Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2012

(Return tabled)

Question No. 970

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

With regard to National Historic Sites and the response of the Minister of the Environment to Question 773 on the Order Paper, answered in Debates on September 17, 2012, where the Minister states “the majority of national historic sites have maintained similar opening and closing dates for 2012; however, some sites opened on June 1 and will close on the Labour Day weekend”: (a) what is the exact number of sites which maintained similar opening and closing dates for 2012; (b) what is the exact number of sites which opened on June 1 and will close on Labour Day weekend; and (c) for each individual site, what were the opening and closing dates in 2011 and 2012?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 971

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

With regard to National Defence and Militarized Commercial Off-The-Shelf (MILCOT) trucks: (a) what is the identifying number of each MILCOT truck at each base, station or other establishment; (b) how many hours, and for how many kilometres, has each MILCOT truck been in service; (c) how many hours of maintenance have been performed on each MILCOT truck; (d) what are the particulars of any accident involving a MILCOT truck, including (i) the nature of the damage to the vehicle, (ii) the cost of repairs or of writing off the value of the vehicle, (iii) the number of casualties, both military and civilian, and the extent of any injuries?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 976

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

With regard to expenses relating to renovations and repairs paid for by Public Works and Government Services to real property since May 1, 2011: (a) what renovations or repairs have been made to the offices of House of Commons Members, caucus officers, or House administration at (i) 131 Queen Street, (ii) Justice Building, (iii) Confederation Building, (iv) Centre Block, (v) East Block, (vi) Howard Building (202 Sparks Street); (b) what were the costs of those renovations and repairs; and (c) what was the nature of the damage or defect which required repairs?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 978

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

With regard to national parks and historic sites, what was the total employment during the 2012 operating season, broken down by full-time, part-time and seasonal employees, for each of the following parks and sites: Abbot Pass Refuge Cabin, Alberta; Athabasca Pass, Alberta; Banff, Alberta; Banff Park Museum, Alberta; Bar U Ranch, Alberta; Cave and Basin, Alberta; Elk Island, Alberta; First Oil Well in Western Canada, Alberta; Frog Lake, Alberta; Howse Pass, Alberta; Jasper, Alberta; Jasper House, Alberta; Jasper Park Information Centre, Alberta; Rocky Mountain House, Alberta; Skoki Ski Lodge, Alberta; Sulphur Mountain Cosmic Ray Station, Alberta; Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta; Wood Buffalo, Alberta; Yellowhead Pass, Alberta; Chilkoot Trail, British Columbia; Fisgard Lighthouse, British Columbia; Fort Langley, British Columbia; Fort Rodd Hill, British Columbia; Fort St. James, British Columbia; Gitwangak Battle Hill, British Columbia; Glacier, British Columbia; Gulf Islands, British Columbia; Gulf of Georgia Cannery, British Columbia; Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, British Columbia; Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve, British Columbia; Kicking Horse Pass, British Columbia; Kootenae House , British Columbia; Kootenay, British Columbia; Mount Revelstoke, British Columbia; Nan Sdins, British Columbia; Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, British Columbia; Rogers Pass, British Columbia; Stanley Park, British Columbia; Twin Falls Tea House, British Columbia; Yoho, British Columbia; Forts Rouge, Garry and Gibraltar, Manitoba; Linear Mounds, Manitoba; Lower Fort Garry, Manitoba; Prince of Wales Fort, Manitoba; Riding Mountain, Manitoba; Riding Mountain Park East Gate Registration Complex, Manitoba; Riel House, Manitoba; St. Andrew's Rectory, Manitoba; The Forks, Manitoba; Wapusk, Manitoba; York Factory, Manitoba; Beaubears Island Shipbuilding, New Brunswick; Boishébert, New Brunswick; Carleton Martello Tower, New Brunswick; Fort Beauséjour – Fort Cumberland, New Brunswick; Fort Gaspareaux, New Brunswick; Fundy, New Brunswick; Kouchibouguac, New Brunswick; La Coupe Dry Dock, New Brunswick; Monument-Lefebvre, New Brunswick; Saint Croix Island International Historic Site, New Brunswick; St. Andrews Blockhouse, New Brunswick; Cape Spear Lighthouse, Newfoundland and Labrador; Castle Hill, Newfoundland and Labrador; Gros Morne, Newfoundland and Labrador; Hawthorne Cottage, Newfoundland and Labrador; Hopedale Mission, Newfoundland and Labrador; L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland and Labrador; Port au Choix, Newfoundland and Labrador; Red Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador; Ryan Premises, Newfoundland and Labrador; Signal Hill, Newfoundland and Labrador; Terra Nova, Newfoundland and Labrador; Torngat Mountains, Newfoundland and Labrador; Aulavik, Northwest Territories; Nahanni National Park Reserve, Northwest Territories; Sahoyué-§ehdacho, Northwest Territories; Tuktut Nogait, Northwest Territories; Wood Buffalo, Northwest Territories; Alexander Graham Bell, Nova Scotia; Beaubassin, Nova Scotia; Bloody Creek, Nova Scotia; Canso Islands, Nova Scotia; Cape Breton Highlands, Nova Scotia; Charles Fort, Nova Scotia; D'Anville's Encampment, Nova Scotia; Fort Anne, Nova Scotia; Fort Edward, Nova Scotia; Fort Lawrence, Nova Scotia; Fort McNab, Nova Scotia; Fort Sainte Marie de Grace, Nova Scotia; Fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia; Georges Island, Nova Scotia; Grand-Pré, Nova Scotia; Grassy Island Fort, Nova Scotia; Halifax Citadel, Nova Scotia; Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site, Nova Scotia; Marconi, Nova Scotia; Melanson Settlement, Nova Scotia; Port-Royal, Nova Scotia; Prince of Wales Tower, Nova Scotia; Royal Battery, Nova Scotia; St. Peters, Nova Scotia; St. Peters Canal, Nova Scotia; The Bank Fishery - The Age of Sail Exhibit, Nova Scotia; Wolfe's Landing, Nova Scotia; York Redoubt, Nova Scotia; Auyuittuq, Nunavut; Quttinirpaaq, Nunavut; Sirmilik, Nunavut; Ukkusiksalik, Nunavut; Battle Hill, Ontario; Battle of Cook's Mills, Ontario; Battle of the Windmill, Ontario; Battlefield of Fort George, Ontario; Bellevue House, Ontario; Bethune Memorial House, Ontario; Bois Blanc Island Lighthouse and Blockhouse, Ontario; Bruce Peninsula, Ontario; Butler's Barracks, Ontario; Carrying Place of the Bay of Quinte, Ontario; Fathom Five National Marine Park of Canada, Ontario; Fort George, Ontario; Fort Henry, Ontario; Fort Malden, Ontario; Fort Mississauga, Ontario; Fort St. Joseph, Ontario; Fort Wellington, Ontario; Georgian Bay Islands, Ontario; Glengarry Cairn, Ontario; HMCS Haida, Ontario; Inverarden House, Ontario; Kingston Fortifications, Ontario; Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area of Canada, Ontario; Laurier House, Ontario; Merrickville Blockhouse, Ontario; Mississauga Point Lighthouse, Ontario; Mnjikaning Fish Weirs, Ontario; Murney Tower, Ontario; Navy Island, Ontario; Peterborough Lift Lock, Ontario; Point Clark Lighthouse, Ontario; Point Pelee National Park, Ontario; Pukaskwa, Ontario; Queenston Heights, Ontario; Rideau Canal, Ontario; Ridgeway Battlefield, Ontario; Saint-Louis Mission, Ontario; Sault Ste. Marie Canal, Ontario; Shoal Tower, Ontario; Sir John Johnson House, Ontario; Southwold Earthworks, Ontario; St. Lawrence Islands, Ontario; Trent–Severn Waterway, Ontario; Waterloo Pioneers Memorial Tower, Ontario; Woodside, Ontario; Ardgowan, Prince Edward Island; Dalvay-by-the-Sea, Prince Edward Island; Green Gables Heritage Place, Prince Edward Island; L.M. Montgomery's Cavendish, Prince Edward Island; Port-la-Joye–Fort Amherst, Prince Edward Island; Prince Edward Island National Park, Prince Edward Island; Province House, Prince Edward Island; 57-63 St. Louis Street, Quebec; Battle of the Châteauguay, Quebec; Battle of the Restigouche, Quebec; Carillon Barracks, Quebec; Carillon Canal, Quebec; Cartier-Brébeuf, Quebec; Chambly Canal, Quebec; Coteau-du-Lac, Quebec; Forges du Saint-Maurice, Quebec; Forillon, Quebec; Fort Chambly, Quebec; Fort Lennox, Quebec; Fort Ste. Thérèse, Quebec; Fort Témiscamingue, Quebec; Fortifications of Québec, Quebec; Grande-Grave, Quebec; Grosse Île and the Irish Memorial, Quebec; La Mauricie, Quebec; Lachine Canal, Quebec; Lévis Forts, Quebec; Louis S. St. Laurent National Historic Site, Quebec; Louis-Joseph Papineau National Historic Site, Quebec; Maillou House, Quebec; Manoir Papineau, Quebec; Mingan Archipelago National Park Reserve, Quebec; Montmorency Park, Quebec; Pointe-au-Père Lighthouse, Quebec; Québec Garrison Club, Quebec; Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, Quebec; Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Canal, Quebec; Saint-Louis Forts and Châteaux, Quebec; Saint-Ours Canal, Quebec; Sir George-Étienne Cartier National Historic Site, Quebec; Sir Wilfrid Laurier National Historic Site, Quebec; The Fur Trade at Lachine, Quebec; Batoche, Saskatchewan; Battle of Tourond's Coulee / Fish Creek, Saskatchewan; Cypress Hills Massacre, Fort Battleford, Saskatchewan; Fort Espérance, Saskatchewan; Fort Livingstone, Saskatchewan; Fort Pelly, Saskatchewan; Fort Walsh, Saskatchewan; Frenchman Butte, Saskatchewan; Grasslands, Saskatchewan; Motherwell Homestead, Saskatchewan; Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan; Dawson Historical Complex, Yukon; Dredge No 4, Yukon; Former Territorial Court House, Yukon; Ivvavik, Yukon; Kluane National Park and Reserve, Yukon; S.S. Keno, Yukon; S.S. Klondike, Yukon; and Vuntut, Yukon?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia had two minutes remaining for his remarks and then the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that self-governing first nations, under the terms of their self-government agreements, are already required to prepare their financial statements and make them available to community members. That is why they are not included in the bill. Why should the residents of first nation communities expect anything less?

Developing healthier, more sustainable communities depends on good, democratic governance. The legislation is fair and reasonable. It is the responsible thing to do to ensure transparency, increased accountability and ultimately, more effective governance in first nation communities.

I call on all parties to give Bill C-27 their wholehearted support to make sure that first nation citizens enjoy the same rights and privileges as other Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned many times that this is a very important measure for the government. I wonder why that is because the Conservatives have invoked time allocation yet again and are saying they do not want to hear all sides of the story. They do not want to hear the voices of members elected to represent aboriginal communities and first nation communities across the country. They are not investing in the things that the first nations or aboriginal communities or urban aboriginal people, such as those living in my community, are looking for. They are looking for things such as affordable housing, an increase in the affordability of food and the affordability of life in general.

Therefore, I ask my hon. colleague, will he start focusing on those issues as well?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard countless times from those on reserve who do not know what their chiefs and councillors make. All they are asking is for the right to have that same courtesy as other Canadians do from coast to coast to coast.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the government is being somewhat ironic bragging about the Accountability Act, when that act enshrined the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer who, years later, finds himself shut down at every corner.

I have a question that is fairly direct. It just requires a yes or no. Given the theme of his speech was about opening up the books, which I agree with, I would like to ask him very simply, would he allow the Auditor General to look at all of his expenses as a member of Parliament? Yes or no?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we should focus on Bill C-27, which would ensure that councillors and chiefs throughout Canada, from coast to coast to coast, would be open to their constituents.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's interrupted speech with some interest. We are now facing a closure motion on the bill and therefore this is the last day of debate on this section of the bill. Does he believe that this is the most important, most crucial piece of legislation facing the House at the moment? The fact that the Conservatives have only put up five speakers so far out of 160 is a bit ironic given the circumstances that we face with the closure motion in front of us.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the most important bill that we are speaking to because we are speaking to it right now. It is very important for those people on reserve who want to know the remuneration of their chiefs and councillors. For years they have been asking us for that and that is what we are going to deliver.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question previously and I did not really get an answer, so I will try a slightly different question this time.

The answer I got from my hon. colleague was that we want to make sure that people living on reserves know exactly what their chiefs are making and increase transparency there. However, the government is not a government that is being transparent or accountable to the constituents that it represents, which include all Canadians.

Will the member have the decency to ensure that his government, his Prime Minister and all of his ministers are being truly accountable and truly transparent, that they are being the representatives of the state and are accountable to all their constituents, not just the Canadians who are friends and insiders of the Conservative Party but to all Canadians?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the member that all members on this side are very upfront with regard to what they spend. I am sure all of the ministers would be very certain of that.

Having said that, the most important bill here today is Bill C-27, which will ensure that people on reserve can understand what their chiefs and councillors receive each year through remuneration.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-27.

According to the Conservative majority, the purpose of this bill is to make first nations' finances more transparent by requiring first nations to disclose various pieces of information.

I must begin by pointing out to the House the irony in this situation: the Conservative government lacks transparency in many areas and has no problem criticizing the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he confirms their lack of transparency.

The Conservatives also hid information that the Chief Electoral Officer had requested when the robocall scandal came to light. They hide their destructive environmental policies in mammoth bills like the budget bill voted on last June. They deceived Canadians on the real cost of the F-35 and they misled Canadians during the election. At the time, they said they would not raise the age of eligibility for old age security, yet they raised it from 65 to 67 just a few months later.

Now the Conservatives are introducing a bill that suggests that first nations are not being transparent. This is ironic, coming from a government that is not very transparent itself.

Before preaching to others and imposing such conditions, the Conservatives should start by looking in the mirror.

Transparency is always a good thing when it comes to public funds. Canadians deserve to have their money well spent, and they deserve to have all the necessary means to know what governments are doing with that money. We must speak out against any misuse of public funds at every level of government.

This is also true for first nations, which deserve to have the funding they are given properly managed and used to develop their community. Like everywhere else, the money is sometimes mismanaged, and it is the members of these communities who suffer for it.

This bill could stigmatize first nations by giving Canadians the impression that aboriginal reserves mismanage their resources and must be put under trusteeship by Ottawa. That is insulting and disrespectful to aboriginal communities, which were not even consulted before the bill was drafted.

I would like to specify that, although it is possible that some communities mismanage their resources, this type of problem is not limited to first nations communities. Many municipalities and governments—federal and provincial—have done a shoddy job of managing public funds. We have seen this frequently in Quebec since the beginning of the Charbonneau commission. Such practices must be stopped at all levels.

We believe that public funds must be managed in a transparent manner. However, imposing transparency, as the Conservatives are trying to do today, is insulting and reminiscent of colonial times. The Conservatives are forgetting that they have a constitutional duty to consult the first nations before making changes to laws that affect them.

However, as they have been in the habit of doing since they won a majority, the Conservatives are acting unilaterally, as though the other levels of government did not exist. The Conservatives are not even trying to examine the amendments proposed by the opposition or even hold consultations with regard to their own amendments. In short, this government is continuing to turn a deaf ear.

The paternalism of this bill is also of great concern. The first nations should have the same amount of freedom as the provinces and municipalities to manage themselves as they wish.

When the federal government sends the provinces equalization cheques, does it tell them how to do their accounting? The provinces pass their own laws, and we have confidence in their justice system.

With Bill C-27, we are acting as though the first nations belonged to the federal government. We are acting as though the first nations needed to be put under trusteeship, as though they were unable to take care of themselves.

Can we require that first nations communities be transparent toward their members? Likely. However, do we need a bill that tells them exactly how to do that?

Aboriginal communities do not all operate in the same way and do not all have the same resources.

By unilaterally passing a bill that will tell them exactly what to do, we will be imposing an administrative burden that will cause problems for many of them. For example, why force first nations to have a website where the public can consult the documents this bill requires, when some of them do not even have drinking water?

For a community of 200 people, for example, being forced to maintain a community website is an unjustifiable burden, especially since the Conservative government is not offering any financial compensation. Disclosing certain information to all Canadians can also cause problems for first nations businesses, which will be put at a competitive disadvantage, as the member for St. Paul's described.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill puts a huge administrative burden on aboriginal communities that have limited means. The first nations already provide at least 168 separate financial reports to the four main federal departments and agencies—Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, the CMHC, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and Health Canada. The administrative burden imposed on the first nations is excessive, and the government is not doing anything to help them with this bill. Their resources are limited, so let us help them by reducing their spending on the administrative documents we force them to produce.

The Conservatives must stop treating the provinces and first nations with contempt. Not only does the Conservative government break our laws and frequently waste taxpayers' money, but it goes so far as to lecture others and to try to control them. A first step for the Conservatives would be to achieve transparency by providing documents in a timely manner when asked to do so by Elections Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. And the Conservatives should consult the provinces and the first nations when considering changes that affect them.

The Liberal Party is not the only one saying it: the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal and the provincial governments have an obligation to consult aboriginal peoples before making decisions that affect their rights, and that they must respond to their concerns.

So why impose this kind of legislation without consultation?

Canadians are afraid of this obsession with control. The provinces no longer have a say. The Conservatives have decided to cut transfers and services, and to increase provincial costs with complete disregard for the principles of federalism. Even the premier of Quebec, a sovereignist, was surprised and disappointed that the Prime Minister of Canada is not attending the meeting of the Council of the Federation in Halifax. We know that we have a serious problem when even a separatist seems to take Canadian federalism more seriously than the Prime Minister of Canada.

Today, the government is treating the first nations in the same way by unilaterally imposing its conditions. For the Prime Minister to have such control over his caucus that he forces them to read texts prepared by his office is one thing. But to have such contempt for Canadian federalism that he passes the costs on to the province and the aboriginal communities is, quite frankly, an insult to Canadians.

We must put an end to paternalism and the colonial mentality towards first nations. We must treat them like partners in our federation. The first nations are not government agencies; they are not the property of the federal government. The Conservatives must negotiate with the first nations in order to find common ground rather than being confrontational. The Conservative government must face the facts, reconsider its approach and take into account the opposition's concerns.

To that end, the Conservatives should vote with the Liberal Party against this bad bill, and they should go back to the drawing board.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued. I sit on the immigration committee and we have had a chance to look at Bill C-45. The creation of electronic travel authority and the details of how the ETA would be created, the criteria for qualifying, et cetera, were not going to be in the legislation. They would be in the regulations, which of course can be changed very easily by a minister.

Why is it that, in Bill C-27, the government seems to feel it needs to put into legislation the details of the disclosure requirements for chiefs? First nations communities and chiefs have audited financial statements. New Democrats believe the audited statements should first be presented to the first nations communities. We do not need legislation to control what they do. It could be a requirement of the funding arrangements that each of the communities signs.

I would ask my hon. colleague to comment on that.