that a transfer agreement is not in place by March 31, 2013; (d) will the government provide transitional office and administrative support for ELA staff; (e) will the government enable those researchers with ongoing programs to prepare for and execute their on-site research in the coming field season and, if so, how; and (f) will the government retain its liability in perpetuity and delay this expenditure or, if not, will the government gradually reduce its liability over a period of 10 to 20 years in order to facilitate a successful transfer? 
Keith Ashfield:  Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Fisheries and Oceans Canada has sought legal advice as appropriate.
With regard to (b), discussions are ongoing with various interested parties, including the Province of Ontario, about the future of the Experimental Lakes Area.
With regard to (c) and (e), Fisheries and Oceans Canada is not planning to undertake a research program at the Experimental Lakes Area as of March 31, 2013. However, discussions are ongoing with interested parties about the future of the facility.
With regard to (d), staffing discussions are ongoing as the department continues to work with affected staff to find other suitable positions within the department.
With regard to (f), discussions are ongoing with the Province of Ontario about the Canada-Ontario memorandum of agreement. They include issues related to liability and remediation. 
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: With regard to overseas tax evasion: (a) how much money has the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) identified as being hidden in overseas tax havens by Canadian individuals and corporations; (b) how much money does the CRA estimate as being hidden in overseas tax havens by Canadian individuals and corporations; and (c) how much money does the CRA estimate as having been lost in tax revenue through the use of overseas tax havens by Canadian individuals and corporations? 
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) the CRA does not have information relating to the amount of money that has been hidden in offshore jurisdictions of concern by Canadian individuals and corporations. The CRA can, however, confirm that since 2006, it has conducted nearly 8,000 compliance actions and reassessed in excess of $4.5 billion in unpaid federal taxes through the aggressive international tax planning efforts.
With regard to (b), tax evasion and avoidance involving the abusive use of tax havens are major concerns for countries. By their very nature, tax evasion and tax avoidance are difficult to quantify, since they involve people or entities hiding money from the government. Accordingly, the CRA focuses its efforts in identifying and auditing abusive tax schemes and arrangements that use offshore jurisdictions to hide income. Knowing the methods people or entities are using enables the CRA to develop the tools to identify and combat aggressive tax planning, use of offshore jurisdictions or tax evasion by both Canadian individuals and corporations.
The money being hidden in overseas tax havens pertains to revenue that select taxpayers are not reporting or disclosing to the CRA. As this is revenue that is not being disclosed, the CRA cannot provide an accurate estimate. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and most OECD member nations have stated that there is no recognized or reliable methodology for such measurement.
For these reasons, the CRA therefore cannot provide the information in the manner requested.
With respect to (c), as mentioned in the response to part (b), the CRA does not have estimates of the lost tax revenue through the use of overseas tax havens that perhaps has not been declared by individuals or corporations. Due to the reasons stated above, the CRA therefore cannot provide the information in the manner requested. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1213 and 1218 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Lawrence MacAulay:  With respect to the Community War Memorial Program and Cenotaph/Monument Restoration Fund, for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, what is the total amount of funding provided by the government and how is that amount broken down by federal riding? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Charlie Angus:  With respect to privacy breaches at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) in the matter of the Canada Student Loans Program breach, (i) how many individuals have been directly affected, broken down by province, (ii) how many individuals have been indirectly affected (including, but not limited to, loan co-signers or guarantors), broken down by province, (iii) how many individuals are known to have been affected by criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft; and (b) in the matter of the Canada Pension Plan Disability program breach, (i) how many individuals have been affected, broken down by province, (ii) how many individuals have been indirectly affected (including, but not limited to spouses, co-signers, guardians), broken down by province, (iii) how many individuals are known to have been affected by criminal activity such as fraud or identity theft?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
PrivilegeJohn Weston: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to address a question of privilege this morning. Doing so on this day of April 19 allows me to allude to a second related privilege, that of marking the anniversary of the “shot heard round the world”, the day in which the American Revolution began on April 19, 1775, near Boston. Especially momentous as Bostonians are in lockdown as we speak, confronted by an assault on freedom and democracy. Let me first reflect briefly on the relevance of the “shot heard round the world” and what is happening today in Boston.
The phrase was coined by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his poem The Concord Hymn which commemorates the shots in Lexington and Concord near Boston, shots which set into play the events that led to, among other things, the signing of the American Declaration of Independence.
As Bostonians stand once again today at the centre of a battle for freedom and democracy, we recognize it is not for the first time in their history. Only last Monday, terrorists attacked innocent people in Boston who had at the Boston Marathon gathered to enjoy the fruits of peace and democracy. They rightly expected to revel in one another's company, secure and unthreatened by tyranny or violence. Bostonians stand against those who menace them.
We offer the people of Boston our prayers and goodwill. I invite members to join with the U.S. ambassador, Running Room manager Phil Marsh, and me on Monday at 1 p.m. to march together to the U.S. Embassy to show that we stand with Bostonians and Americans at this difficult time. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House to join us.
The formal question of privilege to which I speak today relates to the right of a member of the House to speak freely on whatever topic he or she believes merits the attention of our democratically elected House in the execution of our parliamentary duties. Specifically, I understand the question put to you by the member for Langley in his question of privilege is which institution has the right to administer rotating members' statements in the House; you, as the speaker, or the party whips, independent of your authority. I am not referring to the specific motion originally brought by the member for Langley, but to the critical nature of preserving a legislator's free voice in this institution.
My reference to the U.S. experience in freedom and democracy relates to the matter at hand because our American neighbours put the separation of powers at the foundation of their democratic system, right alongside a sister concept, the use of checks and balances to curb powers that tempt one or another institution to overreach.
The writings of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in The Federalist Papers laid the groundwork for the American Constitution. In the first of their 85 treatises they posed the question whether men and women are really capable of establishing good government. The corralling of normal human deficiencies within institutional checks and balances is at the very heart of the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the MP for Langley.
In the words of Hamilton and company: 
 It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. 
In Federalist 51, the author argued strongly for the independence of the separate arms of government to resist “usurpations” of power and prerogatives of one by the other. Otherwise, each institution stands to suffer encroachment by the others.
To secure these ends, Madison and his partners suggest that “the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department” is to enable each separate institution, be it the executive or the legislature, to fend off attempts to encroach upon one another's domains.
I couch my argument today in institutional language intentionally to remove the debate from the personalities involved. I do not seek to pitch the discussion in terms of a battle for power between individuals, between whatever person happens to preside as a cabinet figure, and whatever legislators are advocating for preservation or expansion of their legislative capacity. Our media are then tempted to build on the personal nature of such a narrative, in turn, attributing personal motives and ascribing malevolent or ambitious motives to the people involved.
It would in fact be easier to make the argument I make today if we had a prime minister who fostered ill will toward the legislature or who was guilty of corruption. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who rose from a world of grassroots democracy and who has fostered unprecedented mechanisms for caucus participation in the formulation of government policy. He has consistently demonstrated a standard of integrity and honest government epitomized in the first bill he passed as Prime Minister: the Accountability Act. Our front bench, whether Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, or others, are consistently toasted as international paragons of good government and sound economic management.
However, does this mean that, because the people in executive or cabinet positions of our government are model democratic leaders, we should allow our institutions to be stretched to accommodate a swelling of power of the executive at the expense of the legislature? I would argue that the doors opened by a good and benevolent prime minister and whip will still be open for access by a much less praiseworthy, less accountable executive who may someday follow.
On a day when the world is focused on the birthplace of American democracy, I have indulged this House to hear my views which, I believe, reflect the views of my constituents concerning the question of privilege raised by the MP for Langley. Its importance stretches back to the birthplace of western democracy, back through the precedents in this House cited by able members of Parliament who have spoken before me on this same point, back through the thinking of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, and back even further to the Isle of Runnymede in 1215, when King John, an executive with far less devotion and accountability than our current executive, was confronted with the need for the separation of powers. In short, the principles we discuss today have received attention in other western democracies to which we sometimes look for inspiration: those of Great Britain and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, you have an important and sombre duty to execute in ruling on this question of privilege raised by the member for Langley. That is, who has the authority to administer members' statements, the speaker or the party leaders?
 In executing your duty, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the famous incident which occurred in 1642 when King Charles I entered Parliament, searching for parliamentarians who had refused to heed his will. Charles I was anti-democratic and sought not to be accountable to his people, the exact opposite of the Prime Minister and cabinet who serve Canadians today with long-standing, devoted, and proven commitment to freedom and democracy. In response to King Charles I, William Lenthall, the speaker at the time, responded with the following words. He said:
 May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here.... 
I reiterate, the problem relates not to the people in power today, but to the potential impact on the democratic capacity of legislators in the future to perform our roles. I believe it is the speaker, and I mean the institution of speaker, not the person, who should administer rotating members' statements in this House, not a party leader nor his or her representatives. Speaker Lenthall, long ago, observed the importance of the separation of powers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to act with the same courage and dignity, as you ponder the important question of privilege raised by the member for Langley.
The Speaker: Once again, I thank the hon. member for his further contributions to the question currently before the chair, and I can assure him and the rest of the House that I will be coming back with a decision in due course.

Government Orders
Business of Supply[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: There are still four minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
The hon. member for Manicouagan has the floor.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said in his speech that he was open to negotiating with willing partners. Let me remind you that the concepts of “partners” and “willing” are subjective. As minister, he has a responsibility to negotiate on an equal footing with every stakeholder and every first nation. Could he clarify what he means by “willing”? 
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the question could start a fine philosophical debate on the meaning of certain words.
We are simply saying that we are willing to work positively in a relationship of mutual respect with first nations across the country in order to address the key issues that affect them, whether it be economic development, education or socio-economic problems. When we say willing, we mean that we must work in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, could the minister provide specific comment in regard to the Nunatukavut community and its particular claim and give us a brief update as to where the government is on that claim?
[Interjection]
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in the House, the Nunatukavut claim was filed back in 1991-92. At this stage, the claimants have filed further historical evidence and material with the department in support of the claim. As we speak, this evidence is being reviewed. I would expect that within the next while we should be able to get the advice of the Department of Justice as to whether this is a claim on which we can start negotiations.
John Weston: Mr. Speaker, our government is standing up for Labrador. We are delivering results that matter to Labradorians, such as providing a loan guarantee for Lower Churchill, ending the long gun registry and providing funding to improve the Trans-Labrador Highway. While we are delivering results, the leader of the NDP is supporting a job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything and hurt Newfoundland and Labrador.
Would the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development update the House on how his department is getting the job done for the people of Labrador?
[Interjection]
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to working with aboriginals in Labrador to facilitate local solutions, including empowering communities through the implementation of self-government agreements such as the fiscal financing agreement with the Nunatsiavut First Nation, which we have concluded.
 Another example of empowering and working with aboriginals in Labrador is the devolution of responsibility of the K-12 school board in 2009 to an eight-member Innu school board, which assumed control over the schools in two reserves in Labrador. 
Along with our government's Muskrat Falls loan guarantee commitment to support Atlantic Canada's future energy needs, a project that will result in an average of 1,500 jobs a year during construction, we have also invested $385,000 in the Labrador aboriginal training partnership. 
Unlike the other side of the House, we are standing up for aboriginal people and these are only a few examples of all of the work that we are doing in partnership with them.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address what is a very important issue of a critical nature. We have individuals who want to see significant progress made on this file.
It is fair to say that land claims have been an issue ever since the signing of treaties back in 1701 and all the way up to today. We still get issues related to land claims, things that occur today that have impacts where there is a need for a settlement to be reached.
I do not believe there is any political party inside the House that can say that it has done the type of work necessary to ultimately resolve the issue permanently. I would like to think there has been significant progress in certain areas, but there is a lot more room for improvement.
While I was an MLA, I heard about the flooding impacts of our hydro development, for example, during the seventies and eighties. We had a different level of government, a province, that caused horrendous issues, whether it was New Democratic governments that failed to deliver on land claim issues or Progress Conservative governments or, ultimately, different parties at the national level.
We recognize that 40 or 50 years ago, I believe it was back in the early 1970s, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau established, through policy, the need for us to recognize that we had to respect the treaties and work toward having laws that would see land claims ultimately processed in a much fairer fashion. It drew in the other stakeholders, and in particular the provinces and territories, to also accept responsibilities in resolving outstanding land-related issues. In 1974, an office was created to deal with native land claims. Through the years, we have seen a great deal of effort.
If we were to canvass most Canadians, in particular our first nations, we would find that much more work needs to be done and there is a great deal of frustration that we just are not moving fast enough to resolve these issues.
Mr. Speaker, I should have indicated that I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.
I would like to highlight that we have two types of land claims that are noteworthy. There are the specific land claims which really deal with treaties that, as I say, go back from 1701 to 1923. We are still talking about several hundreds of those types of things where issues are still outstanding. Then there are the more comprehensive claims that need to be resolved, the more modern type claim, the type of claim that I asked the minister responsible about a few minutes ago, which is trying to get an update. This particular claim is something that is made reference to in the text of the motion itself.
All of us are aware of the Idle No More movement. When we try to get a better understanding of that movement, we would get a better appreciation of why there is this great sense of frustration throughout the country with regard to what I would classify as the spinning of the wheels on very important first nation aboriginal issues. These people want to see a government that is prepared to do more than just talk. They want to see action.
When I have the opportunity first hand to meet talk with first nation leaders or members from the Metis community and others, they want to talk about issues related to economic opportunities. They want to talk about education and the quality of it, in particular post-secondary education. They want a higher sense that in the future there will be more hope. Hope is so critically important in the development of any community. The federal government has to recognize the leading role it needs to play.
I have stood in my place on numerous occasions to talk about aboriginal and first nations' issues. I have put the challenge to the government that it needs to recognize it has to approach those issues with its counterparts, the many first nation leaders who are quite able and want to demonstrate leadership on these issues and to open the doors and get them engaged in the decisions that affect our first nation and aboriginal communities throughout Canada.
One of the frustrations is the refusal of the government to acknowledge and fulfill its legal duty to consult on matters that impact aboriginal rights. As an example, I have a note which shows the Conservative government has rammed through different forms of legislation with respect to first nations, such as financial reporting.
We have heard a lot today about matrimonial property on reserves, regulation of water and waste water, various portions of the Indian Act, aboriginal fisheries, land management and environmental protection, all without proper prior consultation and the necessary resources to implement the changes being imposed upon them. Back in 1973, Pierre Trudeau indicated very clearly that we had that obligation. We have seen court decisions that have been made since then, indicating there is an obligation. I do not quite understand why the government has not recognized that obligation to the degree to which it should. One would question as to why it has not done that.
I suspect the type of reaction from many of our first nations toward the government is because it has stood idly by and not acted on this. That is the reason why we have seen the protests on the Hill and in other regions of our country. It is a wake-up call to say that people will not continue to stand by and tolerate a government that is not prepared to act on these very important issues.
Over the last couple of years, the Liberal Party has brought forward ideas and suggestions to deal with some of the issues that are there, always taking into consideration the importance of recognizing the leadership on our first nations in a real and tangible way and using that leadership to provide guidance as we try to deal with these issues that are of critical importance.
We believe we need to speed up and improve the land settlements process. If there are things that we can do to encourage and promote that, the House should do what it can. The length of time it takes in the process today is far too long and that issue has to be addressed.
We have continued to go beyond the land settlement issues in wanting to get to other issues. That is why we have had the critic for our first nations communities stand in her place and talk a lot about education. We have talked a lot about other economic type of opportunities and how we can support our first nations from across this land.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague. We have seen over the last day that the Conservatives have suddenly tried to portray themselves as interested in the issue of women's rights on reserve and basic human rights. At the same time, they are in court against Cindy Blackstock, who is one of the great civil rights heroes of our time. The government has actually been spying on Cindy Blackstock, a women whose main concern is assuring basic health and welfare and education rights for first nations children and ending the systemic discrimination.
We have seen the government go to court time and time again against first nations to stop the implementation of basic rights, but it is going to court against children, and spying on the people who are speaking out for children's rights. I would like to ask the member what he thinks that says about the so-called honour of the Crown in the 21st century.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, both today and yesterday we have heard a lot about Bill S-2, dealing with the issue of marriage breakdown and the rights of both partners. It is important to recognize that a big part of that has been the requirement of the government to work with first nations and leaders in terms of developing legislation. As opposed to doing that, it has taken a piece of legislation from a specific area and brought it into the House without doing its work. As a result, there is a great deal of resistance on an issue that I would argue there would be wonderful support for and very strong leadership on, even from the first nations.
What is upsetting a number of people is the way in which the government feels it can bring in legislation without working with first nations leaders. At the end of the day, if the government really wants to deal with many of the outstanding first nations issues, it has to recognize there is not only a legal obligation but many would argue a moral obligation to be working with first nations and aboriginal leaders in order to resolve these matters. If the government did that, we would be ahead in terms of making our communities a better place to live.
Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after hearing both of my colleagues' questions and responses to the issue of real matrimonial property rights for women on reserve, I am trying to understand the logic behind their opposition to it.
We have consulted with first nations groups and leaders on this but, more importantly, an individual's right to property is a basic human right. If we were talking about the right to be free from violence or to be free to worship on a reserve in any way anyone wants to worship, I do not think there would be opposition to those basic rights by the members. Both of these men would not have this problem if they were living on a reserve. It is only women on reserve who suffer from this draconian and very old law. There is no way to explain away this kind of law.
I cannot ask the member for Timmins—James Bay, but I can ask the member for Winnipeg North to please tell me why this basic fundamental right that every Canadian enjoys, that he and I enjoy, such as the basic right to property, as well as the basic rights to be free from violence and to worship in the way people want, is something he wants to continue to talk about and not actually act on.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I do not believe for a moment that the Conservative Party has a monopoly on dealing with the issue of women's rights. If in fact I were to rank the political parties in the House, I suggest the Conservatives would rank at the end in terms of protecting women's rights. The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has been a very strong advocate for women's right, both on reserve and off the reserve, and nothing will change. We recognize the harm that takes place when marital breakups occur, and we want to ensure, as much as possible, that the right thing is done.
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I want to go over something my colleague just said about the commitment of Liberal governments, starting with Prime Minister Trudeau, and moving to Mr. Chrétien in the 1970s, when he was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as it was called at the time, and wrote a white paper on the need for self-determination and self-government for aboriginal peoples. It is no secret that when he came in as prime minister in 1993 that was one of the things he set as a priority. He immediately brought in steps to try to create the infrastructure to improve land claims and to fast-forward them.
It was not only that, but in British Columbia, in my province, where for 100 years aboriginal people have been trying to get land claims established and could not, Mr. Chrétien managed to convince the then Government of British Columbia to start moving forward with land claims. It was fast-forwarded. It was moving very well, and things were happening. Fast-forwarding land claims was an important part of dealing with aboriginal concerns, the ability to give them the autonomy they needed to make decisions about themselves and to govern themselves.
Prime Minister Martin then came in and picked it up. He signed the Kelowna accord with every province in this country being in agreement and treated the aboriginal people as an equal part of government at that table. The Kelowna accord would have devolved responsibility for health, education and housing to aboriginal peoples.
However, we saw what happened. The Conservative government came in 2006, and the Kelowna accord was gone. It was dead in the water. In fact, we now see that the same Prime Minister Paul Martin, no longer in Parliament, is spending his personal fortune to try to move education forward, knowing this is part of the way for aboriginal people to move forward and become autonomous.
I heard some of my colleagues across the way talking about aboriginal women, etcetera, but the point is that the government does not consult with aboriginal peoples. If it consulted with aboriginal peoples, it would understand the cultural differences. This imposition of what we, as non-aboriginal people, think is best for aboriginal people continues even today in this Conservative government's rhetoric.
Thirty years ago, the Canadian Medical Association recognized the link between aboriginal self-government and self-determination and the high rates of disease in aboriginal communities. As president of the British Columbia Medical Association, I ensured that the Council on Health Promotion started something called the aboriginal health committee. We brought in an unusual thing for a medical association. We brought in aboriginal leaders to be part of that community, to talk about self-determination and self-governance, so we could move forward and change those terrible health statistics for aboriginal people.
However, here we are today. We are still seeing high incidences of homelessness and disease in Inuit communities. Diabetes is three times that of our national average, and obesity rates are approximately 40% on reserve. The life expectancy for first nations men is 10 years below non-aboriginal men, and that of aboriginal women is 7 years below that of non-aboriginal women.
We see suicide rates that are 7 times the national average for first nations communities, and 11 times higher for Inuit communities. Infant mortality rates are 1.5 times higher than the national average. HIV-AIDS infections are 3.6 times higher than the non-aboriginal populations. Tuberculosis is 35 times higher on reserve, and 185 times higher, in Nunavut specifically.
In spite of all this, and in spite of the rhetoric we hear from this government, we have seen, in 2011, 2012 and 2013, incremental decreases in budgets going to first nations and Inuit health, infrastructure programs and to mental health. Maternal and child health programs were cut. Suicide prevention programs were cuts.
The Liberals created a healing fund. We did so when we were in government. It was shown by the Department of Indian Affairs, and by everyone who audited, that it was working really well. It was the aboriginal healing fund.
The Prime Minister made a wonderful apology in the House and cut that fund that was actually helping aboriginal people.
The government also walked away from the Northern Dimension Partnership, which is made up of 11 Arctic countries to look at the health of the peoples of the north. 
At a time when Canada is chairing the Arctic Council, the Conservatives walked away from this, which saved them $50,000 a year, while the same Prime Minister, who apologized nicely in the House, spent $500,000 to transport his imperial limousines to India. 
The same Prime Minister, again I refer to all the wonderful talk and the apologies in the House, has stalled on land claims. The land claims, which were moving forward, at least in my province of British Columbia, very well under a Liberal government, have now stalled completely. 
When I chaired the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I visited Labrador and I heard of the violence that women faced there. Face to face they spoke to the fact that when they were trying to escape violence, they had nowhere to go.
 When my colleague from St. Paul's talked about shelters, she was not talking about shelters as a permanent thing. Everyone who understands violence knows there has to be a safe place to go. There are no shelters for aboriginal women across the country and if there are, there may be five.
When our committee travelled across the country, we heard that more and more children were taken away from their parents when they tried to flee violence and were put into non-aboriginal homes. In fact, we heard the statistics from provincial governments that more aboriginal children were being taken away from their parents today than were in the residential school era.
Conservative members shut down the report when they won a majority government in the 2011 election. It was the first time that all four political parties agreed on what that recommendation should be. Since then, we have seen nothing further being done on violence against aboriginal women, those on reserve, off reserve and in society at large, yet we hear a lot of rhetoric.
This motion is an appropriate one. We agree with the motion because it is time to stop the rhetoric. It is time to stop listening to all the wondrous phrases that come from across the aisle, the Prime Minister's beautiful apology, everyone berating people on this side of the House who, as a Liberal government, moved significantly forward on this issue. 
It is time to stop the rhetoric and it is time to get action going. I do not think we will see it from the Conservatives because they are too busy congratulating themselves on their little pieces of rhetoric than actually intending to do anything.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the issue of the nation-to-nation relationship. With Bill C-45, we see the stripping of basic environmental protections on waterways all across first nations territory in order to help the Conservatives' friends in the oil industry, a complete disregard of basic first nations rights that have been affirmed in court decision after court decision about the duty to consult.
Does my hon. colleague feel that the backlash that is rising up right now across the country against the government is because of colonial treatment of people on first nations land? Perhaps that backlash could have been alleviated if the government respected the notion that the original first people of our country are still here. The treaties were signed with them, and that consultation must happen before the government goes ahead with any of its risky and dangerous environmental plans.
[Interjection]
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question. As I said, back in the early seventies when Mr. Chrétien was minister for Indian affairs, he wrote a white paper on the need for us to move forward with aboriginal self-government and self-determinations.
These are not just words. Paul Martin wanted to treat aboriginal people at the table as a level of government on their own. This has moved backward and regressed under the government. This idea that we must continue to tell aboriginal people what is best for them, this colonial, as my colleague referred to it, attitude, this patriarchal attitude of saying that we know what is best for aboriginal people is what we did when we first came here. We told aboriginal people that they did not know what was good for them. We continue to do it under the government. We have gone backward in time.
The hon. member talked about pipelines and the duty to consult. The government thinks that the duty to consult is to pat people on the back and say, “You can come in and line up with everybody else and make a statement at a committee”. The Conservatives need to consult and respect on a face to face, government to government basis with first nations. That has not been done. First nations have been treated just like anybody else by the government.
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party had 13 years to apologize to individuals who went through the residential school system for the wrongdoing done to them. I was one of those students back in the day.
 The Liberals had 13 years to settle and implement land claims agreements, which they failed to do. I can speak for Nunavut. The Mulroney government signed our land claims agreement. For 13 years, that party did absolutely nothing to implement the land claims agreement. Prior to our government coming to power, the NTI filed a lawsuit against that government at the time. Now we are back dealing with the implementation issue. 
The Liberal Party had 13 years to invest in education, infrastructure and health. What did it do? It cut transfers to balance the books.
As a member of the first nations aboriginal community, as an aboriginal person, I am shocked that those two parties do not support first nations people having the same matrimonial rights the member for Vancouver Centre takes for granted. She wants first nations women to be below her when it comes to matrimonial rights so that first nations women can protect their children in areas of dispute. Why is that member opposing the matrimonial rights bill that would make first nations women equal to all Canadian women?
[Interjection]
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric is great. I love it. It seems to be all that comes from that party.
The minister says that she is an aboriginal woman, an Inuit woman. She forgets that it was under the Liberal government that there was a Nunavut government. I was there at the launch of that government. It is treated as an equal. 
The aboriginal healing fund was brought in by a Liberal government. The Conservative government cancelled it. That Minister of Health has presided over cuts to all of the health programs on suicide prevention and maternal and child health. Homelessness is a major issue in Nunavut, and the minister has done absolutely nothing about it.
PrivilegeMegan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add to the debate on the point of privilege of my colleague, the member for Langley. 
Before I begin, I would like to say that I worked with the member for Langley when he was the chair of the environment committee, and I respect his work as a member of Parliament in the House.
Saying that, I categorically oppose the content of the motion he wishes to bring forward. The NDP has been very clear about its support for a woman's right to choose and when it comes to women's reproductive health. With that foundation, I would like to speak on the substance of the member's point of privilege and add to that debate with the perspective of an NDP member of the House.
The NDP does not vet its members' statements. Our statements are allotted and organized by our whip. It is done in a fair and equitable manner so that all MPs have the opportunity to highlight the important issues going on across the country as well as in their ridings. We have a roster system when it comes to our daily statements. We have had it for the last decade. 
Previously, when we were a smaller party, we had one statement a day. We have always held some of those statements for different reasons. For example, on Wednesdays, we hold a statement to make a statement on women's issues. We hold back some other statements for specific days, such as for days of mourning for injured workers or Remembrance Day. We also hold back the occasional statement so that we can respond to issues arising that day, which are time specific, or to correct serious and deceitful accusations made by the government. We have that kind of system.
What we are seeing right now, what is happening within the Conservative caucus on this issue, is that a number of Conservatives have risen to speak and are speaking out against their own internal process. This speaks directly to the Prime Minister's misunderstanding of and disrespect for how Parliament needs to work for MPs and for Canadians.
First of all, the Conservatives ignore the voices of the opposition and their own MPs. Second, they stifle attempts by our officers of Parliament to hold them to account. Third, they shut down the ability of MPs to speak by shutting down debate. That is disrespectful of Parliament.
I do not believe that this is a question of left versus right. I believe that it is a question of right versus wrong.
The NDP respects Parliament and respects freedom of speech, and I think that can be seen even at our very roots when one looks at our party conventions, for example. This past weekend, we had a party convention, and we debated requiring a two-thirds majority of Parliament vote to consent to prorogation. We also debated and discussed having a two-thirds majority to move parliamentary committees in camera. These motions have not yet been adopted, and they are not yet our official policy, but it shows that there is a strong culture of respect for Parliament in our party and within our caucus.
We respect the right of members of Parliament to use their S. O. 31s, or their statements, to express views on the topics of their choosing. This is their right. We oppose the abuse of using normal parliamentary tools and procedures. We oppose the Conservatives writing the book on the lack of judgment and the disrespect toward this institution.
The NDP has long been a champion of the right to free speech in the House and fair debate on legislation. It is against, for example, the government's limiting of time for debate on important issues in the House, whether it is through time allocation or closure. New Democrats put forward an opposition day motion in November 2011 that would have required the government to justify its use of time allocation or closure--
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Stop politicizing it. Talk to the issue.
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that I am being heckled on a point of privilege. It really is. The Conservatives know no bounds.
We actually put forward an opposition day motion in 2011 to require the government to justify its use of time allocation or closure before it could be put to the House. The Speaker would have criteria to follow to ensure that this stifling of debate could not become as routinized as it has become under the government.
Those are my perspectives as an NDP member on this side of the House. I hope that the Speaker takes those comments and considerations into account when he is making his decision.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for Halifax for her intervention. I can assure her that the Speaker will take into consideration her comments and those of all the other members who have intervened on this issue.
Business of Supply[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay, particularly on this important New Democrat motion about restoring the nation-to-nation relationship with first nation people. I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. 
It is very important that the debate comes this week, when we have numerous issues showing us the fundamental failure of Canadians to live up to that relationship, such as at Neskantaga, where we have a horrific suicide crisis. I have seen the suicide crisis in James Bay and the damage that it does psychologically, physically and spiritually to people. I note that Neskantaga in English means Fort Hope. It seems so ironic that a community so devastated is a place called Fort Hope. 
This week, nine premiers came forward and asked the Conservative government for an inquiry into the hundreds of murdered and missing women and the government continued to turn a deaf ear. In its eyes, perhaps there is one set of victims it will listen to, but it continues to stonewall the hundreds of missing first nations young women across the country. 
This week the government continues its court case against Cindy Blackstock. It spied on a woman who was speaking out on the issue of education and child rights for first nation children. This is at a time when there are now more children being held in foster care and being taken away from their families than at the height of the residential schools. This shows us the broken relationship that we need to restore. 
I want to speak today about Treaty 9, because that is the region I represent, the height of land in Northern Ontario. I know in the media, when we had the Attiwapiskat housing crisis, there was the sense of “We won, they lost”. That seems to be the general public view of the treaty, that it was some kind of surrender, or giving up.
 However, until we understand the story of the treaty, we do not really understand why the relationship with first nation people has gone so wrong. We would not understand why people like Grand Chief Stan Louttit and Chief Theresa Spence speak so much about Treaty 9. Their grandfathers signed that treaty. This is not ancient history. This is the beginning of what went wrong in the modern 20th century.
If we look at the Indian affairs website on Treaty 9, it is amazing. The very first line on the history of Treaty 9 begins with the opening statement, “We ask you to help us”, as though the first nations were hoping that the Indian affairs bureaucrats were going to come up and make everything right. 
What was being spoken about in the late 1800s was the incursion by the white settlers into first nations lands, stripping the lands of their basic resources and the attempt by the people to define some rules on the ground. They were not calling on Indian affairs to come up and take their land and put them on a reserve. They were saying that their fundamental rights, which they never extinguished, were under attack. They were under attack by CP Rail. They were under attack by the white settlers who were trying to flood the communities with alcohol, while taking away the basic hunting rights.
 What was interesting also was the issue of resource development. In December 1901, the Hudson Bay Company Osnaburgh House, forwarded a petition saying “For the past two or three years exploration for minerals has been carried on in the country contiguous to Lake St. Joseph”. They asked to meet with His Majesty's officials to discuss what was happening in terms of mineral exploration "as white men are already building upon land which we desire to retain".
In 1903, the Geological Survey of Canada was turned away by the chief of the Crane Band, who said it had no right to come and explore without the express consent of first nations.
Back in 1872, near Jackfish Lake, Chief Blackstone shut down gold development, saying they had no right to be there.
Fast forward to the 21st century when we saw KI, in northwestern Ontario, kick out a junior mining company that refused to consult the Wahgoshig First Nation in my area. The company said that it was not their job to look for Indian arrowheads, that is was a mining exploration company. The refusal to consult today has resulted in the first nations taking the same actions that their ancestors took over a hundred years ago.
When the treaty commissioners came forward, it was never about the surrender of land, it was about ensuring that the land was going to be used in a fair and equitable manner, which was not happening. 
It is interesting that Indian Affairs, in its history, blames Ontario. It states:
 It was Ontario which had licensed the surveyors and mining exploration parties the Indian people were complaining about to federal officials. And, as the Cree and Ojibwa were later to discover, it was Ontario which had already given out timber licenses to lands they wished to reserve for themselves. If the incursion of whites was the gun pointed at the head of the Indian people, Ontario's finger was on the trigger. 
That is the official history from the Indian Affairs point of view.
Certainly we know that across the Prairies, Ontario and Quebec, the provinces treated the first nations people as non-existent. They were a federal responsibility. Hence, they did not exist, and the provinces could do whatever they wanted. However, in the case of Treaty No. 9, the issue was that they were trying to get some certainty with respect to the land. Ontario took the hard line. It said that it would not allow a reserve to have any kind of hydro development potential, period. The first nations were going to get the land that was absolutely worthless. The fact is, it did not tell the people in Treaty No. 9.
When the commissioners came forward in 1905-06 across the upper lakes, they made oral promises to the people, because this was not a written culture. Duncan Scott, the treaty commissioner, knew that no negotiation was going to take place, because Ontario said that if it did not get everything it wanted, it did not care what the first nations did. It was just going to apply. It was going in with a gun to the heads of the first nations.
It is interesting that when the people landed in Fort Hope, where today we have the huge suicide epidemic, Chief Moonias stood up and said to the people that the white guys were not giving them money for nothing. If they were offering money, they were taking something substantial away from them. That is what he was warning the people, and the commissioners had to give the people a story. They said that the people were going to get medical coverage and schools. The issue of schooling was very important to people on the James Bay coast. The Cree communities knew that they needed education as a way to address the fact that their communities were in crisis. They knew that the world was changing.
Daniel MacMartin's diary has only recently come to light. He was with the commissioners as they went across northern Ontario in 1905 and 1906. Daniel MacMartin said that the commissioners had to sweeten the deal verbally, but they did not put any of it in writing. What the people were told they were signing was completely different from what they actually signed onto. Later, of course, government leaders said that they had surrendered the land. It was all there on the page in black and white, but that was not the verbal commitment made.
 That was the record of the so-called honour of the Crown for the following 100 years. I have seen it myself. I saw it in Barriere Lake, where the Liberal government signed an agreement with the community, and as soon as the agreement was signed, they walked away. I saw it in Kashechewan First Nation, where we sat down with the then Liberal government. We had an agreement to rebuild the community, and we sat down to look at the paper to have the whole commitment they had made verbally. I remember saying to the chief that none of the promises were on the paper, and we were told that they could trust the honour of the Crown. We know what happened to that. So much for the agreement with Kashechewan, but it took the present Conservative government to rip up that agreement. That was the so-called honour of the Crown. 
Daniel MacMartin said that the people were misled. The commissioners had to mislead them to get them to sign off.
It is fascinating, and really deeply disturbing, that it was Duncan Scott who led the Treaty No. 9 negotiations. The people who were coming to him said that they understood that their way of life was under threat. They said that they would make an agreement if he promised that their children would get an education. Duncan Scott had a plan for their education all right; it was the residential schools. Duncan Scott said that the residential schools had to be mandatory, because it was to “get rid of the Indian problem... to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed”. This was about a genocidal policy. However it is said, it was about the destruction of the first nations people. They went into those communities, misrepresented themselves and punished those communities with the residential schools, which nearly broke them.
 One hundred years later, history is calling on us. It is knocking on the door of this House of Commons saying that it is time to restore that broken relationship, show that there is honour in the Crown and ensure that the first nations people are treated with the rights and dignities they have as the original first nations people, who never extinguished their rights in this country.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his work and for his dedication to our first nations.
We heard previous speakers from the Liberal Party, and since the member is talking history, I would like to ask him a question regarding the Kelowna accord. It is my understanding that once the Kelowna accord was signed, the next budget did not have any funding in it at all to back up the promises that were made. That is the first question.
My second question is this. In the winter the member and I met with Chief Theresa Spence. We talked with her about the nation-to-nation view of discussions and respect and the importance of that approach.
I would like to have him speak to both issues, if he would.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, our fundamental relationship in this country, the relationship that goes back to the original agreement of 1763 to build the relationship together with first nations, has been a broken relationship. It needs to be repaired. 
There have been numerous broken promises. Numerous treaties were not implemented or people had their land stolen or, when the Kelowna accord came at the 11th hour and 59th minute of the Liberal government, there was no money on the table to actually bring about change.
Unfortunately, this has left a sour taste in the mouths of people and a suspicion, a rightful suspicion. We see that in Attawapiskat, where the people are still living on a postage-stamp-sized reserve without access to their resources and their young people do not even have a school.
We need to do better, and it is upon us all. It is a historic problem, but this is the time to change it—today. All members of the House of Commons have that ability. We need to come together and do the right thing.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 23, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
Business of the HousePeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief statement respecting business of the House for the next week.
As I said at the start of question period, leadership requires decisive and serious action in response to serious threats of terrorism. To give members of this House an opportunity to express their views on the appropriate way to respond to terrorist violence, on Monday and Tuesday the House will debate Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act.
This bill is at its final stage in Parliament, and I call upon all members of this place to pass this bill. We do not need further study. We need action.
As a result, the original government business that was scheduled for those days will be rescheduled to a later date.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
AnaphylaxisMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC):  moved: 
 That, in the opinion of the House, anaphylaxis is a serious concern for an increasing number of Canadians and the government should take the appropriate measures necessary to ensure these Canadians are able to maintain a high quality of life. 
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before the House today to discuss Motion No. 230.
To go over the background of my motion, I raised this issue in the previous Parliament, but as a result of an election, it did not get a chance to make it all the way through. Therefore, today I will talk about what anaphylaxis is, some of the challenges people have to deal with, what is being done by our government and what we can do to help address this issue. 
I am grateful for the number of people who have helped me understand this issue in great detail, and I think it is important to explain to all Canadians exactly what that is.
Anaphylaxis is a severe medical condition and a serious public health issue. Unfortunately, there is no cure for anaphylaxis or food allergies in general, at least not yet. The only way to prevent an anaphylactic reaction is to avoid the allergen causing it. The best way to diminish the likelihood of a reaction is through greater public awareness of the condition and its triggers.
Anaphylactic reactions are caused by a negative response to an allergen. Allergens can be in the form of medications, insect bites, latex, certain foods, and in fact there are over 200 recognized allergens. The top 10 food allergens are eggs, seafood, milk, tree nuts, sesame, sulphites, wheat, mustard, soy, peanuts and other cereal grains containing gluten.
Adults are more prone to reactions from medications, insect bites and stings, while foods are the most common allergic trigger in children and in young people. 
There are many symptoms that can occur as a result of an anaphylactic reaction. They generally happen within minutes of coming into contact with the allergen, although a reaction could also occur several hours after exposure. There are five areas where symptoms present themselves: the skin, the respiratory system, the gastrointestinal system, the cardiovascular system and mood.
 When symptoms present themselves, usually two or more parts of the body are affected. Symptoms present themselves on the skin 80% to 90% of the time, while the respiratory system is affected in 70% of cases. The gastrointestinal system is affected in 30% to 45% of cases, while the cardiovascular system is affected 10% to 45% of the time. In addition, the central nervous system is affected in 10% to 15% of anaphylactic reactions. 
Victims of anaphylaxis can exhibit symptoms such as hives, itching, swelling, rash, coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, hay fever symptoms and chest pain. They could experience cramps and nausea, develop a weak pulse and light-headedness, and even go into shock. Mood and behaviour can also be affected, bringing on a feeling of anxiety and a sense of impending doom. 
The most serious symptoms are breathing difficulties and a drop in blood pressure, both of which can be life-threatening. The throat constricts, oxygen is not delivered to the brain, and one could experience a panic attack and actually go into shock. When these signs or symptoms arise, patients must immediately receive medical attention, specifically a dose of epinephrine. Those with a serious allergy carry an epinephrine autoinjector, an EpiPen or Twinject, to prevent an anaphylactic reaction when exposed to the allergen. However, if left untreated, one could fall unconscious and possibly die.
Clearly, anaphylaxis is a serious and dangerous medical condition. It is estimated that 2.5 million Canadians live with anaphylaxis, and this number continues to rise every year. It is projected that 3,500 Canadians experience anaphylactic shock each year from eating the wrong foods. Of those 3,500, about a dozen die.
One in two Canadians knows someone with a serious food allergy. Alarmingly, it is most prevalent in young children, specifically those under the age of three. Close to 6% of children below the age of three and 300,000 youths under the age of 18 are affected by general food allergies. 
Disturbingly, the frequency of food allergies has increased by 350% from 1996 to 2002. The prevalence of peanut and nut allergies has increased by over 250% over that time, and it should be noted that the majority allergic persons are under the age of 30, with an excess of those being born in 1992. 
As such, it is no surprise that more than 40% of Canadians examine the ingredient information on food labels either for themselves or for someone living with anaphylaxis. The most recognized allergy is the one to peanuts. Peanuts and tree nuts are responsible for the majority of fatal anaphylactic reactions. A study examining 13 fatal and near-fatal cases in children concluded that 10 of the 13 incidents occurred as a result of reactions to peanuts or nuts. 
Even with greater vigilance, someone with a peanut or nut allergy will have an accidental episode every three to five years. Accidental exposures occur as a result of not being able to see the residue of the food allergen that can be left on any appliance or piece of furniture. Airborne proteins can also cause serious issues as they can induce an asthmatic attack. These statistics emphasize the magnitude of the anaphylaxis and the importance of bringing it to national attention.
Many Canadians, including numerous families from my constituency, face a frequent and frightening threat of an anaphylactic reaction. Liam and Lucas, two young children from my riding, both live with a peanut and tree nut allergy. Liam has had three serious allergic reactions, one of which required immediate emergency medical assistance as he was transported to the hospital by ambulance. Thankfully, he was okay. 
Similar to Liam, Lucas has to avoid many areas and events where he could come in contact with allergens that affect him. He avoids social gatherings, sporting events, and travelling on airplanes as the risk is just too great.
David, another young man in my riding, lives with a serious latex allergy. He has experienced several reactions while undergoing an operation. His condition was stabilized by the medical staff, but not before terrifying his family. This goes to show that even in Canada, with our most health-conscious environments, anaphylaxis demands more awareness and attention. 
Another young man also named Lucas lives with a life-threatening dairy allergy. Lucas also has a serious heart condition, but the risk of anaphylactic reaction is what worries his mother most. Families dealing with anaphylaxis try to vet everything that goes into their households. However, those who live with anaphylaxis are most at risk outside of the house where one has little or no control over the surroundings. Parents try to teach their children the risks of the condition so that children can safely interact with friends and teachers. 
Travelling by airplane is perhaps the best example of a high-risk environment where peanuts and mixed nuts are common snack foods. With airplanes being so enclosed, the risk of having an allergic reaction to a nearby allergen residue or airborne protein is very high. Air travel is unnerving for those living with anaphylaxis as flying at 35,000 feet leaves them highly vulnerable and far from medical facilities.
I have heard from many people struggling with anaphylaxis. I have also had many discussions with members of the Canadian Anaphylaxis Initiative, or CAI, and Niagara Anaphylaxis Support and Knowledge, or NASK. These two groups do great work spreading awareness of anaphylaxis. They improve the lives of Canadians living with the condition by promoting anaphylactic-safe environments, as well as educating governments, organizations, and businesses to do the same. CAI, NASK and those who live with anaphylaxis recognize the total elimination of various allergens is an unrealistic goal. Instead, their objective is to reduce accidental exposure to allergens as much as possible.
The ideal way to achieve this goal is to increase the awareness about the condition. That is what Motion No. 230 seeks to do. With more awareness, Canadians will become familiar with the risk of anaphylaxis and will hopefully take precautions to limit accidental exposure for those who may be vulnerable. This, in turn, will create a safer environment for everyone. There should be supportive and alert communities that ensure preventive measures are taken to avoid anaphylactic reactions.
It is important to mention that preliminary steps have been taken to spread awareness of anaphylaxis and to recognize its severity. Individuals, companies, and governments have acted appropriately in this regard. For instance, in 2005 the passing of Sabrina's Law by the Ontario government was a good step forward. In 2003, grade nine student Sabrina Shannon experienced an anaphylactic reaction to a dairy protein and, tragically, passed away. Her death led to an important piece of legislation, the very first of its kind in the world. 
It guarantees that all Ontario school boards have policies and procedures in place to respond to the threat posed by anaphylaxis. Some of these policies are comprised of education and training for staff to administer treatment to students who suffer an anaphylactic reaction. The result of this new law is increased protection for the thousands of children who were at risk before its implementation.
In the private sector, the Toronto Blue Jays offered a peanut-controlled zone for three of their home games in the previous season. These zones ensured that fans at risk of a serious anaphylactic reaction were given a safer place to enjoy the game.
Similar to the Blue Jays organization, there are several practical steps that ordinary people could take to prevent anaphylactic reactions. People could find out if friends, neighbours or co-workers are anaphylactic. If hosting an event that includes a guest with a severe allergy, the host could look up recipes that do not contain products relating to the allergen. Furthermore, one could thoroughly clean food preparation surfaces before cooking, to ensure that no potential allergen residue is present.
It is my hope that we will see more individuals, organizations and businesses take similar precautions in the future. It must be mentioned that this government has recognized the importance of addressing anaphylaxis and has acted on previous recommendations by providing funding to allergy research.
In March 2012, my colleague, the hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology , announced $36.5 million to support AllerGen, the allergy, genes and environment network centres of excellence, for the next seven years. AllerGen does important work in researching allergies and reduces the risk of anaphylaxis. 
Also, in August of 2012, new regulations came into effect that enhanced the labelling of priority food allergens on prepackaged retail foods. These regulations will help consumers distinguish which foods are safe and which products they should avoid.
Finally, I want to draw attention to this government's decision to designate May as national anaphylaxis month. It is evident that progress has been made in addressing anaphylaxis. However, as with other public health concerns in Canadian communities, more can be done. There is more awareness of the serious medical condition that is needed on a nationwide level. 
That is why I urge the House to approve my motion and launch anaphylaxis onto the national stage. The motion will promote greater awareness, and since there is no cure, anaphylaxis awareness is the best way to mitigate the risk. By adopting this motion, the Canadian government will be taking another step forward to ensuring that Canadians living with anaphylaxis are able to maintain a higher quality of life. I am certain my colleague from St. Catharines shares my feelings on this issue. He first introduced the motion in the 39th Parliament, but unfortunately it expired when an election was called in 2008. I would also like to thank him for starting the process and for his continued support to see anaphylaxis recognized as a serious concern. 
I would like to thank all the members of my community, and those across Canada, who have helped to bring this important issue forward. Special thanks go to Mindi Ferkul, Cindy Paskey, Chris George and Debbie Bruce for their tremendous help. I realize there are many others as well. However, these are the individuals I have had the pleasure and opportunity to work with on this issue on an ongoing basis. I appreciate their tremendous help for that. Their dedication to anaphylaxis awareness is inspiring, and their support for this motion from day one was greatly appreciated.
I would also like to thank my colleagues in the House, and from all parties, for their kind words of support. With so much encouragement from so many people I am determined to see this motion pass. We must recognize the seriousness of anaphylaxis at the federal level, as a critical problem affecting too many Canadians. This motion aims to make their lives easier and would contribute to much deserved peace of mind.
When voting for this motion, I would ask members to consider the story of Liam, Lucas and David, as well as the 2.5 million Canadians who live every day at risk of an anaphylactic reaction. With this motion, we will send a clear message to all those who live with the condition that the Canadian government and the Canadian people recognize their struggle and that we are taking action to improve their lives.
I look forward to seeing this motion receive the support of all parties in the House.
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook for bringing this issue up for debate in the House.
I know that 500,000 Canadians suffer from anaphylaxis and that they all live with that stress. However, I also know that this is not the first time that the member has brought this motion before the House for a vote.
Does the hon. member still think that we need the motion—especially in its current form—when his government has been in power since 2006? Could it be that the hon. member wishes his government to pay closer attention to this issue?
[Interjection]
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, I did not think an issue like this would be politicized. That was an interesting comment, but I guess some people cannot help themselves.
This issue has been brought forward a couple of times, but it has not made its way through the House. My concern is about awareness. Our job as members of Parliament will never be completed when it comes to bringing awareness to certain issues. As I mentioned, my colleague from St. Catharines brought this forward in the House, but then we had an election. I also brought it forward in a previous Parliament and we had an election.
We will need to continue to talk about anaphylaxis as we move forward, whether it is additional money for research or coordinating strategies for education. There are a number of things we could do, and we need to move forward on them. We will continue to push this issue and continue to talk about it every chance we get.
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook for his hard work on this important file. I am proud to lend my support to this important motion. This is an important issue to many Canadians. I want to congratulate him for his hard work on this file. It is long overdue.
Could the member elaborate on how important it is to use plain language about allergens on food products?
[Interjection]
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Health for her leadership with respect to labelling, research dollars and so on.
The use of plain language is one of the challenges we have. A label that says “may contain” is not very reassuring for those who are trying to drill down to what exactly is in a product.
 Under the leadership of the minister and this government, we have moved to make labelling more concise and understandable. We sometimes forget that people who suffer from allergic reactions are never sure whether a product may contain small amounts of an allergen. This is a challenge for them. That is why labelling and education and additional research are so important. Individuals must be given a choice as to whether they should avoid a product.
Once again, I thank the Minister of Health for her leadership on this file with respect to the labelling issue.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, many of us in the House have experienced a friend or loved one dying because of an allergic reaction. A good friend of mine in university was attending a wedding and she ate a piece of the cake which contained peanut oil. Nobody was aware of the situation. 
My colleague brought up the importance of making May national anaphylaxis month and of raising awareness of this condition. We can have labels and we can put information out, but people have to be aware of the dangers of this condition.
I wonder if my colleague could take a few moments to comment about his initiative to raise awareness of the importance of this.
[Interjection]
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that unless we have to live with the condition we have no understanding of its danger. It is important that government, businesses and individuals let people know about the dangers. A lot of people have not heard of anaphylactic shock. Awareness is key. 
We need to take a multi-pronged approach. We will look at education and research and figure out a way to continue to raise this issue so that people have the tools they need.
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion on anaphylaxis.
Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that occurs very quickly and can be fatal. It typically involves a number of signs and symptoms, affecting one or more systems of the body. It can be brought on by food, medication, insect bites, contact with latex or exercise. The most common cause is food. Eight food items are responsible for 93% of anaphylaxis cases in children, and these products are very commonly used in processed foods. These food allergens include eggs, peanuts, milk, soy, tree nuts, fish, seafood and wheat.
Anaphylactic shock can occur without any forewarning. Any direct or indirect contact with an allergen, usually involuntary, is all it takes. In addition, the reaction does not always occur upon first contact with the substance. It may not happen until the second or third exposure.
I spoke with many people in my riding who are affected by this problem. I am certainly not the only member in this House who knows someone, since 50% of Canadians know at least one person who has a food allergy.
Living with the risk of anaphylactic shock or, even worse, having a child at risk of experiencing anaphylactic shock is an ongoing concern. A number of parents have told me they have a hard time finding daycare for their children because of the risk involved. For people in my riding, this has meant using private, non-subsidized daycare and having to pay more than $7 a day.
Those same people often have to cook meals from scratch to ensure that they do not affect their children's health or their own by doing something as simple as eating.
The new food labelling rules implemented in 2012 were very welcome. It is finally easy for people to know what is in the products they buy. The labels now indicate the content in simple terms. The list of ingredients must include commonly used words. In the case of kamut, for example, the label must now indicate “wheat”. That is much better than listing dozens of names.
However, the fact remains that for people at risk, anaphylaxis is a threat that hangs over their heads. The statement “may contain” is not mandatory, and many companies include it as a preventive measure. The rules and procedures in cases of anaphylactic shock also differ from province to province and even from one establishment to another.
Many provinces have already passed laws or adopted rules to keep children with allergies safe. In Ontario, Sabrina's law requires all school boards in the province and child care providers to meet certain standards in staff training and emergency procedures. Sabrina's law seems to be a benchmark, since a number of groups in Quebec have said to me that they are trying to have similar legislation passed in Quebec, which would be called Megan's law. Other provinces such as Manitoba and British Columbia have already dealt with the matter.
The motion before us speaks for itself. Anaphylaxis is a growing problem, and according to the Allergy, Genes and Environment Network, the true extent of the problem and the number of people affected are probably underestimated. Measures must be taken to ensure that people at risk of anaphylaxis have a good quality of life.
I find this motion disappointing because it does not contain any specific measures.
The member for Niagara West—Glanbrook made some suggestions in his speech, and I would like to thank him for that.
The groups and associations we spoke with support this motion first and foremost because the debate will raise awareness and increase dialogue about anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis Canada definitely supports it. I am not going to argue that.
However, what are the “appropriate measures necessary” that this motion refers to? I have a few suggestions. First, we need drug coverage in Canada.
Every affected person should have an auto-injector. It must be replaced once a year, even if it has not been used. Auto-injectors are not free and are not always covered by insurance, public or private. Each one costs more than $100. Families affected by the economic crisis, who are often part of the middle class and are suffering the consequences of the Conservative budget, must pay at least $100 out of their pockets each year for medication that could save a life. That is a problem. Many families cannot afford it, but they still need to have one. If we had a universal drug plan, the problem would be solved.
Access to our health care system and to primary care services also needs to be improved. Early diagnosis would prevent severe reactions. During an anaphylactic reaction, each minute, even each second, counts. However, that cannot happen because hundreds of thousands of Canadians, including thousands in my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, do not have access to a family doctor. The same is true for emergency services.
Despite the inadequacies in our health care system, this government has decided to pull out of this sector. Instead of negotiating with the provinces and territories in order to determine how to make a drug plan work, this government has decided to unilaterally impose a funding formula on the provinces and territories and deprive them of $36 billion in federal health transfers. That was a Conservative promise.
Anaphylaxis is a very serious public health issue. I would like to thank the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook for having brought this debate forward. I hope that it will result in tangible help for Canadian families that have a member living with anaphylaxis.
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, anaphylaxis is a very serious issue. It is a serious allergic reaction. It can actually present itself in many different ways, but it can have very rapid onset sometimes and it can result in death, so it is serious. What happens with anaphylaxis is that the immune system rejects the allergen as something not to be tolerated and reacts in every way with all of the systems within the body.
It is a serious health issue affecting millions of Canadians. Right now, there are about one in 13 Canadians, 2.5 million Canadians who are affected by anaphylaxis or by life-threatening allergies, but what is most disconcerting is that there is an increasing number of children affected as well. About 6% of children are affected by anaphylaxis, and this number seems to be increasing. 
Anaphylaxis has no cure. Avoidance, of course, understanding the issue, and learning how to act promptly are important things for people to know. Preventive measures such as this and early action are the only things we can do. 
Even a small, tiny, hidden trace or amount of an allergen can trigger the attack if a person is allergic to that particular thing. Food, of course, is one of the most common ways in which people can get an anaphylactic reaction, but things that are almost known as injections, like insect bites, can cause the same reaction, can act quicker and can prompt anaphylactic shock sooner.
Medicines, certain types of material that come in contact with the skin, and exercise can also cause an anaphylactic reaction. Avoiding allergic reactions can be achieved through something most important, which is effective labelling. 
As we heard from my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, he had a friend who had a tiny trace of peanut oil in a cake and had a severe anaphylactic shock as a result of it. Sometimes we buy foods in the shops and there are trace ingredients. Even though the ingredient is not listed, when the product was being processed, it could have been that there was cross-contamination with the product being processed before that, which had the allergen in it. 
The most common cause, of course, is peanuts and peanut oil, so labelling is key. Taking precautionary measures when preparing food, washing one's hands, even in the home, between handling one product and handling another can prevent cross-transference, which is really the major problem.
People need awareness of the early signs of symptoms, and this can take many forms. It can start with a skin reaction, hives, which can balloon up. People get itchiness, swelling, and redness of the skin. People can also get respiratory problems, tightening of the chest, an inability to breathe, triggering asthmatic attacks in people who are similarly prone. Those are some of the signs. 
However, the most important one is the cardio-vascular one, which obviously creates a thready pulse, pallor, a rapid heart rate, and of course this precludes anaphylactic shock.
These are important things for people to know. Sometimes some people remember those things with a feeling of anxiety, a feeling of impending doom, a feeling of something going on in their body and they do not why and panic results. 
There are many forms of anaphylaxis and the public needs to know what those are. If we can raise awareness, when symptoms and signs come very early, an individual can then take whatever medication they have, whether it is an oral one that can act quickly if they have a slow anaphylaxis, or an EpiPen. The public needs to know all of these things through education. 
Ensuring that the labelling is easy to read and easily understood by the public is a big part. Knowing about anaphylaxis is important, which is what this particular bill tells us, but it is not the only thing. We need a coordinated approach and an action plan from government. 
Just being aware and saying that this House is aware and the government should take action for me is a particularly vague thing. Obviously, we are supporting the motion. Not supporting the motion would be ridiculous. We are supporting it because it is important. What I would have liked to have seen in this particular bill is that sense that a plan of action will follow, and specifically asking the government, not saying it should, but asking it to do so because of the urgent nature and the ability of this particular problem to cause death.
 I think we need to look at the whole issue of public health and safety. This comes under the aegis of public health and safety, which is public awareness, public education, teaching and identifying root causes. A big piece of that is research. There needs to be money put into research on allergens so that we cannot only prevent them from being in food but can know what we can do if someone accidently ingests them. There may be some way of looking for a cure. I think it is important to identify the root causes.
One thing that concerns me is that there are motions and bills from the government side that are all very nice. The government makes a statement and asks the House to agree with the statement. I would like to see some bills for which there is an action plan that must put the government's feet to the fire to make sure that things are actually done. Knowing is not enough. We have to now do. I would prefer to see some teeth in some of these types of bills.
Organizations such as the Canadian Anaphylaxis Initiative and Anaphylaxis Canada obviously support the bill, as do we. However, we would like to see a greater commitment from the government that action will be taken. It would have been nice if the bill had a demand for action from the government.
I can tell members what the Canadian Anaphylaxis Initiative would have liked to have seen in the bill. It would liked to have seen the federal government coordinating programs and services dealing with anaphylaxis and food allergy information. It would have liked to have seen coordinated awareness campaigns, especially with regard to baby food and how it is labelled and processed and whether there is cross-contamination. Very small children cannot, in many instances, withstand anaphylaxis in the way many adults can, and this could result in an abrupt and sudden cessation of life.
They are suggesting a commitment to research, a commitment to clear food labelling, and transportation safeguards for airlines and public transportation, such that EpiPen kits would be on board, because without them, people could die very quickly.
Anaphylaxis Canada has advocated for stricter regulations on food labelling. I must say that I am quite sad to say that the government and the Minister of Health have been loath to do anything about labelling or bringing down levels of certain things, such as sodium and trans fats, and dealing with things that are dangerous.
I think there needs to be a move by the government to safeguard Canadians by actually dealing with industry if industry does not want to do this on its own volition. Giving industry an opportunity to do so is fine, but give them a deadline. After that deadline, legislate and regulate. It is important, because no one can stand by and watch people die or be subject to illness because of a reluctance to tamper with industry.
Many industries will not do it on their own. On the issue of salt, Campbell's Foods decreased the amount of salt. Nobody else did, so they put salt back up. These are some of the things we need to think about. 
We support the motion, but there has to be action and a true commitment by the government to protect Canadians.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of motions and being here at this time on a Friday is the opportunity for us to discuss and move forward not legislation, but concepts and ideas that need to be turned into either government legislation or concepts. I find it interesting that the member for Vancouver would actually use this time to accuse the government of not taking action when the individual who actually moved this motion is a member of the government and is on this side of the House. 
So much for trying to work together, because I do not think that this issue crosses any type of partisan lines whatsoever. It is an issue that all Canadians are interested in, particularly the more than two million Canadians who are impacted by anaphylaxis.
I am pleased to be able to take this opportunity and speak today about Motion No. 230, tabled by our colleague, the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook. This motion states that anaphylaxis is a serious concern for an increasing number of Canadians, and calls for the government to take appropriate measures to ensure these Canadians are able to maintain a high quality of life. 
When allergens come into contact with the skin, are inhaled into the lungs, or are swallowed or injected, a person can develop allergic symptoms almost immediately. These symptoms can develop quickly. Within minutes, a mild allergic reaction can potentially progress to a severe one. Anaphylaxis is the most serious type of allergic reaction. 
Mild allergic symptoms may include itchy skin or watery eyes. However, the most dangerous of symptoms can include trouble breathing, a drop in blood pressure causing dizziness, light-headedness, feeling faint or weak, or losing consciousness. In the most severe cases, these symptoms can be life-threatening.
There are a number of research studies which suggest that the number of people who live with allergies is increasing, and that many of those living with the most severe allergies are our youth and our children. However, the impact of allergies, especially anaphylaxis, on Canadian individuals and on Canadian society as a whole, remains largely unknown.
The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians living with allergies. There has been significant scientific progress made in this area, but there is still a great deal more to learn about allergens, anaphylaxis, and allergies. This is why the government has invested in a broad range of research studies that are not only helping us to better understand the prevalence and impacts of food allergies in Canada, but are also serving to inform policies and regulations which will help to minimize health risks caused by severe allergic reactions.
The Government of Canada is supporting research in the area of anaphylaxis and food allergies through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Since its inception in 2000, CIHR has funded a number of projects to better understand the fundamental causes of different allergies, such as food allergies, which in turn can cause anaphylaxis. These investments are also contributing to developing new treatments, therapeutics, and guidelines for better prevention and treatment. 
For example, the CIHR is funding the allergy, genes, and environment network centre of excellence, which brings together more than 170 researchers and 200 partners from the industry, the public service, and academia. The network aims at catalyzing and supporting the work necessary to reduce the burden of allergy, asthma, and anaphylaxis. We are investing more than $60 million in this work between our coming to government in 2006 and the year 2019. 
Health Canada is also supporting a variety of research projects in the field of food allergies. These projects are of critical importance to help fill the knowledge gaps and to support policy development.
Between the years 2007 and 2009, a study surveying Canadians to assess the prevalence of common food allergies and attitudes towards food labelling and risk was undertaken and was the first nationwide Canadian examination of the prevalence of common food allergies. It was carried out under the leadership of some of Canada's top academics and supported by the allergy, genes, and environment network, funded through the federal networks of centres of excellence program, which I just mentioned.
The allergy, genes, and environment network, also called AllerGen NCE Inc., worked in partnership on this study with Health Canada, McMaster Institute of Environment and Health, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal Children's Hospital, Anaphylaxis Canada and the Allergy/Asthma Information Association.
This important research provided a better estimate of the prevalence of people with common food allergies in Canada, which as I mentioned earlier is approximately 2.5 million Canadians. The study also found that over 15 million Canadians, or 50.6%, reported being directly or indirectly affected by food allergies. Over six million Canadians reported having someone in their household who is allergic to food.
Further, this study has provided a better understanding of the attitudes and behaviours of those living with these medical conditions, including the attitudes of the general public towards food allergies and the effectiveness of food labelling that alerts consumers to the presence of allergens in products. The findings of this study have been key to informing the government's position on food allergen labelling and the development of the new food allergen labelling regulations which were brought into force last year. The information gathered from the study is of great value to the government and stakeholders in the development of policy, health, and educational resources. It is needed to support prevention, and to help with the diagnosis and management of food allergies in Canada.
As a follow-up to this study, the Government of Canada supported a survey of the prevalence of food allergies in all Canadian environments. This comprehensive study, which took place between 2009 and 2011, included the development of a full picture of the health, social, and economic impacts of food allergies in our country.
It examined the prevalence of food allergies in vulnerable populations across Canada, including among people of lower socio-economic status, new Canadians, and first nations and Inuit populations. The study also explored the role of contributing factors, such as environmental influences as they related to the potential cause of food allergies.
 Building upon the findings of these two studies, the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry, or C-CARE, is a study currently under way. It will develop a registry of anaphylaxis cases throughout our country. Preliminary work, as part of this registry, revealed that among young children visiting emergency departments, the rate of anaphylaxis diagnosed is comparable to that found in studies conducted in the U.S. and that food is the main trigger. The objective of the study is to contribute to reducing the incidence of anaphylaxis which will help minimize the burdens of anaphylaxis, including associated health care costs.
I would like to commend the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook for his efforts to bring this important issue forward. I recommend that my colleagues from all parties support Motion No. 230.
Our government acknowledges that anaphylaxis is a serious health concern to Canadians living with allergies. The government has put in place a range of measures necessary to help Canadians who live with allergies maintain a high quality of life.
Motion No. 230 reflects the concerns of Canadians affected by life-threatening allergies. Supporting this motion reaffirms our commitment to protecting the health and safety of Canadians with serious allergies. In conclusion, whether it be the community of Niagara West—Glanbrook, the city of St. Catharines, or anywhere in our country, we have those who are impacted by this issue. We need to take action in terms of moving this forward.
I want to commend my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook who has been persistent with this motion. He had it up in the last Parliament. He had it up again here today. We are seeing this motion move forward. Moving forward means concrete action, and that is what the member's intention has always been.
I would also like to thank a good friend of mine, a fellow by the name of Chris George whose son is threatened by anaphylaxis. In fact he pulled me into this. At first I was not sure how far-reaching or how significant this issue was in our country. He convinced me by showing the impact it has across the country and in each one of our communities.
 I say to him, his son, and his family, this is our step forward in terms of making sure that regardless of how difficult it is, we are taking action. We will continue to act on behalf of those who are impacted by anaphylaxis.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I am very honoured to rise today to speak to Motion No. 230, which calls on the government to take the appropriate measures necessary to ensure that Canadians living with anaphylaxis are able to maintain a high quality of life.
Nearly 500,000 Canadians live with this medical condition. Approximately 50% of Canadians know someone who suffers from at least one food allergy, which goes to show that this issue affects a huge part of the population.
There are treatments available for this serious medical condition, which affects many Canadians and their families, and we know what causes these serious reactions. However, the federal government's efforts so far, while laudable, are not enough.
The NDP obviously supports this motion. However, I have some reservations about its scope and I lament the fact that there are no specific measures.
We have to keep in mind that anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction. It has rapid onset and can be fatal. It typically involves a number of signs and symptoms, affecting one or more systems of the body. The most common cause is food. In fact very common foods that are widely used in processed products account for 93% of anaphylaxis cases in children. That is why proper labelling is one of the most important actions to take.
 There is the need to raise awareness among Canadians who are at risk, especially parents whose children might experience anaphylactic shock. Also, there is the need to improve primary care, community care, access to medication insurance, education, literacy and the need to review the exemption provided to brewers under the new labelling regulations. 
Unfortunately, the current government has given priority to its irresponsible budget cuts and has cut $36 billion from health transfers to the provinces. That is a huge amount of money, and the cuts are having terrible consequences for Canadian families.
What we keep seeing is that this Conservative government wants to try to balance the budget, but it wants to do so at the provinces' expense. There has been one reform after another, and the provincial governments are being inundated with new expenses as the federal government keeps taking a step back. 
Since the Conservative government came to power, it has not been able to balance its budget without creating a deficit. When it comes to good governance, we have done and seen better. Instead of conducting economic experiments that are bad for the public, the government should adjust its priorities and make decisions based on what Canadians need, especially in terms of health care.
Let us talk about cost. The overall cost associated with anaphylaxis in Canada is estimated to be $15 billion. This includes both health care costs and costs associated with lost productivity. This is another measure that taxpayers have to pay for from their own pockets. Rather than granting useless tax relief to banking institutions and giving subsidies to oil companies, could this government, from time to time, also take care of ordinary citizens who are only asking to pay their fair share and benefit from the services that they are entitled to receive?
It is too bad that the government nurtures a political culture that benefits the corporate world and harms Canadians. The way people who have serious allergies and who are at risk of anaphylactic reaction are treated is, unfortunately, yet another example of this.
Once again, in this specific case, the Conservative government, guided by its ideology that always seeks to boost the profits of large corporations, chose to put the interests of industry above those of the Canadian families affected by this serious health problem.
Let us talk about labelling. Food products containing allergens should be labelled as such without exception; however, unfortunately, the Conservatives decided that this was not necessary.
The same thing happened with sodium, trans-fats and energy drinks. The Conservatives are once again showing us that they are clearly biased toward the business world to the detriment of consumer protection.
The new regulation on labelling that has been in effect since August 2012 was well received by the various stakeholders involved; however, there has been criticism of some of the exceptions. I am convinced that people living under the threat of anaphylactic shock and the parents of children with this condition are under enough stress. They deserve better than to be the victims of the Conservatives' political gifts.
Anaphylaxis Canada and my NDP colleagues spoke out against the exception made for beer companies, which are not required to indicate the presence of allergens in their products, and for producers of deli meats, baked goods and other bulk products. The shortcomings of this regulation mitigate the strength of the motion before us, which therefore does not properly serve its function of protecting Canadians who are at risk.
It is important to remember that the most vulnerable people are young children. We need to help parents at home, staff in schools and daycare providers find ways to reduce exposure to potentially fatal allergens. The most effective measure remains clear, specific identification.
There are other measures that could also be taken. First and foremost, we have a duty to educate people, whether they are at risk or not. Being prepared to act quickly is also crucial. We also need to improve primary care as well as community care and, above all, access to health services.
Anyone with allergies who could suffer anaphylactic shock should always carry an epinephrine autoinjector, which can only be obtained with a doctor's prescription and must be renewed every year. In our deficient medical system, what should be merely a formality can easily become a real nightmare. An autoinjector costs over $100 a year, which many families who do not have access to medical insurance cannot afford without making other sacrifices.
This was confirmed by a Léger Marketing poll conducted in 2012, which revealed that over half of all Canadians who live with anaphylaxis do not always carry an epinephrine autoinjector or have quick access to one. 
Furthermore, the survey reveals that a majority of them do not know how to use the device properly. Instead of taxing hospital parking, which is stupid, the Conservative government should instead work on providing Canadians with access to the treatments they really need. 
It is obvious that much remains to be done in terms of public education and awareness. The government must stop delegating this responsibility to the industry and must take the lead in implementing a coherent strategy in keeping with the demands of organizations that support the people affected.
A great deal of research is still needed with respect to identifying the pathogenesis, the triggers, and the prevalence of risk factors, as well as managing anaphylaxis. These must be the priorities.
The federal government has a duty to encourage research, especially by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. However, one of the most discouraging items in the main estimates tabled in the House in March is the envelope for the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, which was reduced by $36 million, including $33 million in grants. 
In closing, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier, I will support Motion No. 230. The main reason is that I believe that we can improve the life of people who suffer from anaphylaxis. However, this motion will not be truly effective unless the government puts in place practical measures to deal with this condition.
It is obvious that the next government—and I am convinced it will be an NDP government—will have to address this matter again in order to find real solutions.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. The parliamentary secretary will only have about two minutes.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about Motion No. 230, which calls on the House to recognize anaphylaxis as a serious concern for an increasing number of Canadians. 
This motion was previously introduced by the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook as Motion No. 546 in the last Parliament. It received unanimous support during the first hour of debate in March 2011, shortly before the last election call. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the member for St. Catharines for his action and support with regard to this potentially life-threatening condition.
Anaphylaxis is the most serious type of allergic reaction and can be life-threatening. When a person comes in contact with an allergen, symptoms may develop quickly. Within minutes, a mild reaction can become a severe one. The most dangerous symptoms include trouble breathing; a drop in blood pressure, causing dizziness; light-headedness; feeling faint or weak; and losing consciousness. 
Food is one of the most common allergens. It is estimated that more than two million Canadians suffer from food allergies. There is also evidence suggesting that the numbers are increasing, especially among young children. Allergic reactions can also be caused by other products, such as medications and latex, or by environmental factors such as insect stings, plants and animals.
The Government of Canada is committed to safeguarding the health of Canadians living with allergies. Health Canada treats allergies to foods and health products as a priority and has put in place a broad range of initiatives and measures to reduce health risks associated with severe allergic reactions. These include regulatory measures for food and health product safety labelling, educational material and advisories for the public, and investments in research in the areas of anaphylaxis and food allergies. Let me address each of these in a bit more detail, if I have the time.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has used up the two minutes. I would advise the hon. parliamentary secretary that he will have eight minutes remaining when we resume debate on this motion.
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)