2014-05-02

Government Orders
First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-33, an act to establish a framework to enable first nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other acts. 
In speaking to this bill, it is incumbent upon everyone to remember Shannen's Dream. I feel the emotion coming. Anybody in this place who has had the opportunity to meet with the family of Shannen Koostachin from Attawapiskat and experience the incredible energy and drive of the children from her community who have continued her campaign cannot help but feel a little emotional in discussing this legislation.
Those in the House are aware of Shannen's campaign. Shannen campaigned for every aboriginal child to have equal access to quality education in this country. It was a pretty reasonable campaign. Sadly, Shannen was killed in an accident driving from her community to high school, because she could not receive quality education in her own community.
Quotes from Shannen during her campaign that have led schoolchildren across this country for years toward the provision of funding and guarantees and the ability of first nations to deliver their own programs include these: She campaigned to “Help end the underfunding of First Nations Schools”, and, “School should be a time for dreams. Every kid deserves this”.
I have to share with members that when I had the privilege of being the aboriginal affairs critic for the NDP, I had the honour of receiving a cardboard schoolhouse made by elementary school children in this province. It was filled with letters they had written to the Prime Minister begging him to extend equal opportunities for quality education to aboriginal children so that they would have the same privileges as all other children in Canada. We actually managed to get approval and we delivered it to the Prime Minister's Office. It was an incredible moment in time. Since then, I have had the opportunity, with my colleagues, to attend many of the occasions when Canadian children have spoken out on behalf of extending equal rights to aboriginal children.
We have also often heard the statement by the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. It is a very sad commentary on the long-standing state of education for aboriginal children. It is that more aboriginal children are incarcerated than graduate from high school.
In speaking to Bill C-33, it is important at the outset to set the stage for assessing this bill and whether it respects critical overriding rights and responsibilities. I will be concentrating my comments on Bill C-33 on two factors. First is the extent to which the government has met its legal and constitutional duty to consult. Second are comments made by Alberta first nations that they shared with me and that they requested I share with this place.
I will concentrate my comments of first nations' overriding right to establish and deliver their own education programs, within their cultural and language traditions, for their children and their communities and to determine if those rights and opportunities have been accorded. My colleagues in the official opposition and I hold firm with the position that we must uphold the Constitution and international obligations and commitments as well as our personal commitment to first nations that we will respect their right to assert self-government and to plan and deliver their own education program for their own families.
It is our duty in this place, all of us who are duly elected, to ensure that aboriginal peoples have access to education, can determine their own education systems, and can practise their traditional and cultural beliefs. Those rights, and our obligations, are specified, as I mentioned, in a number of international conventions and UN treaties. For example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child states, in article 28:
 States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular: 
 (a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all... 
Article 29 states:
 1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to: ...(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own; 
We on this side of the House were delighted when the government finally came around and agreed to assent to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, in so doing, what has the government committed to undertake?
Article 14 states:
 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. 
 2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination. 
 3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language. 
Article 15 states:
 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information. 
Articles 18 and 19 speak to the duty of the government and the right of aboriginal peoples to government their own matters.
Article 18 states:
 Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures... 
Article 19 states:
 States shall consult and cooperate in good faith...in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. 
It is pretty clear what the obligations of the government are, what commitments it has undertaken, and what the associated rights and opportunities are for first nations. Included among those is the duty of the federal government to consult and accommodate aboriginal people's views, perspectives, and interests. 
In implementing the support of first nations education, the federal government has an overriding duty to advance consultation and to accommodate aboriginal rights and titles. This is required under the Canadian Constitution and under provisions of the historic and modern treaties. That duty applies to any federal policy, law, or regulation-making process that may potentially or directly impact the rights and titles of first nation peoples. 
The matter to consider is this: do the substantive measures set forth in Bill C-33 actually deliver on the rights, principles, and duties ascribed to in the preamble of the act?
Well, what does the preamble hold out? I think it is very important for us to consider it and not just the substantive provisions. A preamble sets forth, to those who are affected by the law, exactly what the legislation intends to do. It states the intent. 
It is noteworthy that the government, right at the outset, notes the failings in the establishment and running of the residential schools and the need to seek partnerships with first nations in the spirit of reconciliation.
I might share here that I had the privilege several times of participating in the truth and reconciliation proceedings. At the national conclusion assembly in Edmonton a few months back, I was struck very personally by the fact that in a residential school on the edge of my city, children from as far away as the Queen Charlotte Islands were transported by train and held in that school with no contact with their friends or families for up to a year and longer. That was while I was attending elementary school. 
To hear first-hand of the abuses that went on has made me all the more dedicated to making sure that their rights are respected.
I will mention some of the provisions in the preamble. In doing so, I highly recommend to all the members of this place that it is absolutely critical that they carefully read this preamble. This is what the government is holding out that it is about to deliver on behalf of the first nations people of Canada.
For example:
 Whereas First Nations education systems should be designed and implemented in accordance with the principle that First Nations have control of their children’s education; 
 Whereas First Nations must receive support that enables them to exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities relating to the elementary and secondary education provided to their children; 
 Whereas First Nations children attending schools on reserves must have access to education that is founded on First Nations history, culture and traditional values and enables them to participate fully in the social, economic, political and educational advancement of First Nations; 
On it goes, making a variety of undertakings.
An equally important one is:
 Whereas First Nations education systems must receive adequate, stable, predictable and sustainable funding that provides for the teaching of First Nations languages and cultures as well as for education support services; 
 Whereas elementary and secondary education is an essential part of lifelong learning; 
Continuing my presentation, I will make reference to those specific undertakings by the government.
As I mentioned, I feel that in speaking to the bill, it not be my personal opinion; I am obligated to reach out to first nations to find out their views, both about the process of developing this legislation and about what actually would be delivered under this legislation. I have continued to dialogue with first nations in Alberta particularly as well as with those across the country, in co-operation with my colleagues.
I spoke only yesterday with Alberta regional chief Cameron Alexis and also with chiefs from Treaty 8, and I have reviewed materials they have prepared and letters they have submitted to the Government of Canada.
What views have they expressed about respect for first nations' determination of the education system, whether adequate funding is provided, and whether we are finally enabling their education system to incorporate first nation language, culture, and traditions?
I was advised by regional chief Alexis that he was directly in the process of continuing to consult Treaty 6, 7, and 8 first nations, who are still going through the process of trying to understand and review the bill for many of the chiefs in isolated communities and their community members. It is an extremely complex process. They are struggling to comprehend the implications of the provisions and whether they actual address their priorities.
What are the issues they have raised? The top issue, which has been raised by my colleagues in the House, is the lack of adequate consultation in the very drafting of the bill. This is coming from first nations themselves. It is not a determination I have made. 
Chief Alexis shared that their remains considerable contention over whether the government has fully addressed the long-standing issue of first nations' access to quality education. First and foremost, he expressed strong concern that the first nations themselves were not accorded adequate opportunity for consultation and necessary accommodation, as is the duty of the crown.
Chief Alexis stated that the consultations were held only in major centres. I heard this a year back when I met with a number of the chiefs and councils. They are concerned that no consultations were held in any of the first nation communities themselves, with their membership, particularly in isolated communities.
Many first nations are still struggling with comprehending the bill. In many cases, there has been a change in leadership and council, and they feel responsible for ensuring that this legislation actually represents the rights and title of their members.
Regional chief Alexis is requesting that Bill C-33 not be tabled until after the summer break to provide a more reasonable time period for the individual first nation leaders to consult their communities on the provisions of the bill. He has already requested that Parliament take the bill out to the communities for consultation. I anticipate that the minister and the government will be hearing this message from the individual chiefs.
What have some of the individual chiefs said about this legislation? Grand Chief Kappo of Treaty 8 has stated:
 We are looking for something that is developed in the true spirit of co-operation and co-development, we are willing to work with the Minister on anything that will be developed, from the ground up, into a system that will help our children meet our educational goals. The old way of including First Nations input as a footnote to the process hasn't been successful in the past and won't work moving into the future. 
That statement was issued April 16 of this year, so clearly they are still very dissatisfied with the consultation process. 
What are some of the substantive concerns that have been identified to date by the regional chief and the individual chiefs and councils from Treaties 6, 7, and 8? One of the critical concerns is around the transfer of governance. A key demand of these first nations, and all first nations, has been to gain back control of their educational programs from the federal government. There are substantial concerns expressed by the regional chief, the grand chief, and the individual chiefs, including Chief Rose Laboucan, who is the Treaty 8 chief responsible for education. They are concerned that the minister still retains substantial control. 
I would like to share some of their comments. Chief Rose Laboucan has stated: 
 We already have a process in the works in Alberta and it has been in place for some time. Now that we have heard this announcement, we are wondering what this is going to mean for our children. It sounds promising but we hope that it is not another historic broken promise. Treaty 8 nations in Alberta have been working on a grassroots education process for years already. 
Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta say that, “One of the concerns was to have First Nations control over First Nations Education”. On the matter of controlling their own system, Grand Chief Kappo said:
 They have definitely changed the name [of the act] but the core of it remains the same as before. Ultimate authority to dissolve, change or transfer any entity that handles First Nation education still resides with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. 
He goes on to say, “While an oversight board has been created, they simply advise the Minister, he is still able to unilaterally do anything he wants in any given on-reserve school”.
Those are concerns of the first nations themselves. 
I heard similar concerns from the regional chief regarding the joint council for education. The concern is that there is absolutely no assurance of who would be appointed to this advisory body, the power to appoint rests singularly with the minister and cabinet and there is absolutely no requirement that there be any first nations representatives sitting on the council. 
The second concern goes to the issue of transfer of liability. The regional chief has expressed very strongly to me a deep concern that, similar to the Safe Drinking Water Act that was recently enacted, Bill C-33 transfers liability to first nations to deliver quality education programs and provide safe schools, absent any guarantees of future funding support from the federal government that has that mandate and responsibility to be financing those quality schools. He added that, while the bill mentions comparable programs, there is no specified criteria on how to determine that. 
Third, there is great concern expressed by Treaties 6, 7, and 8 on the delay in the funding increases. The substantially less funding support for first nations education compared to provinces and territories has been long-standing and reprehensible. The government has promised increased funding, but on what basis is this figure calculated? Does the increase adequately consider and factor in the rapid increase in aboriginal population and the commitment in the preamble to lifelong learning, where first nations adults wish to go back to school and continue their education, or address the potential for the return of first nations members to their community to finish their education? What is the timeline for ensuring all first nations children would have access to quality education in safe schools and are accorded equal opportunity?
The Alberta first nations are raising a reasonable concern. They are asking why the increase in funding is being delayed until 2016, in other words, until after the next election. They stated additional annual funding is needed now. Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta say that, “Another outstanding concern is around statutory funding and funding to support Indigenous languages and cultures. However, the act, only states the portion of funding First Nations would already be receiving must go towards language and culture”. 
I will close with a quote from Grand Chief Kappo. He stated:
 It's not new support. We are getting the same amount of funding, still lower than our provincial counterparts, and all they have done is added a section to the act that says we have to spend part of that same funding to teach language and culture. They have just painted an old car a new colour. 

Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I am listening this morning I am reminded that some of us are far more aware than others in this country of the havoc that the policies of the New Democrats continually wreak when they get a chance to implement them. Once again this morning we hear them being completely out of reality. I would argue that they are once again demonstrating that they do not have the capacity to govern responsibly.
On Wednesday, their aboriginal critic stated that they are opposing this bill. This is a bill that is aimed at lifting on-reserve high school graduation rates, which are less than half of those in the rest of Canada. Certainly, any reasonable Canadian cannot possibly agree that the status quo is acceptable or sustainable. I do not think we can do that.
Our government has brought forward a bill that would finally address this issue. It would give first nations control over their education, and it addresses the five conditions that the chiefs laid out in their special assembly in Vancouver, yet every step of the way the NDP members have chosen to oppose this bill.
I want to ask the opposition this. Why do they continue to support the status quo? How will they explain that to this next generation of first nations students who are trying to get through school?
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble whatsoever standing by the comments that I have shared with the House today. It is my first and foremost obligation to represent the perspectives of the first nations peoples. I am obligated to do that by the Constitution. I am obligated to do that in keeping with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Perhaps the members on the other side do not feel that they actually have to comply with international obligations that they sign on to.
I have simply shared with the House today what the first nations leaders in my jurisdiction are saying. The members on the other side can either respect that perspective or choose to ignore that perspective. I am simply conveying it. I am being a voice for them until the time that they can fill more of the seats in this place, which is my personal desire.
I feel I am taking a very responsible position. The first nations have an absolute right to be consulted in advance and accommodated in how the system of education will be delivered. The government has held out in its preamble that it will do that. Regrettably, it is looking like the substantive provisions are not delivering on the preamble.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my friend from Edmonton for her comments. I think she based them both on her personal experience and the experience of this country in connecting the travesty and the tragedy of what happened with residential schools when governments acted unilaterally, imposing their will on first nations people and saying that they knew what was best for them.
We know that path has led us to great harm that has lasted generations. It is a shame upon this country. The Prime Minister did the right thing in offering the apology, but within weeks cancelled the aboriginal healing foundation program, which was established to help people deal with the effects of residential schools. Therefore, one could understand why first nations people in this country feel a certain amount of cynicism or dread when they see the Conservative government come up with a first nations act and say, “Trust us. This one is good for you. We know best.”
To the member's point about what is happening on the ground in terms of where the solutions lie, because they do not lie here in Ottawa, not with the minister and certainly not with the government, the solutions to the challenges faced by first nations people in Canada rest with first nations people in Canada, and those educators who are out there with minimal resources doing a remarkable job and in some places a job that has been noted by many groups.
I will ask my friend this question. The C.D. Howe Institute, not generally known for progressive analysis, had noted in its research on British Columbia that the programs that had been established in coordination with the B.C. government with first nations people had been producing results and were in the process of dramatically increasing those graduation rates and those success rates. The first nations education steering committee in B.C. just had the rug completely pulled out from under it by the government. All the funding is gone, all the work is gone, all the progress is gone.
I ask my friend from Edmonton what, from her experience, and that of the first nations people who she has spoken to, the chiefs and educators, the sentiment is like on the ground for those who have worked so hard to achieve results under difficult circumstances when they now look at this act and the way that this act is being brought in by the government, and the details in there, the unilateral control and power that rests with the minister, who has made himself the minister of first nations education that the panel established but without any true, joint consultative process? I am wondering what message she believes is being sent to first nations people and to first nations educators across this country when they look at this act, despite all the efforts they have been doing on behalf of the entire country.
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, that is a very complicated question and I would love to have the opportunity to elaborate. That is exactly what we are supposed to be doing in this place. It is regrettable that the government has already cut down the opportunity for debate. I am hoping the government will actually deliver on the request by first nations that the bill be taken out to the communities so they can actually give their direct feedback, particularly the members of those communities. 
It is really important to keep in mind that when the government is holding out that it would be providing equivalent education opportunities for first nations children and families, we are not at the same, equivalent starting place. As Chief Laboucan points out, “our children need better learning environments and quality lessons...Classrooms in furnace rooms and basements are appalling and unacceptable for anyone's children. Our teachers' salaries are below the Canadian average. There have been many inequities going on for years”.
While the government says it will give a greater supplement, I think 4.5% over time, that may well not be enough. The question they are asking is, how is that calculated? Is that considering the rising aboriginal population, the high percentage of youth, and how much money it will take to rebuild and provide safe schools, equivalent teaching and so forth?
It is a big task, but the first nations should have a direct voice.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to build on what my colleague from Edmonton has said. I have the honour of representing a constituency where 33 first nations all share major concerns when it comes to education funding.
Yesterday, I had the chance to rise in this House and talk about a school that does not have a fire alarm system. There are schools that have 69 students in a classroom, schools that have mould in them, schools that have portables that in -40° weather, freeze, and the students are cold.
The member talked about underpaid teachers and the lack of resources. There is a lack of books, a lack of paper, and a lack of pens. There is a clear indication that first nations students, because they are first nations, have unequal education in this country. 
 I would ask the member if she could comment. Why are the Conservatives not acting, fixing these schools, and dealing with the resources right away? Why did they not do that last year? Why did they not do that when they became government a number of years ago? Why these empty promises and, worst of all, this paternalistic approach that the minister knows best? Why did they not act earlier and why are they not listening to first nations in taking that action now? 
[Interjection]
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Churchill has been a long-standing representative for these first nations since she was elected, and I commend her for that.
Indeed, as I mentioned, we are starting at a different place for first nations in the education system. It is not simply a case of, “We are going to give them supplemental funding so they can build up their library, they can buy equipment for their labs”. They do not have labs. They do not have libraries. In most cases, their schools are mould-ridden. I have been to those schools. It is a travesty.
The question is, what is the real amount of funding that is necessary, and why are we waiting until 2016? This is a false promise. There is no guarantee that the government of today will be the government of tomorrow. It is absolutely critical that the funding come forward now. We should not be reducing the deficit on the backs of aboriginal children.
Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-33, first nations control of first nations education act. I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.
My hon. colleagues have spoken at length about the many important facets of this landmark legislation. These are facets, I would like to remind the House, that ensure that the control of first nations education is placed squarely in the hands of first nations.
I would like to confine my remarks today to how this bill addresses the five conditions for success as set out by the Assembly of First Nations, in December of last year.
As members may recall, this past winter, as part of the extensive consultation process that preceded this bill's introduction, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development released an early draft of the legislation. The purpose of this was to engage first nations and solicit their feedback.
 In response, the AFN released an open letter that outlined five conditions they felt were essential to the success of any piece of legislation that reforms first nations education. I am proud to say that our government has accommodated each of these five conditions listed.
The first of these conditions was on respect and recognition of inherent rights and title, treaty rights, and first nation control of first nation education. To begin with, Bill C-33 explicitly meets this condition in the wording of the preamble of the bill. Furthermore, the text of the bill legally enables first nations control of first nations education in several specific ways. 
First nations can choose their governance options, develop their own curricula, decide how they will incorporate language and culture into the curricula, choose their own education inspectors, control the hiring and firing of teachers, determine how their students will be assessed, and determine how the school calendar will be structured to meet a set number of days.
With respect to governance options, first nations can choose to continue to operate their schools directly, enter into a service delivery arrangement with a third party such as provincial governments, or they can choose to aggregate into a first nations education authority that would operate multiple schools.
These governance models are designed to respect existing education systems that have been built by first nations communities, which would be supported by, and funded under, Bill C-33. If they choose, first nations can also opt to pursue self-government arrangements in which they take on full jurisdiction over education.
It is important to remember that first nations who already have self-government agreements that cover education would be exempt from this bill and would be able to continue to educate their children exactly as they have in the past.
The second condition of success was the statutory guarantee of funding. Bill C-33 includes extensive and unprecedented statutory funding obligations on the part of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. In fact, subclauses 43(2) and 43(3) exceed the second condition set out by the Assembly of First Nations, by not only setting statutory guarantee of funding, but by taking the steps of legally requiring that federal funding be sufficient to support reasonably comparable service delivery to that offered in the provincial system.
In addition, the statutory funding is subject to a 4.5% escalator, which will replace and remove the 2% funding cap that the Liberal government placed on first nations spending. This will ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable funding for years to come.
The third of five conditions is funding to support first nations education systems that are grounded in indigenous languages and culture. Clause 43 speaks explicitly to funding for first nation language and culture instruction, as follows: 
 43(4) The amounts payable under subsection (1) must include an amount to support the study of a First Nation language or culture as part of an education program. 
Meanwhile, other clauses ensure the option of incorporating first nation language and culture programming in the education curriculum. This includes immersion in a first nation language in a manner that ensures transferability of students between education systems and allows the students to obtain a recognized high school diploma.
As we can see, Bill C-33 sets out legislative supports and protections founded in the recognition that a culturally relevant learning environment is key to the success of first nation students and also key to achieving reconciliation more broadly. 
The fourth condition stipulates mechanisms to ensure reciprocal accountability and no unilateral federal oversight or authority. Bill C-33 makes it clear that the powers of the minister with regard to the administration of first nation education are measures of last resort and can only be carried out with advice of the independent joint council of education professionals. It is important to note that these powers are more limited than those that lie with the provincial ministers of education. 
Once Bill C-33 is passed, the minister will have significantly less authority over first nation education than he does today. The bill states that the oversight role of the joint council is to advise both the first nations and the minister on the implementation of the governance systems, which first nations will choose for themselves. It would also ensure that first nations' views and concerns are taken into account in the implementation of the legislation, by requiring that half of the joint council be comprised of representatives nominated by first nations. The joint council of education professionals would also serve as the body supporting the co-operative development of regulations and would be responsible for consulting with first nations on the development of regulations and providing this input to the minister as part of its advisory role. 
Once the bill is passed, if a school is in compliance with the legislation and a first nation wants to continue to operate the school, it would be illegal for the minister to withhold funding for the operation of that school. In the event that a school has difficulty complying with the act, the legislation establishes a process through which the challenges can be addressed. Again, it would be illegal for the minister to withhold funding, and the process for addressing the challenges would likely include the assistance of a temporary administrator appointed only at the advice of the joint council. In the current context, the minister may withhold funding without seeking any additional advice whenever a first nation is in default under their funding agreement.
The fifth and final condition for success is ongoing meaningful dialogue and co-development of options. The mutual accountability structures included in Bill C-33 serve the role of entrenching the requirement for ongoing dialogue, not only between the federal government and first nations, but between all parties involved in the administration of education on reserve. First nations and the government will continue to work together to develop and confirm an enabling framework in law for the success of first nations schools and students. This includes collaborative development of mechanisms and regulations moving forward. 
I am very pleased with the direct manner in which Bill C-33 responds to conditions of success, as expressed by first nations themselves through the Assembly of First Nations. This is legislation that has long been lacking and its time has come. I encourage all honourable members to support Bill C-33.
Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has suggested that this bill in fact gives control of education to the first nations, but I would like to read from the bill, which states:
 Subject to the regulations, the council of a First Nation is to offer English or French as the language of instruction and may, in addition, offer a First Nation language as a language of instruction. 
The community of Six Nations actually runs schools in Mohawk and Cayuga, not in English, so it would appear that its decision to do this would be made illegal by this bill and the first nations would not be in control of its own education. Would he like to confirm or deny whether that is the truth?
[Interjection]
John Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, Grand Chief Shawn Atleo, of the Assembly of First Nations said: 
 What we are hearing the government commit to is a new way forward that we jointly design an approach to education that we have First Nations control and sustainable funding that has to be anchored in legislation. 
This bill is about the children of first nations. It is about providing an education system that will give them a future and the ability to compete in an open job market, a labour market, as they choose. The control of this bill rests in first nations.
Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what was said about the obligation to consult, which is part of Canada's constitutional law. It is the rule of law in our country. We need to fulfill the constitutional obligation to consult first nations about any and all legislative measures that are being considered. That is the case with this bill.
What does the member have to say to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, for example, which is saying that it was not consulted and that, as a result, the government should reject this bill? What does he have to say to the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, which has taken this government to court because it was not consulted? What would he say to those groups?
[Interjection]
John Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate on this bill for the last day and a half, and clearly consultation has been the primary issue of debate and discussion. The introduction of the first nations control of first nations education act follows years of discussion, dialogue, and studies, reflecting the efforts of many people in first nations and in government to arrive at this point. All first nations were presented with numerous means of engaging in the consultation process.
 For example, in 2011, the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations launched a national panel on first nations elementary and secondary school education, which recommended a first nations education act in its final report. In December 2012, the Government of Canada launched a consultation process that released a discussion guide to help support open and meaningful consultation activities on the government's proposed legislative approach. Between December and May of 2012 and 2013, the Government of Canada held face-to-face regional consultation sessions, video conference and teleconference sessions, and online consultation activities, including an online survey. 
The government has provided, through the minister, online and all other forms of consultation that would allow lots of input, lots of opportunity for every first nations member to provide their to input into this.
 To refer back to my earlier comment, it is about the children. We need to go beyond this discussion today and deliver a bill for the children that will ensure their appropriate education.
Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-33, first nations control of first nations education act. 
I had an opportunity to travel to the Kainai First Nation in February. One morning there was an absolutely magnificent sunrise on the trip from Calgary to Kainai. It was so apt, because this really is a new dawn for our first nations. This is an historic agreement. It has been 41 years that they have been waiting for control over first nations education, and this is a bill that all opposition members should be fully behind. This changes the trajectory for our first nations people in giving them control over their own education. It really is a huge accomplishment. We on the government side of the House recognize the inherent value of working together with our first nations to achieve this kind of a breakthrough in first nations education. 
The NDP in particular continues to perpetuate myths and distort the bill. I would like to take the opportunity today to set the record straight. I feel very passionately about this because I spoke to the leaders in education, people like Chief Charlie Weasel Head, who really believe that this is going to change the future for them.
I would like to examine each of these myths one by one. 
Some are saying that first nations do not need the government to tell them how to educate their children and if the government would just give them funding without strings attached, first nations would be better off. In fact, as it stands now, first nation students are the only students in this entire country who do not benefit from minimum legislated standards for such things as teacher qualifications or attendance requirements. The result is that kids from these reserves have diplomas from first nation schools that are not recognized by post-secondary institutions.
Do the NDP and Liberals really want that? Do we want those kids to finish their schooling thinking that they can get into post-secondary institutions and then be denied that opportunity? No, we do not want that. 
The bill, in consultation with our first nations, proposes five basic minimum standards that would ensure our first nation kids would have access to the same high-quality education as kids from the rest of the country. As well, it would allow for flexibility to incorporate first nations language and culture. Those are two things that are really key in the bill, including first nations language immersion.
Another misconception being spread about the bill is that it would not actually give first nations control over their education systems. Well, Chief Charlie Weasel Head, National Chief Shawn Atleo, the educators I spoke to, and the many other leaders who were there for that announcement on that day entirely disagree.
It has been claimed that the minister would have the ability to appoint temporary administrators to take back control of first nations education because the joint committee would also be appointed by the minister. Let me set the record straight on that too. The goal of the bill is to improve outcomes for first nation students on reserve, and both first nations and the government agree that this is best achieved through first nations control over education.
To this end, the bill has been structured to, one, allow first nations to choose their own governance model; two, develop and deliver their own curriculum; three, choose how they are going to incorporate language and culture if they wish to do so; four, choose their own inspectors; five, control the hiring and firing of their teachers; and six, determine how their students are going to be assessed and how the school calendar will be structured to meet a set number of days.
The joint council of education professionals would have five to nine members, all of whom would have to have knowledge of and/or experience in elementary or secondary education. Four of them would be nominated by the AFN, based on their own selection process. These are people who are very skilled in education. They have a strong track record and they want to mentor their own people to be able to deliver this kind of quality education.
The chair of the committee would be recommended by the minister in consultation with the Assembly of First Nations, and, further, the legislation would ensure that the minister must consult with the joint council on matters related to the creation of first nation education authorities, appointing temporary administrators, and creation of regulations. 
This shows an unprecedented level of both trust and respect for the idea that first nations people will know how to deliver education that is going to meet the future needs of their first nations kids.
Another erroneous myth surrounds money. The NDP claims that the core funding is not enough. It says that $1.2 billion over three years does not go far enough and that the new funding supports have to begin immediately. 
It does not surprise me that the NDP is mistaken again. The bill would establish a statutory funding obligation on the part of the minister not only to fund education but also to do this in a way that allows for quality services that are reasonably comparable to those off-reserve services in the provincial system, and that is key.
Economic action plan 2014 confirmed the new investments of $1.252 billion in core funding beginning in 2016, in addition to the $1.55 billion that we already spend on first nations education every year. These are big numbers, and they need to be there because education is so important.
We removed the 2% cap that was put in place by the Liberals and we replaced it with a 4.5% escalator that is going to ensure the sustainability of this funding. It is estimated that over the next five years we are going to spend $9.2 billion in core funding alone for first nations education. Our Conservative government has committed all along to the principle of investing in these reforms.
It is worth noting that the NDP voted against this much needed funding, which was included in economic action plan 2014. What else is new? 
Members from the NDP also took issue with infrastructure investments, in one case even claiming that the government should be spending upward of $50 million per school in over 600 communities. We do believe that investments are needed in infrastructure, but we do not want all the money that should be spent on the education of these kids, our kids, on these reserves going into bricks and mortar. We have to do that efficiently and make sure that, yes, our first nations students have safe and proper facilities in which to learn, but, more importantly, that they also have funding for the teachers and the programming that are going to help them succeed in the future. 
We will use $500 million to support new school projects and renovations to existing school infrastructure across the country in a way that ensures healthy, quality, safe environments for first nations students.
Another common refrain that we hear is that Bill C-33 is simply a cosmetic change from the draft legislative proposal released in November. Our first nations leaders certainly do not believe that. I would like to point out that the five conditions for success were set out in a resolution by the Assembly of First Nations at its Special Chiefs Assembly in December. Our Conservative government worked collaboratively to respond to these conditions in the first nations control of first nations education act. These conditions are now going to be entrenched in law.
This is truly amazing. This is one of the moments that all Canadians should be celebrating as absolutely historic.
We will establish, in legislation, control by first nations of their own elementary and secondary school systems, recognizing first nations treaty rights and respecting their inherent right to self-government. We will create an independent joint council of education professionals with a robust oversight role to ensure that ministerial powers are only used as a last resort. It would ensure in law the ability to incorporate first nations language and culture programming into the education curriculum, including immersion. It would establish in law, for the first time in history, a statutory funding obligation on the part of the minister for education on the reserves. It would establish in law the requirement for ongoing, meaningful engagement on first nations education by the Government of Canada, supported by the joint council.
Anyone who suggests that Bill C-33 did not take into account the input of first nations is simply wrong. I hope that I was able to reassure the House that the misconceptions being perpetuated by the NDP hold no water.
I call on all members to support this bill, including the NDP and the Liberals, who have been strangely silent on this bill despite the fact their own government proposed something very similar just before it fell in 2005. They have been silent on this bill. I call on all of them to support this bill. 
As Shawn Atleo said:
 This work is simply too important to walk away and abandon our students to the next round of discussions.... 
It is time to act. It is time to pass this historic legislation and give our kids on first nations reserves the education they deserve and first nations the ability to control that education.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by the hon. member for Calgary Centre and I have two questions for her.
First, in formulating her comments on Bill C-33, did she directly consult with the regional chief for Alberta? Did she consult with the grand chiefs from Treaties 6, 7, and 8? Did she consult with any of the chiefs or council or members of those first nations?
Second, while the member claims that there were intensive consultations on the bill, she will note that in the bill itself there is provision for zero consultation with first nations on promulgating the regulations that would actually implement the bill. Would she like to speak to that?
[Interjection]
Joan Crockatt: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Edmonton—Strathcona asked that question, because it was historic that this legislation was announced in Alberta, her home province and mine.
The number of first nations leaders who were there, the chiefs who were there, the diversity of the chiefs from across the country, the quality of the educators who were there was positively phenomenal. We really do have a core of amazing leaders in first nations education who are ready to take on this mantle and do a tremendous job with it.
The member was asking about consultation. The national panel led by Chuck Strahl, who we all know did an amazing job as minister, visited 30 communities and 25 schools. There were seven round tables, telephone town halls, 30 teleconferences, and 600 chiefs and councils had this document shared with them. In every first nation in Canada, the joint council of education professionals will carry that forward.
The Speaker: There will be about three minutes left for questions and comments after question period. Now we have to move on to statements by members. 
The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Statements by Members
Mental Health WeekMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the first day of Mental Health Week, the Mental Health Commission of Canada will invite members of Parliament to lead 308 conversations about suicide prevention. 
I am not an expert. Everything I have learned, I have learned from conversations with experts, service providers, survivors and many others. 
Between May and August, MHCC hopes every member of Parliament will host similar conversations. It needs our help to engage our networks and to share what we learned, not only with MHCC but with the public. I encourage all members to join in Monday and start a dialogue on suicide prevention this summer. 
I am also asking everyone touched by suicide, every Canadian working so hard to save the lives of vulnerable Canadians, to reach out to their members of Parliament and offer to help them start that conversation. Together, we can save lives.
 In Canada, there are 4,000 deaths by suicide each year. Experts say that two-thirds of those are preventable. We need to talk about suicide and suicide prevention because not talking about it is not working.
Granby ZooMr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Granby Zoo is a not-to-be-missed destination for nearly 700,000 visitors every year. It has become a world-class institution dedicated to the protection of threatened species and education. Pure fun is on the agenda too, thanks to the Amazoo water park, a wave pool for people young and old. 
The zoo employs over 130 people at the height of the tourist season. The Granby Zoo gives people a chance to discover animals from around the world, continent by continent, from Africa to Asia, the Americas and Indonesia. Its latest exhibit takes visitors on a trip across Australia from east to west, from the dry red desert at the heart of Australia to the temperate regions where vegetation flourishes. The zoo is less than three hours from Ottawa.
Families love the Granby Zoo.
Prince Albert Mintos Hockey ClubMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the coaches and players of the Prince Albert Mintos hockey club on winning the Telus Cup national midget hockey title this past Sunday in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
The Mintos defeated the Grenadiers de Châteauguay by a score of 4-3 when Dakota Boutin scored the winning goal in triple overtime. Prince Albert's goaltender Connor Ingram was spectacular in goal with some 60 saves.
The victory gives the Mintos its third national midget championship in nine years. It is just the sixth team in the history of Canada to win the National Midget Championship at least three times.
On behalf of all of the constituents of the riding of Prince Albert, I congratulate the Mintos head coach Ken Morrison and all the players on this historic win. They should enjoy their national championship. Their hard work and discipline has paid off. 
Sydney MinesHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 125th anniversary of the incorporation of Sydney Mines. 
Last weekend, I took part in celebrations at the Holy Family Parish Hall to mark this special occasion, which included historical displays, music and the cutting of the 125th anniversary cake. A copy of the official proclamation of the incorporation signed in 1889 was also on display.
The Sydney Mines Historical Celebration Society has been working on year-long celebrations to showcase the hospitality of the people of Sydney Mines, an amazing, friendly town where the community is always there to help one another.
Sydney Mines is home to the Cape Breton Fossil Centre, one of eight fossil sites in the province. The community also has a rich history in sports, including long-distance running, the Johnny Miles marathon, baseball and hockey.
This is a great opportunity for the community to reflect on the coal miners and steelworkers, veterans, non-profit and small businesses that distinguish this small town.
I encourage all members to join me in congratulating the people of Sydney Mines on their 125th anniversary.
Komagata MaruMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Komagata Maru tragedy.
 In 1914, the Komagata Maru ship arrived in Vancouver, British Columbia where 356 of its 376 passengers from India were denied entry into Canada and forced to return to India.
 In 2008, the Prime Minister issued an official apology on behalf of the Government of Canada for the Komagata Maru tragedy.
 As part of the apology, our government also committed $2.5 million dollars in funding to build a monument, a museum, write books, plays, and websites that helped commemorate and raise awareness of this tragedy in our country's history.
 I am pleased to announce that we will be launching a commemorative stamp to mark the 100th anniversary in memory of the Komagata Maru tragedy. On Tuesday, May 6, at 7:00 p.m., we will be unveiling the stamp. I invite all members of the House to join me at the Canadian Museum of Nature to help commemorate this tragic event.
Rotary Club Exchange ProgramMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate William Rompré, who, beginning in August 2014, will be participating in the Rotary Club ESSEX exchange program. He will spend a year living on the opposite side of the continent, in Chile.
Through this exchange program, high school students can continue their education while learning more about the world. Under the supervision of local club members, young people live with a local family so they can improve their language skills and their ability to adapt to new environments.
What our country needs most is young people who are willing to go and explore other countries. Curiosity is what will help us make the most of globalization, and having a healthy degree of openness towards others will help overcome the geographic isolation that happens to exist in Canada.
I wish him all the best for his year in Chile. I hope it will be filled with great experiences. To be honest, I envy him a little. As the song says, I want to go to Valparaíso, but I have to stay and combat electoral reform.
[The member spoke in Spanish]
 William, que tengas suerte y que disfrute. 
Violence Against WomenHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, more than two weeks ago, close to 276 young women were kidnapped from a school in Nigeria. Canada deeply condemns this action.
The reports that the young women kidnapped may have been forced into marriage by Islamic extremists is a great concern to Canada. Canada has been a strong voice for the protection of human rights and protection of women and girls, specifically on the issues of violence against women as well as child and forced marriage.
This act is a violation of basic human rights and a depraved form of violence that will have a profound impact on the girls who were kidnapped, as well as their families and their communities.
On December 30, 2013, our government listed those responsible for this action, Boko Haram, as a terrorist organization. We call on Boko Haram to release these innocent young girls, and we continue to pray for their well-being.
National Film BoardMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada has a lot to celebrate as we get closer and closer to our 150th birthday. As we near 2017, our government will recognize significant milestones in Canada's history.
One of the ways our government is helping Canadians learn about their history is by supporting Canadian films and Canadian filmmakers.
Through the Canada media fund, Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board, as well as initiatives like the Canadian film and video production tax credit, our government is supporting Canada's audiovisual sector and ensuring that Canadians have access to outstanding award-winning Canadian films that contribute to our sense of pride in our country.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the National Film Board on its first 75 years, its 12 Oscars, its more than 90 Genies, 2 Canadian new media awards and 7 Webbys.
On behalf of all of us, congratulations on 75 years of telling Canada's stories.
Western Forest ProductsMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, two people lost their lives and two others were seriously injured at the Western Forest Products sawmill.
On behalf of all members, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to the friends, families and co-workers of Fred McEachern and Michael Lunn, and wish a fast recovery to Tony Sudar and Earl Kelly.
This is an important reminder that violence can occur anywhere, anytime, even in one's hometown. Workers should be able to trust that their workplace is safe. We must strive to prevent all types of violence by providing the community supports that save lives.
I want to acknowledge the difficult work of the first responders and the ongoing work done by the police investigators, counsellors and employees at Western Forest Products.
This tragic event will leave an undefinable scar on the hearts of the people in our communities for years to come. I am moved by the tremendous outpouring of support. As a close-knit community, we will come together to grieve, to heal and to celebrate the lives of those we lost.
National Day of HonourJohn Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, one week from today, Canadians from coast to coast to coast will stand shoulder to shoulder with their neighbours and friends to pay respect to our men and women who served, and those who gave their lives, in the Afghanistan War.
Just like Terry Fox Public School in Cobourg, Ontario, next week this standout school will host representatives from the Canadian Armed Forces to discuss the significance of the National Day of Honour with students in grades 5 to 8.
Municipalities from every region of the country will pause for a moment of silence alongside over 29,000 schools, teachers and schools boards across Canada.
May 9 will be a day in which we can set politics aside and pay tribute to our remarkable men and women who served our country.
I call on all members in this place to support this remarkable day and thank our Afghan War Veterans.
National Asthma MonthLinda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, this year the Asthma Society of Canada will kick off National Asthma Month by hosting a national summit to focus attention on the direct connection between asthma and air pollution. In collaboration with physicians for the environment and the Canadian Lung Association, it has called for urgent action to address the substantial and increasing impacts of unnecessary sources of pollution on our health, including coal-fired power.
Based on a health estimate model developed by the Canadian Medical Association, it calculates that the Alberta coal plant emissions can cause up to 5,000 asthma symptom days through short-term exposure alone. Absent additional pollution controls by 2030, it predicts an estimated 105,000 asthma symptom days.
The federal minister will address the summit. By asserting her legal duty to impose pollutant standards that address health risks, she can fast-track the decommissioning of Canadian coal plants. Credible analyses show that alternative and affordable electricity sources are already available. All that is missing is the political will.
For the sake of our children, I ask her to heed this call for action.
The New Democratic Party of CanadaMs. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the New Democrats have no plan when it comes to keeping streets and communities safe or building a correctional system that actually corrects criminal behaviour. They oppose common sense measures like preventing prisoners from making frivolous complaints. I wish they would make up their minds about prison spending.
The member for Surrey North called on the government to cut prison spending saying, “Astronomical spending on prisons isn't going to make communities safer”, but just yesterday at the public safety committee, the NDP public safety critic actually called on the government to start throwing more money at prisons.
On this side of the House we are clear. The government will not build any new prisons. In fact, we have actually closed two. We will also end the ridiculous and needless perks for offenders that Canadians find offensive.
 When it comes to keeping dangerous, violent criminals where they belong, we will keep them behind bars. I hope the New Democrats will stop their flip-flopping and finally support our common sense approach to keeping Canadians safe.
Medal of BraveryHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Governor General recognized over 40 amazing Canadians by giving them the Medal of Bravery. Among the recipients was one of our own, Brennan Richardson, assistant to the Liberal MP for Vancouver Centre. When a man tried to rob a gas station while holding a lit Molotov cocktail, Brennan acted quickly, restrained the man and pushed him outside. Fortunately, the bottle did not ignite when it fell to the ground. That is pretty gutsy. Who says liberals do not have guts? 
Also, he is being considered for a second bravery award for a separate incident. The guy is a regular Batman.
 I have known Brennan for a number of years. He often needs a haircut, has no fashion sense, and has a peculiar sense of humour. Brennan is a fixture in Ottawa's theatre scene, shares obscure literary references with my staff member Shawn Boyle, and daily destroys productivity in my office. Other than that, he is a great guy.
 However, none of us see him as a hero; just a regular guy doing heroic things.
Brennan is a big fan of St. Francis of Assisi. St. Francis and those of us who are not quite so saintly congratulate Brennan for a job well done. 
Mental Health WeekMr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, next week is Mental Health Week. On May 6, Senator Roméo Dallaire and I will host the Sam Sharpe breakfast, exploring veteran mental health and wellness issues.
We will hear from Tim Laidler, a young Afghanistan veteran who struggled with his mental injuries before attending the veterans transition program, returning to school, and now he helps other veterans as director of that program.
We will hear from Chris Linford, author of Warrior Rising, an inspired story of his family's journey on his road back from PTSD.
Sam Sharpe himself was a member of Parliament in this place for Ontario North. He served on the battle fields of World War I before returning to Canada where he took his life struggling with his mental injuries.
By remembering Sharpe and hearing these inspired stories of our veterans for today, we have shown we are coming a long way on the road from stigma. We still have a way to go, but the stories of our veterans will show that there is help out there for them.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is the anniversary of a very special day.
Three years ago, an unprecedented number of Canadians and Quebeckers turned their backs on the old parties and on Liberal and Conservative corruption. They chose the NDP.
Jack Layton's optimism convinced this country that another Canada was possible. Hundreds of NDP candidates across the country, young and not so young, from all walks of life, shared with Canadians this positive vision of our country that is light years away from Liberal arrogance and Conservative scandals.
The NDP made its way into the hearts of Quebeckers and Canadians. We are still carrying the torch of a different, more united, greener and more prosperous Canada.
In 2015, the NDP will run on the same optimistic vision of a better future. I want to wish everyone a happy third anniversary of the orange wave.
First Nations EducationMr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has made reforming first nations education a priority. This is a goal that we share with first nations parents, teachers, students, and communities across the country. 
I am pleased that the Assembly of First Nations has confirmed that Bill C-33 is a constructive and necessary step forward. This morning, Regional Chief Roger Augustine, said, “this is a huge improvement on what we as First Nations parents have had to force our children to suffer under the Indian Act..”. That is why we have been engaged in consultation on the education file for years.
This act would provide stable funding and the structures to help first nations students reach their potential and participate fully in our economy. As a government, we must provide leadership, and with our partners we are making progress to remove the long-standing barriers to success. I challenge the entire opposition to support this transformative bill.

Oral Questions
JusticeMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court warned the Conservative government in July that Justice Nadon's appointment would be problematic.
As we know, the Prime Minister decided to do what he wanted and appointed Justice Nadon anyway.
Does the Prime Minister realize that without his stubbornness, we would not have wasted so much time and money? Furthermore, we would have avoided a battle with Quebec and last night's crisis caused by the prime minister's office attacking the Chief Justice in a very inappropriate manner.
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice asked for an outside legal opinion from a former Supreme Court justice on whether Federal Court justices can be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The legal opinion was reviewed and received the support of another former Supreme Court justice, who was also supported by an eminent professor, an expert in constitutional law, and that opinion was made public. All experts agreed that there was no basis for the Supreme Court's opinion and that, basically, Justice Moldaver's dissenting opinion should prevail.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice deserves better than these attacks.
The Chief Justice states that she did not try to contact the Prime Minister while the matter was before the courts, but in an unprecedented, and frankly petulant, statement released late last night, the Prime Minister's Office implies that the Chief Justice did just that.
This statement from the PMO was clearly inappropriate. Will the Prime Minister explain why he has launched this attack on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and will he stop his inappropriate petulant attacks?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that the Chief Justice did try to contact the Prime Minister during the selection process.
On the advice of the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister was advised not to take a call of this nature since it would be inappropriate during the selection process.
The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister both agreed that the call was inappropriate. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Justice would ever take a call on something that would be before the courts or that even might tentatively be before the courts.
EmploymentPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, Kevin Page, Marc Mayrand, and even Sheila Fraser, have all seen how ugly the government can get. It is time to change the government. Here is another reason why.
 Its mismanagement on temporary foreign workers has led to Canadians losing their jobs. Here is more breaking news. We have learned that the number of temporary foreign workers in the manufacturing sector has doubled, from 8,600 in 2006 when the government took power, to almost 17,000 in 2012.
Why has there been such a staggering increase? Why is the government showing such clear incompetence?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the temporary foreign worker program is to provide temporary help when acute labour shortages exist.
Our government sent a strong message to employers that they must always give Canadians first crack at any available job.
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign worker program has been a problem for a long time. The excessive use of these workers is skewing the labour market. It is driving wages down and creating unemployment.
The Conservatives would have us believe that the problem is only in the restaurant industry, but there are also problems in the service industry, the banking sector and even the manufacturing industry.
Why are the Conservatives refusing to clean up this program by asking the Auditor General to investigate in order to ensure that no worker is put at a disadvantage?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, there are constant audits going on in this program.
We have integrity officers now, a change that was made by our government, who can go into a work site unannounced and make sure that every employer that is engaged in this program is following the rules and protecting jobs for Canadians.
We are taking strong action to make sure that Canadians are protected first, and also strong action to make sure that employers do not abuse temporary foreign workers when they need to have them.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives would have us believe that they have everything under control but, frankly, that is ridiculous. In reality, they are ignoring this problem.
The Department of Employment and Social Development's own figures show that the number of temporary foreign workers in the manufacturing industry has doubled since 2006. During that same period, we have experienced an economic crisis and seen a hike in our unemployment rate, particularly in the manufacturing industry.
How can the minister claim that minor adjustments to the program will be enough when the government allows more temporary foreign workers to come to the country during an economic downturn?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, we have taken increased and strong measures to make sure that the integrity of this program is protected. I also think it is rich that a member of that party criticizes the explosion in the numbers of any program in this country, when members constantly come over to ask the minister to increase the amount of temporary foreign workers in their ridings.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government deliberately expanded the number of temporary foreign workers. It invested $150 million more in the program in 2007 and reduced wait times for opinions from five months to five days.
In 2008, the minister said, “We've expanded the temporary foreign workers program very significantly and very deliberately”.
Why, despite the abuse, is the government in a hurry to expand this program?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have increased the integrity in this program. We have passed several measures to tighten it, to make sure that employers always give Canadians first crack at any job. For example, we now have the authority to conduct on-site inspections. We have the ability to ban non-compliant employers from the program for two years, immediately adding their names to a blacklist, shaming them publicly. Any employer who does not support the measures that they put in the criteria when they apply for the program could be held legally responsible. Also, they can be subject to fines.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, this outbreak of historical revisionism is doing extreme damage to a valuable program. 
Not so many years ago, the minister said, “we've very deliberately expanded the temporary foreign workers program...”, and she said they have increased the size of the program in a way that is significant and very deliberate. 
Those are the words of the minister. She wanted to explode the numbers in this program, and now the parliamentary secretary is standing there sanctimoniously, as if the government is doing everything in its power to limit the growth of this program.
Having created this crisis, when will they fix this—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development.
Scott Armstrong: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the temporary foreign worker program is to provide temporary help when acute labour shortages exist. We have taken strong steps to make sure that employers from coast to coast to coast comply with the principles behind this program. We are making sure that employers have the responsibility to meet their commitment to always give Canadians first crack at any job. 
It is shameful that the member from that party, whose members constantly come over and ask the Minister of Employment and Social Development to increase the amount of temporary foreign workers in their ridings, is standing here and saying things—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, if the program was not so messed up, maybe opposition members would not need to go over and ask for help.
This is extraordinary sanctimony. I have just quoted the former minister, saying she—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville has the floor.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I just quoted the former minister saying she deliberately expanded the program. She reduced the waiting times. She made it open to every sector. She did everything in her power to grow this program, to the point where the numbers have doubled. It is taking jobs away from good Canadians and law-abiding businesses. Now, all of a sudden, the government acknowledges the crisis and changes it tune totally.
Will it have a new program in place by the summer?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy is now upon us. Opposition members come over and ask the Minister of Employment and Social Development for more temporary foreign workers in their ridings, say the program is not tight enough and stops them from getting workers in their ridings, but then they say we should tighten the program up and lessen the amount of workers. Which way do they want it?
PrivacyMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since the Privacy Commissioner blew the whistle on the government's widespread snooping on Canadians, the government's excuses keep changing. First it was all being done with warrants, then it was only done to stop extreme terrorist acts. Every 27 seconds someone from a government agency calls a telecom and demands private information on Canadians and gets it without a warrant.
Will the government quit the excuses and give the Privacy Commissioner the mandate to demand that the telecoms and government agencies disclose the number of warrantless disclosures every year?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that any private information protected under the Charter requires a warrant. The information being asked for helps our security services in terms of violent crimes and in terms of terrorism. It can range from a whole host of things. Moreover, our security services have civilian oversight, and they have constantly been shown to be following the law.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about civilian oversight, and civilian oversight says that it is widespread snooping, under the government, on the private rights of Canadians. Then the Conservatives say that it is all about violent crime, so we are supposed to believe that 1.2 million requests a year have to do with stopping those crazy, violent people running around the streets in all the Tory ridings. I just do not get it. The government should stop the stonewalling, step out of the Orwell novel, and give the Privacy Commissioner the mandate to investigate why it is wide open. 
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is questions like that that help Canadians understand why after 16 straight elections, the NDP has never actually made it to this side of the House. 
I would suggest that Canadians can be proud of the fact that Canada is a safer place because we have security services that are doing the hard work to make sure that our communities are safe. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about protecting Canadians from acts of terrorism. 
If there is a violent crime taking place, a local police force is able to contact our partners and make sure that they have the information they need to stop it as it is taking place. Moreover, there is a bill before the Senate that will help the--
The Speaker: Order, please. Members are again making it very difficult for the Chair to listen to both the question and the answer. 
The hon. member for Pontiac.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are trying to tell us that everything is fine, that Canadians' privacy is not being invaded and that it is no big deal if more than one million Canadians are not aware that their information is being sent to this government. Come on. 
Not only do the Conservatives refuse to admit that this is unacceptable and that these practices must stop, but they also do not see any problem with the fact that Canadians are paying to be spied on.
How will the government put an end to this abuse?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that that is not true. Moreover, as I was mentioning toward the end of my last answer, there is a bill being brought forward to look at tightening this up a little further. It is Bill S-4. The minister has been in contact with the Privacy Commissioner. She has suggested that the bill does advance Canadians' privacy further.
I would suggest that the opposition really take a hard look at what it is they are suggesting. Our security services do excellent work in making sure that our communities stay safe. It is time for the opposition members to get on board with them and trust that they are doing a good job. I know that we trust them to do that, and the results have been staggering. Great work. 
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, he is referring to the famous Bill S-4, as though it will fix everything. I do not know if they have read their own bill, but I must say that it will not change a thing. As long as the government continues to use national security as an excuse to invade the privacy of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, this problem will continue.
When will the government propose measures to ensure that telecom companies disclose the information collected on Canadians? When?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the opposition is finally moving in the right direction. I know that yesterday, the Liberals said it was millions and millions of Canadians who were being spied on. Then it was 1.2 million to two million from the NDP. Now it is thousands. I am sure by next week, the truth will actually be talked about by the opposition. What we are doing here is that the telecoms are being asked, in instances of national security, in instances when violent crime is taking place, to assist our authorities. There is, of course, civilian oversight to make sure that this is all done properly. 
Moreover, any personal information protected by the Charter requires a warrant. There is Bill S-4 in front of the Senate, which will help improve this even further. 
Aboriginal AffairsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the RCMP confirmed what aboriginal women have been telling us for many years. The number of aboriginal women and girls missing or murdered in the last 30 years is staggering, 1,026. It is a national shame. 
It is time for the government to acknowledge that the status quo is just not working. Will the government finally call a national inquiry into missing and murdered women and girls?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, one missing person is one missing person too many.
I would like to inform the House, however, that the actual report has not been shared with the government. We invite the RCMP to release that report, as soon as possible, to the public. We also expect law enforcement to enforce the law and investigate every incident, every case, that has come to its attention.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP Commissioner said that it is important that we get a firm understanding of what's going on”. Almost 40 aboriginal women and girls every year, for the last 30 years, never came home to their families and friends. Families are left wanting answers and wanting justice.
Why are the Conservatives ignoring the police, victims, and their families? Why are they continuing to refuse to call a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for more studies. Now is the time to take action, action the Conservative government has been taking since taking office.
When we put forward measures to tackle crime, measures that create tougher sentencing for murder, for kidnapping, for sexual offences against women, on this side of the House, the Conservatives vote for those measures. The NDP consistently votes against every single thing we do to stand up for women in this country.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, the real question is: what are they afraid of?
A nation-to-nation relationship involves respect, partnership, listening and reconciliation. Clearly, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has a different definition. He uses his Facebook page to launch partisan attacks on anyone who dares disagree with him.
The minister should learn from his mistakes instead of imposing Ottawa's solutions. Why is he refusing to listen to communities, families and teachers so that he can really address their education needs?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has made first nations education reform a priority. We feel that first nations are in the best position to know what their children need. That is why Bill C-33 will ensure that first nations are responsible and accountable for administering their own education systems on reserves.
This debate has been going on for decades. Still today, the NDP is opposed to investing nearly $2 billion more in the system.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, we are proud to stand alongside the aboriginal communities, families and teachers across the country who are calling for more from this government than partisan attacks from the minister. People who understand the reality of first nations communities can describe the deplorable conditions in the schools.
Why is the minister so determined to impose a bill that will force students to wait until the next election to receive new funding when they deserve it now, today?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, we know full well that the NDP has never really been that concerned about the country's taxpayers.
They want to throw money at the problem, as they have always said: tax and spend. From the outset, we said that investments would not replace reform. We said that reform would be coupled with the funding that was committed in the last budget.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government promised to consult and promised to deal in good faith with first nations, but it has broken this promise. 
The Conservatives launch mindless attacks on the NDP, because they have no defence for their mishandling of first nations education. They fail to respect the right of first nations students to a quality education. 
Two years ago, the House unanimously passed a motion on Shannen's Dream. Why will the government not honour the principles of that motion? Why will it not give first nations students the same opportunities as every other Canadian student?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is rich to hear this from the member, when every single motion or project advanced to improve the situation of first nations members across the country is opposed by the NDP.
For the first time ever, a bill before the House has proposed that children on reserve have a statutory right to education, and they oppose it.
JusticeHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is very serious.
Senior Conservatives have let slip information about what the Chief Justice might have said during the selection process that led to the nomination of Justice Nadon. That process is confidential. The only people who could have been aware of the Chief Justice's opinions are the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.
Will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice take responsibility for this major leak that is undermining their credibility?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, during the selection process, the Chief Justice tried—emphasis on “tried”—to talk to the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Justice advised the Prime Minister not to take the call given the subject she wished to raise. The Prime Minister did not take the call, and no discussion ensued. Neither the Minister of Justice nor the Prime Minister would ever take a call on a matter that is or could ever be before the court.
PensionsMs. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have long benefited from the CPP, a cornerstone of our society. Yesterday Ontario recognized the growing need to strengthen Canadians' pensions, introducing a proposal that will—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. There will be an opportunity to respond to the question when the member has finished asking it, but not until then.
The hon. member for Toronto Centre has the floor.
[Interjection]
Chrystia Freeland: Mr. Speaker, if the members on the other side of the House would like to hear my big-girl voice, listen up, gentlemen.
Ontario showed leadership that has been lacking from the Conservative government. Will the Conservatives finally follow Ontario's lead and help all Canadians achieve financial security when they retire?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Ontario families cannot afford to have more money taken out of their pockets, especially in this fragile global recovery. This tax hike on workers and businesses will disadvantage Ontario and kill jobs.
It is unfortunate that the Ontario Liberals refuse to follow our government's example of good economic management by making tough decisions, focusing on priorities, and balancing the budget.
PrivacyHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have seen a drastic reduction in their privacy rights under the Conservative government, which seems to view the warrantless disclosure of personal information as a good thing.
This week, we learned that government agencies ask telecom companies for Canadians' personal information over a million times per year, and mostly get it. 
In a world where information is power, why are the Conservatives making Canadians powerless to protect their own personal information from snooping government agencies and corporations? Why?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows quite clearly that Canadians' personal information that is protected by the charter requires a warrant. Moreover, the legislation that governs this, of course, was introduced by the Liberal Party, and we had not heard a word from the Liberals until a couple of days ago that there were any problems with it.
Having said that, we did recognize that some updates needed to happen. That is why we brought a bill forward, Bill S-4, which will address this even further. We have been consulting, and we have spoken to the Privacy Commissioner. I would suggest that the opposition support that bill.
Democratic ReformMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last night the Conservatives delivered its Bill C-23 punchline in the mockery they have made of Parliament and of the committee process. 
New Democrats listened to experts. We went out and heard from ordinary Canadians. We came to the table in good faith with over 100 common-sense amendments that would improve the bill. Last night the Conservatives shut down the committee without even hearing half of them. It is a farce.
Will the minister accept some reasonable amendments at report stage, or will he trample ahead with the same arrogance that got him into this mess in the first place?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP really does have to make up its mind. First, the New Democrats opposed the bill before reading a single word of it. Then, last Friday, they tried to take credit for the whole bill. Now, they are saying that the bill is the end of the world. They really have to make up their minds.
The policy disagreement here is well known to Canadians. The New Democrats believe that people should be allowed to vote without any ID whatsoever. In fact, they brought forward an amendment that would allow people to walk in without presenting any ID and vote by having someone vouch for who they are. We are ending identity vouching. We are requiring that people bring ID in order to identify who they are before they vote.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, they went from ID vouching to address vouching. Who are you kidding? Supposedly, the whole reason for changing—
The Speaker: Order, please. I can assure the hon. member I am not trying to kid anybody. I will remind him to address his comments through the Chair and not directly at other colleagues so as to avoid that kind of confusion.
The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
[Interjection]
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, supposedly the whole reason for changing the Elections Act was to put an end to fraudulent robocalls. However, investigators testified the bill would not give them the powers they need. The bill would make them less independent and leave them so hamstrung that they say they would have to abandon investigations.
 We had amendments to fix the problem, but the Conservatives did not even hear them and they shut down the committee before we even got that far. Will the minister now consider these reasonable amendments?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, of course we have made the Commissioner of Canada Elections independent from Elections Canada. This is an enormous improvement, and it will allow investigations to happen in a fashion that is independent and directed by the person who is in charge of them; that is, the commissioner. 
However, that is a distraction for the New Democrats. They do not want Canadians to be aware that they attempted to amend the bill to allow people to vote without any ID whatsoever, and that is the core disagreement. The NDP wants people to vote with no ID whatsoever. We believe people should present ID to show who they are.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, the NDP worked in good faith and proposed amendments to address the concerns of hundreds of experts, including the Chief Electoral Officer. Yesterday, the Conservatives ended the debate when only one-fifth of the bill had been studied by the committee members. Using sheer force of numbers to end the debate on legislation that frames our democracy is simply shameful. Now that the electoral “deform” is back in the House, will the government finally put partisanship aside and agree to debate the bill with the opposition?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we will always agree to debate the bill with the opposition because we are winning the debate. We want to make it mandatory for people to show ID when they vote. The vast majority of Canadians agree with that proposal. Some 87% of Canadians think voters should show ID. The NDP thinks that Canadians should vote without any ID. We disagree.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that in committee, the Conservatives rejected any change that would have truly improved their botched bill. They voted against the amendments that would have forced call centres to hand over to the CRTC the telephone numbers contacted and the transcripts of the calls. They voted against the amendments to limit the influence of money on political parties and to give Elections Canada real investigative powers. It is ridiculous.
With Bill C-23, the Elections Act is going to be worse than it is now. Why is the government forcing legislation down our throats that will set us back many years?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard the NDP's arguments and have overwhelmingly rejected the NDP on this. Some 87% of Canadians believe that voters should show ID. The NDP is saying that people should be able to show up without any ID and have someone vouch for their identity. We disagree, and the fair elections act will require people to show ID when they vote.
Foreign AffairsMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Ukraine continues to concern us. Canada has taken a leadership role. In coordination with our allies, our government has imposed sanctions and travel bans on those responsible for the instability in Ukraine.
 We also have a role to play in ensuring global energy security. Can the Minister of Natural Resources update this House on what action our government has taken on this important file?
Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the ongoing crisis in the Ukraine is not acceptable. As a G7 country with an abundance of energy supply, we have a responsibility to work with our allies to help meet the pressing issue of global energy security. That is why next week I will be participating in a special G7 meeting where I will highlight the importance of expanding energy infrastructure and strengthening global energy security and supply.
Champlain BridgeMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister thinks that since the Champlain Bridge is not an international or interprovincial structure, Montreal motorists should pay.
As far as I know, the existing federal bridge is not an international bridge or an interprovincial bridge and there is no toll. The same goes for the federal Jacques-Cartier and Mercier bridges, which do not cross any borders.
Unless the government plans on profiting from the work to move the Champlain Bridge, why is it claiming that because the bridge is local, those who use it daily should have to foot the bill?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the existing bridge is not an interprovincial or international bridge. However, we acknowledge that it is important to the region. That is why we are building a new bridge over the St. Lawrence River. We have always been clear. This new bridge will be built through a public-private partnership, with a toll. We are doing everything we can to ensure that this bridge is built as quickly as possible.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the heart of the problem is that the federal government has a bridge and the Liberals and Conservatives neglected it so much that it now needs to be replaced. Instead of forcing Montreal-area motorists to foot the bill for 50 years of neglect, the government should take responsibility. 
Does the minister realize that the entire Quebec and Canadian economies will suffer because his government stubbornly wants to impose a toll on the new Champlain Bridge?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we will build a new bridge over the St. Lawrence River. It will be a toll bridge, and this will be excellent news for the country's economy.
Canada-U.S. RelationsMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at yesterday's finance committee meeting, we asked officials from that department how much it will cost Canadians to implement the Canada-U.S. agreement on foreign accounts. They estimate it will cost up to several hundred million dollars, but they do not know exactly how much.
We do know, however, that the agreement will have a huge impact on the private lives of millions of Canadians. The Conservatives want to have this adopted as quickly as possible.
Why is this government in such a hurry to provide Canadians' personal information to the Internal Revenue Service?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, without an agreement in place, our financial institutions would still have to comply with FATCA. This would have required banks to report information directly to the IRS, and deny basic banking services to clients. Furthermore, both banks and their clients would have been subject to a 30% withholding tax. With an agreement in place, this will not happen.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, one would think that if it was such a fabulous agreement, the Conservatives would not have buried it in the middle of a 400-page omnibus bill, but they did. 
The Conservatives called the long form census a terrible invasion of privacy, but now they are in a mad rush to hand over to the IRS personal and private financial information from up to one million Canadians. They are ramming through the implementation of FATCA in spite of these serious concerns. 
Will the Conservatives pull this flawed agreement from the omnibus bill, take a breath, and get this right for once?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes that FATCA has raised a number of concerns in Canada, which is why we came up with an intergovernmental agreement. The agreement addresses these concerns by relying on the existing framework under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty. CRA will not assist the IRS in collecting U.S. taxes, and no new taxes will be imposed.
In our negotiations, we obtained a number of concessions, including exempting certain accounts, like RRSPs, RDSPs, TFSAs, et cetera, from FATCA reporting.
We are now in a much better position than without an agreement.
The EnvironmentJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government went to extraordinary lengths to dismiss its own report on fracking. Apparently the government does not know and does not care, “...that there isn't enough known about the...health impacts”. It does not know and does not care that, “...key elements of the provinces' regulatory systems 'are not based on strong'” evidence. It does not know and does not care that, “...there isn't enough known...to declare it safe”.
If the Conservatives do not care about safety, health, or science, what is it that they do care about?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians is our priority and that is why it is very important to note that hydraulic fracking has been used safely in western Canada for decades and there have been no incidents of contamination to drinking water.
As I said yesterday, three prominent bodies, the Alberta Energy Regulator, the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission, and the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources confirmed there has never, and I repeat never, been a proven case of well water contamination resulting from hydraulic fracturing under their jurisdictions. 
As the provinces and territories are the primary regulators for this industry, we will continue to work with them to ensure Canadians benefit from safe, responsible development, transportation, and use of our natural—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, grain farmers and westerners are well aware of the income losses resulting from the Conservatives' mishandling of the grain industry. News from the prairies this week states that there is going to be a lack of cash and lack of fertilizer for this year's planting. 
Will Dodd, who farms in Saskatchewan, states he will need $750,000 to plant his 4,000 acres and he is sitting on 20,000 bushels of barley that are not sold.
What are the Conservatives going to do to help farmers get their crops planted this year?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member should know well that under our leadership we have brought forward the fair rail for grain farmers act, which is strong legislation that addresses the serious issue of grain backlog. This piece of legislation would strengthen contracts, contractual mechanisms between producers and shippers, but most importantly, it obligates the rail companies to move one million metric tonnes of grain each and every week. This is critical legislation and I am calling on the member to support the legislation and to help pass it when it comes back to the House next week.
National DefenceMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, six years ago, Corporal Stuart Langridge took his own life. Ever since, his family has struggled to uncover the truth and find closure. After lengthy and painful hearings before the Military Police Complaints Commission, they still cannot get answers. An interim report into what happened has finally been prepared and given to the minister for his comment, but the family is not being allowed to see it. 
Why is this report being withheld from the family and when will the minister provide it to them?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the complaints commission is acting in accordance with the National Defence Act and contrary to what was reported, the Chief of the Defence Staff does not have legal authority to alter those reports. That being said, and I will be clear, in accordance with the National Defence Act the final report will be made public to the family and released as it should be.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Fynes have lived through the worst nightmare any parent could imagine. Their suffering is compounded by the shamefully out-of-touch investigation into their son's death. In fact, even his suicide note was kept from them for 14 months. The minister withheld documents regarding his death from the commission and now as the process wraps up, his own parents are being shut out. The minister has the interim report. Why will he not let the parents see it so they can participate in the final process?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this has all been done in accordance with the National Defence Act and as I pointed out to the individual, there will be a final report. According to the National Defence Act, that will be made public and of course it will be made available to the family as is appropriate and as it should be.
EmploymentHarold Albrecht: Mr. Speaker, too many recent Canadian graduates are underemployed while employers are searching for workers. In economic action plan 2014, this government committed to creating paid internship opportunities for youth. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development update the House on the status of this commitment to our youth?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, our government today is delivering on a promise. The Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment and Social Development are announcing support for 3,000 new Canadian internship opportunities. These paid internships will help post-secondary graduates get the skills and experience needed to find jobs in high-demand fields such as science, technology, and skilled trades.
Since 2006, our government's youth employment strategy has helped more than half a million young Canadians develop the skills they need to secure jobs and help our economy grow.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, along the coast of Newfoundland and southern Labrador, crab fishermen are in desperate straits. Ice is jammed into our harbours and ports and the fishermen are unable to steam out to get their catch. Now both fishermen and forecasters believe the ice will not dissipate anytime soon and for many of them they have received no income for quite some time. Based on the programs of 2007 and 2009, will the minister commit today to a new ice compensation program for Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows as a former weatherman himself, weather and ice conditions are unpredictable at this time of year.
DFO is working closely with industry to monitor those conditions. It has been a particularly heavy ice year in Atlantic Canada. I understand that some fisheries have been delayed, although most only minimally, as a result of this weather and ice.
In the past, though, as he referred to, compensation has only been issued under extreme circumstances when the fishery was delayed into late spring or even early summer.
The minister and her officials will—
The Speaker: The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
PensionsMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a social worker from my riding who works with CPP tribunals came to me with very disturbing news.
She told me that since the Conservatives restructured the appeal system, new hearings are not being booked. The previous backlog was already at 7,400 cases. People are not being helped. A crisis is brewing for vulnerable Canadians.
Does the minister have any plans to fix this situation so that elderly and low-income Canadians will no longer be left to suffer and left to wait?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, we have made changes to CPP to help make sure that the retirement program is there when Canadians retire.
We are going to stand up and make sure that Canadian seniors always have the support of the federal government as they engage in their golden years.
The EconomyMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thanks to our government's sound fiscal management, the strength of Canada's economy is recognized around the world. The IMF says we have the best fiscal position in the G7.
Unfortunately, it is apparent the Ontario Liberals may have been influenced by the philosophy of the member for Papineau that budgets magically balance themselves.
Yesterday's Ontario budget proposed massive new spending, higher taxes, and more debt. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please tell the House what our position is on fiscal discipline?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Ontario Liberals are now on track to be the last province to balance its books, with debt that is almost the combined debt of every other province in Canada.
On the other hand, our Conservative government has controlled spending and cut waste, and despite continued global economic uncertainty, we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.
We know that sound economic management requires tough decisions and focus on priorities. Canadians can rest assured that despite Liberal plans to skyrocket spending, taxes, and debt, our Conservative government will continue to demonstrate prudent financial management—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma.
JusticeMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for eight long months, the Supreme Court has been missing a judge from Quebec. All along, everyone has known that the Prime Minister appointed Justice Nadon, who did not have close enough ties with Quebec to ensure respect for Quebec's legal traditions and distinct social values, out of blind ideology.
When will the Prime Minister finally put an end to this shameful chapter and commit to appointing a judge recommended by the Government of Quebec?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice sought outside legal advice from a former Supreme Court judge regarding the eligibility criteria of Federal Court justices for the Supreme Court. That opinion was reviewed and supported by another former Supreme Court judge and by Professor Peter Hogg, a renowned constitutional scholar. That opinion was made public.
No legal experts saw any merit in the final position of the court. Their point of view was similar to the dissenting opinion of Justice Moldaver.
The EnvironmentClaude Patry: Mr. Speaker, even though the federal government abandoned the Kyoto protocol, Quebec has made significant efforts and has exceeded its greenhouse gas reduction targets. While Quebec companies pay for pollution, Alberta's big oil companies are saving $1.8 billion a year because they are not subject to any rules.
When will the federal government give the oil companies a reality check and when will it change this system that penalizes Quebec and the companies that are doing their part to protect the environment?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting the environment while keeping the Canadian economy strong.
Thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will actually go down close to 130 megatonnes from where they would have been under the Liberals. This is equivalent to shutting down 37 coal-fired electricity generation plants.
We are accomplishing this without the Liberal and NDP $20 billion job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.
JusticeMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court joins a list of dedicated public servants who are denigrated and then attacked by the government when they disagree with it. 
The Chief Justice merely attempted to alert the government of potential issues regarding eligibility requirements before joining the high court. 
Had the government heeded this warning, which occurred months before the matter was before the court and therefore not inappropriate, it would have saved the government the embarrassment of its botched appointment and a quarter of a million dollars in legal and translation costs.
When will the government publicly apologize to the Chief Justice and abandon its petulant policy of attacking any individual or institution that does not agree with it or does not kowtow to it?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice sought outside advice from former Supreme Court justices on the eligibility requirements of a Federal Court judge to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The legal advice was reviewed and supported by another former Supreme Court justice as well as by leading constitutional scholar Peter Hogg, and this was made public.
None of these legal experts saw any merit to the position eventually taken by the Supreme Court of Canada, and their views were similar to the dissenting decision of Mr. Justice Moldaver.

Routine Proceedings
Foreign AffairsDeepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the following treaties: 
“Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Cameroon for the Promotion and Protection of Investments”, done at Toronto on 3 March 2014; “Protocol amending the Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital”, signed at Ottawa on 23 May 2002, done at Brussels on 1 April, 2014; ”Convention on Social Security between Canada and the Republic of Peru”, done at Ottawa on 10 April 2014; and “Administrative Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Peru for the Implementation of the Convention on Social Security between Canada and the Republic of Peru”, done at Ottawa on 10 April, 2014. 
An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty. 
Also, pursuant to section 7 of the Special Economic Measures Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the “Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations”; made on April 12, 2014 under the Special Economic Measures Act.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, 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. 
Business of the HouseHon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), I wish to designate Wednesday, May 7, 2014 as the day appointed for the consideration in committee of the whole of the votes related to Transport in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015. I will be announcing the date of the committee of the whole consideration of the votes related to Finance at a later time. 
PetitionsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first is a petition calling on the Government of Canada to return the right of any healthy Canadian to give the gift of blood, bone marrow, and organs to those in need. No matter the race, religion, or sexual preference of a person, that right to give blood or donate organs is universal to any healthy man or woman.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the House to amend the Food and Drugs Act, with mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa to allow the proper review of the impact on farmers in Canada. 
Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a large number of Nova Scotians who believe that health care is a fundamental right for all Canadians, these citizens believe the government's cuts to health care in my province to be crippling. They are concerned about the fact that changes to health transfer payments mean that funding will be on a per capita basis. That means that Nova Scotia will receive $23 million less than the province would have gotten under the previous health accord. Obviously, the folks who signed this petition do not think that is fair, and they are calling on the Prime Minister to work with Premier Stephen McNeil to develop an alternate funding formula that does not punish Nova Scotia this way.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to table two petitions from Albertans from Edson, Spruce Grove, Sherwood Park, Leduc, Barrhead, Gunn, Morinville, Athabasca, and Edmonton who wish the government to reverse the elimination of postal jobs and the end to house delivery and to stop the drastic increase in postal rates. 
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Albertans calling on the government not to amend the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act to further restrict farmers' rights and instead to enshrine the farmers' right to save, reuse, select, exchange, or sell seeds.
Linda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, my final petition is from Albertans who are calling on the government to reject Bill C-23 and bring forward a bill that includes genuinely empowering Elections Canada to address fraud and to investigate robocalls. 
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition regarding the reduction of postal services in our smallest communities. I have 193 communities in my riding. Several of those communities are facing reduced hours. This petition is from one of those communities. The community is Bunyan's Cove. They are losing service, and they want a full service maintained by Canada Post, the national provider. 
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of Canadians right across the country, everywhere from Ottawa to Gatineau, Montreal, Calgary, Saskatoon and Toronto.
The petitioners call upon the government to adopt Bill C-486, a private member's bill put forward on conflict minerals. They want Canada to take a stance and end the revenue streams for the militias that right now are responsible for heinous human rights violations, including rape and using rape as a weapon of war.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is from a number of individuals who ask Parliament to amend the Divorce Act in keeping with my private member's bill, the concept of shared equal parenting as a presumption in child custody decisions except, of course, in cases of proven neglect or abuse.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a number of individuals who support a farmer's right to save, reuse, select, exchange and sell seeds, whereas that is now being changed by commercial contracts, identity preservation and so on. 
The petitioners want us to go back to and allow for that inherent right of farmers derived from thousands of years of custom and tradition to do so.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners ask for a change to the Criminal Code in respect to impaired driving causing death being changed to the offence of vehicular manslaughter and a number of other specific suggestions to change the Criminal Code in this matter.
Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by about 50 of my constituents calling on the government to repeal the amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
As a result of these amendments, 98% of lakes and rivers are no longer protected. Brome—Missisquoi is a riding where outdoor tourism is flourishing, and our residents are proud of their 50 lakes and rivers, which are among the most beautiful in Canada. 
These petitioners want our lakes and rivers to be protected from reckless development and are joining those Canadians who have already signed this petition.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition calls upon the Government of Canada to review thoroughly and change policy on blood and organ donation in Canada.
 The petitioners understand that people should be pretested and if there is any disease, they cannot donate. However, they request that the government return the rights of healthy Canadians to give blood, bone marrow and organs for those in need no matter what the race, religion or sexual preference of that person.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in regard to the right of farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange and sell seed. 
The petitioners want the Parliament of Canada to refrain from making changes to the Seeds Act and Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18 and re-enshrine the right of Canadian farmers to reuse, select and exchange seeds in order to protect Canadian consumers.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on the same issue signed by constituents in my riding. 
The petitioners call upon the federal government to reverse the decision by Canada Post to end home postal delivery and raise its rates and to reject the plan for reduced services.
Questions on the Order PaperDan Albas: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 326 and 335.
Hon. Wayne Easter: With regard to advertising by the government during the broadcast of the Academy Awards on March 2, 2014: (a) what was the total cost for advertising; and (b) what was the cost for each advertisement shown?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada purchased airtime during the Canadian broadcast of the 86th Academy Awards on CTV, one 30-second spot for Finance Canada’s economic action plan campaign and one 30-second spot for Canada Revenue Agency’s tax relief measures campaign. The network aired one additional 30 second tax relief ad free of charge. 
The Government of Canada does not disclose information about the specific amounts paid for individual ad placements or the amounts paid to specific media outlets. This information is considered third party business sensitive and is protected under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. 
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:  With regard to Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation’s (ECBC) responsibility for the former Cape Breton Development Corporation’s Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) and Compassionate Disability Benefit (CDB): (a) what year did ECBC become responsible for the ERIP and CDB; (b) what is the total number and outcome of decisions by year rendered by (i) the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Board (NSWCB), (ii) Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (WCAT), (iii) the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia related to the ERIP and CDB; (c) how many cases did ECBC utilize in-house legal services and third-party legal services in (i) the NSWCB, (ii) the WCAT, (iii) the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia cases related to the ERIP and CDB by year; (d) what was the total cost to ECBC for in-house legal services and third-party legal services in (i) the NSWCB, (ii) the WCAT, (iii) the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia cases related to the ERIP and CDB by year; and (e) what specific fund and or budget does ECBC in-house legal services and third-party legal services get billed to relating to (i) NSWCB, (ii) WCAT, (iii) the Nova Scotia Supreme Court cases related to the ERIP and CDB?
Hon. Rob Moore (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), CPC): Mr. Speaker, regarding the responsibility of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, or ECBC, for the former Cape Breton Development Corporation’s early retirement incentive program, or ERIP, and compassionate disability benefit, or CDB, with regard to (a), ECBC assumed responsibility for the Cape Breton Development Corporation’s assets and liabilities, including the ERIP and CDBs, on January 1, 2010.
 With regard to (b)(i), from January 2010 to March 20, 2014, the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Board rendered 13 decisions. There were seven in 2011, five in 2012, and one in 2014. In all cases, ECBC’s appeal was denied. With regard to (b)(ii), the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, or WCAT, rendered only one decision regarding the ERIP, the Hogan decision, in 2012. ECBC’s appeal was denied. With regard to (b)(iii), no decisions have been rendered by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, given that WCAT decisions are appealed directly to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal pursuant to section 256 of the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Act. 
With regard to (c)(i), from January 2010 to March 20, 2014, ECBC used third party legal services for all NSWCB cases related to ERIPs and CDBs, with the exception of two appeals that were completed in-house, one in 2012 and one in 2013. With regard to (c)(ii), ECBC used third party legal services for all cases related to the ERIP and CDBs at the WCAT. Question (c)(iii) is not applicable. 
With regard to (d)(i), the total cost, including HST, for legal services from January 2010 to March 20, 2014, by year, for NSWCB cases is as follows: $18,987 in 2010; $39,202 in 2011; $19,204 in 2012; $1,515 in 2013; and $0 in 2014. With regard to (d)(ii), the total cost, including HST, for legal services from January 2010 to March 20, 2014, by year, for WCAT cases is as follows: $0 in 2010; $92,762 in 2011; $2,007 in 2012; $37,198 in 2013; and $11,537 to March 20, 2014. Question (d)(iii) is not applicable. 
With regard to (e), ECBC does not have a specific fund or budget for legal services. Costs are covered by the corporation’s appropriation. 
[Interjection]
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Points of OrderThe Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Malpeque on April 9, 2014, concerning amendments contained in the Third Report from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), presented in the House on April 2, 2014.
I would like to thank the member for Malpeque for having raised this important matter. I would also like to thank the government House leader and the House Leader of the Official Opposition for their contributions.
In raising his point of order, the member for Malpeque argued that the amendments adopted by the committee had significantly altered the intent of the bill and that these amendments were not in keeping with the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading. In making his argument, the member referred to the second reading debate, during which the sponsor of the bill had indicated its intent as being to provide the National Parole Board of Canada with the authority to grant or cancel escorted temporary absences for offenders convicted of first or second degree murder. The member asserted that the bill’s main purpose was to remove the ability of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences for such offenders. 
It was the member's contention that the amendments adopted by the committee, specifically in allowing institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences once the Parole Board had granted an initial absence, were contrary to the principle of the bill. The member is asking the Chair to declare the amendments in question null and void and to direct that they no longer form part of the bill. The House Leader of the Official Opposition rose in support of the member's point of order.
In his intervention, the government House leader contended that the amendments in question were both consistent with the principle of the bill and within its scope. Several procedural authorities were cited to bolster this opinion. He also noted that the chair of the standing committee had ruled that the amendments were in order and that this ruling should be respected. 
The government House leader pointed out that the intent of the bill was to involve the National Parole Board of Canada in granting the escorted temporary absences, which would, in turn, involve the victims by providing them with an opportunity to participate in the hearings during such a process. The new provision, in his view, meets that requirement.
Before addressing the particulars of this point of order, I would like to remind the House of the Speaker’s authority in dealing with a report on a bill containing inadmissible amendments. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 775: 
 The admissibility of...amendments...may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative. 
I have examined the third report of the standing committee, as well as Bill C-483, both in its first reading version and in the reprint containing the committee's amendments. The intent of Bill C-483, as stated in the summary to the first reading copy of the bill, is as follows:
 This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to limit the authority of the institutional head to authorize the escorted temporary absence of an offender convicted of first or second degree murder. 
The amendment to clause 1 of the bill restructures the bill so that the provisions with regard to the National Parole Board of Canada are removed and later inserted in the subsequent new clause 1.1.
New clause 1.1 of the bill provides that the National Parole Board of Canada is involved in the granting of the initial escorted temporary absence. This process would be very similar to the original provisions previously contained in clause 1. The key difference is a new paragraph that the amendment also added, which provides that:
 If the Parole Board of Canada authorizes the temporary absence of an inmate under subsection (1) for community service, family contact, including parental responsibilities, or personal development for rehabilitative purposes and the temporary absence is not cancelled because the inmate has breached a condition, the institutional head may authorize that inmate’s subsequent temporary absences with escort... 
This would mean that once the authority is granted by the National Parole Board of Canada for an escorted temporary absence, it remains in place unless it is cancelled. The institutional head may grant subsequent escorted temporary absences only if the original authority from the National Parole Board remains in place. If conditions are breached and the absence is cancelled, authority must be sought anew from the National Parole Board of Canada. 
This appears to me to limit the authority of the institutional head in this regard. Escorted temporary absences must still be authorized by the National Parole Board of Canada. What appears to be different in this new provision is the frequency with which authorization must be sought. I can see nothing in the bill as amended by the committee which would alter the aims and intent of the bill, namely the limiting of the power of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences and providing a role for the National Parole Board in the granting of such absences. Therefore, I find that the amendments adopted by the committee are indeed in keeping with the scope and principle of the bill as adopted at second reading and are, therefore, admissible.
Accordingly, the House may proceed with its study of the bill as reported from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
I thank the House for its attention.

Government Orders
First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: There are still three minutes available for questions and comments.
 The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with respect to aboriginal education, we have heard from people in my riding who want changes made to the aboriginal education bill. We have responded to those concerns.
What makes it interesting for me is the opposition has been asking for changes to aboriginal education in Canada, yet when it is changed, it is never good enough.
Would the hon. member tell us what the positives of the bill are?
Joan Crockatt: Mr. Speaker, what Canadians really want to know is if this makes the future better for our aboriginal kids. That is the bottom line.
 I can go through the nooks and crannies of the bill. However, the nub of it is that this is an absolutely historic bill that gives first nations control over their own education. We are doing that as a government because first nations are ready for that control. They have magnificent models. Right now they have well-educated first nations people who run schools and who can bring other first nations along. They will deliver the kind of education their kids deserve. 
Incidentally, this agreement is similar to something the Liberals brought forward. However, our bill, which they are not supporting, also gives them control over language and culture. Those are two very important new components that make this a truly historic bill.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, why are the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the Anishinabek Nation, which is three dozen communities in northern Ontario, and the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador all opposing this bill? Why are first nations across the country opposing the bill?
Clearly, the answer is that there has not been the consultation that the government has pretended it did. The consultation has simply not been there. That is why first nation, after first nation is objecting strenuously to both the form and content of this bill and also this complete disregard of any adequate and thorough consultation with first nations.
[Interjection]
Joan Crockatt: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite could not be more wrong. That is typical of the NDP, the protest party. Its members will look for any protester in any way that they can bring forward on any bill. I would urge them to look at what the bill would do and get behind first nations in Canada that want to move forward. They should not stay with the patriarchal old system of the past, but rather move ahead with the first nations educators who are ready, willing and able to take control of first nations. They have been waiting for this is an historic agreement for 40 years.
I urge the members opposite to look forward.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I have the brief opportunity on behalf of my caucus to speak on this bill. That is, of course, because of the closure that the government has brought in on this very important bill. This debate will end today and we will not hear any more about it.
The second reading of bills is to talk about the content of the bill and to come to grips with whether we support it or not.
I am also very pleased to be splitting my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Between the two of us, I think we have over 100 years of time in northern communities across this vast land. My colleague's knowledge and understanding of that should be of great interest to everyone in the House.
I want to speak a bit about my experience. I grew up in the north. My first school, at grade 1, was the Fort Smith Federal Day School, run by the Government of Canada. It had two residential schools attached to it, Breynat Hall and Grandin College. I grew up through the system with residential school survivors, and many who were not survivors. Many of my classmates came to untimely ends due to social conditions, and the residential apology that took place was a very emotional moment for me. I recognized that so much had happened to first nations people across the country, and it was very personal to me.
My experience also includes being the chair of a local school society, where over 50% of the students were aboriginal students. I was chair of the board of governors of NWT Aurora College. The college's great dedication is toward putting aboriginal students into career positions, and it is very successful at doing that.
I understand the systems that we have set up in the Northwest Territories to deal with education in small and remote communities.
I will move to the report of the national panel on first nation elementary and secondary education for students on reserve . I want to keep my remarks to funding, because it is an area that in my experience has always been very important to talk about when we talk about schools in remote and isolated communities. The report states:
 Statutory funding that is needs-based, predictable, sustainable and used specifically for education purposes. [...] 
 First Nation education reform must be based on strong, positive education outcomes, not on an average cost per student approach. [...] Given the magnitude of barriers faced by First Nation learners, the level of resources and investment required per student will likely be substantially greater than the average level of expenditures provided in the public school system. 
That is clearly the case in the Northwest Territories. We have 8,500 students in our schools in remote and isolated communities, as well as in large communities, like Yellowknife, Fort Smith, Hay River, and Inuvik. There the average expenditure per student is $22,000 a year. When I was the chair of our local education society, in 1985, the level of funding per student in the schools that I represented was equivalent to what the Conservative government is providing today for the students in first nations schools across the country. 
We are talking about schools that require greater levels of funding in order to provide services. There is no question about that. There is no question that when we are dealing with a school in an isolated remote situation, where we have to work very hard to entice teachers to go there to teach, or pay the extraordinarily high costs of servicing schools, all of the costs of providing education to a very small number of students are very high. That is simply the case.
When we look at what is done in Canada, where we have 143,000 first nations children, in 2011-12, Aboriginal Affairs spent about $1.5 billion total. It sounds like a big number. For 8,500 students in the Northwest Territories, we spent in excess of $200 million a year.
When we look at what has happened in first nations education, we have to look at the dollars and ask how anyone can provide those services that are required across this country in remote locations, away from cities and from all the other things that allow the cost of providing those services to be reduced, and how that can be expected. We have schools that are chronically underfunded today. When we look at what the Conservatives are offering to put into the schools, starting in 2016 another $400 million per year on top of that, we see that the total amount provided in 2016 is far below what is really required to deal with those schools.
There are 515 on-reserve schools. Right now, there is a $200 million budget for repairs, maintenance, and infrastructure for schools and classrooms for 515 schools. No wonder these schools are failing apart. They simply cannot do that work. This has been going on since the Liberals. It has been going on for the last 20 or 30 years. Basically, we have never funded these schools properly. We have left them in a situation where schools are falling apart.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  The member from Calgary said it did not matter.
Dennis Bevington:  Well that is simply not the case, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about 515 schools and we have to replace a certain amount every 30 years. What does it cost to replace a school these days, especially in isolated, northern, and remote locations? I would refer members to some of the school replacements taking place in the Northwest Territories where the average replacement cost is between $30 million and $50 million for schools of 200 people. The average school on-reserve has around 200 students. This is the cost we are talking about.
If they are talking about a 30-year replacement plan, then those schools are going to eat up a heck of a lot more money that what they have in the budget here for operations, for maintenance, and for capital costs. What we have and will continue to have, unless we recognize that this is fundamentally underfunded, is having to add major dollars to it. There were the Liberals with their Kelowna Accord. This bill simply would not put the money where it is needed. We can spend billions of dollars a year updating our fighter fleet, but when it comes to upgrading our children's future we are not willing to put those kinds of dollars on the line.
This subject requires more debate and I know I have two minutes to talk about this very important topic and to talk about what we are actually doing with this bill. It is very difficult. I find it repugnant that the Conservatives have called closure on this subject where there is so much to say. There is so much to talk about that the couple of days of debate that we are taking at second reading is really ridiculous. I am in some ways outraged by it, but it is a pattern of the current government, when the Conservatives put forward in their way with all the lofty-sounding principles that they put forward here, and when we start to dig into this bill and realize that we are simply going to continue the situation that exists today. There is simply not enough effort put into this to make the change. What we need is a watershed of funding for these schools to bring them to a level that they can exist and can provide the services that first nations students require. My colleagues will talk about all the other aspects in the bill, and they would continue to talk about it if they had the chance. We do not have the chance to even get close to all the other subjects within this bill.
I appreciate this brief time here, and I appreciate that my colleague will come with some more statements very shortly, right after me, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say as well.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Western Arctic for that very eloquent speech. The member has worked for many years on these matters, and I appreciate the perspective that he brings.
The member talked about the fact that the Conservatives have shut down debate on this particular piece of legislation. It seems ironic for a government that says that in developing this legislation it did all kinds of consultation. Yet, what we have now is overwhelming opposition, from coast to coast to coast, to their so-called first nations control of first nations education act. 
I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that what we really need is fulsome debate here in the House, so that we do hear from first nations from coast to coast to coast. Then we need adequate time at committee to fully understand the implications of this piece of legislation that could have far-ranging impacts on first nations communities.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.
The problem we have is that these issues are complex. When we talk about turning over control of education to first nations, it is a process that is expensive and time-consuming.
I think of the community of Deline, in my riding, which finally completed a self-government agreement. It took 20 years to get to the self-government agreement, let alone adding on the aspect of the agreement of taking over education, which is going to take another significant period of time. We are talking about processes that are complex and are going to take much time, and resources as well.
Do I see within this bill an indication that the government is going to put resources into the development of first nations regional education opportunities? Those are good ideas.
 I fully agree that first nations taking over control of education is a good idea, but I do not see that the process has been fully outlined in this bill, or that it has been funded in a way that first nations could simply pick up on it.
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, my concern with the remarks by the member for Western Arctic, and even his responses to his colleagues, is that the NDP's typical approach here is to delay, suggest more talking, and not address the issues.
We are hearing from first nation leaders across Canada who like the idea of being empowered to provide education, and our government is also supplying the money to help them do that. Today, Regional Chief Roger Augustine described the bill as a “huge improvement” for first nations parents and communities across the country. 
The bill would be giving power and funds to help improve education for first nation students, yet it appears that the member for Western Arctic and his colleagues just want more delay and study, when we all know that this power has been asked for.
I would ask the member to justify his delay of this provision.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I would hardly call a 10-minute speech in the House a delay in the bill moving forward. That is simply ridiculous.
However, I would love to see the government put forward some details of its analysis on what it actually takes in terms of funding to bring aboriginal schools across this country up to the level that they should be. 
If the member shows me the details that the Conservatives have put into understanding what it takes, that would be a big start toward supporting this type of legislation. However, they will not do it. They will not show us what it actually costs. They do not want to put the money forward.
Romeo Saganash: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Meegwetch.
[Member spoke in Cree] 
[English]
Mr. Speaker, those were just words of thanks to my brothers and sisters of the Algonquin nation, because we must never forget that we are still on unceded Algonquin territory, and I just wanted to remind everybody in this room about that simple fact.
I am saddened to be taking the floor at this time, because I am speaking on this very important issue of first nations education in a context in which the Conservatives have yet again put time allocation on the debate on this important matter.
It is troubling, because it shows the disrespect this government has for aboriginal peoples in general. It shows disrespect by not allowing debate on this very important issue. It is disrespect because we all know in a way that our relations with aboriginal peoples in this country are broken, and the way that this particular legislation is being put forward will definitely not help in resolving that important issue.
I say education is an important issue, and I think everyone in this chamber agrees. Let me remind the House what the Supreme Court of Canada has said about important issues to aboriginal peoples. In the Haida Nation case, the Supreme Court said that at the high end of the spectrum of consultation, the consultation obligation and duty of the federal crown requires the consent of aboriginal peoples on very serious issues. 
I do not think anybody in this chamber challenges the idea that the education of first nations children is a very serious issue and therefore requires the consent of aboriginal peoples on whatever we propose in terms of first nations education.
I was travelling on the day when the Prime Minister apologized on behalf of all Canadians for the residential schools in this country. Members may know that I attended one of these residential schools for almost a decade. I was pretty moved by the words that were used on that day in this chamber. I read them the same day. I saw hope in those words for healing. I saw hope in those words for reconciliation with aboriginal peoples in this country.
But it is not happening. One cannot say, on the one hand, “I am sorry”, while on the other continuing to deny the fundamental rights of first nations peoples. It seriously does not happen that way.
I want to quote what the Prime Minister said on that day. I pulled out the French version of his speech of apology to aboriginal peoples. I just want to quote a paragraph in that speech: 
 The government recognizes that the absence of an apology has been an impediment to healing and reconciliation. 
 Therefore, on behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians, I stand before you, in this chamber so central to our life as a country, to apologize to aboriginal peoples for Canada's role in the Indian residential schools system. 
That is what the Prime Minister said that day. Once again, I would like to reiterate that we cannot say we are sorry on one hand and then, on the other, continue to deny the fundamental rights of first nations peoples in Canada. 
Reconciliation is an important objective and process in this country, and in Canadian constitutional law and international law, as well. It is an important process. In the indigenous context, reconciliation refers to restoring harmony. That is what is meant by reconciliation in this context, between indigenous people and the Crown. There has been conflict for countless generations.
The UN declaration emphasizes that recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples will enhance harmonious and co-operative relations between the state and indigenous peoples.
As I said, in the Haida case the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted that reconciliation is not a final legal remedy in the usual sense:
 Rather, it is a process flowing from the rights guaranteed by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. 
 It continued:
 This process of reconciliation flows from the Crown’s duty of honourable dealing toward Aboriginal peoples.... 
The court recognized the need to reconcile pre-existing aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty. Those are the words of the Supreme Court of Canada. And this is what is required in this process as well.
I know that a lot of time when legislation is tabled or presented in this House, one of the first complaints that we hear from first nations is that they have not been consulted. It is not just political vagary when they say that. They are talking about a constitutional obligation. They are talking about a constitutional duty of the Government of Canada to consult with aboriginal peoples and to accommodate the concerns that were expressed in the meaningful consultation that needs to happen.
If I listen to what the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador is saying, that did not happen. If I listen to what the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is saying, that did not happen. If I listen to the Chiefs of Ontario, that did not happen. 
There is a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations being called next week, because there is serious concern with this legislation. They are calling an urgent meeting, that is how serious it is. It is important that we understand. The Assembly of First Nations is going to the extent of instituting legal proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada, because of that lack of consultation. The government has not respected its constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate first nations in this country.
I want to read what Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations said yesterday:
 Bill C-33, as it stands, would create a system in which the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has authority but no responsibility. First Nations, on the other hand, would have responsibility since they deliver education services, but no authority. That is a completely unacceptable situation. There is no recognition of inherent or Treaty rights to education, no recognition of First Nations jurisdiction, and no recognition of First Nations as a third order of government. If the Government of Canada truly wants First Nations support, it is essential that it does not pass this Bill as it stands, but rather, engages in a democratic process that includes a meaningful consultation process. 
Let me end by saying that throughout this short discussion and debate that we have had on this bill, I have heard many responses from the government side saying, “That is not important. Your constitutional rights are not important.” That is what I am being told here.
I will never accept that, not before, not today, and never in the future. That is why I am opposing this bill today.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his impassioned defence of what is fundamental to what is wrong with this legislation. This gets to the heart of the relationship between the Crown and first nations from coast to coast to coast. 
The member talked about the fact that there were inherent rights and treaty rights that had been established and recognized in the Canadian Constitution. Members earlier were talking about giving first nations education. Well, they cannot give first nations education. First nations are entitled to education under inherent rights and treaty rights. They are entitled to education under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They are entitled to education under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Could the member talk about a way forward? Could he inform the House that if we had a fair, reasonable and democratic process taking place here, what would be the way forward?
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very important and interesting because it is something we need to discuss as well.
When aboriginal peoples, with their constitutional rights, talk about the need for meaningful consultation and accommodation, there are several examples we can take from the past to show that it is possible to sit down together with first nations and iron out legislation on education for our children. It is easy. 
For example, in 1975, when the James Bay Cree signed the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement, section 9 of the agreement provided for local self-government. In the ensuing years, both the Cree and the Government of Canada sat together and drafted the self-government legislation related to that. It is called the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. It was adopted by the House in 1984. Therefore, that is possible. That is the most respectful way we can have to deal with this important and crucial matter for first nations children and throughout the communities.
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that both the Liberals and the NDP are opposing constructive and necessary steps in supporting the goals expressed by the first nations for control for their respective treaty rights and aboriginal rights. Recognition of language and culture are a clear statutory guarantee for fair funding under education.
The Liberals had 13 long years to act, but instead they neglected the first nations and by opposing this bill, they are again signalling their willingness to allow another generation of first nations youth to fall through the cracks. Instead of doing what is best for first nations students, the Liberals have decided to hitch their wagon to the NDP message of partisanship and of the critics of the bill who would like nothing more than to disrupt Canada's economy.
I would urge the Liberals and the NDP to do as Chief Augustine suggests and do the right thing, to reconsider their position and stand up for first nations children.
[Interjection]
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate some of the points I just mentioned. It is important that whenever we deal with legislation in our country, we ensure that our constitutional obligations are respected. We ensure that the fundamental rights of first nations and aboriginal peoples are not violated. This is what is going on here. The government has not consulted with first nations. 
A couple of them are saying yes, but the vast majority of first nations people and organizations have not been consulted, and that is a constitutional problem. Conservatives are not respecting our constitutional duties to consult and accommodate first nations concerns expressed vis-à-vis this bill and that needs to happen. I will not put aside my constitutional right for a moment to allow them to pass this legislation, because the future of my children is too important for that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Maurice Vellacott): Because our time has gone beyond the five hours of debate, we will now go to 10 minutes per speaker.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development has the floor for 10 minutes.
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill C-33, the first nations control of first nations education act.
The introduction of Bill C-33 follows years of discussions, dialogue, and studies reflecting the efforts of many people, both first nations and government officials, to arrive at this point. 
All first nations across Canada were presented with numerous means of engaging in the consultation process and offered multiple opportunities to be a part of the dialogue and process leading to this legislation.
In 2011 the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations jointly launched a national panel on first nations elementary and secondary education, which recommended, in its final report, a first nations education act.
In December 2012 the Government of Canada launched a consultation process and released a discussion guide to help support open and meaningful consultation activities on the government's proposed legislative approach.
Between December 2012 and May 2013 the Government of Canada held face-to-face regional consultation sessions, video and teleconference sessions, and online consultation activities with first nations across Canada.
The government received various input on a variety of topics, including first nations control over first nations education, inherent rights and treaties, the transition of legislation, funding, language and culture, and parental involvement in education.
The legislation that we see before us today reflects the feedback that we received throughout the extensive consultation process. 
Engagements with first nations did not end there. On October 22, 2013, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development released for public review the document “Working Together for First Nation Students: A Proposal for a Bill on First Nation Education”. This was the result of input and feedback received on the blueprint for legislation.
The draft legislative proposal was shared with more than 600 chiefs and band councils and every first nation community across Canada, as well as provincial governments, for further input prior to the proposed legislation being finalized. Parents, educators, and students were also encouraged to submit comments on the proposal to further influence the development of this bill.
In response, the Assembly of First Nations issued an open letter that listed five conditions that it felt were necessary in order to reach a successful agreement on this legislation. Members have heard many of their colleagues testify that our government has not only met but exceeded these five conditions.
If the first nations control of first nations education act is passed, the Government of Canada will continue working with first nations on the development of necessary regulations to implement this proposed legislation.
Of course we recognize that funding is necessary to support the implementation of Bill C-33 to support first nations and first nation education authorities as they take on roles and responsibilities established under the first nations control of first nations education act. The Government of Canada has invested through economic action plan 2014 an additional $1.252 billion over three years beginning in 2016-17 and statutory core funding on top of the existing $1.55 billion per year for elementary and secondary education on reserve. Even after the three-year period has ended, this funding would continue to increase at a rate of 4.5% each and every year. The funding would be stable and predictable, ensuring that schools have the resources necessary to help students meet their needs and prepare them to participate in Canada's labour market.
In addition, the Government of Canada would help to support the transition to legislation by creating an enhanced education fund that would provide $160 million over four years, beginning in 2015-16. This funding would help develop the partnerships and institutional structures required to implement the proposed legislation, including support for first nations education authorities.
Another important feature of Bill C-33 is the issue of ministerial oversight. Far from giving the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development more power or more control over first nations education, under this legislation the minister would have far less decision-making power than provincial ministers of education have in their jurisdictions and far less than he has today.
In addition, under Bill C-33 a joint council of educational professionals would be put in place to support the implementation of this legislation. The joint council would have a membership of up to nine members, including a chair. Half of these members would be appointed by the Assembly of First Nations, four would be nominated by the minister, and the chair would be jointly selected by the Assembly of First Nations and the minister.
The joint council would be made up of recognized educational experts and would have the role of supporting first nations and first nations education authorities in the improvement of their education system, as well as the oversight role of ensuring that the ministerial powers provided by the act are exercised with the benefit of the first nations' perspective and are used as a last resort. Indeed, the minister would not be able to create regulations or appoint temporary administrators without the advice of this joint council.
Under the act, first nations or first nation education authorities would have the sole authority to hire and manage school inspectors, oversee school operations, and deal with situations where an individual school is not providing quality education to students. Under exceptional circumstances, the minister could appoint a temporary administrator under clause 40, but only after seeking the advice of the joint council of education professionals. This provision would only be exercised in exceptional circumstances, such as where inspection reports have not been submitted, significant issues have been revealed, standards are not being met, or there is significant risk to student well-being and success. It should be noted that these are the same conditions that would trigger a similar response in provincially run schools.
Finally, I would like to touch briefly on the issue of language and culture. The Government of Canada and first nations believe that language and culture are essential to successful first nation education. Consistent with the Prime Minister's announcement on February 7, 2014, clause 21 of the first nations control of first nations education act would enable first nations to incorporate their languages and cultures into school curricula and offer language and culture programming. Clause 43 of the proposed legislation would also commit the Government of Canada to providing funding to support language and culture programming as part of its core funding.
The intent of the proposed legislation is to create a legislative framework within which first nations would exercise control over first nations education. First nation schools and education authorities would also have full decision-making powers in terms of curriculum choice, providing it meets education standards under the act and the establishment of school policies and school procedures.
In summary, Bill C-33 is an important piece of legislation. Developed in consultation with first nations, it is an essential and overdue step in ensuring that first nation students have the same quality of education and access to education as other students in Canada. I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-33.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I represent a part of Canada, northwestern British Columbia, that has a great number of first nations communities. There are villages, from the coast, all the way to the interior, the north, and the middle of the province. 
There are a number of concerns and constraints that we have been raising with the current government and the previous government for many years. Generations of first nations people have suffered under a more patronizing form of governance in which Ottawa says it knows best. 
One of the conditions set out that the member believes has been met is that there is no unilateral control kept by the minister. My question is this. With regard to this joint council being meant to advise the minister, on two parts, the unilateral control concerns me. One is that the minister does all the appointing and firing of that council. It is not done in consultation with anybody. He just chooses who the advisors are. They may be first nations or they may not. It does not matter. The minister, in this act, under what he is voting for, does this.
The second piece about this council is that if we are going to take the advice from this council, none of it is binding. The council can say that these are what the improvements need to be for first nations education, and the minister sitting in Ottawa, with the way that the act is drawn up right now, can say absolutely not, and there is no consequence.
I hear the member's words and the sincerity around wanting to put more control and determination in first nations communities, wherein the solutions lie, not in Ottawa. Yet, when I read the bill, I struggle with reconciling my friend's words and what the government has written in the text and the law. It gives the minister unilateral power to decide what happens with first nations education. That is the fundamental crux of the argument.
I would like my friend to respond.
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, in my earlier teaching career, when I began my education, I was actually a teacher and a school administrator in the member's riding. The background and the time that I spent there helped me develop my love and experience. Quite frankly, it was the core of my educational experience, particularly in teaching first nations students in that riding. I know that the member cares deeply about the community as well.
In terms of the appointment of this joint council, it would have nine members on it. Of these members, four would be appointed by the Assembly of First Nations and four would be appointed by the minister. The chair of the council would be jointly selected by the minister and the Assembly of First Nations. There would be great consultation with the aboriginal and first nations community on the membership of the council.
Later in my career, I also helped build a school that was, at that time, responsible for the education of elementary students from primary to grade 5 in my hometown of Truro. That school was built with the intent of being inclusive for everyone. It is a public school, but the first nations students on the reserve close by in Millbrook attend the school. 
The involvement of the first nations community in Millbrook in this school is absolutely phenomenal. It invested capital money into the school for construction. It put staff from the reserve, appointed by the chief, into the school.
This bill would also provide $500 million to increase capital construction for schools across Canada and renovations in schools across Canada, current schools that need these renovation monies desperately. This is a bill that would put its money where its mouth is. It would almost double the amount of money that is invested, with an additional $1.25 billion. It would also have money allocated for school construction and school renovations. 
I am very proud to support this bill. It also has the support of the chief of the reserve in my hometown. I am proud to stand here and support that on behalf of Millbrook, Chief Gloade, and the young people in my community.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I just have to take exception to the member's comments regarding the appointments on the joint council. It is actually the case that four members would be recommended by a first nations entity, not by the Assembly of First Nations, as written in this piece of legislation. The minister and the Governor in Council would appoint the chair and four other members, so the minister would control the majority on the joint council.
How can the member say that the joint council would be representative of first nations?
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, as I said, four of the nine members would be recommended by the first nations community, four would be recommended by the minister, and the chair would be jointly appointed by the minister and the AFN. There would be great consultation in the membership of this joint committee.
As I have talked about the actions of this joint committee, only in severe cases would this committee recommend to the minister and give him the power to replace the administration, or make direct changes within the schools, which would be under the control of the first nations authority. This joint council would be collaborative between both the minister and the government and the AFN.
It would be system of great collaboration.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the first point I want to raise is where I come from and represent in this House of Commons, which is northwestern British Columbia. People have heard me speak of it often as a beautiful and diverse place. It represents almost a quarter of British Columbia, the northwest quarter, and has within it 49 first nations communities, which are some of the proudest and strongest first nations communities anywhere in the world, such as the Haida, Tsimshian, Taku River Tlingit, Heiltsuk. I could go on to name more.
The pride that is held in these first nations communities is with respect in particular to these generational concepts that are at the very heart of the way that they conduct themselves in law, the way they operate on the land, and the respect they show to one another. As a federal representative, it has been an incredible privilege of mine these past 10 years to attempt to have true and sincere dialogue and consultation, because we have had far too many governments and politicians stand up and attempt to justify that they were speaking on behalf of first nations and then go about their way doing almost the exact opposite and acting in a paternalistic and belittling way toward first nations communities.
I must also contextualize what I am saying. There is broad disagreement in this House around this particular bill. New Democrats have found that it is wanting in some of the most fundamental aspects of what true consultation and collaboration would mean. We have also seen that it will not do what the government is promising. That is a great shame because where we do have agreement in Parliament across the party lines is with respect to the importance of education and skills training particularly for young first nations people. We do not need to repeat the statistics. By and large, young first nations people growing up in Canada suffer with fewer hopes and opportunities than non-aboriginal youth. That is an enormous problem, not just within those communities and those families but for us as a country because it inhibits a huge number of our people but it also inhibits our nation in being able to move forward.
I would also argue that in a place like northwestern British Columbia it inhibits opportunities for the country writ large when it comes to resource development because first nations stand as the gatekeepers, as the protectors of so much of what is important. When the government tries to push through a mining project, an oil pipeline or any such large-scale industrial project it has to understand that respect means respect. Unfortunately, up until this point in some cases the approach of the Conservative government has not been one of respect. It has ridiculed opponents of its plans, demonized them, and called them enemies and radicals. That is not what will carry the conversation forward. What we need is the conversation to move forward.
Let me return to how this day started in Parliament. I have not done this before, but it is important because I was struck by it this morning as you read out the prayer of the House of Commons of Canada, something that happens every morning as members gather. It was the very end of the prayer that the Speaker of the House recites that struck me as we were going to talk about this piece of legislation today, about something so important as first nations education.
The very end of the House of Commons prayer reads:
 Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions. 
I think about that as we are debating this particular piece of legislation, “Grant us the wisdom, knowledge, and understanding”. Has the government shown that when it is describing its vision for first nations education, where it maintains unilateral power and control by the federal minister of aboriginal affairs, where it maintains the old vestiges and old ideas that got us into so much trouble for so long, where it maintains this idea that Ottawa knows best about the problems of the first nations people and it will fix those problems? 
The challenge for the government is that it puts a nice title on the bill and it has nice preambles in the bill that say all sorts of wonderful things, but if only wishing made it so. If what was said in the title and in the opening paragraphs were actually in the law, the parts of the bill that will be impacting the real world, not the nice words but the law, if it had only matched that lovely title and that wonderful preamble, then we would have a much more conducive Parliament and a much more helpful debate than what we have here. The cynical irony is that within hours of the debate starting on a first nations education bill, the government House leader got to his feet to shut down debate on first nations education. He then said that the government is very consultative and respectful and that what it wants to do is show respect for all people, when the first place it showed disrespect is in the very House of Commons that the people elected to represent them.
The audacity that the Conservatives maintain is unbelievable.
We have also suggested this. The Conservatives refused, on their unfair elections act, to have parliamentary hearings outside of Ottawa, because the Conservatives wanted to keep the conversation in the bubble as they were rigging our electoral process. We are now suggesting, with something so critical as first nations education, that certainly it would be the consultative and respectful thing to do to actually leave Ottawa. Heaven forbid that Conservative MPs had to leave Ottawa and go talk to Canadians, first nations, outside of Ottawa and understand what the impact on the ground would be of their legislation. More important, they would hear about all the incredible successes first nations educators and leaders and families are having in battling and dealing with the challenges that have faced first nations communities and families for so long. The successes are there, and the tragedy of this bill is that they are not incorporated.
 We would think that the Conservatives would go out and look for the best-case examples, from coast to coast to coast, of people who are creating those innovative environments, having higher graduation rates and success rates, keeping kids in school for that amount of time, and seeing the success when they look for training to enter the workforce. Those successes are there in British Columbia and Alberta and right across to the east and up to the north. Instead, they do this. They impose this top-down model.
The time is limited, but on the very basic facets of what the government has proposed today, it is yet another chapter in the sad story of the way federal governments have dealt with first nations people in Canada. The only hope is that the power that rests in those communities, the bright lights that are working so hard with that right purpose and right mind, will know that they have allies in the New Democratic Party who will stand up for their rights, and that they will allow us one day, and that day cannot come too soon, to achieve some sort of fairness, dignity, and respect for all people in Canada.
The Speaker: It being 1:15, pursuant to an order made Thursday, May 1, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
 The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 5 at the ordinary hour of adjournment.
The hon. member for Oxford is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
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 Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Corrections and Conditional Release Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), as reported with amendment from the committee.
The Speaker: There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
 The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 7 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 1:17, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:17 p.m.)