2014-02-14

Government Orders
Northwest Territories Devolution ActHon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):  moved that Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, today is Valentine's Day, so I will share my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I am honoured to speak to the House in support of Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act, which will really be a major milestone in the history not only of the Northwest Territories, but also of our great and beautiful country. 
As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I have travelled across the country and throughout the north. I have talked with the warm and welcoming people who live in that vast, amazing and resource-rich territory.
I cannot overstate how important passing this bill is to the people of the Northwest Territories, the people who live and work in that magnificent place. For decades, the people of the north have been asking us to recognize them and give them the power to make decisions about their lands and their resources.
Canadians know that governance is a key pillar of our government's northern strategy. As the Prime Minister said recently, “We want to be able to see northerners...masters of their own affairs to the same degree that southerners are”. That is the purpose of the bill before the House today: to give northerners more control over their own lives.
With the passage of this bill, the people most affected by decisions will now be the ones to make them. The people with intimate knowledge of local priorities, local opportunities and local challenges will be the ones to have the final word on how public land is utilized, how water resources are managed, how mineral resources are developed and conserved, and how the environment is protected.
I cannot overstate the significance of this change for the ability of the Northwest Territories to determine its own political and economic future, but do not just take it from me. 
Premier Bob McLeod, of the Northwest Territories, said it best a couple of weeks ago before members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development during committee hearings in Yellowknife. He described the bill as a game-changer for the people of the Northwest Territories.
He went on to say:
 Devolution promises to usher in a new era of prosperity and opportunity for the people of the Northwest Territories. Supported by an efficient, effective, and integrated regulatory regime, devolution will give northerners the necessary tools and authorities to responsibly develop the Territories' significant natural resource potential, promote investment and economic development, and manage the land and environment sustainably. 
There is no doubt that passage of this legislation would bring substantial new economic opportunities to the Northwest Territories. However, the true benefits of devolution will only be realized through a modern, efficient, and effective regulatory system that would make the Northwest Territories a competitive and attractive place to do business.
That is why this legislation also puts in place an improved regulatory framework for the Northwest Territories that would ensure that resource develop continues in a manner that respects the environment while ensuring the long-term prosperity of the Northwest Territories for generations to come.
 To see proof of economic opportunities derived from devolution and regulatory improvement, one need only look west to Yukon. Since achieving devolution in 2003, Yukon has experienced a second gold rush of sorts, with investors and skilled labourers streaming in from around the world to capitalize on the region's rich resources. As a result, the GDP of Yukon has grown every year for the past nine years and has exceeded Canada's rate of national annual growth eight times out of ten. Last year the territory's total GDP was $2.5 billion, up more than $1 billion since devolution.
The Northwest Territories is equally endowed, as we all know, with impressive renewable and non-renewable resources from the Beaufort Sea to the Norman Wells oil field to the diamond mines of the southern Mackenzie Valley. It is no wonder the Conference Board of Canada predicts that the GDP of the Northwest Territories could climb nearly $5 billion, to $9.6 billion, by 2020. The potential is there.
The potential is there, but as former premier of the Northwest Territories, Floyd Roland, told the Norman Wells Chamber of Commerce a couple of years ago, “The thing about potential is that that is all it is...until we take action and realize it”.
The Government of the Northwest Territories has assumed more control over province-like responsibilities, such as highways, housing, health care, and education. The power to manage its land and natural resources is the last step in this long journey.
To quote another great northerner, Robert Alexie, president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, “It's been a long road to get here, but well worth the trip”. 
It has been a long road, and we would not be here today if it were not for the impressive leadership of our Prime Minister and the Premier of the Northwest Territories.
Since forming government in 2006, our Conservative government has made the political and economic development of the north one of its key priorities.
Our government has made tremendous efforts, more than any previous government, in partnership with the Government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal governments to get to where we are today. All northerners should be proud of their accomplishments.
As the Prime Minister stated on his annual northern tour in August 2012, “those who want to see the future of this country should look north”.
It is a rare moment that we as parliamentarians are able to participate in such a nation-building moment in Canada’s history and contribute to the culmination of the promise of Confederation. That is what we are being called upon to do here, with the passage of this bill. 
I therefore urge all members of this House to join with the people of the Northwest Territories in achieving their political and economic aspirations and pass this bill swiftly into law.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the minister's comments. He knows, as I do, that this bill has been a long time coming. 
There was a lot of testimony that referred to having the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the bill. People wanted it split. First, could he confirm that he is aware that a lot of people were against having that act put into the devolution act? Could he also tell us whether the government said that if it was not accepted, the government would not move forward on the devolution act?
[Interjection]
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the member will recall that the target date for devolution was 2015. The Premier of the Northwest Territories asked the Prime Minister of Canada to make devolution earlier. 
However, one of the conditions for ensuring that devolution works to the advantage of northerners in the Northwest Territories was that its regulatory regime be modernized, because we have seen what happened in the Yukon, and we see what is happening south of 60.
 It is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to devolve without having a regulatory regime that is competitive. It should be equal to that of the other territories. We know that in Nunavut, the work has been done. The work continues for Yukon. Devolution will work effectively here if that regulatory regime is amended. That is why we incorporated it with devolution in the bill. 
I am sure that those who are concerned about--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. There being only five minutes for questions and comments, we will need to move on to the next speaker.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party recognizes the importance of devolution in certain areas. We talk about our natural resources, land and water management, and the importance of regulations and so forth. By moving in this direction, we are empowering more economic and social activity in a community we care passionately about. 
I want to ask the minister how important it is that there be follow-through in ensuring that there are sound regulations and so forth, which we heard from the stakeholders, that would assist in the future prosperity of the community. It is something I think we would all like to see. 
[Interjection]
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member echoes what we have been saying on this side of the House and what we heard during the hearings in Yellowknife. 
The importance of that regulatory system can best be understood if I quote the president of Dominion Diamond Holdings Ltd., Brendan Bell. He said: 
 With respect to the regulatory improvement aspects of this bill, Dominion Diamond is supportive of initiatives to ensure an effective but timely regulatory process. Specifically, we're encouraged that the Government of Canada is bringing forth changes that will ensure clarity and certainty in the review and assessment of proposed projects by establishing firm time limits for these reviews, similar to limits that exist in other regulatory processes. 
I submit, with respect to my learned friend, that this is how we can ensure that investors will look favourably at the Northwest Territories for investment.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, the people who are watching may find it curious that the hon. minister, perhaps moved by the sentiments of Valentine's Day, has given me half of his time. Members of the House will find it even more curious to realize that the Green Party alone will be voting against Bill C-15 in this House at third reading, as we did at second reading. I thank the hon. minister for giving me the opportunity to explain our position.
To be clear, the leadership on this bill from the hon. member for Western Arctic is nonpareil. I have no interest whatsoever in suggesting that I criticize his vote in favour of the bill. It is a difficult decision to vote against Bill C-15, and I want to explain why my hon. colleague in the Green Party and I will be doing so.
The first part of the bill is unquestionably important, and we would vote for it. It is long overdue. The devolution of authorities to the Northwest Territories, as the hon. minister has mentioned, is right. It was of great benefit to the Yukon when that territory had its powers vested locally. It is about time that we have a devolution of authorities to the Northwest Territories.
However, the contentious parts of this bill, as the House will now well know, is that Bill C-15 has inexplicably jammed fundamental changes to the water and resource boards of that region down the throats of first nations.
I want to go through some of the history and background on this to underscore how deeply shocking this should be to Canadians from coast to coast, whether they live in the Northwest Territories or not. These are not mere administrative arrangements, or the product of a bunch of civil servants figuring out what is one board, what is two, and what boards should be consolidated. Rather, these boards are the product of government-to-government negotiations. They are the product of the whole structure of negotiations with the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, the Wek'eezhii, and the Tlicho. These boards are the result of government-to-government negotiations in good faith.
There is a tremendous, unassailable, and incontrovertible body of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada that first nations' rights are inherent and protected in our Constitution, and that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure those rights are not infringed upon. Therefore, if a government wishes to ignore treaty obligations and unilaterally rewrite agreements that have stood for some time, we would have to think there is a crisis of some sort that has brought this administration to run counter to the law, to ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Haida, Delgamuukw, and Marshall cases. It is rare in any area of law that we would have so many cases that all say the same thing, which is that the rights of first nations are not a fringe benefit but fundamental to first nations. They are part of our Constitution. It is the obligation of the Crown to protect those rights, those treaties, and ensure that first nations are adequately consulted, particularly in cases of resource development.
That is where I find this bill so extremely disappointing. There is no case to be made that there is something wrong with the way the current boards are working. In fact, it is to the contrary. Many witnesses before the Bill C-15 committee said that the only evidence one can find is with regard to the timeliness and predictability of permit approval through the boards, which this act will unravel, and that they have been more predictable, more timely, and more efficient than other boards of a similar type in the region. In other words, if industry wants predictability and to know that its applications will be dealt with on a timely basis, the status quo is the gold standard. 
This proposal is a way to unravel something that is working. It will create an untimely, unpredictable environment for resource applications of all kinds. It is also a fundamental insult, and there is no word I can find other than “insult”, to the notion that the Crown negotiates in good faith. 
We had the budget tabled this week, and it made reference, at page 145, to the fact that this administration recently commissioned Mr. Douglas Eyford as a special representative on the issues that affect my constituency a great deal: proposed pipelines and tankers on the west coast. These are opposed by most of the first nations that could be impacted by that development. The budget tells us:
 The Government has made public the Special Representative's final report and is closely reviewing the recommendations made in all four areas: building trust, fostering inclusion, advancing reconciliation and taking action. 
I do not know how we can have an administration that so clearly talks out of the both sides of its mouth. The Prime Minister did not need to commission Mr. Doug Eyford to tell the administration about the status of first nations' rights in this country. They are constitutionally enshrined. There is a direct relationship with the Crown, going back, in some cases for centuries, but certainly decades, and the law is not unclear.
Mr. Eyford, predictably, told this administration what people know, that we cannot ignore first nations' rights. We cannot approve things and call it consultation, if we merely hold meetings where first nations say they absolutely do not agree. 
In this case, it gets even more shocking. The only source of any recommendation to do away with these regional boards was a report made some time ago and referred to generally as the McCrank report. Mr. McCrank made a number of recommendations, and one of them was to restructure the board system. It was one of many recommendations. For some reason, this one, to which the first nations immediately expressed opposition, is the one that has been fast-tracked. The McCrank report also said this:
 ...a fundamental restructuring...would require the agreement of all parties to amend the comprehensive land claim agreements... 
In other words, the very source of the recommendation upon which the contentious and unacceptable parts of Bill C-15 are based came from someone who understood it himself, and who included in the body of his report, “Don't do this over the objections of the first nations themselves”. 
These boards are the result of land claims negotiations and they represent the good work of the Crown. We should not come along later with a bill like Bill C-15 and dismantle that over the clear objection of the Tlicho, of the first nations in those communities. The fact is that the boards have worked well. 
I want to quote something from a letter from the Tlicho government to the department. This was from last fall. It makes it very clear about what would happen if Bill C-15 goes through. They wrote that under the proposed amendment to the Mackenzie Valley Regional Management Authority, the scenario would be changed:
 The connection between First Nations and the regional boards would be substantially eviscerated under the larger board. Additional requests for consultation and environmental assessment, and even judicial review in court of the larger board's decisions, would likely become the norm, thus further undermining the system's predictability and timeliness. 
This is where it becomes inexplicable. We have heard that a number of industry groups themselves let this administration know that they had no quarrel with the way the current board system is working. In fact, they praised it. On the empirical evidence, to which nothing has been adduced to suggest there is any dispute on this point, the current board system works. It is timely. It is efficient. And, it is respectful of the first nations on whose territory these developments would go forward.
The hon. minister quoted the diamond mining sector which said that they want to hurry up with things. I have heard nothing from any industry group that suggests they do not feel confidence that the current regime works for them. If there has been behind the scenes lobbying from larger developers who do not want to take the time to be respectful with first nations, then it is not just an option for this administration, it is the duty of the Prime Minister to send those developers packing. The government's obligation under the law, its fiduciary responsibility, is to protect first nations' rights, not gut them, as Bill C-15 would do.
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member, and I am disappointed that she has indicated she will vote against this historic piece of legislation that would devolve powers to northerners living in the territory.
I would like to ask her how she can do that. She may often be misguided in her statements, but how can she intellectually affirm honestly in the House that this a breach of the treaty, which the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement has become, and just like the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement have become?
These treaties specifically envisage the very piece of legislation that we have here today. Sections 25.4.6 (a) of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, and 24.4.6 of the Gwich’in agreement, and the Tlicho agreement, section 22, says expressly that where legislation establishes any other land and water board with jurisdiction in any area larger—
Since this is in the treaty, how can she claim in the House to all Canadians that it constitutes a violation of our treaty obligation and section 35? I suggest—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, did I hear unparliamentary language at the end of that question?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I did not hear anything unparliamentary.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I heard the word “dishonest”, but perhaps I misheard it.
 I am not going to assert anything based on my own opinion. I am relying on the words of the first nations themselves. To answer the minister's question, I would ask how he can approve this bill when Bertha Rabesca Zoe, whose title is law guardian of the Tlicho government, in reference to Bill C-15, said:
 Our input is being ignored, our interests are not being accommodated, and the changes to the regulatory scheme in the Amendments will, if implemented, fundamentally undermine the balance struck in the Tlicho Agreement about how we will have a say about the most important issue—the use of our lands and the effects of those uses on our way of life. 
I look at the words she has written and I see a future court case. The accommodation of interests are requirements of the law. The Conservative administration is setting a course to chaos in resource development. Where it wants to creating a steamroller, it has created a road wrecking team.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and I found it very interesting. 
Clearly, some points warrant our attention. I have a question for her, to follow-up on what the minister is proposing. I also think he should have said it in a more respectful manner.
As everyone knows, the Supreme Court has said many times that the federal government is obliged not only to consult the first nations, but to accommodate them as well. In my opinion, that is what is missing here. There were consultations, but the accommodation does not seem to be on par with what the Supreme Court requires of the government.
I would like my colleague to share her interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings. Has the obligation to consult the first nations truly been respected?
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
I totally agree with him. It is clear that the Supreme Court requires the federal government to consult the first nations of Canada and to respect and accommodate their interests and rights.
It is clear that in this situation, and since the institutions are the product of negotiations, this is not acceptable. This is against the law and it violates the right of the first nations to have a government that makes unilateral changes. That is why in the future, everyone will understand that it is against the law.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Manicouagan. 
I rise today to debate Bill C-15 at third reading. It is definitely an honour to have the opportunity to express the views of my constituents and my party on this bill.
We worked very hard on this bill at second reading stage in committee and at report stage in the House of Commons. We are now at third reading stage, and we have repeatedly pointed out that this bill has some shortcomings.
However, there are some very worthwhile elements. The devolution of power should have taken place a long time ago. I am very pleased that this bill will finally give the people of the Northwest Territories the rights that people in the provinces do not give a second thought to. The fact that they will be able to share in the wealth more directly than before this bill was introduced is reason to celebrate.
I would like to quote Robert Alexie Jr., president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, to emphasize one element of the bill. He said it better than I could.
He said, “We don't have to fear devolution. It's a new beginning”. He is absolutely right. It is a very exciting time to be in the Northwest Territories, and devolution has certainly been a very long time coming.
We have not seen devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories for decades. The last time we saw it was in the 1980s, when we had an agreement where we were going to devolve certain jurisdictions: education, health care, transportation, and renewable resources, in this case specifically forestry and wildlife. At that point, we transferred some powers. The debate then was that perhaps the Northwest Territories was not prepared to go ahead with devolution, just not ready. My reading of what was happening at that time was that, in fact, it was more than ready. It was just that the federal government benefited from the fact that it received a lot of the revenue stream from the exploitation of the natural resources.
This bill before us today would go, in a large measure, to addressing that problem. The Northwest Territories would now be receiving 50% of the royalties for the mineral exploration and other surface exploration of natural resources that will happen, and that is a reason to celebrate. The minister himself said that this is going to lay the foundations towards greater economic prosperity for the Northwest Territories, and he is probably right.
 However, the minister made some statements that do not really measure up to where we should be. Because he had discussions with corporate citizens, he said that corporate citizens want to see the changes as fast as possible; corporate citizens have been pushing for not only the devolution, but also modifications to the water management boards. That is the issue that is really sticky. There are some serious difficulties with this element of the bill. I find it abhorrent that the federal government, knowing that it has a duty to consult and that it has a duty to accommodate, tells me that the most important thing here is that a company such as Dominion Diamond Corporation is pushing the bill forward, and that is an important aspect of the bill. It certainly is, but so is the fact that many first nations have told us, on many occasions, that the water management boards are working just fine and that they would like to leave them as they are. This bill would modify that, and that is not respectful of those first nations.
 I believe that, when it comes to respecting the direction the Supreme Court is giving us, the government has lost its way. I do not think the Conservatives fully understand what the Supreme Court has said on many occasions: that the duty to consult is not simply to set up a web page and not simply to go and hear people, but also to listen to them and find a way, as best as possible, to accommodate them.
Corporate citizens themselves have said that they believe that the water management boards, as they stand, are beneficial. Many times, the Conservatives make modifications that are poison chalices. They propose changes, saying to corporate citizens that they would make exploration and economic prosperity more accessible, with growth rates that would be larger. All of these things may or may not be true.
The point here is that we need to find consensus on the ground. We need to address the needs of the people in the Northwest Territories. It is their land and their resources. It is up to them how they are going to be exploited. It is up to them to tell us how we should be helping them move forward with economic prosperity. It is paternalistic to the extreme that the House of Commons, over and over again, will tell people in other areas of the country how they should be doing their jobs, especially in areas that are their own jurisdiction.
The recent example is the budget, in which the federal government simply does not want to negotiate a jobs program with the provinces, a skills training program that is acceptable to the provinces. Instead, the government says to take it or leave it because it knows best. There is a reason the separation of powers exists in this country, and it is that we know that local people on the ground, generally speaking, know best. We should be helping them build on that knowledge. We should not be imposing our ideological views, and the government, unfortunately, over and over again, seems to think that ideology trumps anything else. That is the wrong direction to take.
However, that said, the benefits of devolution are clear. The people on the ground are going to get many benefits out of this bill. This bill would address needs and requests that have been made of us over years and years, and we are finally in a place where we can bring some of those aspects forward. Those are the elements we need to support in this bill.
We know that the Northwest Territories knows best how to manage its resources. This bill, in large measure, would help it manage those resources and keep the benefits of that management and of being able to attract the kind of exploration and exploitation of its natural resources that the people themselves want without having to request that Ottawa ask for modifications in their name. The fact that they would be able to do it for themselves is something that most Canadians take for granted. Locally, at the provincial level, we do this all the time. In the territories, such as the Northwest Territories, they have not had that privilege, and that is abhorrent. This bill would address that. I am very pleased with that.
We need to be in favour of devolution in the House. It is important that we support the bill at this stage, knowing full well that there are difficulties with it and that we need to continue the dialogue with first nations in the Northwest Territories.
We have a long way to go. New Democrats presented ideas in committee and they were rejected. We presented ideas in the House of Commons, to all members in the House, and again those proposals were rejected. There has to be a better sense of dialogue. We cannot keep imposing our views on the territories. This is not going to benefit them in the long run. They know, much better than us, where we need to go.
When it comes to the water management boards, I will quote, for instance, Jake Heron, who is a Northwest Territories Métis nation representative. He stated:
 It’s very frustrating when you are at the table and you think you’re involved, only to find out that your interests are not being considered seriously. 
This is not dialogue that we should be hearing. We should be hearing that there is a partnership and that the government is in full and respectful consultation with the first nations. Oftentimes, we simply do not get that sense.
The member who spoke before me, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, said it very well when she brought up the comments by Ms. Zoe. I will bring up a quote from Bob Bromley, who is an MLA in that area. He stated:
 The federal government’s proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional. ...a single board does nothing to meet the real problem, failure of implementation. 
These words concern me greatly. We should not be moving forward with that aspect of the bill knowing full well that there is so much opposition back in the Northwest Territories.
Devolution is an important step. We need to address that step. It has been too long in coming. We need to move forward with it. I am happy that this bill would address that. I just wish it were not full of poison chalices.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine again for seeing these issues clearly. I think anyone who looks at the bill will agree that the sections that take apart the regional boards are completely in violation of Supreme Court decisions and in violation of the principles of treaty-making. I find it so deeply shocking.
 I cannot see any explanation for it other than some sort of back-door lobbying by larger industries that have not been busy in the area before and find that these boards look complicated, as they have not actually worked with them. I cannot see a solid explanation grounded in evidence for forcing through these changes along with the devolution parts that we would all support.
 I wonder if the member has any theories as to why we are facing such a terrible bill, which is full of “poison chalices”, as the member said.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, we have a government that seems bent on ideologically driven bills rather than science-based, consultation-based bills. We have seen this on many occasions with so many of the bills in this House of Commons since the Conservative government formed a majority.
The Conservatives are not addressing the real needs of people on the ground. They address their ideological needs, which is a mistake. In the long run, we are going to pay dearly for those choices. 
That said, devolution is still important. We need to empower people in the Northwest Territories to the same degree that we empower people elsewhere in this country. People have the right to make decisions for themselves, and the bill would help address that issue. For that reason, it is worth supporting. 
However, it is unfortunate that the bill does not address the other concerns that the people of the Northwest Territories have brought to us. We need to address the concerns as best we can. The bill addresses some of those concerns, and we are happy to see that it addresses the major question of devolution, but we are going to have to keep addressing other issues because we have a long way to go yet.
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for a very insightful speech on Bill C-15. 
One of the things the member mentioned was the way in which particularly the Conservative government tends to ignore local input. For instance, I wonder if he sees some parallels with the way the Conservatives ignore local input and local priorities in the way the rail service in his area has been treated. I wonder if he sees any parallels with the bill before us on that.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I think many people have seen those parallels on so many levels.
Again, I underline that sometimes the Conservative government seems to make decisions that are ideologically driven. There does not seem to be concern for making sure there is long-term prosperity in our regions. There seems to be more concern that certain people benefit from changes, but the vast majority of people are simply going to have to pay for it in the end. 
The train service in eastern Canada is a great example. We keep hearing that it does not make enough money. Well, I challenge any rail service in North America on whether it is actually making money or not. 
The question here is why the government seems to be bent on certain decisions more than others.
I will raise a question for the government as far as railways are concerned. Why are we funding a railway between Toronto and Peterborough that has doubtful use when we could be funding railways in other parts of the country that have a proven use?
Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his support of the devolution agreement, which is obviously very important to the Northwest Territories.
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked a question and did not really get a clear answer from the member opposite, and so maybe I could help.
The Mackenzie Valley board was looked at from the models they looked at in the Yukon territory. They had an example of devolution to look back on, and they used those lessons to improve upon the situation they have right now. 
One of the things that the Yukon does with its regional representation, with the centralized board, is to have district offices in those communities to ensure that they are providing support and input into the board. Therefore, the great people of the Northwest Territories in those communities will still continue to have localized and regional input on a centralized board, which will make the process effective and efficient. 
I hope that answers some of the questions that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked. If she would like to talk to me further about the Yukon experience, I would be more than happy to do that. Perhaps the member opposite would like to join in on that conversation with me at a later time as well. I would be more than happy to help them understand that process.
[Interjection]
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. Unfortunately, it did not really address anything in the bill, but rather questions for the Yukon. We are talking about the Northwest Territories here.
It is too bad the member did not take the time to address the needs of the first nations in the Northwest Territories. I am glad that he found accommodation in the Yukon, but here we will have to try to find a way to accommodate other first nations, which are outside of his riding. 
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the same vein as my last speech on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. Today I will talk about the capacity for alienation of the collective heritage in terms of aboriginal rights and the practical outcome of the ratification of modern treaties and agreements between the crown and the first nations. I spoke to this bill at second reading about three days ago, so it is still fresh in my mind.
Bill C-15 provides an opportunity to talk about a number of topics that are too often ignored or that remain obscure to the Canadian public. The prerogatives that are exercised in relation to traditional territories, as well as these matters and clarifications, will help elucidate why certain groups raise objections when the government decides to sit down with a band and sign an agreement or document that could potentially alienate or be detrimental to other communities.
The case we are talking about today has been challenged by other bands. The Canadian public has noticed a lack of homogeneity, and that is true. Dissent and overlapping claims can lead to opposition when an agreement is ratified with a group or a band. That is not limited to this situation with the Northwest Territories. We see it all across the country, which is why it is necessary to focus on this today, so that we can shed new light on the issue.
I want to point out that this particular piece of legislation was negotiated and there was consent. There are no doubts about this in the case of Bill C-15 and the associated agreement and regulations. A number of stakeholders in committee said as much and spoke about economic growth. We must always keep that in mind. Above all, we are talking about an economic agreement and initiative. There is no question that this was negotiated and there was consent. However, there are a number of other similar vagaries and problems that we can examine.
Our support at third reading also shows that we recognize that this economic initiative is based in negotiations. However, this leads me to the issue of overlapping claims and overriding prerogatives.
I often talk about a quasi-proprietary title. This points to the fact that first nations members—even though the title is often collective, it is in fact divisible—enjoy prerogatives in relation to given territories. In this case, we are talking about traditional territories, and the same is true for me and for the Innu and Naskapi communities of Manicouagan. Traditional territories come with prerogatives for first nations members.
When bands are called on to negotiate, there may be a sort of disavowal on the part of community members. It is always important to keep in mind that Indian bands are products of the Indian Act. In my informed view, that is why negotiations and agreements ratified by bands lose legitimacy to a certain extent when members do not fully participate.
It is also important to keep in mind that those titles and prerogatives are divisible even though they are collective. That is why this government should always both consult and seek approval. It must do more than just consult, because consultations are quite restrictive. So far, the Conservatives have demonstrated a rather limited view of consultation, which boils down to taking notes at the bottom of the page and covering up issues that have resurfaced, in order to move forward with their economic development agenda.
When there is consultation or, rather, when it is looking for approval, the government—or future governments, because I hope that this will be considered by whoever governs next—should first and foremost look for approval from the public, from first nations members as individuals, through a referendum or other democratic means. This would limit opposition and there would be more support from the public. It would be easier for the public and first nations members to support a given initiative, and it is clear that certain initiatives in 2014 do not have that support. 
Opposition to economic initiatives, even joint ones, that have an effect on the prerogatives of third parties illustrates the need for the government to recognize the pre-eminence of the quasi-proprietary title that first nations members have to their respective traditional territories. I will also discuss the highly contentious and recurrent nature of the overlapping occupation of territories, and I will talk about the collective, but also divisible, nature of prerogatives that are exercised in relation to the territory.
In light of the prerogatives that are exercised in relation to territories—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is the hon. member for Yukon rising on a point of order?
[Interjection]
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have been diligently listening to the member's address to the House.
We are three, four, maybe five minutes deep into it and I have yet to hear the words “Northwest Territories” or “devolution” mentioned once. We are here to debate that piece of legislation.
The member has introduced that he is now about to talk about land occupation, which invariably will take another three minutes, and I am certain that might run him up to about eight minutes. That leaves two minutes for him to talk about the Northwest Territories devolution act.
Hopefully we can hear something about the Northwest Territories devolution.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member. Members may recall, however, that members have a great deal of freedom to express their views. 
In this case, the hon. member, early in his comments, drew a comparison to the things that he would be saying, related to the question before the House. I am sure the hon. member will be bringing that around before the end of the time that is allocated to him. 
The hon. member for Manicouagan.
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, our friends across the aisle would do well to take some notes on land occupation, because the lack of support and the general outcry can be felt and heard here in Ottawa, from first nations groups that are more sure of themselves and increasingly bitter. Furthermore, the government will have to negotiating with them on a day-to-day basis. It should therefore pay attention to these matters related to Indian identity, on the one hand, and on the titles that apply to the lands and land occupation, on the other hand. That is the crux of the issue, the name of the game, and the government should take note.
In short, this government would do well to focus more on winning the approval of first nations members and not simply go and negotiate and ratify agreements with band representatives. Once again, let me clarify, they are elected under the Indian Act. Their responsibilities, their “Indianness” and their jurisdiction are limited to reserve lands. The Indian Act is limited to reserve lands, and I cannot emphasize this point enough, even though, technically, this kind of reasoning does not necessarily apply to the Northwest Territories or Bill C-15 today. However, this is a recurring theme. These things warrant discussion and the entire Canadian population needs to know.
When I am in Manicouagan, I personally tell members in my own community that the band council has no authority over traditional territories. When agreements are ratified, the transparency of which is sometimes negotiated, I tell the members of my community that it is important for them to take a stand and that the government should seek their consent; they should not just be satisfied with an agreement ratified by the government and the band council only. 
In short, if the government is interested in promoting dialogue and creating a more harmonious environment for dealing with aboriginal issues and disputes, it would do well to focus on these concepts, including the use of traditional lands, which is a key component.
I submit this respectfully.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Manicouagan will have a minute left, if he wishes to take the time, and when the House next returns to debate on the question, he will have his usual five minutes for questions and comments.

Statements By Members
Dr. Marco TerwielMr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour my constituent Dr. Marco Terwiel, who passed away January 4 in Maple Ridge after a courageous battle with cancer.
Dr. Terwiel was a devoted family man, a superb physician, and a committed community member whose impact reached far beyond our community. He was born in the Netherlands in 1937; his training and experience eventually led him to Maple Ridge, where he practised for 31 years. 
Dr. Terwiel was a founding member of the local Rotary and an honoured volunteer with St. John's Ambulance. He served as president of the College of Family Physicians of Canada in 1992 and regularly wrote a column for a local newspaper.
Throughout his career he was a strong supporter of family medicine in rural and remote communities, so when he retired in 1999, he served as a locum doctor for eight years in Nunavut.
I extend my condolences to his wife Lila and his family, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to an outstanding Canadian who will be greatly missed.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, happy Valentine's Day. 
It is also Have a Heart Day, and as I speak there are children standing on the steps of the Parliament Buildings calling on the government to protect the rights of first nations children. Can we imagine that? Children have to come to Parliament to call on the government to protect children.
It has been two years since the House unanimously passed Shannen's Dream motion in honour of the late Shannen Koostachin, promising to close the funding gap for children in schools on reserves, yet children are still waiting.
It has been nine years since Jordan River Anderson died in a hospital far from home while the federal government and the provincial government bickered about who was going to pay for his home care.
Despite the promises, our first nations children are still falling through the cracks while the government bickers and denies its legal obligation to children.
Young people get it. They are calling on the government to have a heart and live up to its obligations, protecting first nation children.
Canada-Taiwan RelationsMr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, February 12 marked the annual Chinese New Year celebration hosted by the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, one of the best-attended events on Parliament Hill.
The relationship between Canada and Taiwan has never been stronger.
This Conservative government waived the visa requirement for people from Taiwan in November 2010, paving the way for increased visits by Taiwan's law-abiding tourists and students, who are welcome contributors to the Canadian fabric.
This year we have seen great progress in several commercial agreements between Canada and Taiwan, including one that greatly increases air traffic. Other discussions have good momentum concerning tax, trade, and investment.
I am proud to state that after several years of trying, Canadian producers will now be able to sell bone-in beef to Taiwan.
Also, last year Taiwan's parliament created a sister group to our very active Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, which I have the honour to lead. Our group last year paved the way to revive the Terry Fox Run in Taiwan. 
I ask all members to stand and join me to salute the friendship of Canadians with a free and democratic people, the people of Taiwan.
Canadian HeritageMr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Flag Day. Fifty years ago, in March 1964, a conversation took place at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston, Ontario, between a native of Alberta, George Stanley, dean of arts at RMC, and a native of Quebec, John Matheson, Liberal MP for Leeds, a conversation that led to the design of the new maple leaf flag.
Under the leadership of Prime Minister Lester Pearson, the new flag was approved by Parliament and took effect on February 15, 1965.
To change the most important symbol of a country, to leave behind the old and journey ahead with the new, was a courageous expression of a profoundly optimistic and ambitious vision of Canada's potential, Canada's future, and Canada's place in the world.
May we continue to express and journey ahead toward an ambitious vision for Canada.
Young ArtistsMs. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past fall I was excited to launch my third annual art contest, “A Call to all up and coming Young Artists”. This contest closed in November after receiving dozens upon dozens of submissions from aspiring young artists.
With so much excellent artwork and the abundance of talent in Scarborough Centre, choosing the winners proved quite difficult.
Today I am pleased to offer my congratulations to the following artists for their winning submissions: Mathurah, age 12; Hasan, age 12; Arisa, age 11; Nada, age 10; Lucy, age 9; and young Aruveka, age 5.
The work of these talented individuals is now on display for all Scarborough Centre residents to see. Their artwork has been included in my 2014 parliamentary calendar and is proudly displayed in my constituency office.
I invite all hon. members of the House to join me in congratulating these young contest winners from Scarborough Centre.
Saint-Placide Winter Kite FestivalMs. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again this year, I am looking forward to attending winter festivals in my riding so that I can meet my constituents.
All across my riding, communities are participating in all kinds of activities as they take full advantage of the cold, the snow and the ice. 
This weekend is the 16th edition of Saint-Placide's Festi-Vent sur glace, and I am so excited to be attending again.
This is a unique and colourful kite festival on Lac des Deux Montagnes. The community there is full of people who really put their hearts into things like this. They work hard to stand out and make their region one of the best anywhere.
However, they cannot forget that, two years ago, the Conservatives tried to cut funding for this festival. Fortunately, that bad decision was reversed when I explained to them how important the festival is. The whole region benefits from this festival.
I invite all of you to come and make this year's Festi-Vent sur glace yet another huge success for young and old alike. 
NATO Council Secretariat InternMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great, young, and bright Bramptonian. Jeelan Syed, a 24-year-old, is currently completing his internship at the council secretariat of the NATO headquarters in Brussels. 
He studied in Toronto and Paris, specializing in international relations, with the aim of serving Canada as a diplomat. In addition to speaking both of Canada's official languages, he also speaks German, Russian, Arabic, Urdu, and Spanish. While at the University of Toronto, he was president of the francophone student association, promoting bilingualism. Motivated to see people of different backgrounds living together in harmony, he worked on peace-building projects in India, Kosovo, and Morocco, as well as working at the Canadian mission in Vienna, Austria.
Jeelan's passion to serve his community and promote multiculturalism continues to benefit those he helps. I invite all members to join me in recognizing Mr. Syed.
Canadian Junior Curling ChampionshipsMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 2014 M&amp;M Meat Shops Canadian junior curling championships that took place in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's. 
I would like to congratulate not only all the athletes but also the volunteers and the organizing committee: Greg Thorbourne, Donna Hatt, Melissa Robinson, Paul Fay, Frances Younker, and Bob Wilkinson.
The town of Liverpool and the surrounding area rose to the occasion. The most common statement from all the athletes was “When can we come back to the South Shore again?”
I take this occasion to mention another great South Shore athlete, Alexandra Duckworth, who competed for Canada in the women's snowboarding halfpipe in Sochi. Alexandra has made us all proud. 
Also, since it is Valentine's Day, I would be remiss not to mention the extraordinary story of Bertie and Bill Nickerson, also from Liverpool, who have been married for 78 years. They say the secret of their marriage is that they get along. Congratulations to Bertie and Bill. 
Finally, to my wife Judy, happy Valentine's Day.
Remembrance of the Ocean RangerMr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, much of the island of Newfoundland is being battered today by a winter storm. It is a sombre reminder of this day 32 years ago when a vicious blizzard struck the province, eventually bringing down the indestructible drilling rig Ocean Ranger in the early morning hours of February 15. Eighty-four men lost their lives. 
Hearts are always heavy in my province on Valentine's Day. The tragedy of the Ocean Ranger highlights the terrible price we pay as a seafaring people. It also highlights how fast and badly things can go wrong and reinforces our need for the highest of health and safety regulations. 
I end with a quote from the great Canadian songwriter Gordon Lightfoot that captures the waiting for word of life or death: “Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours?” 
Oil ExplorationMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as an MP from Quebec, I am surprised to see that Quebec has finally decided to allow oil exploration to proceed in the province. I hope it continues forward with that plan.
Developing our natural resources in Quebec is absolutely crucial to overcoming economic challenges and balancing public finances.
I can assure Quebec that the federal government will continue leading by example. We hope that the Quebec government will follow in order to ensure job creation and economic prosperity.
It is important to enhance the economic autonomy of la belle province, Quebec.
Atlantic CanadaMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a valentine's message to our Prime Minister from Atlantic Canadians.
Frankly, we are doubtful of his love for us. He puts us down and claims we have a culture of defeat. He lets his friends tell us we are lazy no-goods who do not want to work. He cuts us off from our family and friends by starving VIA Rail. He tells us to be more innovative and diversify our economy, yet there is not one red cent more for ACOA in this budget, the very agency that is supposed to help us to do so.
When he bellies up to his lobster dinner with his buddies or trims his Christmas tree, I hope that he remembers us and how his changes to EI are making it impossible for seasonal workers to get by. I hope he thinks of us every time he hires a young person from Atlantic Canada who, under a crippling debt load, has come west for work. 
He says he loves us, but we have seen his in-and-out scandal and his robocalls and we are sick of his serial cheating. On this Valentine's Day from Atlantic Canada, please know there is no love lost between us, and in 2015, we will not choo-choo-choose him.
Dr. Roger TomlinsonMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Roger Tomlinson, who passed away last weekend.
Born in England but a proud Canadian, Dr. Tomlinson is globally known as the “Father of GIS”, having conceived and developed the world's first geographic information system for the Government of Canada in 1962.
His innovation laid the foundation for modern digital mapping and spurred the development of a worldwide multi-billion-dollar industry. This visionary geographer and high-tech pioneer enabled us to better understand our environment and to better manage our precious natural resources.
In 2001 Dr. Tomlinson was named a member of the Order of Canada and in 2013 was promoted to an officer of the order for transforming the field of geography.
He was a generous mentor to many. He never lost his sharp analytical edge or his dry sense of humour.
I ask all members to join me in remembering a great Canadian.
Small Craft HarboursHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a serious problem with small craft harbours. The budget has been continuously gutted by the government over the last five years. In fact, the budget has been cut in half.
The government announced funding in its 2014 budget, but is spending none of it this year and only $1 million next year. This is an insult to the fishery and jeopardizes the safety of Canadians.
There are harbours and breakwaters across the country that are in dire need of repair, and there is dredging that has to be done to ensure safety and livelihoods. I call on the government to actually commit to spending this money, not just to make phony announcements and photo ops.
Well-kept harbours are critical for our fishing and coastal communities, and I urge the government not to play politics with infrastructure that is so crucial for so many Canadians.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the CBC revealed the names of three NSA employees when its cameras panned across National Security Agency documents. In fact, the CBC has revealed leaked NSA documents that have inadvertently disclosed the names of at least six intelligence workers it never intended to give away.
These documents were stolen by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and sold to the CBC by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald, the porno-spy, has said he would not publish the names of U.S. intelligence workers unless they were top-ranking public officials. Clearly that is not the case.
Not only is this information in CBC's ethically illicit pay-for-news scheme false, but it is jeopardizing the security of individuals whom, unlike the CBC, I will not be naming here today.
Why is furthering porno-spy Glenn Greenwald's agenda and lining his Brazilian bank account more important than the public broadcaster maintaining its journalistic integrity?
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for most Canadians, today is Valentine's Day, but for Liberals it must feel more like Halloween, as ghosts from past scandals are returning to haunt them.
Last night Radio-Canada reported on another potential kickback scheme from well-connected Liberal insiders. Under this reported scheme, $1.5 million was deposited by a go-between into a Swiss bank account, an account with the code name “Zorro”.
This account was opened just 20 days after SNC was awarded a $127 million contract to refurbish a Montreal bridge. Who owned the Zorro account? It was owned by none other than Michel Fournier, Jean Chrétien's former chief of staff.
Once again Canadians are reminded why they removed the corrupt Liberals from office. After hearing admissions of fraud and Senate corruption, Canadians can do the same to the Conservatives in the next election.
Fortunately, people know the NDP can be trusted to deliver better and to fight corruption like Zorro.
The BudgetMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, we announced economic action plan 2014, which demonstrates our government's commitment to growing the economy, creating jobs, and long-term prosperity for Canadians.
However, out of all of the comments made by the leader of the Liberal Party, there was one very interesting and telling exchange. During an interview, the leader of the Liberal Party refused to answer a question as to whether or not he would run budget deficits. His answer was, “The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself”.
I am sorry. Canadians know that a budget just does not balance itself. Although this economic assessment is interesting, they need to expect more from the leader of a G7 country.
Would the leader of the Liberal Party admit that his party would raise taxes to balance the budget?

Oral Questions
Rail TransportationMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the French CBC program Enquête exposed the full extent of the Conservatives' tragic leniency towards MMA before the Lac-Mégantic disaster.
The company had multiple safety infractions, but the federal government kept giving it special permits to soften the rules. One safety expert said yesterday that the Lac-Mégantic victims paid the price for the cuts.
Do the Conservatives realize that there is a cost to neglecting prevention and safety?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, with a lawsuit pending and the investigation currently ongoing, it is inappropriate to comment any further on that.
However, we have a number of compliance mechanisms at Transport Canada that have been used. Thanks to this government's Railway Safety Act improvements just a few years ago, we will have the power to rapidly issue more monetary penalties. These provisions are under way.
Let me be clear. When it comes to improving rail safety, and we are looking to do more, it is the NDP that is opposing our ability to get the standing committee on transport out on the road to the Bakken oil fields so that we can make greater improvements to our safety system. She needs to stop playing politics.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the federal officials were aware of MMA's repeated infractions.
Some of them wrote down, in black and white, that they were uncomfortable with the idea of allowing the company to operate with just one conductor. Worse yet, in an email from 2012, a Transport Canada employee expressed concerns about the company not having a system for detecting runaway trains. 
Why did the Conservatives ignore theses concerns that could have saved lives?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the health and safety of Canadians is this government's top priority. We have taken a number of very significant actions to enhance rail safety. In 2012, we completed more than 30,000 inspections. We continue to hire more inspectors. We have made an investment of about $100 million in improving rail safety through new information sharing agreements with the provinces, proper classification regulations, and the list goes on.
The member will also know that there are permanent rules in place to ensure that with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods, there are two operators at all times.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, in a Radio Canada report last night, we learned shocking new details about Lac-Mégantic. A briefing note to the minister obtained by Radio Canada said that Transport Canada let some very troubling practices continue. This led to the occurrence of the accident and could have increased its consequences.
Transport Canada knew that this company was breaking the rules and public servants were raising the alarm bells, so why did the minister not act?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, far from it. This government continues to take a whole list of important actions. We continue, as I said, to increase the number of inspections of rail to record levels. There were 30,000 inspection in 2012. There was a $100 million investment in our rail safety system. There are improvements to add whistleblower protection for employees who blow the whistle on safety concerns in the workplace. There is the expansion of administrative monetary penalties for a range of additional infractions.
Make no mistake. There is an investigation under way with respect to Lac-Mégantic, one by Transport Canada. If any rules are found to have been broken, we can guarantee that they will face the full extent of the law.
Committees of the HouseMegan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform called public consultations a “costly circus”.
However, the day before, the Chief Government Whip was complaining about the NDP's opposition to travel by committees.
Can the government tell us whether committee trips are a circus, as the minister says, or whether it is ridiculous to prevent committees from travelling, as the whip says?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats do not want to study the fair elections act. They said they would oppose the bill even before reading it. 
We are trying to improve our electoral system by dealing with misleading calls and fraudulent voting and by protecting Canadians and the power all individuals have to control their democracy. 
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Democratic Reform called cross-country hearings on the fair elections act a “costly circus”, and his colleague called them a “gong show”. Yet the Conservatives are happy to propose spending $600,000 on other committee travel.
Could the Minister of State for Democratic Reform tell us why some committee travel is acceptable to him, but travelling across the country to talk about democratic reform is not worth the effort?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act would keep everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by putting special interest groups on the sidelines and rule breakers out of the game altogether. It would crack down on loopholes to big money. It would stop rogue calls from political imposters. And it would give law enforcement, as the watchdog, sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.
TaxationHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a promise is a promise, except when it is not. Among the many dubious promises made by the Conservatives during the last election was income splitting. Now the promise is “complicated”. Now the promise is that it “needs a long, hard analytical look”, and “I'm not sure that overall it benefits our society”. That was then and now is now.
It is Valentine's Day. Will the Conservatives be faithful to the promises they made to their electorate?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wish my hon. colleague a happy Valentine's Day as well.
Once the budget is balanced, our government is committed to greater tax relief for all Canadian families. Only Conservatives can be trusted to lower taxes for families. We introduced pension income splitting for seniors, which the Liberals voted against. As a result of our low-tax plan, the average Canadian family pays nearly $3,400 less in 2014.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I am just not feeling the love.
Surely the Conservatives knew before making such rash promises that the issue of income splitting was “complicated”, “very costly”, “highly concentrated” and “targeted tax relief”, and that it would chew up any surplus in a heartbeat.
So are the Conservatives going to show their love for their base, and honour their commitment before the next election doth them part?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, once the budget is balanced, we will look at all ways of reducing the tax burden on Canadian families. In fact, since taking office in 2006, we have reduced over 160 different taxes, resulting in savings for the average Canadian family of $3,400 in 2014. We are the only party reducing taxes on Canadian families. The Liberals and the NDP would both raise taxes to pay for their reckless spending schemes.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our system of government requires cabinet to speak with one voice. However, we are currently seeing a worrisome trend.
The Minister of Finance says that the government should not keep its promise on income splitting. However, the Minister of Employment and Social Development says that the Minister of Finance is wrong. On top of that, the Prime Minister does not seem to want to deal with the issue. 
Now that Canadians' confidence in this government is very low, can the government tell us who is right, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Employment and Social Development?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about economic action plan 2014 and why the Liberals and the New Democrats are opposing a budget that is receiving such strong praise from all across this country.
Here is a small list of those that have praised economic action plan 2014: Imagine Canada, Special Olympics Canada, Association of Canadian Community Colleges, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, Canadian Manufacturers &amp; Exporters, Polytechnics Canada, The Royal Canadian Legion, Canadian Cancer Society, Conseil du patronat du Québec, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Team Sports Coalition, Canadian Arts Coalition, Earth Rangers, Nature Conservancy of Canada—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am confused about the third party's question. About two months ago, the Liberal leader said he was in favour of income splitting. A few days ago, he again said that the idea had merit. I am a bit confused, but I have to ask the government to answer my question. This question also has to do with income splitting.
On Wednesday, the Minister of Finance said that he was not sure about the merits of their policy. A few hours later, the Minister of Employment and Social Development said that his government was determined to keep its election promise. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that, once the budget was balanced, they would perhaps think about implementing this policy. All of a sudden, we found out on Twitter that assistance to parents would replace income splitting.
What is the story today?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, once the budget is balanced we will look at all ways of reducing taxes on Canadian families.
Let us talk about budget 2014. The NDP and the Liberals do not seem to believe me when I tell them that our government is getting praise from all across this great country on economic action plan 2014.
Let us hear directly from the stakeholders. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada stated, “This is a pivotal moment for research excellence and innovation in Canada”. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association stated, “This announcement demonstrates the government's continued recognition of the importance of the auto sector to Canada's economy….”.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, he could not answer the question because there is total confusion over there.
On Wednesday, the Minister of Finance said:
 I think income splitting needs a long, hard, analytical look…. Because I'm not sure that overall it benefits our society. 
 Oops, massive damage control at PMO central. 
The Conservatives even benched the Minister of Finance during question period while the Prime Minister defended his promise on income splitting. Fast forward to yesterday and there are now reports that the Prime Minister may be dropping his election commitment.
Who speaks for the government and do the Conservatives speak to each other any more?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, once the budget is balanced, we will look at all ways of reducing the tax burden on Canadian families.
It was our government who brought in pension-income splitting for seniors, which the opposition voted against. 
Let us talk about economic action plan 2014. We are getting praise from all across this great country. The Alzheimer Society of Canada stated:
 On behalf of the 747,000 Canadians living with dementia, we are grateful to the federal government for providing the resources needed to carry out important research to better understand how to tackle various forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. 

Democratic ReformMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when speaking before a committee, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform tried to prove that his bill would increase voter turnout among young people.
He said that, even though his bill will prevent young people from using a voter card as identification when they go to vote. This form of identification was used by 62% of students.
How will he increase youth voter turnout by eliminating this form of identification?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, for decades students have not had any difficulty voting without this voter card. 
Furthermore, student cards are one of 39 acceptable forms of identification that students can use when they vote. 
Finally, the fair elections act will force Elections Canada to use its advertising to inform students of the required means of identification.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps repeating that there are 39 other forms of identification, but the reality is that he is creating obstacles for young voters. 
The minister mentioned driver licences, but 25% of Torontonians do not have one. He mentioned student cards, but many of those do not indicate the student's address.
Does the minister realize that by stopping the use of the voter card he is going to further reduce the participation rate of young voters?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, based on the list used to generate voter information cards, the information for one out of six people is incorrect. One-sixth of the voter cards contain errors and that results in electoral fraud, as we have already seen.
There was even a Quebec television program that reported that two people voted twice because they each received two voter cards. This type of fraud is not acceptable, and we are going to eliminate it with the fair elections act. 
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House leader's parliamentary secretary told reporters he opposes hearings on the unfair elections act. He is worried that by letting Canadians have their say, it would rally public opinion against his bill. I agree. The more Canadians learn of this bill, the less they like it.
Elections belong to the people, not the Conservatives. Why will they not let Canadians have their say on how our elections are run?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we have, and with the hearings that will be held before the committee, we will have some more.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the Senate for a bit.
Yesterday, we learned that some senators are refusing to co-operate with the Auditor General's review of their expenses. A number of them were appointed by the Prime Minister. It is therefore not surprising that those senators are upholding the Conservative tradition of hiding everything from Canadians.
Since the Prime Minister cannot compel these senators to co-operate, can he commit to enhancing the powers of the Auditor General?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Auditor General is currently undertaking a review of Senate expenses. Of course, we expect all senators to comply with that review. It is not just us but Canadian taxpayers who are demanding that.
At the same time, we are hearing from Canadians that they would actually like to see the New Democrats do what this party has done, and that is post their expenses online so that Canadians can actually take a look at that. This party has, its members of Parliament and senators. The NDP is refusing to do that for Canadians, and now the Liberal senators are also refusing to do that.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the fraud and breach of trust charges laid against the senators are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the abuse of taxpayers by the unelected Senate. We now find that unelected and unaccountable senators are stonewalling the Auditor General's investigation of how the Senate abuses taxpayers' money. This is unconscionable.
What steps will the government take to protect taxpayers and ensure there will actually be penalties for senators who are not willing to be compliant with the work of the Auditor General?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, in front of me I have the expenses of Conservative members of Parliament and senators who have actually posted their expenses online. I looked through the Internet to try to find the expenses of the NDP caucus, but then I was reminded of the fact that New Democrats are refusing to tell Canadians what their expenses are; do as I say, not as I do. NDP members refuse to tell Canadians what their expenses are. 
We expect all senators to work with the Auditor General because Canadians are demanding accountability of the Senate. That is what they are getting from this side of the House and we will make sure that they continue to get that.
EthicsCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is Valentine's Day. I would like to think that the Conservatives would give a bit of love to Canadian taxpayers instead of giving “huggy hugs” to the crooks over in the Senate. That is what has been going on with this party.
Yesterday, we find out that a Liberal crony at the Federal Bridge Corporation had $1.5 million moved to a Swiss bank account while he was managing a large federal account for the Jacques Cartier Bridge with SNC-Lavalin. This is a company that has been under numerous investigations. Let us just look at the Prime Minister's personal friend Arthur Porter now hanging out in a Panama jail.
Will the government open an inquiry into this contract to ensure that no taxpayers' money was illegally sent into the pockets of Liberal cronies?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, as soon as these allegations were brought to the minister's attention, he asked the deputy minister to investigate. These are serious allegations against a former president of Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated.
In closing, I want to point out that Mr. Fournier was appointed by the previous Liberal government.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one would have to be naive to think that there is no link between the $1.5 million paid by an SNC-Lavalin associate into a secret Swiss bank account belonging to the Liberal president of the Federal Bridge Corporation and a $127 million contract that was awarded at the exact same time. Friends of the Liberal Party stuffed their pockets, profiting from the collusion and corruption that was running rampant at the time.
Will the government launch an investigation to ensure that federal money was properly awarded in this contract?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, as soon as these allegations were brought to the minister's attention, he asked the deputy minister to look into them. These are troubling allegations against a former president of The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated.
In conclusion, I want to point out that Mr. Fournier was appointed by the previous Liberal government.
The BudgetHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the government whether it planned to maintain at least the current level of funding for the Canada book fund and the Canada music fund, which are due to expire in 2015. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that the two funds will remain intact for 2014. My question was about 2015, so I will ask again.
Will the government commit to maintaining at least the current level of funding for the Canada book fund and the Canada music fund beyond 2015, when they are due to expire?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for this supplementary.
We have invested an additional, actually permanent funding of $9 million for a $37 million total for the Canada book fund, an additional $9 million for the Canada music fund, and we have actually added $25 million for the Canadian Council for the Arts.
Now, to the person from the Liberal Party who asked this, twice in a row, he must be so concerned about it, that I want to see him, on budget day, support culture and heritage in this country.
Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 2014 federal budget contains nothing tangible for women. It contains no incentives for social housing and nothing for universal child care. With respect to access to justice, countless women have fallen through the cracks. Can the finance minister provide any assurance that women will be a priority in the implementation of his budget?
Hon. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has been focused on making sure women have access to jobs and that they can enjoy the prosperity of Canada.
Whether that be young women who now have access to the apprenticeship loan program or whether that be the young women I have met who are out learning skilled professional trades and will benefit from the Canada job grant, we are focused on making sure women have jobs and have a high quality of life for their families.
We encourage the Liberals on the opposite side to get with the program, and let us get Canadians jobs.
Fisheries and OceansLawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is telling the media that the DFO library collections are being digitized and blaming library closures on public walk-ins, when it is the government scientists who actually need the information. 
In a written response to me, the minister said that the department does not have the ability to determine what has to be digitized and there is no record of what happened to most of the library materials.
What is it? Was the response to me correct, or is the minister misleading Canadians?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, this member does not seem to realize that our library clients are doing their work in a different way. In fact, they are asking for digital material, which is why in several of our libraries they get 5 to 12 visits a year. Sometimes they can go a month before they get another in-person visit.
We are consolidating our libraries, investing in making sure our holdings are digitized, and doing the best for taxpayers.
The BudgetJonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, there is a gathering on Parliament Hill today to commemorate Shannen's Dream, the dream that all first nations children can have access to decent educational facilities, no matter where they live.
We wholeheartedly welcome the end of the spending caps on first nations education, but we are wondering why our children will have to wait until 2015 to see any results. Why should first nations children, who have suffered from chronic underfunding for years now, have to wait another year?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was simply going to congratulate the government for making the decision to work with the Assembly of First Nations to finally, for the first time, give first nations all across the country an education system that works. However, we must not put the cart before the horse. We will continue our work with the Assembly of First Nations to draft a bill to be introduced and debated here. After that, of course, the regulations will have to be developed, and all this will take until next year.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, after years of denial, the government is finally admitting to underfunding of first nations schools.
Now it is time for action. The Liberals and Conservatives have repeatedly promised adequate funding, but always for later, after the next election. It is a date that never comes.
Today is Have a Heart Day, so will the minister show that he has a heart, announce that he is going to realize Shannen's dream and start providing adequate funding for first nations schools today?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, we shall soon see the commitment of the NDP to education on reserves, because this budget has committed $1.9 billion in supplementary funding.
I will watch to see if the NDP will support this budget because never before have so many resources been put in Shannen's dream.
VeteransMr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have become masters at the art of saying one thing and doing another.
They promised veterans that their budget cuts would have no impact on the services provided. However, internal documents show that employees were wondering two years ago already how they would be able to provide the same services with nine fewer offices and 800 fewer employees.
Why did the Conservatives ignore these alarm bells as to the consequences of their cuts to veterans' services?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, I understand that math is not necessarily the NDP's thing. Let me explain it for him. Our government has created 600 additional points of service across this great nation. There are now approximately 650 points of service in communities, in neighbourhoods, where a district office did not exist. We are putting points of service where veterans need them the most in the communities.
In the event that a veteran is unable to travel to a district office or is seriously injured, we will send a registered nurse or a case manager to the comfort of his or her home.
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what these documents reveal is a government so obsessed with its image that it failed to heed warnings from inside its own department, warnings that government cuts would impact services available.
Our Armed Forces personnel and veterans knew this. Staff at Veterans Affairs knew this. Conservatives knew this. Yet the government has spent two years denying the truth.
Would the minister now acknowledge that these cuts do, in fact, hurt veterans and reverse them immediately?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, since coming to office in 2006, our government has invested over $4 billion in additional funding to help Canada's veterans, to provide them the services and the benefits that they deserve.
Every single time we have brought forward initiatives to help our veterans, the NDP and the Liberals have both voted against every single measure.
We on this side of the House will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans.
The BudgetMr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing our Conservative government prides itself on, it is keeping taxes low for Canadians and their families. In fact, since coming into office, we have reduced taxes over 160 times, which will save the average Canadian family nearly $3,400 in 2014. 
In addition to helping families keep more money in their pockets, our government also takes pride in recognizing those who help keep our families and communities safe. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance tell this House what economic action plan 2014 does to recognize the contributions of these brave Canadians?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that excellent question. 
Search and rescue volunteers are everyday Canadians, our friends and neighbours, who put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe. In recognition of their commitment and dedication, economic action plan 2014 introduced the search and rescue volunteers tax credit. Today in my riding of North Vancouver, the finance minister is highlighting this measure, accompanied by family members of the late Tim Jones, a man who dedicated his life to others, a giant of the North Shore Rescue team, and someone I was honoured to call a friend. 
I am very proud that our government is recognizing the contributions of people like Tim Jones.
Canada PostMs. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after the ice storm, Toronto experienced widespread mail delivery delays. It took Canada Post weeks to respond. Constituents from across my riding are still reporting mail delays. I am not alone. MPs from all over Toronto are fielding complaints. When a two-day delivery turns into a six-day delivery, cheques arrive late and bills do not get paid.
What is the minister doing to fix the mail delivery delays in Toronto?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that Canada Post Corporation is an independent crown corporation. It operates at arm's length from the government and is responsible for its day-to-day operational decisions, including these. If she has a service complaint, she may want to direct it to Canada Post.
Science and TechnologyMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, behind the fine speeches, the Conservatives are waging war against science.
According to an internal survey, two out of three National Research Council employees are frustrated by the centre's new mandate. According to them, the Conservatives are wrong to give up public scientific research in order to focus strictly on meeting the commercial needs of industry.
Why are the Conservatives refusing to listen to their own scientists, who just want to keep protecting the public and the environment?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question from the hon. member. Obviously the NDP members do not agree with our government's support of science, research, and technology to power Canada's economy, but let me point out some quotes from some people who do.
 The chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, David Barnard, says:
 This is a pivotal moment for research excellence and innovation in Canada.... [Budget 2014] recognizes that a vibrant, innovative and competitive Canadian economy needs a world-class research system. 
The president of the AUCC, Paul Davidson says:
 Today Canada is signalling to the leading research nations of the world that it intends to compete with the best... 
I hope the hon. member will recognize that and vote with us on the budget.
InfrastructureMylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, budget 2014 promises $391 million over five years to Parks Canada to make improvements to highways, bridges and dams. Then why does the government not want to invest in the Grenville Canal? 
Built after the War of 1812, this very important heritage site is quickly deteriorating and needs government funding to be revitalized.
Will the Conservatives commit to showcasing this site? If not, was all the commotion around the War of 1812 just an advertising campaign for them? 
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting our environment as well as keeping our economy strong, building on our record of protecting historic lands. Budget 2014 is investing a significant amount of money in urgent areas, including nearly $400 million to fix dams, bridges, and highways through national parks that are in urgent need of repair.
When the Liberals were in government, they did nothing to maintain the parks and the infrastructure in the parks. Our government is committed to ensuring that our parks, bridges, and highways in our park areas are protected.
TransportationRyan Cleary: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are allowing Marine Atlantic, a crown corporation, to jack up ferry prices to Newfoundland again. As of April 1, the cost of the ferry to and from Newfoundland will jump by 3%. Over a three-year period, rates will have risen by 11%. When ferry prices go up, the price of all goods ferried to Newfoundland also go up, and our tourism is hugely impacted.
Why are the Conservatives allowing Marine Atlantic to increase rates and punish Newfoundlanders?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the member. The government is doing no such thing. Marine Atlantic is a crown corporation. It is arm's length from the government. It has its own governance structure that makes these decisions on a day-to-day basis.
If the member has a concern about that, he should raise it with Marine Atlantic.
Democratic ReformMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us recap the changes to the Elections Act. First of all, it is not an exercise in the independence of the commissioner; the Conservatives are isolating the commissioner.
The Conservatives approved over half a million dollars for committee travel, yet they call it a complete “circus” show on every level.
Regarding Elections Canada, the Conservatives say they want to reframe what Elections Canada is doing, but in fact, it is doing great work, by international standards, with publications encouraging voting. Yet they want to cancel that.
Instead of trying to improve our elections process, why does the minister insist on attacking Elections Canada just because the Conservatives cannot get what they want?
Pierre Poilievre: Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The fair elections act will keep everyday Canadians in charge of their democracy by putting special interest groups on the sideline and rule-breakers right out of the game altogether.
It will crack down on big money by closing loopholes to illegal donations, like the loans loophole Liberals used to accept roughly half a million dollars in illegal money. It will crack down on illegal robocalls and political impostors with a new robocall registry and tough new penalties for impersonation. It will also make it easier to vote, with an extra voting day for Canadians, and it will improve our democracy for the people who follow the rules.
The BudgetTed Hsu: Mr. Speaker, Canada has put tens of millions of dollars over a decade into the world-class James Clerk Maxwell Telescope.
There is confusion over where $700,000 a year for bare bones operations will come from so that we do not have to give it up to another country this fall.
Given budget 2014's recognition of basic research in the new Canada first research excellence fund, would the minister please instruct either the NRC or the CFI to provide operational funding so that Canadian scientists continue to have access to this world-class research?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this question from the hon. member, because it gives me the opportunity to read a few more quotes from Canadian researchers. 
The chair of the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities, Amit Chakma, said:
 The U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities...congratulates the Government of Canada on its 2014 budget and the significant investment of $1.5 billion...for the new Canada First Research Excellence Fund. 
The president and vice-chancellor of UBC, Stephen Toope, said:
 I applaud the federal government's decision to spur greater Canadian leadership in global research and innovation.... 

IndustryMr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 60 workers were dismayed to learn that General Cable, an American company, plans to close its factory in La Malbaie on April 8. 
This will be the third electrical cable factory in Quebec to close in the past five years even though, with all of the work on the Churchill Falls project, there is no shortage of work. In the budget, the Conservatives announced the creation of an emergency measures budget. That is exactly what La Malbaie needs.
What will the government do to help the workers?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this budget is yet more proof that we are focusing on the economy and economic growth. We are keeping tax rates low. That is how we will build wealth.
I would remind my colleague that, according to Bloomberg, Canada is now the second-best place in the world to do business. That is how we will attract investment. He can bring up isolated cases, but it is better to look at our overall record. That is how we will create economic growth.
The EnvironmentMr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my bill is at a crucial step.
We want to force departments to comply with the Sustainable Development Act, an act that received the unanimous support of the Conservatives but is still not being enforced. I would not have to introduce such a bill if the government abided by its own laws.
Can a member of the cabinet tell us whether instructions were given for the vote on my bill?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action to address climate change. We have introduced new emission regulations for vehicles, and we were the first major coal user to ban construction of traditional coal-fired plants. Thanks to our action, carbon emissions will go down to close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals. We are accomplishing this without the Liberal and NDP carbon tax, which would have raised the price of everything.
The BudgetMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, many communities in my riding of Perth—Wellington have benefited substantially from our Conservative government's actions. Can the Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities inform the House of what our government is doing to support communities across the country, especially small communities like many in my own riding?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Perth—Wellington for his concern for smaller communities and for the spectacular question.
With our new building Canada plan, our government will, in fact, provide unprecedented support for infrastructure to communities across this country: stable, predictable funding over the next decade. This will include the gas tax fund, a $22-billion fund, with expanded categories and increased flexibility. Yesterday the Prime Minister announced a new $1-billion fund specifically for smaller communities.
We look forward to improving our infrastructure across this country and getting the job done.
Rail TransportationKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, Canada's grain transportation system is failing the prairie farmers. We have a crisis in the Prairies, and the Conservative government is standing by doing absolutely nothing. As we have piles of wheat accumulating in our prairies, we have 50-plus empty ships in the Pacific Ocean. 
The problem is that the Conservative government's failure is costing prairie grain farmers millions of dollars. I question why the government has failed in terms of addressing this issue in the budget and demonstrating any caring, compassionate attitude to the prairie farmers out west. Why?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all farmers, happy Valentine's Day. 
Let me just say that this is a record crop year in Canada. Our farmers seeded over 2 million additional acres and they have produced over 20 million more tonnes of grain than in the past. The minister has been very proactive on this file, meeting with all stakeholders on multiple occasions in order to find both mid-term and long-term solutions.
We are reacting to this problem, and farmers know that we are engaged in their best interests.
The BudgetMr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people in my region know all too well that highway 185 is deadly. It is one of the deadliest highways in Quebec. Phase three of work, the section between Saint-Antonin and Saint-Louis-du-Ha!-Ha!, needs to be completed. The solution is to finish the Trans-Canada.
Of the $14 billion announced yesterday, $4 billion was for national infrastructure, but this money will be allocated on the basis of merit and not provincial fairness.
Can the Minister of Infrastructure tell us whether the completion of the Trans-Canada—to save lives—is a project that will warrant quick access to the money for national infrastructure?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
As I mentioned, the government is very proud of our commitment to improving infrastructure across the country. We have established the longest and the largest infrastructure plan in Canada's history, with stable and predictable funding over the next decade.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced additional details, including guidelines for the specific programs and the application process. We look forward to hearing from municipalities and provinces what their infrastructure priority projects will be, and we will consider them very closely.
Veterans AffairsMr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last year our government committed to Canadian veterans and their families that we would make substantial improvements to the Last Post Fund. We all want to ensure a dignified burial is possible for veterans of modest means or those who have been injured in service to Canada.
Would the parliamentary secretary please update the House on how economic action plan 2014 delivers on that commitment?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the hon. member for Palliser. He is a hard-working member on behalf of his constituents.
Last year, our government doubled the financial payment, now totalling up to almost $10,000, while making the program itself easier to use for veterans' families. This week, economic action plan 2014 added $108 million for the Last Post Fund to ensure that modern-day veterans of modest means can have a dignified burial.
Here is what the president of the Last Post Fund said: 
 I am very pleased that the issue of eligibility of modern-day Veterans for the Funeral and Burial Program has been positively dealt with in this budget. 

Democratic ReformMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the real intent behind the government's election reform has come to light. The accusation made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government that the Chief Electoral Officer is engaged in political activism reminds us that, on April 29, 2008, a few days after Elections Canada searched their party's office, the Conservatives all voted against a Bloc Québécois motion demanding that the House express its full and complete confidence in Elections Canada. 
How can the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who voted against the Bloc Québécois motion, still try to have us believe that his bill is not a vendetta against Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act will guarantee that all Canadians continue to be in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines. Those who break our rules will be punished by this legislation. 
We are also going to tackle rogue calls, fraudulent voting and the undue influence of money, by eliminating rules that allow this money to enter our system.
International TradeAndré Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of International Development, Quebec cheese makers have to wait for the Canada-Europe free trade agreement to come into effect to find out whether they will be compensated for their loss of revenue. 
However, the government did not hesitate to give $280 million to the fishers in Newfoundland also affected by this agreement, or to hand over $500 million to the automotive industry in Ontario to cover the potential consequences of an agreement with South Korea—an agreement that has not yet even been ratified or signed.
Why is it that what is good for fishers in Newfoundland and car makers in Ontario is not good for cheese makers in Quebec?
I would like to have an answer from someone serious.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, our government has always defended Canada's supply management system, and with this agreement, we continued doing so.
I want to highlight for the member that we will monitor any impact of this historic agreement on dairy producers' income, and if production levels are negatively affected, we will assist them financially.
This agreement once again confirms that this government will continue to defend and promote Canada's supply management system, both here in Canada and abroad.
PensionsMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP): Mr. Speaker, our Canada pension plan is the most secure retirement plan we have. Ninety-three per cent of Canadians depend on the CPP, but living off the current benefits would put retirees into poverty.
In December, the Conservatives blocked a national consensus on pension reform, and there is nothing useful in the budget to improve pensions.
Will the minister take the advice of pension experts and strengthen our CPP to save our seniors from poverty?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want to pay more payroll tax. We have been across this country in pre-budget consultations. We heard it from manufacturers. We heard it from retailers. We heard it from employees. Nobody in this country wants to pay higher CPP payroll pension tax at this time.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Canada Elections ActMegan Leslie:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-575, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (residence of electors).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill. The bill would strike down section 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, which states that Canadian citizens who have lived outside of Canada for more than five years do not qualify as electors in Canada. It is patently undemocratic to restrict people's ability to participate in our democracy because they are engaging in the myriad opportunities that are available globally. Canadians living outside the country still have a vested interest in the decisions of government, taxation, our economy, our justice system, and rights. While there might have been sound policy reasons to create this restriction in the past, in this day and age of airplanes, Internet, social media, and instantaneous information transmission, those reasons are long outdated. 
Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens who are 18 years and older have the right to vote as well as the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada. Canadians living abroad are a significant asset to Canada domestically and internationally. These Canadians may not hold citizenship somewhere else, yet they are being totally and unreasonably disenfranchised. I hope the House looks favourably on the bill. I look forward to its passage. 
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsElizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to lead off our presentation of petitions this day. I have one that I would like to read, and it will be the last time the House hears this. It is a petition from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands calling for the creation of a national DNA databank in the name of Lindsey's Law, named after Lindsey Nicholls who went missing August 2, 1993.
Her mother, Judy Peterson, a resident of my constituency, and petitions from all across the country finally achieved the result, and the budget did in fact create the DNA databank. I present this petition as a tribute to Judy Peterson and the persistence of one mother who was heartbroken but yet has improved criminal justice and the ability to solve crimes for all Canadians.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to present a petition from thousands of Canadians. These names were collected by Yvonne Russell, the head of a group called Paw Tipsters. It is a group committed to ending cruelty against animals. These thousands of petitioners have called for the government to create a national registry of those people who abuse animals.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that was signed by thousands of Torontonians and residents of the GTA. One part of this petition represents people who are calling for improved public transit services. Public transit is essential to improving all of Canada's regional economies, and unfortunately, Canada does not have a national strategy. The petitioners are calling for a national strategy.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, I present all petitions from my constituents and I have three of them today. The first one asks the government to sign and implement agreements to keep global warming to under 2° Celsius and to help the poorest nations of the world adapt to climate change.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, the second petition from my constituents calls for a moratorium on genetically modified alfalfa, to allow for a review of its impact on farmers.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on the government to refrain from tax-supported advertising that goes beyond factual information for compliance or access to government programs and asks the government to redirect those funds to provide front-line service for Canadians.
Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today. The first is from 126 constituents in Edmonton—St. Albert, calling on the government to establish an extractive sector ombudsman to investigate complaints against mining companies operating internationally, and to ensure compliance with labour, environmental, and human rights standards.
Brent Rathgeber: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 28 individuals from northern Alberta and British Columbia, calling on tougher and stronger impaired driving laws, including the establishment of a specific offence for vehicular homicide in the unfortunate circumstance when an impaired driver causes the death of an individual.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I am once again pleased to present petitions signed by many constituents in the national capital region who are calling for federal legislation to fully protect Gatineau Park.
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by more than 100 people from the Toronto area who are calling on the government to come up with a national public transit strategy.
As we have said a number of times, Canada is the only G8 country not to have a national public transit strategy. Having such a strategy would go a long way to helping my constituents cross the bridge more quickly during morning rush hour. The bridge is gridlocked. Improving public transit would be the best way to deal with the traffic jams.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to acknowledge Yvonne Russell, the president of Paw Tipsters, and the fine work that she has done.
I present a petition today with thousands of signatures from across Canada, asking that Canada have an animal abuse registry in place whereby people who are charged or convicted under the Criminal Code or provincial animal care acts for acts of animal cruelty would have their names placed on the registry. 
The registry would aid adoption agencies in screening out individuals with past histories of animal abuse, to assist in preventing animal abuse and neglect.
Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the community of London. As members may know, there was a recent tragedy in London involving a family of three. The petitioners who have contacted me are still in mourning over this terrible loss.
The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada looks at improving staffing levels in government ministries like Citizenship and Immigration Canada, to make sure that applications can be processed in a timely manner. They also ask that immigration officials consider all factors regarding individual applications for status, including humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Ultimately, this is a Canada with humanitarian and compassionate beliefs. This is an important petition.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians all the way from Galiano Island to Thunder Bay, encouraging the House to pass the bill from hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Bill C-442, having to do with Lyme disease.
The petitioners feel that we need this bill because the science and medicine are running behind climate change. Lyme disease is an emerging problem, and we need to get on it.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding for the creation of Rouge national park. The current Rouge Park is home to the endangered Carolinian forest, mixed woodland, and plain life zones of Canada. It is also home to the ancestral home of the Mississauga, Huron-Wendat, and Seneca first nations, and their sacred burial and village sites. 
This is the last chance that we have to create a large national park in southern Ontario, an area with 34% of Canada's population. Roughly 77% of its land and agriculture and human settlement uses only 1/400 of its land protected in national parks.
The petitioners are requesting that the Government of Canada protects the irreplaceable 100 square kilometres of public land assembly within a healthy and sustainable Rouge national park. They are calling on the government to protect and restore the 600 metre-wide wooded main ecological corridor linking Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine in Rouge national park, and to conduct a rational, scientific, and transparent public planning process to create Rouge national park's boundaries, which would include consultations with first nations communities, residents, and activist groups in the community.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present two petitions of great interest to all Canadians.
The first one is with respect to fast, reliable, and affordable public transit. The petitioners are asking for the government to provide long-term, predictable, and non-partisan funding for public transit now. We have to take into consideration that it is costing the GTA economy $6 billion in lost productivity and that the average daily commute is about 80 minutes. We can see that there is a big need.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from people in Kapuskasing, in my riding. It is with respect to Canada Post. They want to make sure that they keep their door-to-door delivery. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to service announced by Canada Post, and to look instead at ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand roughly 100 petitions from Canadians who are pointing out that Canadians continue to travel overseas to perform sex acts with children with impugnity, and that steps must be taken to ensure that Canadians are held accountable for these crimes. They are asking Parliament to make enforcement of Canada's extraterritorial laws for sex tourism and human trafficking a priority.
These petitions do not comply with the format of the House of Commons rules, but due to the seriousness of this issue and the 6,000 signatures, I would ask for unanimous consent to table these petitions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Does the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga have the unanimous consent of the House to table the aforesaid petitions?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Northwest Territories Devolution Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations, be read the third time and passed. 
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I thank my burgeoning fan club from all sides of the House of Commons.
I want to talk about this act from several aspects. The key aspect is with respect to the ownership of one's destiny and being the principal beneficiary of one's own resource.
We have had several issues in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador for the past 20 years, starting with the Atlantic accord and then going through its revisions.
Federal jurisdiction belongs to the offshore areas of oil and gas exploration and so forth, so the royalties came into the federal coffers. It was pointed out that because the oil and gas exists off the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the same applies to Nova Scotia, that it belongs to those provinces and to the benefit of the people of those provinces. That is what we mean by being the principal beneficiaries of those resources.
Revisions have been made over the years. There were a lot of battles, even within the House of Commons. In 2004-05, then once again in 2007-10, we saw the battles that raged. However, at the end of the day, both Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians became the principal beneficiaries of their own resources.
There is a great sense of nationalism for any country that would endeavour to do that. It is one thing to allow a portion of a country's population to have more autonomy politically, but to do it in the sense of economic nationalization is good too. It allows people to manage their own resources and to be the principal beneficiary of their own resources.
That brings us to Bill C-15. Here we have a devolution process that does just that. 
There are discrepancies that we want to talk about. Naturally, there is a to and fro in the debate. That is the natural course of things.
Our party has certain issues with some of the matters contained within the legislation, as do other parties. That is why we are here and debating this. I am happy to speak to Bill C-15 for that very reason, to ensure that the principal beneficiaries of the resources are fully compensated.
Bill C-15 is an act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which I will talk about a bit later, and other acts and certain orders and regulations.
The devolution of responsibilities in the Northwest Territories is cause for celebration, especially for the people of the north. They will have a much greater say in the future of their lands and resources by becoming principal beneficiaries.
The act will see the transfer of responsibility for resources and water, as well as public lands, from the federal government to the Government of the Northwest Territories. It continues the work started decades ago to give the people of the Northwest Territories the governance that they deserve. We can all think back to the work of former Liberal prime minister Lester B. Pearson, and his government, who established the advisory commission, otherwise known as the Carruthers Commission, and the development of a government in the Northwest Territories. 
The commission consulted with people across the north. It concluded in its report that they deserved to have their government established in the north, not in Ottawa, where it had been until then, so that the people could play a more vital role in their government and its ability to represent the people of the Northwest Territories. This established Yellowknife as the capital and moved the territorial seat of government to that region. Decades later, Yellowknife has continued to blossom as the seat of government for the Northwest Territories, thanks in part to this important step. We can be proud that today business in the Northwest Territories is booming. I should know because several of my friends who I grew up with in Newfoundland and Labrador make a good living in the Northwest Territories.
There is a new generation of young Canadians living in the north who are ready to be the leaders of today and the future. Those are the words of the member of Parliament for Labrador, who is also our critic for the north. She also said we must do everything we can to ensure that all territories have the tools and governance they need to empower young Canadians to be part of the economic driver of this country, as the north has become.
She continued that we want to make it easier to conduct business in the North and to have business invest in the North. This in turn would create jobs and generate higher tax revenues, which devolution would provide to the Government of Northwest Territories, as one would expect, and to participating aboriginal governments as well. As a result, they could work to improve social programs and the social safety net, invest in local culture, attract new tourism and trade, and draw new people to the area.
While we are optimistic about the future of the Northwest Territories and its devolution agreement, which we are debating today, it is important to ensure that this act lives up to what it has set out to do under the guidance of the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, and his government, as well as the many aboriginal governments and their leaders. These individuals have spent years working to gain a concrete devolution agreement and to ensure that it meets the needs of northern Canadians. Unfortunately, the current government has let down the people in our north on many occasions in the last number of years. Because of this, we need to ensure that this act has the consensus support of the people of the Northwest Territories.
The often deplorable conditions on aboriginal reserves and the total lack of social support for many communities has been sad and, indeed, unacceptable. I think of the Kelowna accord and the potential it had to bring positive change to aboriginal peoples across Canada for economic development, education, health care, and housing, and that it was this Prime Minister who turned his back on the accord.
Bill C-15 needs to properly address the needs of aboriginal peoples with respect to proper governance and decision-making over resources and, of course, water. We need to have an open dialogue with those living in the Northwest Territories so that we start righting so many of the wrongs they have had to live through over the years.
One thing that is certain and has come up within this debate and caused us concern on this side of the House is that we need to take a look at the consolidation of multiple land and water boards, and what is called in this legislation “the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act”, which is a big part of this devolution act. This has the potential to play a major role with some of the aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories. As currently proposed, they are losing seats on their boards in an effort to streamline the boards into one superboard and make it easier for businesses to thrive. It is imperative that we find the right balance to continue to give a strong voice to the various aboriginal governments, while at the same time fostering economic growth in the entire region.
Indeed, all parties at the table here would like to see more growth and success for the region. Since the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is a major part of this legislation, Bill C-15, we need to ask why such a large portion of this bill dealing with the local amalgamation of land and water boards is part of the devolution agreement, and why it does not stand on its own as a separate bill. I sincerely hope this act receives the attention it deserves for granting more responsibilities to the local aboriginal governments and the Government of the Northwest Territories and that this Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act does not overshadow the achievements of other parts of the bill.
Another area of concern is the revenue formula for the territorial and aboriginal governments. The financial benefits from resource developments are numerous and should not disproportionately go toward the federal government. This is especially true for a number of reasons, the primary one being the challenges that our territories face and our provinces do not. Given the small number of inhabitants, spread-out communities and vastness of the land, the Government of the Northwest Territories needs adequate amount of revenue from resource development to meet these unique challenges. Certainly that is a point of interest, because provinces over the past 10 years have managed to put themselves in a “have” position primarily because of revenue from natural resources.
As for the roads, they are getting worse because of increased traffic. We can also talk more generally about the infrastructure there. Over time, of course, it is getting worse. The Northwest Territories is experiencing a similar strain on its infrastructure as a result of the mining and the resource boom. Therefore, the revenue from these resources must adequately compensate the government for its increased infrastructure costs, because of the exponential increase in the resource development in these areas.
When it comes to lowering the costs of travel in the north, there must be room for governments to assist people. People often must travel great distance to access the health care and important services they need. We need to address these dire issues, and the Conservative government needs to recognize this when establishing the revenue sharing agreement on resources.
I am also concerned about the issue of offshore resource development and shipping. With the discovery and potential of massive resource deposits off the coast of the Northwest Territories, the federal government must be clear on whose responsibility it is when it comes to developing these resources and ensuring that adequate environmental regulations are in place and in force.
While this bill spends much of its text discussing the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, it does not spend enough time discussing the resource development of non-freshwater regions of the Northwest Territories. With the increase in shipping and the development of offshore resources in the north, I am concerned about a lack of focus in this bill. Since the government is addressing land and water issues in this devolution bill, it is only fair to also include the necessary clauses with regard to the offshore issues.
 Now is not the time to avoid addressing these very important issues. We know for a fact that circumpolar traffic has increased substantially with the demand for oil and gas reserves outside of the traditional areas these reserves have been found, because we are now discovering more fields in Canada's north. As a result, there is increased traffic of large freighters in these areas, and not just from Canada but from places such as Norway and Russia, through to Iceland, Greenland, and Alaska.
I remain hopeful that the minister and his department can resolve the concerns my colleagues have about this bill, given that we would all like to see the Northwest Territories achieve successful devolution.
During the last Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin we reached a concrete framework on devolution in the Northwest Territories. We had a timeline of a few years to get the deal done and in place. It is unfortunate that it has taken this long to finalize the agreement, particularly given the overwhelming support for devolution and the success that Yukon and Nunavut territories have had following their own devolution agreements.
Nevertheless, I welcome today as the beginning of the end of this long journey. Together, with hope and hard work, we can work out any issues quickly and move to brighten the future for the people, the residents of the Northwest Territories, so they too can be principal beneficiaries of their own resources.
 We would like to thank the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, as well as his government for the hard work to get this devolution agreement organized. I would also like to thank the many aboriginal governments and their leaders who worked tirelessly with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government to find a solution that will benefit everyone in the north.
 This is truly a moment that we all can be proud of for the residents of Northwest Territories, for the residents of the north. With crumbling infrastructure and the need to meet the promises made to protect our social safety net for the people of the north, we must make sure that this devolution process is one that does not hinder the development of the people, how they live, and their standard of living.
Environmental guards must be put in place. Many other measures must be put in place so that we can have a successful devolution and both levels of government can manage this directly. Again, we thank the Government of Northwest Territories for doing this.
Just as a final note, I had mentioned resource revenue-sharing earlier. A lot of the arguments that we have heard in the House and elsewhere, including other legislatures across the country, all 13 of them, are about resource development as a cash grab or something that is extra or beyond, the cream of the crop or the gravy over the main meal, something that is an add-on to the services we provide to our people. That is not the case.
 To become a principal beneficiary of one's own resource is to provide the fundamental programs by which we live as citizens. We all know, with a great deal of bias and rightly so, that we live in the best country in the world. That achievement is not just a measure of gross domestic product. It is not just a measure of how much we export compared to what we import. It is the measure by which we sustain our communities, whether they are working or have jobs, yes, and whether they have the ability to succeed and create more, yes, that is fundamental too. But it is also fundamental to look after our neighbours and our communities, such that our communities will benefit from all the resources.
We have seen time and time again major international corporations come within our jurisdiction, whether on the land or offshore. They have come here to fulfill their own goals for corporate profit, for their own standards of providing more value to their shareholders. 
We must remember that the goal for the principal beneficiary is not a quick profit for a shareholder or to invest more in other oil, gas, or mining developments around the world. The goal is for the principle beneficiary to increase the standard of living within the community, including having a better hospital, affordable daycare, a better community for children. This is not just about boutique tax credits for people who feel that is the be all and end all for creating a better community. It is about bringing a community into a better light for all its citizens to share in. 
This is what we go through to make sure that the devolution of an essential power from Ottawa goes to a particular region. I spoke earlier about Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The devolution process is an element of good governance. Good governance filters through to the basic degrees of society so that society can benefit, so that society can provide a better community for its own children.
Sometimes we get caught up in the minutia or intricacies of a deal, for instance, whether one particular environmental assessment will hinder or benefit a community. That has to be within legislation. We have to do this right, because it will be hard to fix when it is done. Therefore, we must have a complete debate in order for that to happen. I thank all my hon. colleagues for doing this. 
The devolution process is an exercise in ensuring that the average citizen in the smallest community in the Northwest Territories is as large a principal beneficiary as the average citizen living in Yellowknife, just as it would be for the entire country.
We congratulate the aboriginal governments. They too want only the best for their communities. They do not want to see any giveaways taking place. They do not want to see any giveaways that would feed only into a corporation that gives itself a bigger profit. 
We need to make sure that these people are involved so that they too are not the only principal beneficiaries of the economic benefits, but the actual stewards of the environment, thereby making sure that no footprint is left that would be detrimental to the environment and the beautiful landscape in the north. More beautiful than that would be a standard of living they can give to their own children, which to me would be a lasting testament of what we consider to be the devolution of power, one that would benefit the smallest community in the Northwest Territories as well as the largest.
Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech in support of Bill C-15, which has been a long time coming.
I too want to salute Premier Bob McLeod and the Government of the Northwest Territories. We heard from him when I was in Yellowknife with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We also heard from many stakeholders, including the premier, who said clearly that, “We need an efficient and effective regulatory system in the Northwest Territories that protects the public interests, allows us to manage our land and environment, and promotes responsible development”.
The member spoke about making sure that this does not just benefit corporations and resource development companies. According to the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, resource development is the biggest employer of aboriginals in the Northwest Territories, with over 50% of the mining workforce being aboriginal.
I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that in addition to devolution, it is important that we give the Northwest Territories a regulatory regime that is modern, efficient, and effective and would allow for continued investment in the Northwest Territories. This would not only benefit the government and the people there but the aboriginal community as well.
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I notice there has been quite a bit of consultation with the local chambers and the like. Again, the regulatory regime certainly is a great benefit for these people as it allows them to engage, no matter who the stakeholders are, in any particular resource development, whether it be from an environmental perspective, economic benefits, and everything else.
As an entire nation, we are now inching toward this principle when it comes to regulatory boards, and I think of our boards on the east coast of the country, whether it is the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. 
There are fixes that have to be put in place, but nonetheless, I think what the member is bringing up here is that the conversations have taken place, and we have matured to a point that the regulatory matters are far better than what they used to be. There are always areas of improvement, but engaging with local stakeholders, I think, is by far the greatest thing that could be accomplished from this, and I thank the member again for his point.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his contribution to this debate.
In five years, there is going to be a review on the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.
Would the member's party be in favour of transferring more authority to the Northwest Territories in this case?
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, personally, I am in favour of devolving everything that regards development and everything that would regard local decision-making. 
I welcome the five-year review in this particular case. Obviously, given the magnitude of the agreement, I mean, it has taken a long time to do, and there are a lot of intricacies here that need yet to be explored.
 Even when legislation is passed, I agree, and it should be beyond the five years. I mean, if we think about it, a devolution process really never ends. If something arises in the future, whether it is dictated by technology or changing circumstances of the resources itself, then obviously we would have to put a mechanism in place and devolution may be required yet again in the future. 
I think that is an obvious question for all of us in this House who disagree with the centralization of local decision-making, which is really never a good thing.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his presentation. However, I could not help but reflect as he spoke at the beginning of his speech of when Newfoundlanders joined Confederation, which is in a lot of ways the opposite of devolution. I know a lot of friends in Newfoundland and Labrador who think that if the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans had not been put in charge of the cod stocks they might be fishing still, and I happen to agree with that.
However, in this case, in the context of devolution, which is supported by all sides of this House, we are seeing an additional piece, which makes Bill C-15 not unlike an omnibus bill. It is a completely different package of changes that would basically undo treaty negotiations.
I have cited other opinions from the Tlicho First Nation earlier in my speech today, but this started with Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus and four other chiefs voicing how they regard the changes to Bill C-15, and I quote:
 …the very kind of sharp dealing and dishonourable conduct in the implementation of a modern treaty that the Supreme Court has unequivocally declared it [the federal government ] may not engage in. 
I would ask my colleague for some comment. 
Is it not a terrible shame to be put to a vote on something we all support, devolution, but include this unconstitutional affront to first nations?
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do agree. 
I think in this particular case, and in many cases, we have seen submissions here from people who find that the federal government's assault on local governance is an absolute affront. Again, I go back to the principal beneficiaries, not just of the resources but of the whole land, and whether the management of the land is looked after by those locally. In this particular case, the member mentioned Grand Chief Erasmus, who brings up some valid points. 
What bothers me though is that all of this is encapsulated in one particular piece of legislation. I spoke on that, and on another part of the bill, the water management, which should also be spun into different legislation. There is a possibility of that. I realize it takes time, but it is the responsible thing to do. I agree with the member's assessment, and the assessment that many people have within the aboriginal groups, who certainly have their own issues with this.
 I hope that the three parties here, the aboriginal groups, the Northwest Territories governance, as well as the Conservative government and its particular department, work this out in the near future. I do not know if it will be worked out within this legislation. However, it certainly is a shame that we do not have those extras put aside, whether they be spun off into different legislation or not.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleague made, because historically, Liberal governments said that the Northwest Territories was not ready for devolution. Over the years they were in power, that was the way they looked at it.
My colleague mentioned the issue of land and water use and representation on the boards. One of the governments in the Northwest Territories, the Tlicho government, has indicated that it wants to stay with regional boards as opposed to going with one big board. I am wondering if he can understand the concerns of the Tlicho government and others who have raised this issue, specifically with respect to the treaty partner. 
I quote from the Tlicho: “As your treaty partner, I am writing to ask that you reconsider the path Canada is currently on in relation to the MVRMA amendments”. 
They talk about the fact that the government will be finding itself before the courts, given the fact that it constitutes a breach of their agreement and the honour of the crown. Does he have as much concern about that as we do?
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, yes I do. I think I heard her correctly. The particular government she was talking about has significant, meaningful, decision-making in relation to Wek'èezhii for as long as this land shall last. This was one of the fundamental tenets of the constitutional compact we reached to reconcile our aboriginal titles and rights with crown sovereignty. She has a valid point.
On her other point, the Liberals started the advisory commission on the development of the Northwest Territories. That was Lester B. Pearson. On of the important subject of devolution, the governments of prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin worked for the devolution of the Yukon and Nunavut territories and started the process of devolution for the Northwest Territories. I am not quite sure which particular Liberal government she is talking about. This one was certainly involved. Perhaps she would like to clarify which Liberals she is talking about, because I do not know.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
[Intervention]
An. hon. member:  On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
[Interjection]
Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  It being 1:30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 

Private Members' Business
An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine)[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 27, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-481, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about Bill C-481.
I want to begin by quoting the title of a book. It is a very interesting title. It is You Can't Eat GNP.
As individuals or as households, we need to know how much money we have, how much we owe. We need to keep track of our income, our household income, our salary, and then also our household expenses. It is important to account for all these things and look forward.
If we are running a business, we need a business plan. For the business plan to make sense, it has to have honest estimates of revenues and of expenses, so that our business can survive and thrive.
This is one kind of accounting.
However, for us, money is not enough. That is the point of the title of the book, You Can't Eat GNP. We need food, we need clean water, and we need clean air to live as well.
We also need strong, caring families and strong, connected communities. We need justice and we need equality of opportunity. We need broad stakeholders in society. There are a lot of social qualities we need to survive and thrive as human beings.
My point is that sustainability is about honest accounting, in a very broad sense. Honest accounting is something we know about in good business management. It is also something that is important for good economic management, the good economic management of a country and the overall management of a country.
I want to start by giving some examples of areas where questionable accounting may not be good for the country.
The first is the idea of selling government assets to balance the budget. The problem with that is that quite often assets are very old and their value is taken to be their so-called book value, which could have been their value from 20, 30, 40, 50, or 100 years ago. Then, when the government sells these assets, it sells them for the market value, hopefully, the current value, and all of a sudden the government's accounts show a huge profit.
How do we avoid that? I think the principles of good accounting say if we want to run a business or an enterprise then we should have good accounting. The problem here is that the value of the asset that was sold was not properly accounted for and the profit that was booked was not a real profit.
It makes it very hard to manage a country if we are not dealing with real numbers that mean something.
The second example has to do with values that are important, from a social point of view.
One thing that is unfortunate is that, over the last few decades, voter turnout has been decreasing consistently. That is the long-term trend, with a few ups and downs for different elections.
I think that is dangerous for democracy. People have called that a democratic deficit. It really is a deficit because the fewer people—the citizenry of Canada—who engage in their democratic government, the more poorly they are governed. It is often said that people deserve the government they get. If most people do not engage, they will not get a good government.
Sometimes the political process discourages citizens from engaging. We have examples of what comes out of campaign battles: we have negative advertising; we have attacks between politicians, ad hominem attacks. All this results in cynicism in the country about politics, and lack of confidence in the government.
Ultimately, it means the decreasing ability for the elected government to tackle big problems. That is the social cost of the democratic deficit. Sometimes, when we are fighting political battles, we do not take into account that social cost. We do not honestly account for that social cost.
The third example is this. In the budget that was presented earlier this week, approximately $250 million was set aside for disaster relief in the future. Actually, the government has had to pay out quite a lot more than that in the past because of the floods in Alberta, so we have to ask ourselves whether the $250 million amount set aside for disaster relief is enough. Disasters will continue to happen in the future, and we know that reinsurance rates are increasing. The reason is that insurance companies have been studying very carefully the expected effects of climate change and have realized that they had better charge higher premiums because they are going to have to pay out more money in the future.
This $250 million allocated right now is only for the next five years. Where, in the government's accounting, is the cost of future disasters, the money that the government knows it is probably going to have to pay out, on average, for disaster relief? It is an amount that is increasing faster than inflation, because that is what the reinsurance premiums are doing. 
If I can get a little technical, let us think about the net present value of all of those future liabilities. I do not think the government is accounting for that aspect, and that is a problem. It is a problem because if we ignore it, we will think we are getting away with not dealing with climate change, but those liabilities exist, and they will bite us or our children or grandchildren. It is important to do some honest accounting in these different areas of environmental costs, social costs, and hidden financial costs.
The previous Liberal government created the environment commissioner, who releases regular reports, which I will talk about in a second. What is important is that the Liberals put this environment commissioner in the Office of the Auditor General. This idea of properly accounting for environmental liabilities and treating them just as they would be treated in a financial audit is very important.
I will go through some things in previous environment commissioners' reports that I thought were very interesting. 
The environment commissioner looked at old mines and the money that was set aside to close these mines and clean up the sites. The environment commissioner questioned whether enough money was put aside to clean them up. When the decisions were first made to operate these mines 20, 30, or 50 years ago, the cost of closing and cleaning up the mines properly was probably not included in the business plans. That accounting was not done; had it been done, the mines might have been operated differently, because the companies would have been liable.
As another example, the environment commissioner also talked about whether enough money had been set aside to deal with possible accidents, such as offshore oil spills or accidents at nuclear power plants, so honest accounting is very important. 
It is very important for a government that is evaluating costs and benefits to account for all possible hidden and future liabilities. If a government did that and made an honest accounting of all the costs and benefits and looked under all the rocks, this bill would not be necessary, because whatever the government tried to do in terms of laws, regulations, taxes, and spending would have automatically been carefully accounted for. 
This legislation calls for the justice minister to review all bills and regulations and anything the government tries to do from the point of view of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. If a government always tried to do the best possible honest accounting, I am sure it would always satisfy the act, but I think the point is that the government we have today does not do that. That is why my hon. colleague brought forward this private member's bill.
We have some concerns about the true cost of examining every bill and regulation. My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, for example, brought up the cyberbullying legislation and how that is affected by consideration of sustainable development. We have to look at the cost.
However, the Liberal Party recommends that the bill goes to committee at second reading, and I urge my fellow members of Parliament to vote for that.
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-481 at second reading, and wish to congratulate my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, for his foresight in introducing the bill.
Indeed, I am one of the members of the House who is optimistic enough to hope that we have not passed the tipping point in the damage we have done to the environment. However, even if we have not passed the apocalyptic tipping point, we have already gone so far that we have unleashed changes in our environment that will be difficult and expensive to deal with. We, as the current tenants on this planet, are already certain to leave a huge environmental debt to future generations.
Bill C-481 is an amendment to the Federal Sustainable Development Act, an act which was passed unanimously by this House in 2008. Amending that act by passing Bill C-481 would ensure that all future laws and regulations introduced by the federal minister would be in compliance with the principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. This would require the minister to give notice of any incompatibility to the House of Commons at the first opportunity.
The Department of Justice already has an obligations to examine all bills and regulations for conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-481 simply adds another aspect to this process.
Unfortunately, the government has adopted a very narrow definition for protecting the environment, as we can easily see in budget 2014. This is a budget which contains no mention of climate change, let alone any significant commitment to combat this threat to our common future. Instead, the largest measure, what the government calls environmental protection, is nearly $400 million to improve highways and bridges so Canadians can drive through their national parks.
No one should mistake what I am saying. Of course, I support measures to reverse the neglect of the infrastructure in national parks. However, this hardly qualifies as environment protection or a measure to address climate change.
There are some additional measures in the budget which move us in a positive direction to the environment, such as a small expansion of the tax support for clean energy generation, and $500 million for implementation of the Species at Risk Act. It is my hope that a portion of this allocation for the Species at Risk Act would be used to implement a recovery strategy for the southern resident killer whale. This is a strategy that I called for in Motion No. 460 last fall, and we have yet to hear a word from the government about implementing that. In fact, on Vancouver Island, we are still waiting for action to protect this iconic species, more than 10 years after they were listed as endangered.
It is not just in the budget where we see the Conservative government ignoring the principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which I remind the House was passed unanimously in 2008. Let me turn to the question of water as an example.
 In the alternative federal budget 2014 called “Striking a Better Balance”, produced by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, there is an excellent chapter devoted to what is happening to what should be our most precious resource: water. 
What would a sustainable development approach to water entail? We would, of course, need a national water policy that would entrench the principles of water as a human right and as a public trust. Instead, we have no national policy on water at all. Then we would need comprehensive strategies and plans for protecting water resources, mechanisms to monitor and assess the implementation of those plans, and accountability mechanisms to ensure that water is actually protected. All of these are missing in Canada.
If we had Bill C-481 in place, the gap in the performance of the government when it comes to water would be made explicit. Bill C-481 would force us to evaluate things in the current budget, such as government support for expanding offshore drilling in the Arctic, or government support for pipeline projects in terms of sustainable development. These are tests that it would surely fail.
Returning to the alternative federal budget for a moment, we can see some of the things that could have been in the budget, and proposals which would pass the sustainability evaluation test. The alternative federal budget calls for establishing a national framework for water protection and recommends some urgent projects necessary for halting the decline in the quality of our water resources and beginning the process of restoration.
It calls for strong measures to protect our groundwater. Our attention to groundwater protection has been woeful, especially considering that one-third of Canadians depend on groundwater for their drinking water. We lack even the thorough mapping of our groundwater resources that is necessary before we can tackle this program. We urgently need legislation to prohibit the extraction of groundwater in quantities that exceed the recharge rate. We need legislation to establish the principle of local users first, and to ban the bulk exports of water resources. All of these are measures that could have been included in what the government likes to call its “action plan for 2014”.
Another proposal would take action to turn Canada away from its dependence on fossil fuels. It not only contributes to climate change, but it also has a severe impact on our water quality, particularly in the ecosystems downstream from the tar sands.
Of course, if we cast our thoughts back to the Conservative omnibus budget of 2012, we would recall the wholesale withdrawal of the Conservative government from freshwater protection, with a narrowing of habitat protection to only those waters that support commercial fishing. How could anyone argue that it would have survived the scrutiny proposed by Bill C-481?
I have spent some time discussing the government's failures to protect our precious water resources. I have done so not just because of its urgency, but because the bill we are debating today, proposed by the member for Brome—Missisquoi, would provide a practical way of moving forward and making sure that all future governments work toward a more sustainable future.
It will be interesting to see how the Conservative government ultimately decides to respond to this bill, given that all parties previously supported the Federal Sustainable Development Act. I would think, therefore, that members on the opposite side would also be willing to support Bill C-481.
I know that my time is short today, and I could give many more examples of the Conservative government's failures to adhere to the principles in the Federal Sustainable Development Act, but I want to come back to some concluding principles that we need to honour here in the House.
One of these has to do with Canada's international trade. A lot of damage has been done at the international level not only by our failure to be leaders but also by our being awarded the fossil of the day award for opposition to progress on international environmental accords. Good environment protections are needed to improve Canada's international trade relationships and to help fix this damage to our international reputation.
The Federal Sustainable Development Act, which was, again, unanimously agreed to, said that sustainable development is a principle that must be at the heart of government decision-making. However, we have a Conservative government that has been in power now since 2006 and which discards those sustainability principles every time it gets the chance to.
The government tries to argue that we have to choose between a healthy economy and good jobs and a clean, sustainable environment. In fact, we cannot have one without the other. We know from all of the economic studies that investments in clean, renewable energy, dollar for capital dollar, create far more jobs than our continuing over-investment in fossil fuel industries do. Not only that, investments in renewable energy create jobs in every community in Canada, not just in the few privileged communities that sit on top of resources. 
Once again, if we return to that principle of sustainable development, it is not just environmental sustainability we are talking about, it is economic sustainability. If we are to pursue a sustainable future, we have to create jobs in communities all across the country.
In my own riding, I am particularly inspired by the T’Sou-ke First Nation. I have talked about it several times in the House. When it comes to sustainable development, the T’Sou-ke First Nation is setting a shining example for all Canadians. It held a retreat of the whole communities, where leadership was provided by the elders. They said, “Let us become the first solar first nation in the country. Let us move off the grid. We lived for thousands of years without the electricity grid, so let us move off it”. 
Today, the T’Sou-ke First Nation is independent of the power grid. It generates its own power, both through solar panels on the roof of its first nations office and through something else that is very interesting: the T’Sou-ke First Nation trained its young people to become solar installers, and now it has solar hot water. I believe that it is installed in every house on the reserve, with one or two at the end that are missing. Now, it also has a trained workforce that can go out and work in other communities to help them become less dependent on non-renewable energies.
Let me conclude by saying that what we need to do, as suggested in Bill C-481, is ensure that our decisions are informed by sustainable development. We must make sure that we do not create environmental and financial burdens for future generations.
The Conservative government's record on environmental issues is clearly one of failure. When it comes time to choose, Canadians will see that only the New Democrats can be trusted to stand up for Canada's environment, now and for future generations.

Statements By Members
Constable David DennieCarol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief moment to pay tribute to Constable David Dennie, who died in a tragic motor vehicle accident yesterday in Blind River while off duty.
Constable Dennie, from the Blind River detachment, served for 12 years with the OPP in Blind River and previous to this was with the Elliot Lake Police Force.
I am certain all members join me in sending our deepest sympathy to his wife Sylveste, his two young sons, his extended family, his colleagues, and the communities of Blind River and Elliot Lake as they mourn his loss.

Private Members' Business
An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine)[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (duty to examine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to make that brief statement and will now address Bill C-481 which stands in the name of my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi.
Last summer's flood of the Bow River in southern Alberta was emblematic of the kinds of challenges that we are now facing more often. In addition to urban flooding, we are facing problems with extreme weather events with increasing frequency, and the costs are piling up. We have more intense heat waves and increased drought, especially in western Canada, and forest fires are increasing in number and severity too. Canada is truly feeling the effects of climate change, and the increase in our average annual temperature of 1.3° Celsius over the last 60 years is greater than what is being felt in many parts of the world.
We also know much more about the negative elements of climate change, and that is the price we are paying for the way we have developed modern industrial and post-industrial countries. It is the product of “develop now, pay later” practices.
To a degree that can be an excuse for our actions in the past, when we were not so aware of the effects of human activity on the environment, ecosystem, and weather patterns, but now, with the benefit of scientific observation and analysis, we know better. In fact, now we can view past developments and pinpoint the practices that were not sustainable. With that knowledge, we can also work toward developing our economy in a way that is sustainable and does not merely continue to pass on the negative costs to future generations.
We know that is what most Canadians desire. No one wants to leave a debt behind for their children and grandchildren, but in many ways that is what we are still doing. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you, like most of us who have been elected, have had the privilege of visiting children in elementary schools. I am also certain that very few of us will have heard concerns from these young people about many of the things that we busy ourselves with in Parliament, save for a few select issues.
The leading concern of school-age children from the schools that I visit is indeed the environment, and the concerns of these young Canadians are actually very well founded. True, they learn about the environment and ecosystems in junior grades, and there is quite a bit of awareness messaging aimed at individuals, but they hear about it from the people in their lives as well. We also have to recognize the effect of Earth Day; a lot of schools have activities around Earth Day. It could be as simple as passing by an area that has been bulldozed for development and hearing a parent tell how they caught tadpoles there when they were young, or how a creek that is obviously polluted used to be good for fishing 30 years ago. 
We see a lot of that. Manitoulin Streams is a prime example of rehabilitating the streams in that area. 
The point is that our young people have concerns about the environment that are well founded, and they have expectations of us to act in the best way possible to ensure that degradation stops and their futures are not compromised.
We might consider those high expectations, but it is reasonable to assume that a country as privileged as Canada would expect its legislators to have developed safeguards to ensure that future development is more sustainable and that government initiatives and policies would be guided by those safeguards. It is a reasonable assumption, and the good news is that it is correct: we have the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which was passed unanimously by Parliament during the current government's first term, 
However, there is bad news as well, which is that what we have in place is not performing in the way it was intended to. It is actually toothless.
Fortunately, we are debating a private member's bill that has the potential to increase the strength of the Federal Sustainable Development Act so that it would become a more useful tool, instead of its current status, which is somewhere between a notion and half-hearted practice.
In fact, all Bill C-481 would do is elevate a commitment from the status of an intention to that of a guiding principle. Much of what is needed is already in place. We already have the legislation that would be supercharged by this bill. There is already a process in place that sees the Minister of Justice reviewing any legislation for compatibility with the Charter of Rights. 
What is missing is the political will to include the cost of our environment and ecosystems in our economic considerations. It is the product of looking at our economy as limited to monetary elements, which is wishful thinking at best and seems to be a mindset that is entrenched on the government benches.
Consider the response of the parliamentary secretary to this bill. What is his objection? It is that it would cost too much and would amount to red tape. That is a simplified argument that hides the fact that the people who would pay the most are the ones who are reaping huge and unmitigated profits in the oil and gas sector. That is the primary and almost singular concern of the Conservative government. It is clear from the way the government has entirely dismantled our environmental regulatory system, to that sector's advantage; the way it has muzzled the scientists who might warn of us of any dangers that would flow from unabated development; the way it views environmentalists as radicals; and the way it subsidizes big oil and gas while dismissing the concerns of the majority of Canadians.
Bill C-481 is, as has been stated, a very simple and elegant piece of legislation. It would take advantage of the fact that the Minister of Justice already reviews each piece of legislation to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Charter of Rights. It would merely add the lens of sustainable development to that review. Yes, it would cost money, but it would save money in the long term. However, saving money over generations is not politically attractive, especially for a government and political party that engages in full-time campaigning. For the Conservatives, long-term initiatives and future generations have little to no value.
 We know that the Conservatives are against the companies that would benefit from resource extraction paying for the costs of cleanup and restoration. To do so would apparently grind our economy to a halt. Where is the vision for the day when the oil and gas reserves are depleted? What do they plan for the inevitable moment when the profits stop flowing and all we are left with is a mess to clean up? Do they expect to abandon as dead the regions that have been exploited? 
Those are the choices the Conservatives are happy to leave to our children and their children. That is the cost of maximizing profits now without considering the environment as a huge part of our economy. I am reminded of the Cree prophecy that is absolutely appropriate for this discussion:
  Only after the last tree has been cut down Only after the last river has been poisoned Only after the last fish has been caught Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten  
 As parliamentarians, we are faced with a choice: do what is convenient, or challenge ourselves to roll up our sleeves and begin to plan for a future that is not compromised by inaction. Will we tell the corporate executives and financial institutions that we can no longer pursue temporary prosperity that is mortgaged on the backs of future generations, or will we take the easy route and maintain the status quo?
I have grandchildren, two beautiful boys, Kade and Kian, who deserve a bright future, just like every child in Canada and all future generations. If I were to accept that we cannot afford to pursue true sustainable development, I would be turning my back on them, and I cannot do that. 
I have never been afraid of a little hard work or of paying my fair share. Most people I know feel and act much the same, which is why it is only reasonable to ask the same of our government. Yet the Conservative government and the Liberal government that preceded it have never told corporate Canada that it must also do the hard work. 
I will not question the motives of business. It has one job, and that is to make money. It is the government's responsibility to say what will be allowed in that pursuit. For those who would object to that statement, I ask them to consider our laws that prohibit anyone from going into business to sell narcotics. The same sensibilities that allow us to place the greater good of the public ahead of any entrepreneurial efforts on that front can also, and I would argue must also, be used to frame what the acceptable methods of resource use will be.
While the government may like to argue that this is already the case, that we already have sustainable development legislation and an environmental regulatory framework, it cannot deny that it has moved Canada backwards on that front.
Our regulations are weakened. Reviews are limited by timelines that benefit development and limit the capacity for thorough study. The Federal Sustainable Development Act cannot be a notion only. The intention of the act must be matched with action and have the tools we need to make that happen for our future generations.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, given the contemporary nature of the issue before us, that is, the compliance of statutory instruments with the principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, I think it is essential to highlight the fact that the concept of sustainable development is sometimes ambiguous and flexible.
I will first talk about how proponents of the extractive industry have misappropriated the concept of sustainable development. A decade ago, this concept emerged and became popular in universities and law schools. I remember studying it 11 or 12 years ago. It was promising, even then. I remember doing an assignment on Syncrude. Corporate social responsibility was also part of this concept, and there were many implications.
Since I come from a region where resources are being extracted all over the place, I can say that this concept has been misappropriated as a validation tool. Often, industry players will say that they work in sustainable development, just to give a degree of integrity to their actions or at least to add the appearance of respectability to their operations.
For the record, and to support my analysis, I would like to point out that, under this bill, sustainable development is a principle according to which a policy meets the needs of the present generation without compromising future generations. It is based on three pillars: the environment, society, and, to a lesser degree, the economy.
I did tamper with that a little. The economy was second on the list, but I decided to put it last and add “to a lesser degree”. The factors, then, are the environment, society—because without humans, there is no economy; there is nothing at all—and, to a lesser degree, the economy.
The stated objective of the legislation before us would make sustainable development central to all federal public policies in order to make Canada greener and more prosperous. However, it is essential that we avoid any undue appearance of integrity imparted by extractive industry players' habitual use of the concept.
I said “habitual” because it has become a reflex. People who propose resource extraction initiatives will always try to stick a “sustainable development” label on their proposal. It is practically the norm; we see it all the time.
As for certification bodies—I am thinking back to my own schooling—about 10 years ago, there was the ISO 14001 standard, which had to do with corporate social responsibility, and it always looked really good. I think that ISO standards are still used for certification. A company would display the banner and it looked good. However, there were enforcement measures and checks to make sure that the company displaying the banner met the standards set by the ISO certification body.
We are trying to do something similar in this case with sustainable development. However, as far as I know, there is no body that ensures that a given company or industry is applying the principles of sustainable development to the letter. This is a flexible concept, and it is too often seen as a type of certification. It is sometimes used as a trademark, for example, in the economic action plan.
There are people using the concept of sustainable development as a trademark and a type of certification. That is absolutely disgusting, since the public, environmental groups, as well as environmental and social stakeholders are increasingly wary and skeptical about the use of this concept, which was once noble but has lost its sheen over the years. This concept has become devoid of meaning and has lost a lot of its flexibility and prestige. 
For the purposes of this bill, it is important that the Government of Canada support the principle whereby sustainable development is based on the need to make decisions while taking all environmental, social and, where appropriate, economic factors into account. Once again, I deliberately put the economic aspect last, but I am a little biased. I think Canadians, and my colleagues here, can detect that I am somewhat biased, because the economic aspect predominates all too often in our speeches and in the public policies that are brought forward. The economic aspect often takes precedence over other considerations, which will, in the end, lead to our demise as a nation and as a species. I wanted to point that out. We will not delve too deeply into philosophy this afternoon, but we can see that the economy without human beings and without some return and proper redistribution will lead us to our own demise.
The current Federal Sustainable Development Act is not really effective because of the government's lack of political will. There is currently a law that applies to federally regulated situations. However, given the fact that the economy and development outweigh other social and environmental considerations, we have seen very little interest in that. I even wonder why we still have an office and a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. I submit that to you. However, this is indicative of the rather pronounced tendency of this government to promote economic growth ahead of other considerations that are nevertheless essential. 
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, a position created by the Federal Sustainable Development Act, notes that that the efforts to integrate the sustainable development strategy are incomplete. Our own Commissioner, here in Canada, has informed us that the application of these measures and of the specific principles of sustainable development is not enough. Bill C-481 would address that deficiency. That is why I felt it was imperative that I rise today, especially in view of the reality of my own riding, Manicouagan, where there is extensive natural resource extraction every day.
Bill C-481 would make it possible to strengthen the Federal Sustainable Development Act by ensuring that the House of Commons is advised of whether a bill does or does not comply with the federal sustainable development strategy implemented under the Federal Sustainable Development Act. 
I really like the idea of “the House of Commons is advised”, because until recently, there have been very few notifications to the House of Commons and the general public on environmental issues—anything to do with navigable waters, for example—and any measures and initiatives that have been amended or implemented. I think the same is true today, since environmental assessments have simply been ignored. As a result, no one ends up being notified. That is really reprehensible, given the major impact this can have.
I submit this humbly and I hope you all have a good weekend.
Mylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.
Sustainable development is a key principle whereby a policy meets current needs without compromising those of future generations. It is based on three pillars: the environment, the economy and social issues.
To me, sustainable development is the key to having viable long-term policies. Unfortunately, far too often we have seen the government make ideological decisions that do not take long-term effects into account. These decisions create more problems than they solve. That is why it is necessary to put in safeguards to ensure that the development guidelines are respected by all governments.
The bill introduced by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi targets this need perfectly and broadens an existing verification process to include sustainable development. Indeed, the Minister of Justice already has the responsibility for ensuring that bills are compatible with existing legislation.
What we are proposing is to simply add the Federal Sustainable Development Act to those verifications. It is true that federal legislation on sustainable development already exists. Unfortunately, it serves more as a suggestion or a smokescreen, as the Conservatives gleefully work around it.
When a Conservative government tables a budget over 400 pages long that has neither a single tangible environmental protection measure, nor even a mention of climate change, which is supposedly a priority for Canadians, we should not be surprised when it fails to respect the principles of sustainable development.
The basic principles of this act are the foundation of good sustainable policies. I will now read these basic principles. 
 The Government of Canada accepts the basic principle that sustainable development is based on an ecologically efficient use of natural, social and economic resources and acknowledges the need to integrate environmental, economic and social factors in the making of all decisions by government. 
However, the Conservative government does not seem to accept this principle of sustainable development at all. As the opposition leader has so rightly said on many occasions, “The Conservatives...are going to pass on to future generations the worst economic, social and ecological debt in our country's history”.
There was nothing in the Speech from the Throne about sustainable development. There was nothing in this week's budget about sustainable development. The budget did not even mention climate change.
For years, the NDP has been telling the Conservatives that its headlong rush to develop Canada's resources without legislation to provide adequate protection of lands and waterways will have a major economic cost in the long term. 
Acting in this way is just as irresponsible as buying a house and not insuring it. The Conservatives continue to eliminate environmental protections without even thinking of the consequences, and Canadian and Quebec families will have to bear the economic costs of these decisions and live with the consequences to their health if a problem arises.
The Conservatives insist on developing resources first and reacting to the consequences afterwards. That is very irresponsible. The Conservatives are pushing Canada beyond the point of no return. 
The purpose of Bill C-481 is to remind the government that Canadians want sustainable development to be part of their MPs' decision-making process.
Take, for example, the RCM of Argenteuil, in my riding, which is working hard at sustainable development and supports my colleague's bill. The RCM's warden, André Jetté, wrote to me and said:
 We studied the bill and we are in complete agreement with its content. Quebec has a similar strategy, which is set out in the Sustainable Development Act. 
 As for the RCM of Argenteuil, it should be noted that the 2013-17 strategic plan adopted in 2012 was based on the principles of sustainable development (see attached). One of the governance strategies is to “make decisions in a context of sustainable development”. To that end, the action plan provides for “developing a sustainable development policy for the RCM and the LDC and, by extension, the nine local municipalities”. 
I am proud to represent the RCM of Argenteuil, and I am very proud of its sustainable development measures.
Now is the time for the Government of Canada to honour its commitments and laws and show some real leadership when it comes to responsible management for future generations.
Bill C-481 is part of the NDP's ongoing commitment to environmental issues. As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I am proud to play a role in these efforts. The entire NDP team has to fight to ensure that this important issue gets the recognition it deserves, as the Conservatives unfortunately keep trying to sweep it under the rug.
The committee has started a study on water quality in the Great Lakes Basin. This is an important issue that must be examined in connection with major environmental issues. 
Yesterday, my colleague, the member for Drummond, moved a motion to include climate change, water levels, temperature and ecology in this study.
Unfortunately, the committee will not expand the study. The NDP will continue to pressure the Conservatives on this committee to focus on the issues of sustainable development and climate change.
I am also working hard on environmental protection, particularly with Motion No. 400, entitled “Protecting Waterways and Public Health”. 
This motion asked the government to study the possibility of providing financial support to the owners of homes not connected to an adequate waste water treatment system and to bring up to standard their septic systems, in order to protect waterways, the water table and public health. 
Individuals, municipalities, organizations, such as the FCM, and members of Parliament from coast to coast acknowledged the importance of such a motion and supported it. They realized that in the long term we can reduce water contamination and cleanup costs. 
Unfortunately, the motion was defeated by the Conservatives in March 2013. Their inaction has a devastating impact on our lakes, rivers and the vitality of our communities that are dealing with this issue. Nonetheless, I continue to work to ensure that the government addresses this matter, which is very important for our regions.
Worse still, the Conservatives are not just failing to act to protect the environment. They are also tearing apart the protections that are already in place. Like all the NDP members, I continue to fight against the Conservatives' omnibus bills that are sabotaging the environmental protections of practically all bodies of water in Canada.
For example, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act will leave 1,000 lakes and rivers in my riding unprotected. This is just the tip of the iceberg in the daily fight against the Conservatives' backward concept of the environment as a pool of resources to be developed, not the ecosystems we are a part of.
I believe that we and our Parliament have a role to play in helping to create sustainable prosperity. This bill would make sustainable development central to all federal public policies, thereby making Canada greener and more prosperous.
This is just one of the meaningful and innovative proposals for sustainable development that the NDP will continue to support as a basic principle.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who spoke to my bill, and I thank in advance all those who will vote for it.
Bill C-481 is certainly a modest bill, but it represents an important step in putting sustainable development at the heart of the debates in the House of Commons.
Years ago I realized there was an urgent need for action on the environment. A growing number of Canadians are realizing it as well. The need to develop sustainable development policies has become a political imperative. Even our colleagues opposite are beginning to admit that we must take action. 
In that regard, allow me to quote the Conservative member for Kitchener—Waterloo, who, on January 6, said the following on CBC Radio:
 We are seeing the effects, the impacts of climate change. With climate change comes extreme weather events. We saw that through the floods in southern Alberta, we’re now seeing that with the ice storms in Kitchener—Waterloo and Toronto. 
Those are words of wisdom that point to the urgent need to take action.
In Quebec alone, the compensation paid by insurance companies as a result of storms and flooding has increased by 25% since 2001. Inaction is getting expensive, but despite the evidence, there are no measures in the most recent budget to address climate change.
However, the Conservatives unanimously voted to bring in federal sustainable development legislation that would ensure that all departments work together to make Canada a leader in this area.
My Bill C-481 would amend this law, which was passed unanimously by the Conservative members who are still sitting here today and who will soon vote on my bill. Bill C-481 seeks to ensure that all future acts and regulations comply with the principles of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. However, the Conservative members told me that there are already regulations in place that do the same thing as Bill C-481.
When I asked the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development about it, he replied that nothing similar to this bill already exists. There is no clear requirement that any proposed legislation must undergo a strategic environmental assessment. As for regulatory impact analysis, it applies only to regulations, not bills.
Many others ask me whether the Minister of Justice has the authority to verify whether a bill is consistent with the Federal Sustainable Development Act. The Department of Justice is already obliged to review all the bills and regulations that are submitted. Bill C-481 simply links this process with what has already been created by the Federal Sustainable Development Act.
As usual, the departments will provide the Minister of Justice the information he needs for making a decision. If he is missing information, he just has to pick up the phone and consult the great experts that our government has hired in the past, such as the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
In closing, my bill seeks to remind us that Canadians want sustainable development to be included in the decision-making of their elected representatives. Including sustainable development at the heart of all federal policies is the best way to make Canada more green and more prosperous. This is urgent and I will say it again. We only have one Earth and we must protect it. Pollution knows no boundaries.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen:  
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 26, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. 
Before we adjourn the House, we all recognize that this special day arrives each February, when we have the occasion to express our love and affection to those in our lives to whom we owe so much, and to those who have touched our hearts in such a meaningful way. On behalf of all the members of the speakership, I hope that all hon. members and our wonderful team that supports us so well here on Parliament Hill have the occasion to express their St. Valentine's Day wishes later this day, if they have not done so already.
I wish all hon. members a very safe and productive week as the House of Commons is in recess.
It being 1:45 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 24, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:46 p.m.)