2013-06-14

Canadian Museum of History Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-49, an act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: There are 15 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-49. Motions Nos. 1 to 15 will be grouped for debated and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP):  moved:
 Motion No. 1 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 1. 
 Motion No. 2 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 2. 
 Motion No. 3 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 4. 
 Motion No. 4 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 11. 
 Motion No. 5 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 12. 
 Motion No. 6 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 13. 
 Motion No. 7 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 14. 
 Motion No. 8 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 15. 
 Motion No. 9 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 16. 
 Motion No. 10 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 17. 
 Motion No. 11 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 18. 
 Motion No. 12 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 19. 
 Motion No. 13 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 20. 
 Motion No. 14 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 21. 
 Motion No. 15 
 That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 22. 
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to these amendments. Many changes were needed. We still have very serious reservations about the bill creating the Canadian museum of history, which is quite unfortunate.
Normally, the creation, the birth, of a national museum should not be an acrimonious process. It is not reasonable for a government, even a majority government, to just announce a project like this and proceed without consultation and discussion among the parties in Parliament. It is certainly not right that this is being done despite the vocal opposition of experts, historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and ethnologists who are casting serious doubts on the merits of this government's project.
 This is why we are rising to question this bill. In doing so, we also recognize that the government's proposal contains some very worthwhile elements. The minister is to be commended for his willingness to invest in this project—even if this is one-time funding for only one year—to get people talking about our country's history, and for the creative ideas that he has brought to the project. It is quite obvious that this project is very important to him.
However, other aspects of the proposal are problematic and quite serious. I am thinking in particular of the deletion of the words “research” and “collections” from the museum's mission. It would have been a good idea for the government to listen, if not to the opposition parties, then at least to the experts and, in particular, the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage when the bill was being studied.
Sadly, the government did not listen. The amendments we proposed in committee—which would not have gutted the bill, but would certainly have improved it—would have allowed us to rectify the situation. All of the amendments were rejected, without consideration or discussion. Given that all of our amendments in committee were rejected outright, we are being forced to table a series of amendments today, which have been listed here in the House. This is a national, public museum; this could have been done more co-operatively. The government is forcing us to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We simply wanted to ensure that research remains part of the new museum and that any museum that takes the place of the Canadian Museum of Civilization remains an institution that maintains collections, as was the case with the Geological Survey of Canada more than 150 years ago. That function was enshrined in its mission, as stated in section 8 of the Museums Act. However, because of government intervention, that is no longer the case.
Today, we are faced with a government that is determined to rename and alter our most important national public institutions as it sees fit.
No one will change the government's mind, not even national associations representing historians, anthropologists and archaeologists, whose members still work at the museum and who are being ordered to work on this project as underlings. Even the architects of the current museum—which is known internationally for the work, creativity and talent of those architects—will not change the government's mind.
The few redeeming qualities of this project are being jeopardized by the minister's and the government's cavalier approach. Our doubts, along with those of experts, specialists and professional historians, have not been taken into account.
That is why we have to move much more significant amendments to get rid of the provisions that so many stakeholders found problematic. Our amendments would leave the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization intact. That name is widely recognized, particularly in the tourism industry. It helps attract people to the Outaouais region and enhances Canada's international reputation.
The name is also recognized in the university and academic community, among researchers in history, anthropology, archeology and ethnology. Here and elsewhere, the name is a symbol of the excellence of our scientists and their contribution to human knowledge.
I suspect that many of those experts will be find it a nasty surprise to be associated with an institution that is no longer mandated to maintain a collection for research purposes. We are talking about a research institution that many researchers are affiliated with. Some of them have been for their entire careers.
Many of their international colleagues in museums like the Smithsonian and universities everywhere will ask them why Canada's flagship museum in Gatineau is slowly but surely getting rid of the leading lights that built its reputation.
Those who have been dazzled by the avalanche of announcements over the past few months, spectacular ads on TV and ostentatious initiatives can easily lose sight of that fact. 
What is the museum now? The Canadian Museum of Civilization is not a showcase. It is a hive of research activity. The museum itself has two distinct aspects. It is physically divided into two structures. Those of us who have never visited the museum but who have at least seen it know that Douglas Cardinal's awesome design separates the museum into two gigantic buildings.
On the right is the part of the museum that is open to the public. It houses permanent and temporary exhibits on history and civilization. On the left is an equally important sinusoidal building that is no mere administrative or storage facility. It is the very heart of the museum, a building that houses the institution's expertise and its collections.
On behalf of the workers in that building, we are taking this opportunity to propose an amendment aimed at ensuring that research and collection development remain part of museum's mission, as is currently the case under the Museums Act.
I want to be perfectly clear: whether by accident or by design, the government is relieving the museum of its obligation to maintain collections for research purposes. I would remind the House that we wanted to put that wording back into the government's bill, but of course the Conservative majority rejected that in committee.
Why are the Conservatives so determined to undermine research and collection development? Can someone explain that to us? Is this request coming from the museum's management? We know the museum is having financial difficulties, so is management trying to reduce spending by eliminating research positions or getting rid of certain parts of the museum's collections? Since the Conservatives are so determined to eliminate the words “research” and “collection” from the museum's mission, we have to wonder if they do not plan to do the same thing at the museum as they have done elsewhere. 
For instance, at Parks Canada, they have already cut staff—including curators—at our national historic sites. At Library and Archives Canada, they have deprived the institution of its experts by muzzling them and forcing them to obey a code of silence, even when their research projects required communication, discussion and peer review.
Generally speaking, the Conservatives have chosen to relieve federal institutions of their role as independent research bodies. Our country spent the past two centuries building spaces for creativity and independent thought, but the Conservatives needed only two and a half terms in office to reduce these institutions to a shadow of their former selves, subject to the whims of outside influences. What a shame.
As with these institutions, there is reason to question whether our museums are truly independent. With the summer recess just a few days away, our fears about the government's bill to repurpose the Canadian Museum of Civilization have been realized.
Our suspicions that the real purpose of the project was to allow the government to use the museum to promote its favourite topics are becoming a reality. The gap that must exist between the museum and the government has been narrowing over the past few years, and that is a growing concern given the subterfuge, half-truths and contradictions surrounding the minister's strange over-involvement in the museum.
We know that neither the museum nor the minister feels comfortable telling us when they talk and what they talk about. Do they talk on the phone? Is the minister in the habit of visiting the museum? What do they discuss during those visits? The museum's so-called independence means nothing as long as we do not have answers to these questions.
The independence granted to the museum in the legislation must also be granted in real life. We are concerned when we find out from the media about the shocking coincidences that are happening. Yesterday, we learned that, without any explanation, the museum suddenly cancelled the major exhibits that were supposed to be a key component of its programming, exhibits in which the museum had already invested $70,000. That means that the museum was doing more than just considering these exhibits.
On the contrary, it means that the head of the museum had to have known about and approved the details of the exhibit. He must have signed a cheque for and a contract with an internationally renowned museum, and he must have approved an advertising budget and the programming for this event.
It is somewhat ironic that one of the Canadian Museum of Civilization's current exhibits is called “Double Take”. The title is fitting since, after all those decisions were made and the museum spent $70,000 on an exhibit on underwear, the museum supposedly changed its mind unexpectedly. All of a sudden, the exhibit from the Victoria and Albert Museum in London is not good enough anymore.
A cheque from Nigel Wright is not going to make the facts reported yesterday morning go away. First, the Canadian Museum of Civilization's senior management spent $70,000 on an exhibit on underwear, and then they cancelled it out of the blue.
 What happened? There are two possibilities: either the museum's president made reckless decisions and shamelessly wasted more than $70,000 of public money on an exhibit, before realizing that it was not to their taste, which would be a fiasco—and is what they would have us believe—or the museum did not make the decision and someone else did. Someone told the museum that the exhibit was a problem, but who? This reminds me of the time not so long ago when someone told the Museum of Science and Technology that some of their exhibits were problematic. That is called political interference.
Today, our suspicions are aroused and heightened by undeniable facts, by a $70,000 shortfall, and by contradictory denials here and there that only cast more doubt over the museum's independence. These facts paint a picture of a museum that should normally be independent under the Museum Act, but gives in to phone calls from the minister's office when certain exhibits are not to the minister's liking.
What we know today is that none of that ever happened. Experts at the museum were notified of the museum's new name and change in mandate. Experts outside the museum were consulted six months after the announcement, when the museum was already being dismantled. All those decisions were made somewhere between the museum's upper management and the minister's office. It seems that even travelling exhibits on underwear cannot escape outside scrutiny. There is nothing redundant or ridiculous about asking that our public institutions be free from political influence and interference.
Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to second my colleague's amendment. Indeed, I worked on this bill with him as part of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Clearly, what he says is very true. We heard several amendments to allow for changes, but with a much more responsible approach than the minister's current methods. We talked about consultation, and that is a fact. We also discussed research work, which, according to the changes proposed here, will be seriously compromised, in my view.
I would like to talk some more about consultation. It was one of the key points of the debate as well as a key element of our position on this bill. Indeed, there is a reason why we try to keep history separate from politics. I know, because I have studied history myself. There is an expression that says, “the victors always write the history”. Well, we do not want this to happen here. We do not want a majority government to decide to rewrite our history. We are certainly aware that we have to keep up with the times and that things cannot remain the same forever. However, we need to hold consultations and prevent political interference.
I would like to ask my colleague to comment on this very important issue.
[Interjection]
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. He is quite right. I would like to point out that he did excellent work on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. In light of his area of expertise, the member contributed a great deal to our committee. 
We noticed that, on many occasions, very competent people and authorities in this area felt ignored in the process. Even worse, they were being disregarded. The last witness to appear before the committee realized that no one was listening and that plans had been made in advance. The day after he was elected, the minister already knew what he would do—including recent changes that were announced about this exhibit—to have the museum that he wanted. Clearly, there was an obstacle in the minister's path, and it had to be pushed aside to make room for his plan.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague something.
I realize that the bill is a little more complicated than the question I will ask him. However, I think that what the Conservatives are doing with the Canadian Museum of Civilization is rather silly, for lack of a better word. I am concerned about many things, but especially about the name change.
If I go to my riding, Nickel Belt, and talk to people about the Canadian Museum of Civilization, they know exactly what I am talking about. Now, the government is changing the name to the Canadian Museum of History. History and civilization are almost the same thing. That is why I think that what the Conservatives are doing is rather silly. Furthermore, they are spending a lot of money on the name change.
I know that my colleague proposed many amendments to this bill. I would like him to talk a little about the amendments he presented and explain the reason for some of the amendments. 
[Interjection]
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very pertinent question.
He is quite right. The name of the museum speaks volumes. That is why we wanted to keep the name Museum of Civilization and simply add “history and”. This would have added another dimension to the museum's mandate, which, of course, is very pertinent at this particular time. Canada's 150th anniversary is coming up, and now would be a good time to reinvigorate our history and museums sector. We completely support this initiative. I understand that some museums are excited about the possibility of receiving artifacts from major museums like the one in Ottawa. 
The problem is that in order to do so, the act has to be used. At this time, what the minister and the current president of the museum want to do is destroy what is already in place, rather than complement it. The proposed name change would maintain the focus on research and the study of civilizations. This is extremely popular and relevant.
I would simply like to say that, fundamentally, our rationale for these amendments is that we simply do not trust this government and do not want to give it carte blanche. Clearly, any time we give them an inch, they take a mile. Everyone can see that the close ties that appear to exist between the museum management and the minister and his ambitions are very troubling, and that is what we are trying to limit.
Mr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today in Canada an entire generation of Canadians are largely unaware of our history. In fact, only 40% of Canadians could pass a citizenship exam that tests the general knowledge of Canadian history. But Canadians want to know more about our shared history. They recognize that a better understanding of our history gives us a better understanding of who we are. It gives us a common purpose and inspires us to rise to our full potential as a people.
That is why last fall we introduced Bill C-49, which would create the new Canadian museum of history. It would be a national institution that tells the story and stories of Canada. This museum would build on the Canadian Museum of Civilization's reputation and popularity to create a new museum that would showcase our achievements as a nation.
The vast majority of Canadians, including museum and historical associations, historians and professors, are thrilled with the change. A few people though, mostly partisan elitists, are concerned. They think that it is too Canada-centric. It is okay to be humble, but the days of government-sponsored self-loathing are gone. Canadians are proud to be humble, so to speak, but we are getting sick and tired of being told by some academic or government official that being Canadian is something that must be apologized for. Our history and our heritage is not something that needs to be swept under the rug.
Of course, our country has only been around under Confederation for almost 150 years and that is nothing in the scheme of things when compared to all of civilization. For that reason there are some people who are worried that changing the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian museum of history would be one giant leap backward, a massive reduction of scope of the subject matter of our national museum. Of course, they missed the fact that it would be the Canadian museum of history and not the museum of Canadian history.
Most people who are worried about it belong to a handful of partisan radicals who actually give credence to the fact that the Prime Minister and his Conservatives are hell-bent on intentionally destroying the country. It makes me feel like this oversight is caused by a slight case of dyslexia. We understand that our history does not begin in 1867, that Canadian history is a shared history and that our present is also shared with the rest of world, the rest of civilization. Canada is made up of peoples and cultures from all around the world.
The name change and mandate change to the museum would not be done at the expense of civilization or all that the current museum has to offer. Let me read the mandate of the new museum according to the legislation:
 The purpose of the Canadian Museum of History is to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures. 
There is nothing wrong with understanding all of world history and civilization. In fact, the only way to fully understand Canadian history and its current culture is to better understand world history and civilization, but we think it is high time that we do so from a Canadian perspective. Indeed, I would argue that we cannot fully understand world history and civilization without some sort of perspective by which to examine it. What better perspective than the Canadian perspective?
Before someone gets all upset and calls me ethnocentric, I am not saying that the Canadian perspective is the best perspective. Well maybe I am, but even if we, for the sake of argument, say that all perspectives and all aspects are equal, and even if the Canadian perspective is not the best perspective, it is after all, our perspective.
Now let me address the main criticism to changing and updating the museum. Ironically, this main criticism is a politically motivated criticism. It is ironic because the criticism is that the driving force behind this change is politically motivated, that in some way it is designed to promote the Conservative Party of Canada. It is the same criticism that came with our government's decision to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, as if the Conservative Party fought and won that war all by ourselves.
It is the same criticism that came with restoring “royal” to the air force and navy. The same criticism that came with not just restoring the funds and updating the equipment for the armed forces, but also restoring the respect it deserves; that somehow this is all politically motivated.
Perhaps this argument could hold some water if the Conservative Party really was responsible for all our military victories, our royal heritage and all of Canadian history. That would be quite a coup if we could lay claim to all of Canadian history, but we cannot. Canadian history and all its achievements belong to the Canadian people. The notion that the long overdue acceptance and even embracing of our history, including our nation-building military history, is a Conservative political stunt is not only insulting to this government and the millions of people across the country who elected us but to all Canadians, regardless of political stripe, and to those generations of Canadians who made the great, even epic sacrifices to build this great nation. 
These are the stories that need to be told over and over, not just to young and old, new or fifth-generation Canadians. Ours is a story made up of stories worth telling the world and, without a doubt, the world wants to hear it.
Not only is this current museum outdated, it is also out of reach for most Canadians. My mother immigrated to Canada when she was two years old in 1954. Please do not do the math; I assure members she is only 30 years old. In the almost 60 years that she has been in the country she has never been to Ottawa. She has never been to that magnificent museum across the river. This will be even more tragic once that museum goes through its transformation. Thanks to the partnership program included in its mandate, the museum could now come to her. The new museum would sign partnership agreements with museums large and small all across the country. As partners, these local museums would have access to the new museum's collection, allowing them to provide greater opportunities for Canadians to learn more about our history.
In committee we were told by some experts that this move to bring the museum to the country would be a mistake because some artifacts are just too important for the general public. We were told that a focus on updating exhibits is not important, even though the current Canada Hall exhibit ends in the 1970s and only starts with the European contact with North America. However, they said that as long as a handful of academics could do their research in some back hall, all would be well.
We are told that this updating of the exhibits and sharing them with the rest of the country was “popularizing” history. Of course history is not caused by a few famous individuals but is the interplay of every human being who has ever lived.
Wolfe and Montcalm were not the only people on the Plains of Abraham. That is exactly why this partnership program would flow in both directions. Not only would local museums like the Galt Museum in Lethbridge would be able to display exhibits from the national museum, but the Galt Museum, the Raymond Museum and the Gem of the West in Coaldale would be able to share their records, stories and artifacts with the rest of the country and even the world by sharing their materials with the Canadian museum of history here in the capital. It is a wonderful idea. It is a unifying, nation-building idea. In that sense, one may be able to say the move is political. However, one cannot say it is partisan.
To be clear, the vast majority of Canadians are happy with this move. The vast majority of museum curators and historical associations are happy with the change. The president of the current Canadian Museum of Civilization is delighted with the decision.
 Our government understands that the key to building a better future is found in a better understanding of our past. With the creation of the new Canadian museum of history, we would be building a modern, national infrastructure to help Canadians discover, understand and share our nation's proud history. That is why today I ask all members of this House to support Bill C-49, which would establish the Canadian museum of history.
I would ask my francophone colleagues to speak slowly and clearly if they ask questions in French because I do not have access to the interpretation right now. However, I can understand them if they speak clearly and slowly.
Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the things I found rather stunning in the member's speech was his statement that the government would help the museum come to people in their communities. Yet, this is the very government that cut the funding for all the local museums.
I sat in this House several years ago, and on our side we fought against the cuts to local small museums, many of which have had to shut down. I find it rather puzzling that his argument to these changes now is to enable the fantastic collection in our Museum of Civilization to go to these small museums, many of which have now shut down.
In 1967, the government made the decision to give money to all the local communities to celebrate the centennial, and that was a fantastic idea. The decision of this government is to concentrate the money in the museum here instead.
The hon. member mentioned the fact that many families do not have the resources to come to this museum, so I find it very puzzling. It is a very nice idea that we could have this collection go to local museums, but many do not exist anymore.
 I would also remind the member that I stood up and fought the government that would have reneged on providing support to the Royal Alberta Museum. It finally lived up to its word and provided that funding. If we had not fought for that, the government would have cut that too.
[Interjection]
Jim Hillyer: Mr. Speaker, in addition to helping the museum share its collection with large and small museums all across the country, we are helping provincial governments and networks of museums share within their own provinces as well.
Yes, we do live in the real world where things cost money. If we do not plant potatoes, it does not matter how hungry we are, we do not get to harvest the potatoes. 
Decisions have to be made. We have made a commitment to balance the budget. However, at the same time, we can balance budgets and share this great treasure with all Canadians, not just the ones who have the privilege to come to Ottawa.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments by the member for Lethbridge. I will give my comments in English so that he will not have to go through the translation device.
Twice the member referred to history and civilization together in the same sentence, with which I totally agree. History is a component of civilization, and so are culture and arts and other matters. One of the criticisms that has been directed at this initiative is that it is reductive in nature, in the sense that it reduces the current mandate, which is of civilization, to history, which is a component of civilization.
To reflect the will, it seems, of the government to proceed in any event, there were recommendations by the previous executive director of the museum, Mr. Rabinovitch, that the museum be called the Museum of History and Civilization.
The member referred to that twice in his speech, and I am wondering why the government members of the committee vote against that particular suggestion.
[Interjection]
Jim Hillyer: Mr. Speaker, there have been criticisms that this is reducing the scope of the museum because it is changing the name to the Canadian Museum of History. That is actually unfounded. Anyone who reads the act would see that it does not in fact reduce the scope. Anyone who talks with current museum management, who are pleased with this change, would see that management is excited because they get to expand the scope of the museum.
As I said in my speech, it would not just expand and update the museum itself; it would expand the audience, the number of people who could benefit from this. 
We are making a shift in focus because Canadians want to be more aware of our history. The more aware of it that they are, the more proud we will be of it.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons I, too, am deeply troubled by this initiative and the way it has been presented.
I sat in on some of the committee sessions, including the one where Mr. Rabinovitch and five other witnesses were presenting their views, half of whom opposed the changes. There were some very constructive changes that came from them. One of those recommendations was that instead of the name being the Museum of History, it would be the Canadian Museum of History and Civilization. The reasoning behind that was quite straightforward: why change a great brand? To say anything else would be inaccurate because the Museum of Civilization is a fairly significant brand. 
Mr. Rabinovitch said, “The Museum of Civilization is described throughout the global tourism industry as one of Canada's must-see landmarks. It actually receives a three star billing from the Guide Michelin; Parliament only receives two stars”. It may be only one star these days. He also mentioned Frommer's Travel Guides, Lonely Planet and on it goes, as examples of guides stating that people must visit this place. 
He further stated, “Visitor recognition of the name and the style of the CMC is enviable. It's one of the country's bright spots in showing itself. Foreign diplomats make this point repeatedly, and they use the museum as a key orientation point for new staff who arrive, and also for dignitaries”.
I thought the recommendation that the name be changed to “The Canadian Museum of History and Civilization” was very constructive, but it was unfortunately not even taken into consideration.
The other point that was brought up, and was far more troubling, was the abandonment of the research component. Again, I understand that the member for Lethbridge said the current president, Mr. O'Neill, supports it. However, he is in a bit of a quandary. If he did not support it, that would leave him very few options, since he is the one who is currently employed there. If he did not support it, I think we would probably see another Munir Sheikh appear on the national stage. The fact, though, that two previous presidents, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Rabinovitch, are both adamantly opposed to this speaks volumes. Yet, the Conservatives refused to listen. Therefore, it is troubling that they would do that.
What were the reasons advanced for it? The Conservatives said that the government is going to put $25 million into the museum and that it needs to change the name. Sorry, that does not wash. If they are going to encourage the museum to share its collection, I am absolutely in total agreement there. No one in his or her right mind would oppose that. The question is very simple: Do they need to change the name of the museum to do that? The answer is no. The Museum of Science and Technology does it, and the Museum of Aviation does it. We have not seem them change their name. Although, the Museum of Aviation actually did change its name by adding the word “Space”. That was very welcomed, but that did not stop it from making exchanges. Therefore, this notion that they need to change the name of the museum in order to encourage them to share their exhibits is total nonsense.
On the other matter, do they need to change the name to enter into agreements with other museums? Absolutely not. Yet, that seems to be advanced as one of the reasons.
The other thing is the $25 million. I am sorry, but I would be very curious at the end of the day to see how much of the $25 million will have been used to renovate this museum. That seems to be where it is being directed. Yet, we would say it is going to be used for these further exchanges. If that is the serious intent of the government, it is not nearly enough, and we will see that.
There are other significant problems. We were given some assurances by some of the government members in this House during the time we had second reading debate on this. The member for Leeds—Grenville said, in part, “the Grand Hall and the First Peoples Hall, which present the history of Canada's first peoples, would remain an integral part of the new museum”.
Also, the member for Wild Rose said, “It is important to remember that the Grand Hall and the First People's Hall, which present the history of Canada's first peoples, will remain an integral part of the new museum, as will the Children's Museum”. If that is the case, I have some questions.
I would like to quote a story that appeared in the newspaper this week about the removal of one of the significant pieces in the museum, the Nishga Girl. The article confirms that the showcase in the First Peoples Hall is going to be removed from the museum, to the surprise of those who donated it. Yet, assurances have been given to us in the House that things like that would not happen. What is going on? Have we been misled? Have the people of Canada been misled? If that is the case, there is a serious breach of fiduciary obligation and respect for Parliament. That is not the way we should conduct ourselves.
The other thing is that Mr. Morrison, who has been recently hired to work there, is quoted in that story as saying, “We have a new mandate here”. He was trying to pooh-pooh the comments of the previous president, Mr. MacDonald. With all due respect to Mr. Morrison, he does not have a new mandate, at least not yet. Parliament has not yet passed this bill. It has not gone through report stage or third reading, and it has not gone through the upper house yet. For employees of the museum, no matter what position they occupy, to say that they have a new mandate is disrespectful of Parliament.
I received an invitation from the historical foundation to an event that will occur in October. I think all members have it. It will be an evening of celebrating Canada, a great event. When I saw on the invitation that it was to occur in the Canadian Museum of History, I was a little taken aback. The Governor General is associated with that evening. How is it that people who understand Canada's history, democratic principles, and the legal mandate that flows from Parliament, the House and the Senate, are presupposing the decisions we will be making? They have invited us to a museum, when the bill has not even been approved at second reading. 
 I did get a letter of apology from Deborah Morrison, who is the president, because she realized it was a mistake. However, the government is treating this bill as if it is a fait accompli, a given decision. It speaks volumes about the government's attitude. There were some very serious, thoughtful and constructive amendments proposed at the committee stage, and they were all turned down. 
I will not reveal with whom, but I have had private conversations with members on the government side. They thought the amendments were helpful and constructive. I thought for a brief moment, naively, of course, that perhaps the government would approve some of the amendments. If we are going to create a national institution, it is better if it is approved by multiple parties in the House and Senate, as opposed to being approved by the dominating one. That is not how to construct a society, not by ramming things down people's throats and making affirmations that are not accurate. There are words that we are not allowed to use in parliamentary language. 
Affirmations were made that were not accurate, such as receiving assurances that there would be no changes. Yet, even before the mandate is changed, there are changes occurring in the museum. Mr. Speaker, there is something dreadfully wrong, and you might want to look at that. It is disrespectful of Parliament. How is it that there are changes going on in that museum now when the mandate has not been approved? I hear no one from the other side saying that is fine, or not fine, which would be the more appropriate thing to say.
We have a situation where a very strong institution has been a great showcase throughout the world for Canada. It is all encompassing. When we talk about civilization, we are not talking about just one component of civilization, which is history, though that is absolutely an important one.
I am with the gentleman who was at the committee the other night who said that he would love to have a museum of history in this country, but not by carving out the Museum of Civilization.
I would hope that the government, and I know it is probably wishing against hope, would seriously consider what it is doing, because I do not think it is constructing positively for the future of our country. I think the Conservatives have to rethink their approach and consider very sound proposals by past directors of this museum, past presidents, to make it, perhaps, much more acceptable to everyone in this country.
Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech on the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which, indeed, is Canada's most popular museum. I welcome the opportunity to make just a few brief comments.
One of the things that always strikes me about the Conservatives is that they claim to be interested in history, but they have already gutted Canada's knowledge and research communities throughout the government and all over Canada. It has fired and muzzled archeologists, archivists and librarians. It has gutted the national historic sites, Parks Canada and our national archives. If the Conservatives were truly interested in Canadian history, cuts, mismanagement and interference would stop now.
I am really concerned about the direction we are taking with this bill, and I want to ask the member specifically about women.
This is the history of the government. When I was first elected in 2006, we started with taking equality out of the mandate of Status of Women and cut the funding. We now have also blocked efforts, most recently at the UN, to address sexual violence against women. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has pointed out that a history narrated by the classic heroes risks relegating women to a secondary rank.
I wonder if the member would tell us whether he thinks it would be more appropriate that the content of the museum be defined by museology professionals, such as historians, anthropologists, archivists, and librarians, than of by politicians?
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, as a result of what we are witnessing here today, I suspect that if the museum becomes the Canadian museum of history, future generations will see this period in our history as a dark period, when equality between men and women actually took a major step backward.
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we only need listen to that garbage that has just come from that speech to understand why it is so important that Canadians continue to have a principled Conservative government governing this country. If anything mentions Canada or Canadian pride, the opposition members, Liberals or New Democrats, run for cover. It is embarrassing to them to be proud of their country.
I have in my hands the Liberal amendments to this bill. He talked about the thoughtful amendments the Liberals brought forward. I have these amendments here. Ninety-nine per cent of them deal with changing the name of the museum. Those are the thoughtful amendments.
Once we decided we were not going to water down the focus on Canadian history in the new Canadian museum of history, that we wanted to have that focus for all Canadians, and we turned that down, 99% of the Liberal amendments were also turned down. 
What we are hearing them also say today is that somehow, Dr. Morrison, who has 20 years of experience as an archeologist, is an author and is very experienced, is not capable of putting together museums and exhibits that all Canadians can be proud of.
When it comes to something that is so important to all Canadians, I have never heard such nonsense as I just heard from this member in his speech, not to mention the question just raised by the opposition NDP member.
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, if the member is going to criticize, I would hope he would criticize with facts. The amendments we put forward included re-establishing the research component of the museum, which is crucial.
Also, what I said about Mr. Morrison was not that he cannot do his job. He said that they have a mandate. That is not accurate, because until Parliament changes the mandate, the mandate of the Museum of Civilization stands. There is no new mandate until Parliament says so, no matter how much he would like it.
Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while I am proud, I would say that this museum has nothing to do with pride. The Conservatives want to reduce history to military history. We already have the Canada Aviation and Space Museum. It could be turned into a military museum, which would solve the problem.
The War of 1812 is not the be-all and end-all. It was one event in history. Yes, we should be proud of it. On a VIA Rail train, I was served a new kind of wine with a label commemorating the War of 1812. There is no need to get carried away. 
The Canadian Museum of Civilization touches on sociology and civilizations, and the history of women in particular. Women make up 52% of this country's population. If the museum is forced to use a dated structure, and everything that comes along with that, the focus will be on the masculine.
When will women start to be part of our history? There is no focus on women, yet we make up 52% of the population. What does the member think about that? 
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, museums must be able to do research and critical analysis. Museums are not supposed to glorify anyone. I am very proud to be Canadian. I always have been and I always will be. 
However, it is important for national institutions to be created in a spirit of harmony and respect, for their mission to be objective, non-partisan and not focused on a reductionist approach to our society as a whole.
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to talk about this legislation, especially after following such a disrespectful speech to the people who are in charge of Canada's national museums, who are charged with the task of updating a museum that has not been updated for a long period of time. Only the opposition would criticize a $25 million investment in such an important national institution as the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which will become the new Canadian museum of history.
In his speech, the hon. member touched on the important landmark the Museum of Civilization currently is. We agree that it is a very important landmark. It is something we should be very proud of. That is why we were proud when the architect Douglas Cardinal, who the member mentioned, said that he supported the conversion of this museum to the new Canadian museum of history and how excited he was that the museum can continue to grow.
There was a time when the museum was called the Museum of Man. Times changed, and we updated it to become the Canadian Museum of Civilization. 
Let me refer to the museum president's testimony at committee. He said this about the museum:
“In the Canada Hall, the regions of the country presented are frozen in time and exist entirely under themselves. Whole categories of endeavour, politics, sport, culture, our contributions to the world among others, are poorly covered or not covered at all. Women's history is, at best, peripheral and the journey through time ends in the 1970s, so almost half a century of our history is left unexplored”. 
He goes on further to say:
“As a result of this, while walking through Canada Hall you will learn about life in New France, but you will find no mention of the Quiet Revolution, or anything else about Quebec. You'll learn about the early whaling industry in Newfoundland, but nothing about why, how or when the colony joined confederation. You'll see recreations of grain elevators and oil rigs, but you won't learn about the phenomenon called Western alienation. 
Although modules on the rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada have been added very recently, Confederation itself is reduced to a multimedia timeline. You'll find no mention in Canada Hall of the Flag Debate or Constitution, no mention of Paul Henderson's goal in Moscow, or the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians. You'll find no reference to the residential schools or peacekeeping, or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. No meaningful reference to the Great Depression, the Conscription Crisis, or even a hint as to where Canada might be headed. But perhaps the most egregious flaw in the Canada Hall itself is its starting point. If you've been there you will know that its telling of our national story begins not with the arrival of the First Peoples in time immemorial, but with the arrival of Europeans in the eleventh century. Colonization as a term or concept is not mentioned in Canada Hall”.
As proud as we are of the museum, if one has gone through it, it becomes quite clear that it needs to be updated. That is why, in addition to the enormous resources we have poured into arts and culture, with some $142 million for our museums, we are investing another $25 million in this museum to update it.
Some opposition members have referred to research. They have said that as a result of some of the changes, the museum will no longer be doing research. Had they actually read the bill, as we have been saying through second reading debate in this place, and I will say it again, they would see that it is actually right in the act that research will continue to be important to the museum of Canadian history. I will say it again. Paragraph 9 (1)(f) states “undertake or sponsor any research related to its purpose or to museology, and communicate the results of that research”. 
It is on the second page of the bill. One does not have to read that far to get to the fact that the museum will continue to do research. I know that opposition members do not typically read bills. All I am asking is that they read to the bottom of the second page, and they will find that the museum will continue to do research.
Again quoting the statement of the president of the museum:
“[W]e will continue building our national collection and undertaking scholarly and other types of research, despite claims from some to the contrary. In fact, our national collection fund now totals $9 million and in consultation with academics across the country the corporation has developed a research strategy, the first in the museum's history. This strategy will guide the work of the museum in its research activities over the next 10 years”.
It is one of two things. Either they have not read the bill, in which it specifically talks about research, and do not believe the museum president who talks about how important research will be going forward, or they are deliberately trying to confuse Canadians into thinking that a museum of history will not actually do research. 
It goes even further.
 I see that my time is actually running out, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Having noticed that it is 11 o'clock, the hon. member will have four minutes after question period to finish his remarks.
We will move on now to statements by members. 

Statements by Members
4-H CanadaMs. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1913, E. Ward Jones and deputy minister of agriculture, George Black, started the first 4-H Boys and Girls Club in Canada. The club started in Roland, Manitoba, which is located in my riding of Portage—Lisgar. 
Roland was the first 4-H head, heart, hands, health club in Canada. Today there are 160 clubs in Manitoba, more than 2,200 members and 23,000 youth involved in 4-H in Canada . 
For 100 years, 4-H programming in rural communities has been helping youth to build confidence and learn skills in agriculture, homemaking, public speaking and leadership. Today when members look at their community, they will find many rural leaders who had their start in the 4-H program.
The 4-H leaders volunteer their time to the organization because they believe in its value and want to continue its traditions.
 As we all join together to congratulate 4-H Canada in its 100th year anniversary, let us all try to remember its motto and “learn to do by doing”.
Brain Injury Awareness MonthMatthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, June is Brain Injury Awareness Month in Canada. According to the Brain Injury Association of Canada, brain injuries are the number one killer and disabler of people under the age 44 in our country. 
As the sports critic for the official opposition, I realize that too many traumatic brain injuries occur while practising physical activities. As summer approaches, I encourage all Canadians to practise their physical activity safely and always bear in mind the consequences of traumatic brain injuries.
I encourage parents to ensure their kids practise their favourite sports in a safe environment by wearing the appropriate protective gear and with adequate supervision. 
Appropriate protective gear can reduce the risk of serious injury during sports.
The New Democratic Party proposed a national strategy to reduce the incidence of serious injury in amateur sport. It calls for guidelines related to concussions and a mechanism to enhance collaboration between medical professionals and people involved in sports. 
The Conservative government should show some leadership on this file and support our initiatives.
Samuel de ChamplainMr. Chris Alexander (Ajax—Pickering, CPC): Mr. Speaker, exactly 400 years ago today, there were two canoes travelling up the river behind your chair. They were approaching the Chaudière Falls, which the locals called Asticou, a spiritual place and portage point.
Among those voyageurs was a man from Brouage, in Saintonge. He was a royal representative in Canada and a seasoned adventurer and cartographer who made good use of his astrolabe.
A few days later, on Allumettes Island, he met with Tessouat, chief of the Kichesipirini, the people of “the great river”. The chief was a great orator and a keen strategist, who at the time imposed customs duties on navigators. He would later allow the French to travel deeper into the country by opening the route to the Great Lakes, the Upper Country and the west. 
However, this French voyageur had already left his mark on our country as a key figure in the history of Acadia, as the founder of Quebec City, by inspiring the settlement of Montreal and by establishing New France. 
The day before yesterday, at Westminster, our Prime Minister was right to call the man who helped found our country “our first governor”.
Let us celebrate that man who was travelling up the river behind you 400 years ago. Let us celebrate Samuel de Champlain.
Erskine SmithHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Erskine Smith, who recently passed away.
Involved in theatre as an actor and director for more than 50 years, he and his wife, Pat, founded the Victoria Playhouse in 1982. His family and the playhouse is the heart of Victoria-by-the-Sea, entertaining tourists from all over the world and locals. 
Erskine spent many years touring maritime theatres and festivals and performed at the CBC nationally. In 2012, he was awarded the Diamond Jubilee Medal for his contribution to theatre and the arts. 
His lifetime in dedication and self-sacrifice serving the theatre community reflects the exemplary man he was. His humility, integrity and hard work continue to inspire, expressed by many as “how kind, welcoming and generous he was”.
As Erskine moves on, there is no question that he will always be centre stage, from memories of artistic expression to the kindness that was his very being.
On behalf of the House, we recognize and thank Erskine for his dedication and contribution to his community and the arts sector as a whole.
Guinness Book of World RecordsMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the year 2000, the Guinness Book of World Records recognized the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival as the largest of its kind when the crowd surpassed 66,000. That record is testament to the community spirit of Elmira, from volunteers, sponsors, local groups and the township of Woolwich. 
This year, though, organizers and media estimated a crowd of 75,000 enjoyed Waterloo region's hospitality. 
I salute chair Ken Jessop and the entire team for their accomplishment and for raising $60,000 for local groups: schools, sports clubs, the local library and not-for-profits of which 29 in total shared this year's proceeds. It is great fun for a great cause.
On April 5, 2014, next year, we will celebrate the 50th Elmira Maple Syrup Festival.
I operated a dental practice for almost three decades, but this retired dentist invites all hon. members of the House and, indeed, all Canadians to join us in Elmira next year to indulge their sweet tooth, but do not forget to brush and floss.
Tourism IndustryMr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Tourism Week in Canada is coming to a close. The Tourism Industry Association used this opportunity to make elected officials aware of public policies that are preventing Canada from capitalizing on the economic opportunities in the tourism sector.
The industry is worried. Two major issues are a threat to the future of our industry. The budget to promote Canada abroad does not allow us to compete against other international destinations. Furthermore, our airport charges are among the highest in the world, which puts us at a disadvantage compared to other North American destinations. The industry really does have good reason to be concerned.
The Minister of Transport considers questions about airport charges as an attack on the user-pay principle, and the Minister for Tourism publicly boasts about having reduced the Canadian Tourism Commission's budget by $14 million, which is more than what he was asked to cut according to the minister.
The NDP will continue to fight the government's inaction because an industry that injects $84 billion into our economy deserves to have its problems addressed.
2013 Calgary StampedeMs. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I want to laud a very special Canadian who captured the world's attention by going boldly where no man has gone before. He captivated all of us with his stunning pictures, his live interviews and even his impressive musical ability, and he did this all from space, the final frontier.
Of course, I am talking about Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, the first Canadian to walk in space and the first Canadian to command the International Space Station. Commander Hadfield has been named the 2013 Calgary Stampede's parade marshal. Not surprisingly, Commander Hadfield accepted the stampede's invitation from space, on Twitter. Those six tweets garnered over six million hits.
Today, I want to invite all my hon. colleagues and Canadians to join in the excitement by coming to the Calgary Stampede in my riding of Calgary Centre, from July 5-14. Join the excitement, see Alberta and meet a true Canadian hero.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of the Conservative member of Parliament for Calgary Northeast and his bill, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, honouring the Canadian Armed Forces. 
This bill would strip citizenship from dual nationals who commit acts of war against Canada, while also offering faster immigration to courageous and patriotic newcomers who serve in our military. It would amend section 9 of the Citizenship Act to provide that individuals would be deemed to have made an application for the renunciation of their citizenship if they had engaged in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. 
Once the bill is passed, it will strengthen the integrity of our Canadian immigration and citizenship system and bring Canada back in line with the rest of the free world. It will also send a clear message that those who commit terrorism or attack our armed forces are not welcome in Canada.
World Elder Abuse Awareness DayMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today the NDP team is joining Canada's provinces and territories, as well as other countries, in recognizing World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.
Unfortunately, elder abuse is a scourge that affects seniors in many ways—financially, physically and intellectually. I would like to acknowledge the commendable efforts being made by various organizations that fight against elder abuse and neglect.
Today I remember CARP founder Lillian Morgenthau, who died last Thursday. Her vision helped raise awareness of the challenges faced by seniors and encouraged social progress so that they can live better lives without fear of discrimination.
We must build on these efforts and do even more to ensure that seniors are not placed in at-risk situations.
Let us remember that an adequate response to elder abuse requires four things: a broad basic public awareness campaign; prevention programs; adequate intervention; and advocacy services and adequate juridical measures.
We should keep in mind that the welfare and safety of seniors is a social responsibility. The NDP will continue proposing meaningful solutions to ensure that seniors can age with dignity and peace of mind.
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the eighth World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, bringing global attention to the abuse and neglect that some older adults experience. Sadly, this is a serious problem that continues to happen in communities all across Canada. Elder abuse robs older people of their dignity and peace at a time when they ought to feel secure. 
While our government is focused on standing up for victims of elder abuse, the leader of the Liberal Party actually takes money from charities that specifically help the elderly. In fact, one charity that supports senior citizens and is in need is asking the Liberal leader for the $20,000 that he took from it. It, like many charities, are cash-strapped and he has not even given it the decency of a response to its request.
As part of budget 2013, this government will better safeguard the well-being of seniors in a variety of areas, including financial services. In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, local volunteers, like Janette McIntosh, myself and the OPP, are educating seniors and ensuring that they are safe in their community.
We all have a role to play in preventing elder abuse and I encourage the Liberal leader to get on board.
Conservative Party of CanadaMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are abusing parliamentary process to pass government legislation under the guise of private member's business.
Ministers should bring forward government bills with all of the checks and balances that affords, including a charter analysis, not try to sneak them in through the back door.
Canadians deserve an open and transparent process, a process that allows proper oversight and proper study, not a shortcut so the minister can hide his plans.
Leader of the New Democratic PartyMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the leader of the NDP completely ignored security regulations on Parliament Hill. The leader of the NDP drove through a number of stop signs and ignored a police chase.
When he finally decided to stop his car, the leader of the NDP said to the officer, “Don’t you know who I am?” The leader of the NDP forgot who he was, and that is why he had to ask the police officer.
The leader of the NDP also forgot to stop at a stop sign, which is not surprising. After all, for 17 years he forgot that former Laval mayor Gilles Vaillancourt had offered him an envelope stuffed with cash.
Roger BiderMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to Dr. Roger Bider who passed away this past April. Dr. Bider was a visionary who left a profound and lasting impact on our appreciation of the natural world around us.
 For more than three decades, Dr. Bider taught wildlife biology at McGill University. In 1981, he founded the St. Lawrence Valley Natural History Society to promote research on, and conservation of, amphibians, reptiles, birds and other animals native to the St. Lawrence region. In 1988, as the public education component of its mission, the society created the Ecomuseum Zoo. Few are the children from the Montreal region who have not visited the Ecomuseum on a school field trip.
Dr. Bider's daughter, Jeanette, has best captured the essence of the man:
 He would take us all camping and fishing all the time. He had such an incredible passion for nature and wildlife and was so happy to share it with us. 
I offer our deepest condolences to Dr. Bider's wife, Marjorie, his children, Tim, Steve, Donna, Keith, Jeanette and Marc, as well as his many grandchildren.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians saw the true colours of the NDP. The leader of the NDP did his best Reese Witherspoon impression, shouting, “Don't you know who I am?”
A female RCMP member was forced to chase him around Parliament Hill after he decided security measures did not apply to him. Once he was confronted and given a warning not to repeat this stunt, he moved on to intimidation, threatening that this front-line officer would get “in a lot of trouble”.
Not to be outdone, the member for Timmins—James Bay flippantly referred to our RCMP members as “meter maids”.
This champagne socialist above the law attitude is disrespectful to those who put their lives on the line to keep Canadians safe. It shows a lack of judgment and it shows why the NDP is not fit to govern.
Conservative Party of CanadaMr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, although the Conservatives are trying to divert our attention, Canadians remain focused on what matters—and what matters is not being popular, but rather getting answers in order to understand how the Senate expense scandal unfolded and who is involved.
It is the Prime Minister's Office that really runs this country, and that very same office is where Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy's shenanigans took place. The PMO is still happy, however, because the Conservative caucus continues to serve at its beck and call, as we saw yesterday. Their caucus is full of trained seals who are happy to sit back and blindly applaud while the head seal spins a ball on his nose.
Canadians deserve better. They deserve a party that will think of them instead of rewarding its party cronies by appointing them as senators for life.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last year the Liberal leader, as a member of Parliament, was paid a generous $160,000 by Canadian taxpayers. However, that was not enough for the millionaire Liberal leader. He went and stuck Canadian charities with hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees to line his pockets.
Now these charities are fighting back. A Saint John's charity that looks after seniors is asking the Liberal leader to return the $20,000 he ripped it off for. Why? His appearance was a total flop, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in debt for the charity.
Instead of conning money from seniors, the Liberal leader should do the honourable thing and return the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has taken from Canadian charities.

Oral Questions
EthicsMr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when was the Prime Minister informed that his former right-hand man, Nigel Wright, was the subject of a criminal investigation?
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has not contacted the government about this. The real question is, where is the NDP leader? Is he still busy disrespecting the RCMP?
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked a female RCMP officer, “Do you know who I am?”
That is the kind of temper the Leader of the Opposition has, getting in the way of his judgment. That is why he does not have the calibre to be the prime minister of this country. 
The Speaker: May I remind members, it is unparliamentary to point out the presence or absence of other members.
The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office is under criminal investigation. It is time to take this seriously and answer questions.
Has the Prime Minister spoken to a criminal investigator about this file?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
However, Canadians want to know why the NDP leader rolled right through four stop signs here on Parliament Hill. Why did he insult an RCMP officer? Why does the NDP leader think he is above the law? He demonstrated disrespect for police officers.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that the Prime Minister's Office is currently under criminal investigation. The Conservative Party and its ministers have to start answering questions seriously.
Has another PMO staffer, such as current chief of staff Ray Novak or anyone else, talked to an investigator about the criminal investigation into the $90,000 cheque that Nigel Wright gave to Senator Mike Duffy?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, once again, the RCMP has not contacted anyone in government or in the Prime Minister's Office about this matter.
Yesterday, however, the Leader of the Opposition, the NDP leader, was contacted by the RCMP here on Parliament Hill because he broke the law. Despite the fact that there are so many tourists around Parliament Hill, many of them children, he ignored the rules of the road and then insulted an RCMP officer.
Why did the NDP leader fail to respect the RCMP when it contacted him?
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's office is under criminal investigation. Canadians are taking that very seriously, and the minister should too. It is time to answer questions.
When was the Prime Minister informed of the criminal investigation, and did the Prime Minister or his office proactively contact the police about the possible criminal wrongdoing in his office?
Jason Kenney: Again, Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same in English as it is in French, which is that the office of the Prime Minister and government has not been contacted by the RCMP with respect to this matter.
The real question, though, is why was the leader of the NDP contacted by the RCMP here on Parliament Hill yesterday. We have kids and tourists walking all around the Hill, but he does not seem to think that matters as he speeds through five stop signs. Then when he is stopped finally by the police and asked what is going on, he says, “Do you know who I am?”
That is the kind of arrogance that Canadians do not appreciate in their political representatives.
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the real question is about the criminal investigation in the Prime Minister's office. 
Last night, Senator Wallin said in an interview that she always kept Nigel Wright in the loop about problems in the Senate.
Who else in the PMO was kept in the loop, and did Nigel Wright ever speak with the Prime Minister about his conversations with Senator Wallin?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that question has been answered. 
It is quite remarkable that the members of the NDP are so embarrassed by the conduct of their leader, they are not even prepared to defend it on the floor of the House of Commons. What I really find strange is that the NDP leader suggests that it was all just a misunderstanding. He implies that he co-operated and there was nothing wrong.
When an individual speeds through five stop signs and then insults an RCMP officer, would the individual have the arrogance to say, “Do you know who I am?” That reflects the kind of poor judgment that we sadly know is characteristic of the leader of the New Democratic Party.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to the Prime Minister, Nigel Wright was acting in his capacity of chief of staff. However, it is illegal to make a payment or provide a gift to a senator for anything relating to their official functions.
Furthermore, Senator Duffy stonewalled the review of his expenditures immediately after his agreement with the chief of staff.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to describe this transaction as private?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, because it was private.
Let us talk about financial donations. We just learned that the leader of the Liberal Party accepted $20,000 from a charitable organization for seniors in New Brunswick for a fundraising campaign, which lost money.
The Grace Foundation in New Brunswick asked the Liberal leader, who is a millionaire, to give back the money. We are talking about seniors living on low incomes. It is unbelievable that the Liberal leader took $20,000 from those seniors.
Will he pay that money back to the seniors?
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, it is illegal to make a private payment or provide any benefit to a senator for anything relating to their official functions. It is illegal under section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act. It is illegal under sections 119 and 121 of the Criminal Code. These passages speak explicitly to fraud and bribery. 
What information have the Prime Minister and his office proactively provided to the RCMP? If the answer is nothing, why have they not done so?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the government will obviously co-operate with the RCMP in any matter. We certainly hope, however, that the leader of the Liberal Party will co-operate with the Grace Foundation from which he took $20,000. Let us be clear. He was getting paid $160,000 as an MP, but he went and took a $20,000 cheque from a group of seniors trying to do a fundraiser to buy furniture. 
I would like to know how many members here go to charity events where they give money. Could they put up their hands? Alright. That is what most Canadians do. Middle-class Canadians give money to charities, they do not take $20,000 cheques--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Ottawa South.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, this is now the matter of a full RCMP criminal investigation. The government cannot pretend that the cancelled cheque or the February 20 email somehow relate to a private transaction. The chief of staff was involved and the Prime Minister's personal legal counsel drafted the agreement. 
Will the Prime Minister's Office now immediately provide these documents and all information in its possession to the RCMP or is it waiting for yet another RCMP search and seizure?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, of course, the government and the Prime Minister's Office will co-operate with the RCMP in any manner. 
Again, we would like to know when the Liberal leader will co-operate with the charities from which he took hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees while he was getting paid to act as a member of Parliament. That is about public service. While he was being paid to perform public service he was actually out there taking huge amounts of money from seniors and other charities to serve himself. 
He pretends to be a defender of the middle class. Middle-class Canadians make charitable contributions. They do not take huge payments from charities, especially when it is their job to help them.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last night, Pamela Wallin said, “...the job of a principal secretary or a Chief of Staff is to ....try and protect the Prime Minister”. 
Do Conservatives agree with this statement and is it then not reasonable to assume that Nigel Wright had the Prime Minister's interest in mind when he wrote the cheque?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to ask questions of Nigel Wright, she is free to do so. That is not government business.
I will say this. What is government business is ensuring that private members are able to get business through this House of Commons and right now the NDP is filibustering the private member's bill of the member for Calgary Northeast that would strip Canadian citizenship from serious convicted terrorists. Over 80% of Canadians support that idea. Only 6% strongly oppose it, but it turns out the entire NDP caucus represents that aberrant view that serious convicted terrorists should be able to retain their Canadian citizenship. Shame on them. 
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have serious questions about the government's role in the Senate, yet Conservatives disrespect this House and disrespect Canadians by refusing to answer. 
Let us try this again. Has anyone on that side of the House seen a copy of this cheque that they seem to know so much about? If so, have they handed it over to police?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, and the government cannot hand over a cheque from someone's private account that does not have anything to do with the government.
What does have to do with the government is keeping Canadians safe. Canadians believe overwhelmingly—including the vast majority of supporters of the NDP, according to polling—that if Canadians express violent disloyalty to this country by committing serious acts of treason or terrorism, they should lose the citizenship that they have repudiated through their actions.
The NDP, in its extremism, does not agree and is filibustering the bill that would correct this. Why will it not let us bring—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to divert attention from their own scandals. I wonder if they provide the same answers to the investigators who are questioning them as part of the criminal investigation into the shenanigans that went on at the Prime Minister's Office.
Has anyone from the Prime Minister's Office spoken to Nigel Wright now that he is at the centre of a criminal investigation?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, again, the Prime Minister's Office and the government have not been contacted by the RCMP about this.
The vast majority of Canadians, including NDP supporters and Quebeckers, support the idea of revoking the Canadian citizenship of anyone who is convicted of committing serious terrorist acts. We are wondering why the NDP refuses to agree to adopt the bill introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast on this.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, a crime may have been committed at the Prime Minister's Office and it seems as though the Conservatives are doing everything they can not to talk about it. The affairs of the state should be treated more seriously.
Senators tried to defraud taxpayers: that is one thing. However, it does not end there. This morning, we learn that Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu tried to convince Senate administration to extend the paid leave of an employee who was none other than his girlfriend. This is another example of the privileged trying to abuse their privileges. 
After condoning fraud for years, does this government also condone such behaviour from one of its senators?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Senate was right to reject this inappropriate request.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, did the RCMP contact the Leader of the Government in the Senate as part of its criminal investigation of the $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy by Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that no one in government was contacted by the RCMP about that.
However, yesterday, the leader of the NDP was contacted by the RCMP, who wanted to know why he ignored all traffic rules on Parliament Hill. Furthermore, some NDP members have not paid their taxes. We want to know why the NDP does not have more respect for Canada's laws.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, was any member of cabinet contacted by the RCMP during its investigation into Nigel Wright's $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy? Anyone? We are talking about a criminal investigation.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, as I said, no one in government was contacted by the RCMP about that.
Once again, I hope that the NDP will explain to Canadians why it opposes the idea that dangerous terrorists must lose their citizenship. It is a very simple principle, a principle supported by almost all other democracies in the world. It was the law in Canada before 1977. Furthermore, 80% of Canadians agree with this principle. Why is the NDP opposed to it?
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the government's bill was so good the parliamentary secretary would not need to arrive with a stack of amendments. That is what the New Democrats are trying to improve at the immigration committee.
I have a very simple question. Did the Prime Minister consult a lawyer to find out how he should act in a criminal investigation of his office pertaining to the $90,000 that the former chief of staff of this country's Prime Minister—I remind hon. members—paid to Conservative Senator Mike Duffy?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, as I said, no one at the PMO was contacted by the RCMP in this regard.
However, there are still members of the NDP who have not paid their taxes. They are breaking the law. We would like to know when they intend to meet the requirements of the Income Tax Act and pay their taxes like the rest of Canadians. The NDP is not exactly setting a good example by failing to pay taxes.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a criminal investigation of the PMO is serious, period.
It is sad to see that the Conservatives have stopped even trying to pretend to be accountable to Canadians. 
The question is simple. On what specific date did the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, give Mike Duffy the money to pay back his fraudulent claims?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that question has already been answered.
Since the NDP refuses to answer my question, I am going to ask again why they took such extensive measures to prevent the hon. member for Calgary Northeast's private member's bill from being adopted or even voted on by the immigration committee. This bill would set up a system to revoke the citizenship of convicted terrorists.
A total of 80% of Canadians support that idea. Why does the NDP not support it?
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, Canadians can see right through the strategy of not answering questions. It is not that difficult to see. 
Conservatives have turned promises of openness into secret payouts and backroom deals. That is the truth. They turned promises of accountability into a PBO under siege and gerrymandered the hiring involving Conservative staffers. Now they have the gall to hike bonuses for ministerial executives in the midst of layoffs and departmental cuts.
Are there any principles left that Conservatives are not willing to sell out?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is setting the tone by reducing ministers' offices' spending by over 18%, and spending in the Prime Minister's Office has been reduced by over 22%. Economic action plan 2010 froze departmental operating budgets, and these freezes remain in place today.
Unlike the opposition, we will not stop saving taxpayers money, but we will stop at stop signs.
EmploymentHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's unemployment rate for full-time students is over 20%. Young Canadians are desperate for work experience and they are being pressured into taking unpaid internships, but Statistics Canada is not even tracking the issue. 
If someone has a paid job, it is tracked. If someone is looking for work and is unemployed, it is tracked. If someone has an unpaid job, however, there is no data. If they are not being tracked, unpaid internships may be getting railroaded, and that is why Statistics Canada should be tracking unpaid internships. 
We cannot address what we do not measure, so why will the government not ask Statistics Canada to start tracking unpaid internships in Canada? 
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, this government is delivering for young Canadians. Let us be very clear. The numbers are clear. There were 54,400 net new jobs for Canadians under 30 in the last month. This is an overwhelming number. We have created over a million net new jobs. We are putting $70 million in the budget for 5,000 paid internships, making sure young Canadians have real opportunities. 
Unlike the Liberals who vote against every single one of these opportunities, we are there for young Canadians.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the flagship of the Conservatives' employment program is the totally shambolic Canada job grant. It is more of a ghost ship than a flagship. Seven of the ten provinces have said the program is pretty much shipwrecked. British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia all said that the program was sunk before it sailed.
Why will the Conservatives not abandon ship on this ill-fated program and help Canadians who are so desperately looking for work?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. We are taking the creation of jobs out of the hands of government and putting it with employers and employees, the people who know how to create jobs in this country. That is why, under the leadership of this government and the Minister of Finance, we have created over a million net new jobs in this country since the downturn of the recession. 
Our programs and plans are working. The Canada job grant is going to do exactly that: create new jobs and new opportunities for Canadians. I encourage the Liberals and everyone else to get on board. This is going to work exceptionally well for Canadians.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are on board a sinking ship. The flagship hit an iceberg and is sinking. 
The most offensive part is that Conservatives continue to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars advertising this program. Every commercial Canadians see during the Stanley Cup final costs $140,000 a spot for a program that does not exist and will never exist. It is incompetence and mismanagement of titanic proportions. 
While young Canadians find themselves drowning in student debt, the Conservative band plays on. When will they change the music on this program?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the member asked about jobs. One worker for a non-profit organization actually lost her job as a result of the Liberal leader. Let me quote a letter that went to the Liberal leader from this organization that helps elderly people in desperate need:
 The fundraising event we hired you as a speaker for was a huge disappointment and financial loss for our organization. We are a new foundation attempting to raise badly needed funds for the elderly residents of The Church of St. John &amp; St. Stephen Home Inc. 
The Liberal leader went to town, caused losses, took $20,000 away from this organization, money that was meant to help elderly people.
International TradeMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister talks about free trade between Canada and the European Union in France, he will have to address one of the most problematic issues, namely agriculture. Beef and dairy producers deserve to know whether they will be paying the price for the government's willingness to make compromises. 
What is the Prime Minister currently planning to put on the table? Who will pay the price for the Conservative's eagerness to divert attention from their scandals? 
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, negotiations are ongoing. Because we are still in negotiations, we do not have an end result. When we get the end result, we will let the hon. member know.
However, I have a question for the hon. member about jobs, because I do not understand what the NDP has against jobs. A 20% increase in trade with the European Union results in jobs. More money in exporters' pockets results in jobs. I knew New Democrats were anti-trade; now I understand they are anti-jobs.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister desperate to change the channel. We all know that, but it is Canadian producers who will end up paying the price. A free trade deal with Europe will be the most important deal Canada signs in a decade. We need the right deal for Canada. Canadians are concerned about—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. I have asked members before. All they have to do is wait until the member is finished asking the question and then they can applaud. I am sure they will applaud when he is finished asking his question.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the problem is the Conservatives have not signed the deal yet. We are concerned that the desperate Prime Minister we have right now is going to sign a bad deal.
How will the government ensure that we will get good results and sign a good deal when we have a desperate Prime Minister and clearly a very desperate parliamentary secretary?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the answer is pretty simple. The NDP has no intention of signing any deals on trade because it is anti-trade. It continues to be anti-trade. Since we formed government in 2006, we have signed free trade agreements with nine countries. Once in the history of the party, NDP members supported one free trade deal. They have criticized everything we have ever done and anything any previous government has ever done. They are anti-trade and anti-jobs. 
You have a chance to get on board here. If you want to talk about trade, you can get on board and support—
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member knows to address his comments through the Chair and not directly at other colleagues.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, Canada's best interest is actually having a Prime Minister who is focused on representing Canada at the G8 meetings, not on dodging scandals. The problem is we do not. We have a Prime Minister who is actually just focused on dodging scandals. That is the problem. 
At the G8 meetings the Prime Minister will be again out of touch with his partners. We have a Prime Minister who has walked away from the drought treaty. We have the arms treaty not signed. The Conservatives are increasingly isolated on the international stage. They cannot even bargain with our own diplomats. That is how bad it is.
How is it that we can actually work with our allies when we see our Prime Minister walking away from international treaties and not even negotiating with our diplomats?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government will deliver results. The Prime Minister is over there and he is delivering results, unlike that member's leader who berated a female officer of the RCMP. If those members want to think about running government, they should start improving their behaviour.
I know who the hon. member is. We will deliver results.
Foreign AffairsMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the only G8 leader who refuses to sign the arms trade treaty is none other than our Conservative Prime Minister.
Why? Probably because of their conspiracy theories about the treaty. This treaty addresses the global arms trade, not their use within the country. Canada participated in negotiations for months, but the Conservatives still refuse to take a tough stand on the illegal arms trade.
When will they sign this treaty?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canada has taken a leadership role at the United Nations to make sure that we work for this treaty. Canada believes in keeping arms out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and those who abuse fundamental human rights. That is why we were among the 154 countries that agreed to move this treaty forward.
At the same time, it is important that such a treaty should not affect lawful and responsible firearms owners, nor discourage the transfer of firearms for recreational use such as sport shooting and hunting.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP is now in day four of filibustering private member's Bill C-425 at the immigration committee. Those members are doing this because they believe that convicted terrorists should keep their Canadian citizenship. The NDP is ignoring the over 80% of Canadians who support it, including many in my own riding of Richmond Hill, who have contacted me with their support.
Could the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism please explain to the House why the government supports Bill C-425 and why the NDP opposes the vast majority of Canadians on this issue?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Richmond Hill for his good work on this important issue.
Canadians understand that citizenship is predicated on loyalty. When individuals violently express their disloyalty to Canada, when they attack its troops, when they commit violent treason, when they commit acts of terror as we have unfortunately seen Canadians do in the last few months, that is a renunciation of their citizenship and the loyalty upon which it is predicated.
Most Canadians understand that that should have the consequence of resulting in the revocation of citizenship. I think most Canadians find it frankly bizarre that the NDP is going to the wall to defend the right of serious convicted terrorists to retain their Canadian citizenship.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while we are commemorating the fifth anniversary of the official apology for residential schools—in which the government acknowledged the harm done to children and their families—it is distressing to see that aboriginal youth are still not a priority for the Conservatives.
The minister is still dragging his feet on completing the nominal role process. That process allows for a follow-up with aboriginal students to determine their eligibility so that schools receive adequate funding.
Can the minister explain why this process is taking so long, as it technically should have been completed in February?
Mr. Greg Rickford (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are supporting student education for first nations on reserve. Our income assistance program the minister recently announced is focused on ensuring that aboriginal youth have the skills they need to enter the labour force across Canada. 
I wish that the NDP would get on board and support these initiatives. First nations are asking for them. This has been one of the most consultative processes any government has embarked on and we are bringing results forward with first nations.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that sounds like the “dog ate my homework” excuse.
The department's nominal roll process for first nations students is usually complete in February. It is now June and the school year is almost over. The department has been forced to send letters to school boards asking them not to charge interest to first nations for tuition. If this were not so serious, it would be just plain embarrassing.
Why is this process still not complete?
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, obviously we are aware of the fact that some communities send their students to cities and towns for education. We are working through those processes now. Those schools received their tuition. What is important is that those aboriginal students have access to a good education so they can enter the workforce equipped as all other Canadians come to expect, whether they live on reserve or off reserve.
Canadian HeritageJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised a new relationship, and that does not sound like a new relationship.
We have another example of this disrespect: After the Nisga'a land claims agreement, a boat was gifted in the spirit of reconciliation to the Museum of Civilization. Now it is being thoughtlessly shipped away. The Nishga Girl is a significant piece of Canadian history. Will the minister stop the shipment, and will he respectfully consult with both donors and community?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the issue that the member talked about. I will take a look into it for the member and will get back to her.
However, this also gives me a good opportunity to talk about the new museum of Canadian history. This will be an opportunity for the Museum of Civilization, which will become the museum of Canadian history, to start sharing its artifacts throughout the country with museums large and small. There are some 3.5 million artifacts currently in storage.
 Those members are opposed to that because they want to keep those artifacts in storage. They do not want Canadians to see these very important treasures that are held in storage. I hope they will change their mind and get on board and support the new museum of Canadian history while they are at it.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to educate the members opposite.
This not only shows a lack of respect for first nations, but also for the Japanese-Canadian community.
Members of that community have made it clear that they are outraged by the lack of consultation in the Nishga Girl affair. The worst part is that all of this is happening in the same year we are commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Canadian government's official apology for the suffering the Japanese community experienced here in Canada during the Second World War.
That is a perfect example of how the botched change in the Canadian Museum of Civilization's mandate is eating away at Canada's diverse history.
What gives the minister the right to authorize shipping off parts of the museum that represent the diversity of Canada's people without consulting anyone?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, again this speaks to the NDP attitude, that somehow the treasures we have across this country are supposed to be enjoyed only by certain groups of people. I guess they are supposed to stay in storage at the Canadian museum of history.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Paul Calandra:  And they laugh. They laugh at anything that has to do with Canadians getting better access to their history and their culture. It is the same attitude that has left them to vote against $142 million for our national museums. It is the same attitude that has caused them to vote against increasing funding to our artists. They do not get it. They do not understand how important arts and culture are to promote—
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
Tourism IndustryMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is National Tourism Week, and the Conservative government is celebrating by cutting 20% out of the budget for promoting Canadian tourism abroad. Already, we have lost one in five of our international visitors to Canada and that is costing jobs in communities right across the country. However, the government can find hundreds of millions of dollars to advertise its abysmal economic performance.
Why are the Conservatives pedalling propaganda instead of promoting our very important tourism industry?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work of the Canadian Tourism Commission. The people there are very efficient. They are doing a good job.
However, the one thing that the Liberals do not know is that, when we give money to the Canadian Tourism Commission, it is money that comes from our pockets, the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. That is why it has to be well administered, and it is well administered by them. We do not want to have big government spending money. We want to have a government that will be responsible toward the taxpayers.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, those promotion budgets come out of taxpayers' pockets as well and create no jobs. 
The Conservative government is no longer marketing Canada in the United States. On top of that, it is damaging our core tourism product, which is our national parks and monuments. They will not disclose the extent of those cuts to people, to programs, to hours and to seasons, but we know that tourism businesses are going under, from Nanaimo to Kingston to Cape Breton Island.
Why are the Conservative MPs not sticking up for their communities? When will the government fix this mess that the Conservative MPs themselves have created?
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, as I said earlier, it is very important for the commission to spend money efficiently, and that is what it is doing. They seem to think money grows on trees. They want more money, more programs and a bigger deficit.
Unlike the Liberals, we know that today's deficit will end up being tomorrow's taxes, and that is why we have to be careful and responsible with Canadians' money.
HealthMs. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was once a key election promise, but now Conservatives brush off health care wait times as purely provincial. The federal government is the fifth largest provider of medical coverage in Canada, including first nations, the military and our veterans. Wait times are a concern for all Canadians, but Conservatives have gone from making them a top priority to refusing to even acknowledge their responsibility for them. 
Where is the minister's plan for at least reducing the wait times for the 1.3 million Canadians who are directly covered by the federal government?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we do respect the provinces' and territories' jurisdiction in the area of health care. We are providing a long-term stable funding arrangement that will see transfers reach a historic level of $40 billion by the end of the decade.
With the way our health system works, Canadians who have paid their taxes into the health care system and those who have not get the health care they desire. On the NDP side of the House, their members, who receive generous compensation from the Canadian taxpayers, are not even paying their taxes to help support our health care system. 
I find it very hypocritical that they would even criticize this issue when they do not contribute their fair share.
Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are refusing to acknowledge their responsibility. The federal government is the fifth largest provider of medical coverage in the country, but wait times are atrocious for over 1.3 million people, including members of first nations and the armed forces and veterans.
When the parliamentary secretary says this is not in his jurisdiction, he is misleading the House and denying his department's responsibility. Where is the parliamentary secretary's plan to reduce wait times?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government continues to work with provinces and territories and our partners to develop the best quality health care system that we can. 
Again, I would like to point out to the NDP member that it is extremely important that each and every Canadian contributes and pays their fair share into our health care system. We rely on Canadians who have, to give to Canadians who have not, so that we can all have a health care system that we can be proud of.
On that side of the House, I find it hypocritical that they will not even come down hard on their own members who will not pay their taxes to support our health care system.
Public SafetyMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP confused Parliament Hill with The Fast and the Furious. When the RCMP ended his joyride, warning him not to repeat the stunt, he aggressively replied, "Don't you know who I am? You're going to be in a lot of trouble." 
Running five stop signs is dangerous, illegal, careless and carries fines of up to $2,000 and possible jail time. This reckless behaviour endangered hundreds of children visiting the Hill and could have caused a tragedy. 
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety tell the House what our government has done to give police the tools they need to do their job?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, our government has created new legislation to keep dangerous criminals in jail, we have added almost 3,000 new RCMP members to the front-line forces and we are giving the RCMP the tools to fight things like sexual harassment within the RCMP. 
We have the leader of the NDP trying to intimidate a female RCMP member who is protecting us on the Hill. We also have a member of Parliament, the member for Timmins—James Bay, calling a female RCMP officer a "meter maid". It is despicable. The members of the opposition cannot be proud of that. The NDP leader needs to apologize, as does the member--
The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Etobicoke North.
Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's Somali community left a war-torn country to come to our peaceful country, but almost 50 of their young men have died in Ontario and Alberta since 2006. 
The community, which makes up less than 2% of Toronto's population, had 18% of its shooting deaths in 2012. No questions were asked. No investigation was launched. No solutions were offered.
Why is the Conservative government indifferent to this human tragedy?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, it is our government that has introduced legislation to get tough on gangs, guns, and crimes that are occurring in cities like Toronto and elsewhere.
Every time we introduce this legislation, the opposition opposes it. Every time the opposition members are standing up for criminals instead of the victims.
On this side of the House, we stand up for victims. We want to make sure that criminals stay in jail and that the revolving door stops. That is why our legislation has passed. It is why Canadians support our stance of being tough on crime, and not the old Liberal way of doing things.
Regional Economic DevelopmentClaude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the government tough questions about why the Ring of Fire project has been suspended.
All I got from the parliamentary secretary was a laundry list of places he has visited. The people of northern Ontario deserve better. They want answers about why, after five months of so-called leadership from Ottawa, the project is further from realization than ever before.
Enough with the spin. What is the minister going to do to get this project back on track?
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I love these Friday morning lobs from the member for Nickel Belt. There is nothing I want to talk about more.
I actually mentioned a visit to Webequie First Nation. I guess I failed to mention the fact that the minister responsible for FedNor and I sat down at the table with all of the first nations leaders in Thunder Bay. We have met with stakeholders who are implicated in the Ring of Fire.
The prevailing concerns were that the provincial government has dropped the ball on this, and that the NDP MPs who are left out there in parts of northern Ontario are not on board and do not support the initiatives this government is moving forward with to make the Ring of Fire an economic reality.
Charitable OrganizationsMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, charities do a wonderful job for our families and communities across Canada. They often have to do this with little money and few volunteers.
That is why it is unthinkable that any member of Parliament, let alone the Liberal leader, would collect his or her $160,000 MP paycheque and then turn around and charge charities for speaking fees, something which the Canadian taxpayers are already paying MPs to do. This shows a great lack of judgment and is also a disrespectful act toward the charities and the Canadian taxpayer.
Would the Minister of State for Finance please inform the House of the good work our government is doing to actually support charities?
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Mr. Speaker, while the Liberal leader takes money from cash-strapped charities while he is being paid an MP's salary, we find that to be very repugnant.
On this side of the House, we are actually putting forward measures that will help charities gain more money. We put forward the donation super credit, and guess what happened. The leader of the Liberal Party actually voted against it. He takes money from charities and votes against new plans to help charities gain more money.
Consular AffairsMr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks the member for Hamilton Mountain and I have been pressing the government regarding the case of two Hamilton men, Nick Miele, and his 18-year-old cousin, Ben Constantini , who have been behind bars in a Dominican jail since the early morning hours of May 28. Close family members are gravely concerned that these men are in ill health, and that they have not been afforded due process.
Will the minister inform the families of any progress in the efforts that are being made on behalf of these men?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question and his engagement on this case.
Consular assistance is being provided to the two Canadians who have been arrested in the Dominican Republic for allegedly injuring another Canadian citizen. Although the Government of Canada cannot exempt them from local laws, consular officials are advocating for fair treatment and due process, and will remain in contact with the families.
EthicsMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, in all the din and disrespect of the last few sessions of question period, actually going back weeks, Canadians would never see what I see, which is that the vast majority of members of Parliament are decent, hard-working people who, when asked a question, would never, except when they are handed a talking point, turn around and try to cast blame and throw scandals at everybody else.
This tactic of throwing mud around is going to bring all parliamentarians and democracy itself into disrespect and disrepute, essentially saying that everybody does it.
I really would beg the government ministers to answer this question now. Will the Prime Minister please take responsibility and call an inquiry?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, currently there are independent agencies which are reviewing this matter, as they should do. Of course, the government will co-operate fully with such reviews.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response. It is true that the RCMP are investigating the Prime Minister's Office, which I think is a first in the history of this country.
My question goes to the partisanship, which of course is endemic to politics, but can we not rise above it in question period and in our talking points to media, and stop trying to make minor molehill incidents into major mountains? 
We need to show some respect for the Canadian public and not continue to let this place degenerate.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, today we learned that Leann from the Grace Foundation lost her job. She lost her job because the Liberal leader charged $20,000 in speaking fees for a fundraising event that was a total bomb. It lost money, and donations that were intended to help the elderly who are most in need went into the pocket of the Liberal leader.
That organization is pleading with the Liberal leader, and has been doing so for two months, to pay back that money.
I hope the Green Party will join with us in urging the Liberal leader to do the right thing by our seniors and our elderly and pay back the money.
Points of OrderWayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last night of attending the citizenship and immigration committee while it was studying a private member's bill. Then I came in here today and I heard a backbench Conservative ask the minister a question so that he could answer and misinform the House on what the discussions were, as if somebody was supporting terrorism. 
The real issue is the government is hijacking a private member's bill to try and get its way across, and that goes against our very democracy in this institution.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair has heard the point raised by the hon. member for Malpeque. As he will know, the chair in the House does not involve itself directly in the matters of a committee. Also, the chair does not involve itself in terms of what the facts may or may not be. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  There are ministers providing misinformation. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Order.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the hon. member for Malpeque just a moment ago, he said that a member asked a question in order to provide an opportunity for the minister to mislead the House. 
One is not allowed to accuse someone of deliberately misleading the House. He played a little game there, but one is not allowed to imply by the back door that which you cannot say by the front door. That is problem number one. That is out of order and he should apologize for that.
Also, in his heckle, he just made a further assertion about untruths being said that is also not permissible. I suggest he should have to withdraw that as well and show some decorum for once.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The chair thanks the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for that submission and will take it under advisement.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsGerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 10 petitions.
Committees of the HouseMs. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to Bill S-14, an act to amend the corruption of foreign public officials act.
The committee has studied the bill and has agreed to report the bill back to the House without amendment.
PetitionsKirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions on CCSVI. 
Canadians with MS want to know when Conservative MPs and senators learned of their government's position to kill both the House and Senate bills for CCSVI. The decision was taken by February 6, 2012. Did they know the position going into the Senate hearings, and if so, why did no one have the courage to talk to Canadians living with MS and be honest with them? Canadians with MS should not have been given false hope for eight months. 
The petitioners are calling upon the minister to consult experts actively engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis and to require follow-up care.
Harold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions from constituents from the areas of London, Woodstock, and Ingersoll. 
The constituents are asking Parliament to condemn discrimination against females, which is occurring through sex selective pregnancy termination.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions today.
The first petition I am presenting in the House of Commons is in support of Bill C-473, introduced by a colleague from Quebec.
The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to pass this legislation, which aims to achieve balanced representation in the number of women and men serving as directors on boards of crown corporations. 
This bill reaffirms the NDP's position on gender equality in all aspects of our society.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by the electors and citizens of Elmwood—Transcona. They are drawing the attention of the government to the need to support the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan, underscoring the importance of secure pensions for people in Winnipeg and across the country.
Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions.
These three petitions come from many constituents in the riding I represent. The petitioners are concerned about discrimination against females that they conclude occurs through sex-selective pregnancy termination. They ask that members of the House express their condemnation of that conduct.
John Weston: Mr. Speaker, in a completely separate petition, other residents of the riding I represent are petitioning the House to express concern and bring about a moratorium on genetically modified alfalfa.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present petitions on behalf of constituents who are calling on the Government of Canada to act on Rouge Park. We know that the current Rouge Park is home to endangered Carolinian forest and mixed woodland/plain life zones in Canada, zones with one-third of Canada's endangered species. It is the ancestral home of the Mississauga, Huron-Wendat and Seneca first nations and their sacred burial and village sites. 
This is the last chance to create a large national park in southern Ontario, an area with 34% of Canada's population and 77% of its land in agricultural and human settlement use. Only 1/400th of its land is protected in national parks. 
The petitioners respectfully urge the Government of Canada to ensure that Rouge national park strengthens and implements the ecological visions, policies and integrity of approved Rouge Park plans, the provincial greenbelt plan, the Rouge natural heritage action plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plan to ensure that the Rouge national urban park will be the best park. We know, of course, that it will be the largest urban park in North America. To make sure it will be--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of presenting three petitions.
The first petition is signed by hundreds of people who oppose the employment insurance reform. They are asking the government to scrap all of the changes announced since Bill C-38 was introduced.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of people in my riding who are calling for a reversal of the unilateral decision, without any consultation, to eliminate all winter activities at Forillon National Park. They are asking the government to restore funding and to rehire all staff so that the park can fulfill its mandate to provide service to the people of Gaspé and Canada all year round.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first is from residents within my constituency of Saanich—Gulf Islands, from Victoria and from Salt Spring Island. They urge the federal administration to do what the B.C. government has decided to do, which is look at the evidence and decide that the proposed Enbridge pipeline across Northern B.C. to Kitimat is not ready to be approved and certainly should not be approved and that there is not evidence to justify the way in which the current federal government promotes the project as if it is in Canada's interest.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Toronto as well as my riding, Mayne Island and Galiano Island. The petition goes to the federal administration, particularly the Privy Council. Petitioners are urging the cabinet not to ratify the Canada-China investment treaty. It rests before cabinet to be ratified any day. It is of grave concern to Canadians across Canada, who recognize that there have never been hearings. We have never heard from experts. This would lock Canada for 31 years into an unequal relationship in which the People's Republic of China would be able to bring multibillion arbitration suits against Canada. 
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, this petition relates to genetically modified alfalfa. I have had constituents on both sides of the issue as to whether Roundup Ready genetically modified alfalfa should be permitted. This petition is from organic farmers primarily, who are concerned about the potential deleterious effects of genetically modified alfalfa on their ability to conduct organic activities and agriculture in my constituency.
Questions on the Order PaperGerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 1337 will be answered today.
Pierre Nantel:  With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2005, has the Treasury Board provided funding to LAC for the development and testing of a Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) and, if so, (i) how much was provided, (ii) in which fiscal years, (iii) which reports are available to provide details on the success of the TDR's development and implementation?
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (i) and (ii), Treasury Board provided $22,810,000 over a three-year period in 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009 10 for the AMICAN/ Trusted Digital Repository, or TDR, project.
With regard to (iii), the document entitled Preliminary Survey of a System Under Development: Audit of the AMICAN Catalytic Initiative is available at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/012/014/012014-205-e.html.
LAC’s departmental performance reports for 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are available at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/index-eng.asp.
LAC is continuing to invest in long-term preservation and is focused on further development of the TDR by developing and implementing the digital acquisitions process by loading e-books from publishers into the TDR; expanding this system so that higher volumes, and differing material types, can be acquired; expanding storage capacity to ensure ongoing and future requirements are met; and developing internal capacity and redesigning business processes to support the efficient operation of the TDR. 
LAC’s investments in its TDR ensure that LAC continues to meet the increasing demands of the digital economy while realizing significant cost efficiencies for Canadians.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsGerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1332, 1336, 1338 and 1340 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Hon. Stéphane Dion:  With regard to any funding dedicated to the promotion of Canada’s official languages that was not accounted for in the $1.1 billion dollars outlined in the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality 2008-2013: (a) what departments or agencies contributed to the funding of official languages programs; (b) what are the names of the programs that delivered that funding listed by department or agency; and (c) what amount of money did each of those programs spend in fiscal years (i) 2007-2008, (ii) 2008-2009, (iii) 2009-2010, (iv) 2010-2011, (v) 2011-2012, (vi) 2012-2013?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Pierre Nantel:  With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2011: (a) what are the details of all the fonds and records held in custody by LAC that have been or are currently being de-accessioned to (i) provincial or territorial archives, (ii) university archives, (iii) regional or local archival institutions or organizations; (b) on what written policy or operational rationale were each of these de-accessions based on; (c) what are the details of all the fonds and records on deposit with LAC that have been or are currently under discussion or negotiation for referral to (i) provincial or territorial archives, (ii) university archives or libraries, (iii) regional or local archival institutions or organizations; and (d) in every case the LAC decided not to acquire archives or records being offered, what written policy or operational rationale was provided to the donor as the basis of this decision?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Pierre Nantel:  With regard to Library and Archives Canada (LAC), since January 1, 2005: (a) what sections and branches currently exist or have existed, broken down by year; (b) how many archivists work or have worked in each section and branch, broken down by year, including and specifying part-time and seasonal employees; (c) how many managers work for each section and department; (d) how many items were acquired; (e) what was the total value of items acquired; (f) how many interlibrary loans were registered; (g) what were the costs for operating interlibrary loans; and (h) how many international trips did the head of LAC take and what were the costs of those trips? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Matthew Kellway: With regard to the issue of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics in Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario: (a) when was Health Canada approached by the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics; (b) how many consultations took place between Health Canada and the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics; (c) how many consultations took place between Health Canada and (i) Canadian Blood Services, (ii) the province of Ontario; (d) when did these consultations take place and if no consultations took place, how did Health Canada determine that consultations were not necessary; (e) when were the locations for the proposed clinics approved; (f) what process did the operators of the proposed for-profit blood plasma clinics follow to obtain approval for the location of the clinics; (g) what is Health Canada’s policy on the operation of for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada; (h) what is Health Canada’s policy with regard to following the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (“Krever report”); (i) what existing statutes, regulations, auditing processes, etc. are in place to ensure the safety of Canada’s blood supply; (j) with regard to ensuring the safety of Canada’s blood supply, what is the regulatory role of (i) Health Canada, (ii) the province, (iii) Canadian Blood Services; (k) what role does Canadian Blood Services play in the establishment or regulation of for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada; (l) what does Health Canada’s auditing process for licensing for-profit blood plasma clinics in Canada involve; (m) what information is provided to Health Canada by the operators; (n) how often does Health Canada audit these clinics; and (o) what is the relationship between Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in ensuring the safety of blood plasma products purchased from the United States of America? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Respect for Communities ActPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Canadian Museum of History ActPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report and third reading stages of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of the said bills. 

Government Orders
First Nations Elections Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion that Bill S-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill S-6 would make a positive difference in the lives of first nation citizens. As the government has articulated clearly, this bill would enable first nations to build stronger, more accountable governments that would lead to better futures for themselves, their families and their communities.
Before I go on, I would like to advise the House that I plan to share my time with the most distinguished and most effective member in the history of York Centre.
 Bill S-6, which henceforth shall be known as the First Nations Elections Act, will give individual band members an electoral system they can trust.
When they exercise their democratic rights, they will have the confidence that they are doing so within a strong system that is available to Canadians at elections held at all other levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal.
Bill S-6 is about empowering first nation people with the tools they need to hold their own governments to account and make informed decisions about their leadership.
It is about ensuring that chiefs and councillors have the legitimacy and political stability they need to make the best decisions on behalf of their communities.
In essence, you could say it is about building trust, respect and confidence in the local leadership and the system used to elected them.
However, the proposed legislation does not just empower first nation citizens. It offers a viable alternative to some of the most objectionable parts of the Indian Act related to elections, which hinder the ability of a first nation's leadership to improve the well-being of its community, or attract and create economic and investment opportunities, for that matter. Let me explain some of those shortcomings and how this has impacted first nation governments and communities.
The first serious failing of the Indian Act is that it limits the term of office for elected officials to just two years. In contrast, federal, provincial and most municipal governments generally have terms of four years.
Two-year election terms place first nation chiefs and councillors in a state of constant electioneering, like having constant minority governments.
This prevents first nation leaderships from focusing on the long term and does not provide enough time to plan for and implement long-term initiatives. Almost as soon as they are elected, band councils turn their minds to the next election.
As a result of this short-sightedness, first nations governments often fail to build a proper foundation for community development. This concern has been expressed by both first nations governments and residents, who lament that this failing has created conditions of instability and missed opportunity.
All of this has a direct bearing on economic development and job creation. Private sector interests hesitate to invest in such uncertain conditions. At the end of day, it is first nation communities—and first nations men, women and children—that pay the greatest price for this instability in the way of missed business development and employment opportunities. 
The first nations' next bone of contention with the electoral system under the Indian Act is the process for nominating candidates, or should I say, the lack thereof. Provisions in the Indian Act allow elections to go ahead, even if the nominated person has no interest in running for office or, as sometimes happens, is unaware that his or her name is on the ballot.
By the way, we used to have this problem in Ontario. Ninety years ago, my grandfather was elected reeve of a local township. He had to cancel his election the next day, because he did not seek the office.
Once people are nominated, their names automatically appear on the ballot, unless they withdraw in writing. If the ballots are already printed, a name stays on the ballot even if the candidate has withdrawn.
 Therefore, people with no intention of serving on council can find themselves in this position, and may even be elected, but not wanting to serve. This happened to my grandfather 90 years ago.
That is not the only issue. The Indian Act and the Indian Band Election Regulations also permit the same person to be nominated for both chief and the councillor positions.
Furthermore, there is no limit on the number of candidates that any one person can nominate. It is not unheard of to have up to 100 people vying for a handful of positions on council. All of these issues would be resolved with the passage of Bill S-6. 
Another concern that came up over and over relates to the mail-in ballot system under the Indian Act.
We have all heard stories of people whose names were on the band voter list who sold their ballots to others. Unfortunately, these are not just rare occasions. Research suggests that in some parts of the country, the alleged buying and selling of mail-in ballots has been widespread. Since the band council provides electoral officers with a list of addresses for mail-in ballots that may or may not be accurate or up to date, situations like this can easily take place.
First nations electors and leaders have made it clear that they want a more rigorous process, one that assures them that ballots will only be mailed out to, and cast by, eligible voters.
These concerns are compounded by the fact that the Indian Act does not include any offences and penalties for fraudulent activity connected to the electoral process in first nation communities. At the moment, anyone wishing to cheat the system is free to do so. If these same activities were to take place in the context of a federal, provincial or municipal election, the individual would be subject to criminal prosecution. 
Why do first nations people expect less? They do not.
Finally, under the Indian Act, the power to investigate and make decisions about the validity of election results rests with the minister. This takes us back to a time when it was believed that the minister was the best person to oversee matters of band governance. This government does not agree. We believe that first nations communities, not the minister, are best placed to make informed decisions about their own leadership and that first nations governments are best placed to make decisions about their own affairs. That is why we want to empower them with the tools they need to hold their own governments to account.
In addition, the existing appeal system under the Indian Act is deeply flawed. It is incredibly complicated and lacks sufficient rigour and transparency to be effective.
In addition, the existing appeals system under the Indian Act is deeply flawed. It is incredibly complicated and lacks sufficient rigour and transparency to be effective.
That is why Bill S-6 introduces several improvements, as an alternative to the Indian Act, that will better respond to the request of first nations for a more rigorous and reliable elections system. 
This bill, and Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act, which received royal assent earlier this year, help to create the conditions that will encourage stronger, more stable and effective first nations governments, based on principles of accountability and transparency. Let me briefly highlight the main advantages of this bill for first nations that choose to opt in to these provisions.
First, the proposed legislation provides for longer terms of office. 
Second, Bill S-6 would offer a more robust process to nominate candidates. First nations would be free to bring in a fee for candidacy. An anomaly, such as one person being elected to both positions of chief and councillor, would be eliminated.
Third, it outlines penalties for defined offences, such as obstructing the electoral process or engaging in corrupt or fraudulent actions, similar to those found in other election laws.
Fourth, it removes the minister’s role in the election process. The minister would no longer be involved in election appeals or the removal of elected officials. Those decisions would be made by the courts. I urge all members of this House to support the swift passage of this important legislation.
In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that next Friday, June 21st, will mark National Aboriginal Day in Canada.
This date was chosen because it coincides with the summer solstice, a time when many aboriginal peoples celebrate their culture and rich heritage.
That morning, at seven o’clock, we will meet next door at the Château Laurier for the first National Aboriginal Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast.
That evening, at 10:45, there will be a wreath-laying ceremony at the Aboriginal Veterans National Monument in Confederation Park, on Elgin Street.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are trying to put together a positive approach to their relations with first nations, but they will not change course and refuse to engage in nation-to-nation dialogue.
Earlier in the House, during the debate on Bill S-2, we saw that this Senate bill could have been a real opportunity for this government to do something positive for aboriginal women.
Unfortunately, the government did not listen to the concerns of these groups of women and the bill does not have the support of the people it is trying to help. It is absolutely ridiculous that this government is attempting to appeal to women.
I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. We know that the Conservatives do not always address the real governance problems by choosing to ignore the flaws of the Indian Act.
Why are the Conservatives refusing to listen to the legitimate concerns of first nations groups?
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, although I found it a little difficult to understand the member opposite, I must say that Bill S-6, which we are currently debating, clearly responds to the concerns raised by band chiefs, councillors and residents of reserves.
It is a way to make band elections democratic and to give responsibility to first nations peoples, rather than having the minister remain in charge. The people living on first nations reserves, not the minister, will make the decisions. 
Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Indian Act election system contains several weaknesses that contribute significantly to unstable first nations governments. Among these principal weaknesses is the two-year term of office. The short period of time simply does not allow first nations to plan and implement important long-term projects for the benefit of their members. In many cases, when an election is held and the leadership changes, progress can be set back. This instability does not make first nations attractive for long-term investment.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague why it is so necessary for Bill S-6 to go through right now.
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, many members of the House have sat here through three minority governments, where admittedly we were in a constant state of electioneering. That is not the proper way to do long-term planning. Some of us have had municipal experience. We do better long-term planning on longer cycles. Here we have a four-year cycle. The provinces have four-year cycles. Most municipalities in the country have four-year cycles, certainly Ontario and Quebec do. Better work is done that way. This is a tool that would allow band councils to do the very same.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard the member correctly. He said that this legislation would effectively take the minister out of the picture. From what I understand from paragraphs 3 (1)(a) and (1)(b) the minister would be still in the picture. It still has the paternalistic and colonial role for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. 
I am not sure if I understood it correctly. Is the member supporting what the Assembly of First Nations asked the Senate to do, and that is to take paragraphs 3(1)(a) and (b) out of the bill? Is that what the member was getting at?
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, it is probably paragraph (c).
We have two choices here: the paternalistic Indian Act, or Bill S-2 that includes more transparency, more accountability and a better chance for Indian band councils to do long-term planning on their own terms. That is what we are doing here. 
If those members want to go to the bad old ways of the Indian Act, good for them. That is why the people of Canada, in their own wisdom, have chosen members on this side to be government.
Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to make my remarks following the member for Ottawa—Orléans, a very distinguished member of the House and the finest member Ottawa—Orléans has seen in the history of our great country.
It is a great pleasure for me to speak today in support of Bill S-6, the first nations elections act. Everyone agrees that the Indian Act is an outdated paternalistic piece of legislation that is holding back first nation communities from achieving their full potential. 
By way of history, the Indian Act was first introduced in 1876, some 137 years ago. While it has undergone several amendments and reforms, the act, including the provisions related to elections, has remained largely untouched since 1951. More than just being restrictive and paternalistic, the Indian Act undermines the ability of first nations to manage their own affairs, whether we talk about elections or pursuing economic development opportunities. This outdated act puts up roadblocks at almost every turn as first nations strive to achieve greater self-sufficiency. 
Yet, still today, in the year 2013, the vast majority of Canada's 633 first nations communities continue to be governed by this colonial act. As a result, it continues to pervade almost every aspect of life for first nations communities, from Indian status, land resources, wills and education, to band administration and so on.
That is why legislative initiatives over the years have focused on addressing the many shortcomings of the outdated Indian Act. Our government is determined to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of the success of first nations. Rather than trying to manage their lives through the antiquated Indian Act, our government believes we need to provide first nations with the modern tools they need to get out from under this act in order to shape a better future for themselves and their children.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the area of governance. As my House colleagues will agree, good governance is the foundation of any stable self-sufficient community, whether a first nation or any other jurisdiction. 
Bill S-6 would provide first nations with the option to circumvent the limitations of the Indian Act that govern elections on reserve. It would provide first nations looking for an alternative to the current election system with a new option that would create a consistent, reliable framework that communities can use to elect strong, stable and effective governments. The bill makes it possible for first nation communities that opt in to take advantage of its provisions to hold fair elections that would lead to transparent and accountable governments.
There are currently 238 first nations that hold their elections under the Indian Act. The other first nations have either established a custom community code or govern themselves under a self-government agreement that sets out their own leadership selection system.
Unfortunately, due to varying capacity, not all of these options are currently available to all first nations. What is more, sometimes none of these options suit the needs of a particular first nation community. In fact, that point was made in the course of testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. It is further reinforced by the fact that about two first nations a year convert from the Indian Act election system to a community election code. In the Atlantic region, not a single first nation has converted from the Indian Act electoral system in over 10 years.
Even more telling, frustrated first nations in several regions took it upon themselves to force change. There are two organizations that deserve special recognition and praise for making Bill S-6 a reality, and they are the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs.
This legislation before us today reflects the ideas and improvements brought forward by the two regional first nations organizations that worked together on this important initiative. In fact, before developing this legislation, first nations all across the country had a chance to have their say about what is wrong with the current system and what is required to make it right.
Now I would like to explain how governance will improve in communities that choose to adopt the first nations election act. I want to stress the word “choose”, as this legislation would be entirely optional.
However, before I list its many advantages, it is essential to review the major complaints regarding the current Indian Act electoral regime and what first nations leaders and residents have told us needs to be fixed.
At the top of the list is the current requirement to have elections every two years. This hinders first nations chiefs and councillors from carrying out long-term projects. It also gives them very little time to work with partners and investors who take advantage of job-creation possibilities to improve the lives of their residents. Instead of pursuing such promising opportunities, most chiefs and councillors must start planning for the next election almost as soon as they have won at the ballot box.
 That is not the only problem. The existing mail-in ballot system is also open to abuse and the current system's questionable nomination process enables candidates who are neither dedicated to running nor serious about serving to put their names on the ballot.
The challenges do not end there. Without defined offences and penalties, it is nearly impossible to prosecute corrupt practices and, if corrupt, illegal or abusive acts are alleged, federal officials must oversee a lengthy appeals process. No wonder the Atlantic and Manitoba chiefs are fed up.
 Those first nations that adopt Bill S-6 will no longer need to tolerate such situations. This legislation would offer them a much better alternative. It would provide first nations with a choice of new tools to use if their communities decided they wanted to adopt them as a more responsive to their needs.
This is a modern law, more in step with the times. It is legislation for the 21st century, not the 1950s. 
To address one of the most frequent complaints raised in first nations communities all across the country, the proposed first nations elections act will permit chiefs and councillors to be elected to office for four years. Band councils will be able to get beyond electoral gridlock and undertake multi-year planning to improve the lives of their citizens. A longer term will empower first nations leaders to lay the groundwork for the community to become opportunity ready, with stable, efficient and predictable investment climates that are attractive to businesses and investors.
Another big improvement in Bill S-6 provides that it will encourage more serious and dedicated leaders because of a more stringent nomination process. First nations can impose a fee of up to $250 to eliminate frivolous and uninterested candidates and they can require written acceptances from candidates to remove people with no desire to run for office from the ballot. It will also ensure that no individual will be a candidate for more than one office at the same election. What this means is that there will be much less chance of corrupt election practices in communities that adopt Bill S-6.
Some of the most important provisions of this bill relate to new offences and penalties, something which does not exist under the Indian Act election regime. This legislation outlines specific offences and ties penalties to each. Under the provisions contained within Bill S-6, first nations authorities could lay charges for illegal activity in connection with first nations elections. Moreover, they would have the backing of the courts to impose fines and jail sentences of those convicted. 
Bill S-6 reflects our government's commitment to work with first nations to develop an alternative to the outdated Indian Act elections system to strengthen band elections. If first nations are convinced this is the right way to go, parliamentarians should follow their lead.
 I therefore encourage all parliamentarians to support Bill S-6 so first nations can look forward to the 21st century with greater confidence.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the same question that I asked the colleague from Ottawa—Orléans because I did not really get a clear answer from that member.
Is his government considering taking the Assembly of First Nations' advice to remove clause 3, paragraphs (b) and (c), from the current law in order to take the role that is given to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and remove it and stop the colonial and paternalistic elements that have existed since the foundation of our country and the beginning of the Indian Act? Will the government consider taking out clause 3, paragraphs (b) and (c), yes or no? 
[Interjection]
Mark Adler: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We are giving first nations communities the option of adopting Bill S-6 and getting out from under this old relic of the Indian Act. We are giving them accountability and transparency and we are providing them with the tools they need to create a modern community that will attract the investment and business that will create jobs within their communities.
We consulted widely on this bill. The Senate found that the Atlantic and Manitoba chiefs were fed up with the current Indian Act electoral system. That is why many residents on reserves are in favour of Bill S-6. 
This is why I encourage all members in the House to not to keep the current paternalistic system, which is a relic and a dinosaur, and support Bill S-6 so we can give first nations the dignity they need to prosper in our great country.
Bev Shipley: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his incredible interest in this. This is obviously dear to him. 
The Indian Act, when it was created, seemed to be an electoral anomaly. What it seems to do, instead of empowering first nations to hold their government to account, it places this responsibility in the hands of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This seems a bit backward. 
Could the member describe what procedures would be the bill to help alleviate that issue?
[Interjection]
Mark Adler: Mr. Speaker, in addition to providing transparency and accountability, Bill S-6 would do something that would be more important. It would give first nations communities hope that they could take advantage of the great opportunity we have in our great country.
One of my favourite responsibilities as a member of Parliament, and I know this relates to a lot of members, is going to new citizenship swearing-in ceremonies and seeing new citizens who are coming to the country to escape persecution and despair. They are coming for the great opportunity the country offers, both for themselves and for their children. What we need to do is not only say that people from other countries who come to Canada can have hope and opportunity, but the people and first nations of our country can live here with great dignity, hope and opportunity.
Bill S-6 would do that.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in opposition to Bill S-6, yet another bill that the Conservative government is putting forward about which first nations have a great deal of concern. Certainly he NDP believes it is a serious matter and that first nations voices, like on any issue that pertains to them directly or indirectly, must be heard.
I rise to speak to the bill on a very important week, a very important anniversary for first nations in Canada. Five years ago, the Prime Minister rose in the House of Commons and apologized to residential school survivors, their families and their communities and he committed to a new relationship. He committed to a new beginning in the Crown-first nations relationship. Fast forward five years later, and not only have we not seen a new relationship, we have seen the government continue to impose legislation after legislation that flies in the face of that commitment.
Bill S-6, like bills that have gone forward, misses out on the critical piece, and that is first nations consultation. What first nations raise in terms of concerns must be reflected in the bill. 
We have a case now with Bill S-6 where the government is applying rhetoric regarding empowerment, the importance of fair elections and stability in first nations, concepts which are very worthwhile and sound great. However, when we scratch the surface and start looking at what was said in the Senate when the bill was being discussed and when we start hearing directly from first nations and first nations leadership, we realize the bill is not about empowerment and it does not provide the kind of stability that first nations need when they come to their electoral system.
The NDP believes strongly that as a result, the bill cannot be supported. The government must go back to the table with first nations and listen to the very concrete concerns they have raised directly with members of the government. As we know, this has been debated in the Senate and changes must be reflected in a bill that purports to deal with making first nations elections fairer to allow greater stability in the community.
The bill establishes rules for elections, apart from the Indian Act. These include an election cycle longer than two years, the ability to have a common election date, elements that have been raised by first nations and need to be addressed. We agree with the need to address these issues, but we share the serious concern that first nations have brought forward, and that is Bill S-6 gives the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the power to order a first nation with community designed elections to adhere to the new regime.
We want to see first nations' elections improve, but this is basically tinkering around the edges of the Indian Act and does not address the extensive powers of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development over the right of bands to determine their own future.
In making that statement, it is very much founded on a critical concept. We have a federal government that has committed to the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights, yet putting forward Bill S-6 very much disrespects that commitment. I quote from article 18 in the UN declaration which states:
 Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions. 
Unfortunately, when we turn to the legislative summary of this bill, it indicates that:
 First Nations may choose to opt in to the new elections regime proposed under the legislation, or they may be brought under the new elections regime by ministerial order in some circumstances. 
We in the NDP stand with first nations in expressing our complete and utter opposition to this very point, a point that challenges the commitment that the government and our country made to the UN declaration of indigenous rights. It flies in the face of the promise the Prime Minister made of a new beginning and a new relationship.
According to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 240 first nations hold elections pursuant to the Indian Act, 341 first nations conduct custom or community-based elections rather than elections under the Indian Act, and 36 first nations select their leaders according to their self-government agreements.
We have heard real concern expressed from many first nations about the short term of office for first nations leadership positions, and I certainly know this from the first nations that I represent. We agree with first nations in saying that the two-year term of office imposed on first nations by the Indian Act is too short to provide political and economic stability, often creating deep divisions in communities.
I have had the chance to get to know many chiefs and councillors across northern Manitoba who have struggled when that has been the case in their communities. They have brought forward ideas, a visionary approach to governing their community that perhaps differs from the approach of leaders who have come before them, but two years is not enough time to make changes and get the community on the path that they would like it go down based on the support of their community members. We agree with first nations in saying that the two-year timeline must be removed.
I would like to note that we also agree with the substantive concerns with the Indian Act elections that relate to the degree of ministerial intervention, the lack of an adequate and autonomous appeals process and the absence of flexibility to set the terms of office and determine the size of councils.
We believe it is extremely problematic and, frankly, reeks of colonialism that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would be able to interfere through ministerial order, as is clearly stated in this bill, in elections on first nations.
I would like to refer back to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and some of the recommendations they made back in 1996. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples said: 
 With respect to elections, a key proposal was to develop community leadership selection systems and remove the application of the Indian Act as a preliminary measure to re-establishing traditional forms of leadership. To accomplish this, the following steps were suggested: community level development of custom codes; community development of local dispute resolution procedures; regional first nations capacity and advisory bodies. 
Again, some of the elements that were recommended back in 1996 are not present or appropriately resourced under the current legislation.
We have referenced a sticking point under subclause 3(1), which states that “The Minister may, by order, add the name of a First Nation to the schedule...” of first nations participating in the new election system.
The other problem with this legislation is the regulations in clause 41. The clause provides for the Governor in Council to have broad and general powers to make regulations with respect to elections.
We have had the chance to hear from many leaders and people involved in aboriginal governance who have expressed their opposition to the current iteration of Bill S-6, and I would like to read into the record their voices.
Before I do that, I want to also acknowledge that we have seen a very problematic pattern by the government in bringing in closure on debate regarding first nations bills. We saw it with Bill S-2 and we saw it with bills that came forward prior to Bill S-2.
For us in the NDP, it is absolutely fundamental that first nations voices be heard in committee in order to best shape legislation or to give us the opportunity to challenge legislation on their behalf.
Unfortunately, my experience has been that the Conservative government has done everything in its power to muzzle the voices of first nations and to silence them when it comes to speaking out on bills that have everything to do with their communities. That is unacceptable, and it once again reflects the colonial approach that we have seen from the current government time and time again.
Having said that, I would like to read into the record some of the messages we have heard from first nations people when the bill was at the Senate committee. 
I would like to start with a quote from the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak. He said:
 This proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC. It appears to be an attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code. I am hopeful that Canada will engage in meaningful consultation with First Nations in Manitoba in order to fix some of the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of First Nations. 
There are a number of key messages here, including the reference to the need for meaningful consultation. He acknowledges that there are problems, and that one of those problems is the unilateral imposition of this framework that would greatly affect first nations.
I would also like to quote Jody Wilson-Raybould, the B.C. Regional Chief from the Assembly of First Nations. She spoke to the problems with clause 3. She said:
 These provisions essentially give the minister the ability to impose core governance rules on a First Nation, which, if ever used, would be resented by that First Nation, would not be seen as legitimate in the eyes of that nation, and would probably add fuel to an already burning fire. 
 Ultimately, each nation must, and will, take responsibility for its own governance, including elections. 
Tammy Cook-Searson, Chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, noted:
 My main objection to this bill is the lack of positive change from the old Indian Act. Neither the Indian Act nor Bill S-6 incorporate the constitutional principles of the inherent right to self-determination and governance. The authority in this bill remains with the cabinet and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada instead of moving towards a greater responsibility with First Nations for our governance. 
Aimée E. Craft, chair of the national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, came to the Senate committee on February 29 and presented, saying: 
 [D]ealing with the level of ministerial discretion to include First Nations in the schedule of participating First Nations, this changes the opt-in nature of the legislation. It continues minister discretion to exercise control over First Nations governance and it would result in some First Nations being subjects of the act rather than participants. In addition, the bill lacks clarity as to the standard that the minister will apply in making determinations about what constitutes a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of a First Nation. 
These are first nations leaders, and Aimée Craft is a specialist when it comes to the legal aspect of the bill. They all express serious concern about a number of points in Bill S-6.
It was also noted that:
 Ultimately, how attractive this legislation will be to any First Nation will depend greatly on what is, or what is not included or provided for within the Regulations. However, it should be kept in mind that Regulations are designed and intended to be amended easily and quickly. Therefore, while a First Nation may opt into the First Nations Elections Act on the basis of what it considers to be attractive Regulations, there is no guarantee that the Governor in Council will not change those Regulations to something that a First Nation may find less appealing. 
There are a number of concerns. What I find extremely problematic here is the Conservative government's continued approach in imposing legislation and refraining to hear from first nations on very serious matters that have everything to do with their capacity to be self-determining for their own people, yet the Conservatives turn around and use broad-sounding language that may sound great to a lot of Canadians but that certainly hides the true facts.
I think of the first nations that I have the honour of representing and the kinds of challenges that I have heard from people when it comes to their election systems and the barriers they face when it comes to the Indian Act.
I know that the Conservative government has also jumped on the bandwagon of critiquing the Indian Act, yet it is ironic that so many first nations point to the Indian Act as being a colonial tool that oppresses first nations further. 
Is imposing legislation on first nations not a sign of further oppression? Is that not a sign of that spirit of the Indian Act that sets out to impose systems and attitudes from the outside upon first nations?
The imposition of legislation without proper consultation, without heeding the calls for changes to this legislation, speaks to the attitude that the federal government somehow knows better than first nations, that somehow it can intervene and fix what is happening.
If there is anything that we have learned from history, it is that such an attitude will not get us anywhere, that it will further marginalize and disempower first nations. That is something I hope would cause some real concern among government members and would cause them to think twice about what they are doing on bill after bill.
Many government members, as was evident in the debate around Bill S-2, represent first nations. What are they hearing from their members? There are repeated messages of repealing the Indian Act and putting an end to the kind of oppression that has been imposed by a history of federal governments, by the Crown, but this is not the answer. 
First nations must be at the centre of the future that they carve out for their communities. First nations must be at the forefront. The issues of governance and elections are fundamental to first nations' capacity to determine their own future. Instead of imposing legislation, the Conservative government ought to sit down with first nations and make changes that reflect their needs and their voices.
Unfortunately, we have not seen that kind of attitude from the federal government. Instead we see a continued attack against first nations in bill after bill. These bills fly in the face of respecting first nations' treaty and aboriginal rights and they fly in the face of the UN declaration on indigenous peoples. They disregard the serious concerns that first nations are bringing forward as they demand that the federal government step up and take leadership.
On the issue of elections, I have heard a lot of concern from first nations that they simply do not have the capacity to put forward the kind of governance plan that they would like. That lack of capacity is fundamentally tied to the lack of funding and the cutbacks that we have seen by the federal government, building on cuts by previous Liberal governments when they froze funding to first nations at 2%. Now we are seeing cuts to advocacy organizations that also are involved with service delivery in education, training, housing and health.
First nations have always extended a hand out. They want to work with the government. They want to make change in their communities. We in the NDP are proud to stand with them in opposition to Bill S-6. We call on the government to change course and truly begin a new relationship with first nations people in this country.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Churchill for her comments. Churchill is certainly a beautiful part of the world. I have had good fortune to work in the mining industry in that riding along with many first nation individuals.
I am disappointed, though, in the tone of the remarks and the accusations made that are not based in fact. In fact, this government is comprised of many people of aboriginal background. They are helping in cabinet and in committees, all voting in favour of the improvement we are talking about today. There is a perception and reality that many first nations, not all but many, are male-dominated and that there is a problem with the election system. We are trying to at least improve that. 
If we look at our bill on matrimonial rights to give moms and children the same rights as every other Canadian, the NDP voted against it and used the same kind of rhetoric on that bill. The NDP is ideologically opposed to any kind of change. It is for the status quo. We are trying to empower first nations.
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for his compliments on the beauty of my constituency and northern Manitoba. It is indeed true.
However, I will respectfully disagree with the rest of his comments. I find that the status quo, if that is what we are talking about, is a colonial paternalistic approach that the government has taken on bill after bill. I had the chance to speak, along with first nations, against Bill S-2 on matrimonial property rights. We are hearing some of same themes here. First nations are not being heard and their concerns are not being taken into consideration, and the government continues to impose this bill. That is the status quo that first nations have seen from the Conservative government and the Liberal government before that, for far too long.
If anything, there is a chance now for the government to listen to first nations, to step up. There is a chance to take the leadership that is required to work with first nations and make real changes when it comes to repealing the oppressive nature of the Indian Act. They can truly work with first nations who want to make a difference for their communities and want to build a better future. That is what New Democrats are calling for.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill is bang on. Her comments certainly reflected all of the testimony that was given at the Senate level on this bill, and certainly reflect the input I am getting from Alberta first nations.
I spoke just a half an hour ago with representatives from the Treaty 8 First Nations, and they are 100% against this bill. They are particularly concerned with the provisions of paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c). All those provisions do is to repeat what is already in the Indian Act and make it clear where the minister of the Crown can interfere with the self-realization and determination by first nations.
The government says it consulted, but it does not seem to understand the constitutional obligation, which is to consult, consider and accommodate. Clearly in this situation it did reach out to Treaty 8 First Nations, but it has refused to listen to their views, which were simply to provide the capacity-building for the customary elections. They would like to have assistance in adding appeal procedures in their customary procedures. The majority of Treaty 8 first nations go by customary procedures. They would welcome some assistance in building capacity so they can have fair and open elections run by first nations.
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the words from the member on behalf of the Treaty 8 First Nations and first nations from Alberta are critical to this debate. 
We have a recurrent theme here. There are first nations from across the country that are opposing bills that the government is putting forward by raising specific concerns, and still the government is unwilling to listen to first nations. If the government wanted to make a difference, it would listen to first nations when it comes to the need to invest in capacity-building. It would respect first nations who see the customary band election system as appropriate for them, and it would respect the fundamental notion that first nations know best what they need for their own people.
The current government's approach has been to do what first nations have come to expect from federal governments. Unfortunately, in the last few months we have seen a great zeal from the government for imposing legislation on first nations, to silence their voices, to stop debate from happening so their voices could not be heard. We risk having legislation that would further marginalize first nations, further disempower them, and that would break down the kind of enthusiasm and interest that first nations have to make a difference for their communities, for their regions, and fundamentally for our country. 
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, according to the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak, the proposal does not fulfill the recommendations of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. It appears to be an attempt by the minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control over first nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code.
Does the member for Churchill not agree that this bill sidesteps a true democratic process by imposing a statutory framework that will violate the rights of first nations?
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for her question.
I absolutely agree with her point, which was raised by the grand chief of the Manitoba first nations. This approach really reflects a colonialist attitude in that it seeks to silence first nations, rather than listen to them. First nations came before the Senate to express their objections and the reasons for their opposition. Their representations involved key points in the bill. Despite this, the government decided to go ahead without listening to these first nations or making any amendments.
This kind of attitude and this bill, if passed, would further marginalize first nations across Canada who want to make changes and turn their communities around. Unfortunately, these efforts are being blocked by the federal government.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill is suggesting that the NDP is opposing this bill because of legislation that would provide a minister with the power to bring first nations into the first nations elections act in the event of a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of the first nation after reasonable efforts have been made to reach a community-based solution. 
These are very rare and extenuating circumstances. In fact, it has only been used once since our government came into power in 2006, and two times before that under the previous Liberal government.
The fact is that the minister has the power to bring first nations under the Indian Act in such a protracted situation. However, this is exactly what we are trying to move away from. The legislation would provide the minister with the necessary power to order a new election under Bill S-6.
The NDP is saying, “No. Let's give them the option to be brought under the Indian Act”. To me this is paternalistic on the part of the NDP.
 Why would the member not want first nations to have the same options in these serious and extenuating circumstances?
[Interjection]
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member across the way to read the submissions made by first nations leaders from across Canada, when this bill was before committee, and to consider the very serious concerns they brought forward with regard to the very issue the member raised.
We in the NDP believe that Bill S-6 does not, and must have, in any effort to work with first nations to make sure that their elections are more fair, provisions for internal appeal mechanisms. We are very concerned that first nations would be forced to go through the court system to be able to appeal any sort of irregularities or issues that may have come up in elections.
The Conservative government will know very well, as a result of many of its members' election woes, how long it takes to deal with election irregularities that have come up. In terms of expenses and practices, whether it is robocalls or election expenditures, the reality is we do not want first nations to have to go through those kinds of systems when inclusion for an internal appeal mechanism could be easily done. 
First nations have raised this. The government, unfortunately, continues to ignore this very serious demand. We believe that the bill, which refuses to heed the concerns raised by first nations, will further marginalize and further oppress first nations people in Canada. We cannot stand for that. 
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. 
When we come to this place as elected officials, we come with a background in whatever fields we have been working in throughout our careers. We come with the experience of the people we have worked with. When we arrive here, it really strikes us how great the depth of experience is in things that we have not been exposed to at certain levels in our previous life experiences. 
The reason I am giving this preamble is that one of the things in which I have a keen interest is first nations relations in this country. It is something that a lot of Canadians should pay attention to and should look at, because first nations communities play a vital role in our country in so many ways. They have issues that we as legislators need to look at very carefully and with a great degree of cultural sensitivity.
For the last couple of months I have been serving on the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women with some of my colleagues who are here in the House today. I wanted to speak to this bill, and I will speak to its contents in a minute, because of something that we started looking at in testimony last night. Women leadership in first nations communities is something that is so vitally important to a wide variety of issues. The concept of leadership in first nations communities, as I am slowly learning, takes on so many different meanings and forms. 
One of the things that has to be acknowledged is that, as legislators, we should be striving to do as much as we can to empower first nations women to seek elected office within their communities. Where there are barriers that we can seek to remove, we should be trying to do that. When we talk to members of various organizations, such as first nations advocacy groups and others, they will acknowledge that women play a special role in seeking healing and solutions to problems that may be issues to first nations communities, including violence. 
What has really struck me is that during my journey as a woman who has sought elected office in the federal Parliament, when we try to encourage a woman to run for office, one of the first things she will say is that it seems that the rules are not clear, or that there is a different set of rules for some people, and that she just does not have time for that. Whenever there is a perception that the rules are not clear or the rules are not right, that actually discourages women from seeking office. 
This is something I am personally very passionate about and it is within this particular context that I want to speak to this bill. I believe that this bill would substantially improve the current state of affairs for first nations elections in this country by clarifying the rules and making them more sensitive to the needs of first nations communities. From what I have seen in reviewing the Senate proceedings and the Senate committee testimony, there has been a great degree of consultation with first nations communities on this particular piece of legislation.
I believe that the last time these provisions were reviewed was in the 1950s. It is now 2013. 
I am supportive of this bill because it would modernize first nations electoral systems. For those first nations that wish to opt in, it would bring them in line with every other electoral system in Canada at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.
The bill was developed in direct response to calls from first nations community leaders and grassroots members who were seeking for a more rigorous and accountable election system on reserves. These first nations individuals have been openly critical of the antiquated and paternalistic election system that currently exists under the Elections Act. They have asked for improved electoral systems that address the weaknesses of the one currently dictated by the Indian Act.
This issue was first brought to our collective attention by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. It was these two groups that took the lead in finding solutions to stabilize and improve first nations governance through a stronger and more modern election system.
With the support of our government in 2008, they began researching the issue of band council elections. After identifying flaws in the current system under the Indian Act, they discussed their findings with first nations leaders, governance technicians and community members in their respective regions.
 Between January and March 2010, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs held information and engagement sessions with over 30 of the province's 37 first nations that hold their elections under the Indian Act election system. Over the same period, the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs solicited public input on election reforms through social media and articles in the Mi'kmaq-Maliseet Nations News, as well as through focus groups with subject matter experts. 
The APC and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs then provided their recommendations to the department, and these recommendations were collated and consolidated into a discussion paper entitled “Improving the System for First Nations Elections”, which was jointly developed with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs.
At the request of the former minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the two organizations conducted a national engagement process on these recommendations. Every effort was made to seek the input of community members across Canada to ensure that the final recommendations would capture the concerns of first nations citizens.
Both groups posted the discussion paper and other background materials on their websites and invited people to submit their comments or any further ideas for improvement. In addition, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs wrote to the first nations councils that hold their elections under the Indian Act to provide them with the discussion paper and to encourage them to hold discussions in their communities and provide feedback.
Leaders of the two organizations also made their presentations about the recommendations to first nations organizations across the country. Based on the feedback obtained through these various processes, the list of possible reforms was affirmed and presented to the minister. At this point, after the consultation, the drafting of Bill S-6 began.
In addition to this, in 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples studied the limitations of the Indian Act election system. The committee held approximately 20 hearings in Ottawa, Manitoba and British Columbia. First nations leaders, including heads of national and provincial organizations, tribal council representatives, band managers and community members made representations and answered questions. From this testimony, the Senate committee concluded that election reform was needed. One of the recommendations in its final report was that the government work with first nations to guide legislative development in the area of elections.
First nations members have been clear. They want assurance that their leaders can be held to account through modern governance structures that reflect and respond to their needs and priorities. Bill S-6 is designed to address many of these long-standing electoral problems. 
Our government is committed to ensuring that first nations have strong, accountable and transparent governments, because we all know that a strong election system that is open and transparent provides the foundation first nations require to attract investment, develop economic activities and set goals that will improve the quality of life for residents in these communities.
As a response to these recommendations provided by first nations leaders and the input of people at the local level, this proposed legislation would provide a new option for communities looking for an alternative to the Indian Act election system.
 The bill would allow four-year terms. This change in term length would allow for stability within first nations communities to ensure economic growth, prosperity and stability within the election system into the future.
The bill would also create a more robust process for the nomination of candidates. It would also remove the possibility of the same individual being elected to the position of both chief and councillor. 
The proposed legislation proposes penalties for offences such as obstructing the electoral process or engaging in corrupt or fraudulent actions in relation to an election, and it would give regulation-making powers with respect to mail-in ballots and advance polls.
With Bill S-6, first nation voters would have available to them an election system with the same standards and protections other Canadian voters have. The bill would also provide the option of a common election day, something some first nations have indicated they want. The proposed legislation would allow first nations governments, at their request, to hold office concurrently and have their elections on the same day. This could be very advantageous to joint undertakings involving first nations in a given region.
Particularly important, and in response to what many first nation members had to say during this process, the bill would remove the minister's role in elections. Elections appeals would be addressed by the courts, just as they are for federal, provincial and municipal elections in other jurisdictions. Having access to the court system is something that is actually positive. My colleague opposite argued that this is somehow disadvantageous to first nations communities.
While we want to make sure that any such matters are handled expeditiously, I would argue that perhaps removing this power from the minister and putting it into the court system is something that would be less paternalistic and would actually move first nations communities into alignment with other jurisdictions in this country, which have similar rights. 
Bill S-6 is designed to empower first nations members, putting decision-making power into the hands of the people. It would uphold their democratic right to choose the political leadership they need and want.
 I encourage my colleague opposite and colleagues in this House to review the testimony made to the Senate committee as well as some of the recommendations put forward in the documents I have referenced in my speech. There are several technical amendments this bill would provide that would make the election laws more clear, more accessible and more stable.
Going back to the start of my speech, this is positive not only for first nations communities in general. If we seek to empower first nations women to seek office, this clarity in the rules would also certainly help them in the future. 
I hope everyone in the House will give this bill a good look and support it for its many merits, which are reflective of the consultation process our government undertook to develop it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The hon. parliamentary secretary will have eight minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

Private Members' Business
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), be read the third time and passed.
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am very pleased to be able to speak to this bill. I will explain why in my speech. I also want to thank the hon. member for Red Deer for introducing this bill. I worked with him on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I know that he is a hard-working member of Parliament. I am very pleased to support his bill.
A very serious incident prompted this bill. The incident received a lot of media coverage and, obviously, led to legislative action. There could also be other situations in which incidents like this could occur. Sometimes, we do not hear about them, and that is why I want to support this bill.
In the end, this bill will improve an aspect of the Criminal Code. Under this bill, personating a peace officer or public officer for the purpose of facilitating another offence will be considered an aggravating circumstance. 
The crime committed in the incident in Red Deer was sexual assault. The offender personated a police officer, which created circumstances that facilitated his crime.
I am very happy to support the bill introduced by my colleague from Red Deer because this could happen to anyone and we are hearing about it more and more.
I participated in two seniors' forums in Chambly. These forums are usually held every year in September and bring together various regional organizations to talk about issues that affect seniors. Many of the organizations talk about seniors' safety. Every year, hard-working and highly respected members of our local police force come and talk to us about how seniors are vulnerable to certain things, sometimes even to their own families.
As an MP and as a young person, a son and grandson, being aware of these issues enables me to understand all of the things that can happen. 
The police officer talked about personation of public officers. This is getting to be a big problem because seniors are getting more and more calls from people pretending to be public officers. These people are asking for information and all kinds of things so they can commit fraud, theft and anything else they think they can get away with.
This is getting more dangerous in a day and age when information is more freely available than ever before. We are happy that information is so readily available, but we also have to be more careful and vigilant.
We are very happy to be updating the Criminal Code to deter criminals from engaging in personation. At least now, when a person—a senior, as in my example—answers the phone or physically sees someone pretending to be a police officer or a public officer, that person will know whether that is the case or not.
I would like to step back for a moment because this is an interesting topic. Yesterday, during debate on a time allocation motion, the Minister of Justice talked about how the NDP does not support victims or bills aimed at punishing criminals and protecting victims. This bill is a perfect example of how untrue that is. I will explain why.
I think we can say that we are very pleased that there is no minimum sentence set out in this bill. To date, the NDP has, as a matter of principle, opposed bills that propose minimum sentences because that is a drastic way of meting out justice. It shows a lack of respect for the justice system, as well as for the judges and the discretion to which they are entitled and should apply. We are very pleased that there is no minimum sentence proposed in this bill. We understand that we are talking about aggravating circumstances that facilitate the crime committed, in this case, personation.
Before speaking to this bill, I took the opportunity to look at the work done in committee by all its members, who agreed to this bill without amendment. The process was very quick.
However, in addition to the fact that the process was quick, it also went well. Witnesses were heard, and there were some good discussions. I even read testimony from the member for Red Deer, who seemed very pleased with how the process played out.
I want to use this bill as a positive example. Despite the rhetoric that comes from both sides of the House, I have hope that we can agree on issues such as victim protection, even though we may not always agree on the approach and the changes to be made to the law.
At the end of the day, despite disagreements between parliamentarians, we share the same objectives. Sometimes, the only difference is in how we achieve those objectives. In my opinion, this bill is a very good example that proves that we have Canadians' interests at heart. This time, we could agree, although that may not always be the case. This bill really is a positive example.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the members and the government to look at what has been done. We need to realize that it is possible to work together in order to advance an agenda that will strengthen the justice system and advocate for victims. This is very doable. That is not often the case with this government's agenda and its tendency to ram legislation down our throats without considering other opinions or other ways of achieving the same objective. It is very important to have the same objective. I cannot stress that enough.
Coming back to the issue of personation, that is something that really scares me and that is hard to understand. It is important to build a relationship of trust with peace officers and public officials, who have very clear objectives and must deal with people on issues that are sometimes very sensitive. Needless to say, for peace officers, these are very sensitive issues indeed, since their safety is at risk any time they are called to intervene.
However, officials also have to deal with sensitive issues. They sometimes deal with financial matters, very personal issues or immigration cases. It is very worrisome that someone would claim to represent any of these authorities. If I put myself in the shoes of the young victim from Red Deer, I can understand how difficult it must be for her, her family and her friends. Furthermore, people who heard about this case now find it more difficult to trust police officers even though they work hard to protect people.
Trust is essential. In my opinion, no matter their political allegiance, parliamentarians have the responsibility to take action in order for their constituents to feel protected by these people and to feel comfortable dealing with them.
In light of my experience and what I have heard from the people in my riding of Chambly—Borduas who attended the seniors' forum, I have no qualms about supporting the bill. I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Red Deer.
I will conclude by repeating what I said in my speech. We have a perfect opportunity to show that all members of the House support victims, even though we may have differences of opinion about how to protect them. The bill can set an example by showing that we can agree from time to time. We must never forget this when debating very sensitive and important issues.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Resuming debate, with his five-minute right of reply, the hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to rise today to wrap up this debate on Bill C-444, my private member's bill.
It is not often we get to work specifically on behalf of a constituent in such a significant way, by making a change to the Criminal Code of Canada. First and foremost, I want to thank the brave young woman and her mother who inspired me to table this bill. There are also many folks on the Hill I would like to thank for the support and encouragement they have extended to me along the way, as well as for the personal work they have put into our debates on this bill. This also includes my wonderful staff, here in Ottawa as well as back in Red Deer.
As I have said, this bill is about sentencing. It speaks to the need for tougher penalties for personating peace officers and public officers, and it is in line with the fundamental sentencing principle of proportionality, which is stated in section 718 of the Criminal Code. We must preserve the trust and respect that citizens have for police officers. When citizens see a police uniform, they trust the authority that comes with it. We are giving the tools that they need to deliver harsher sentences to criminals who breach this trust to cause harm.
Within the parameters of the maximum sentence for this particular offence, the decision of what sentences are appropriate will still rest with sentencing courts. We know that a number of factors come into play in a sentencing decision, such as the criminal record of the offender or the severity of harm caused to a victim.
Aggravating circumstances are just one more factor that sentencing judges are required to consider when the Crown is successful in a conviction. Sentencing achieves a number of results, and one of them is support for victims. The rights of victims need to be protected. They must know that there are serious consequences for criminals who have hurt them.
I extend my heartfelt condolences to any Canadian who has been a victim of someone maliciously personating a police officer to do further harm. I dedicate this work to those victims.
I thank my colleagues for their support. If I still have a moment, I would like to thank the following members for their contribution to debate: the Minister of Justice; the members of the Standing Committee on Justice for their thoughtful study and debate, and their support; the seconders, the members for Sault Ste. Marie and Oxford; the members who contributed their time in speaking here in the House, the members for Gatineau, Mount Royal, Montcalm, Brome—Missisquoi, Charlottetown, Beauport—Limoilou, British Columbia Southern Interior, Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Louis-Hébert, Nanaimo—Cowichan, Chambly—Borduas, Northumberland—Quinte West, Edmonton—St. Albert, Windsor—Tecumseh, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, as well as the Associate Minister of National Defence.
There is a special symbolism of having every member present in this House stand to show their support, not just for a bill but for victims and police officers throughout this great nation.
However, because of the uncertainty that surrounds the closing days of any session, I would be proud to use this opportunity to stand on behalf of all members and to accept unanimous consent if the House so chooses.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): (Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:45 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:45 p.m.)