Debates of Feb. 11th, 2014

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Climate Change

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on climate change, our most pressing environmental issue and perhaps the defining issue of our generation. It will profoundly affect our economy, health, lifestyle, and social well-being. How we respond will define the world that our children and their descendants grow up in.

The petitioners call upon the government to table a comprehensive climate change plan; commit to attaining the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that are supported internationally; and contribute its fair share to fill the megatonne gap, the shortfall between existing mitigation commitments and the emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change.

Anaphylaxis

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from constituents in the province of Saskatchewan in regard to reducing the risk for anaphylactic passengers. They draw attention to the House that on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, members of Parliament voted unanimously in support of the anaphylaxis motion, Motion No. 230, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, anaphylaxis is a serious concern for an increasing number of Canadians and the government should take the appropriate measures necessary to ensure these Canadians are able to maintain a high quality of life.

Therefore, the Canadian Anaphylaxis Initiative and the petitioners request that Parliament enact a policy to reduce the risk for anaphylactic passengers that is applicable to all forms of passenger transportation within its jurisdiction.

Gatineau Park

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to table two petitions. The first petition is with respect to quite a few people who have signed petitions with respect to Gatineau Park. They are asking the government to adopt legislation giving Gatineau Park the necessary legal protection to ensure its preservation for future generations. Given that there are so many endangered species and animals in this park that need to be protected, the petitioners are asking the government to do that.

Public Transit

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is one that my colleague from Trinity—Spadina has put a lot of energy into. It is with respect to a national public strategy.

We are the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy. It is estimated that over the next five years there will be an $18-billion gap in that area.

The petitioners know what public transit means to communities. They are asking the government to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit; to establish a funding mechanism; to work together with all levels of government for sustainable, predictable, and adequate funding; and to establish accountability measures.

Gatineau Park

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by many constituents from my riding of Hull—Aylmer in relation to protecting Gatineau Park.

The park currently has no legal protection. It is important that Parliament pass a law to protect our park, which is a gem, not only for the municipality, but also for the nation's capital and Canada as a whole.

Prairie Shelterbelt Program

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a number of petitions on behalf of people across the Prairies in support of maintaining the shelterbelt. The petitioners are calling upon the Prime Minister to reverse the defunding decision for the shelterbelt program so that it continues. It is an essential program for farmers and westerners. They would like to see this continue until they can take it over. They request that funding be reintroduced.

Mining Industry

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition today regarding the creation of a legal ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining. This ombudsman would have the capacity to investigate complaints; assess compliance with corporate accountability standards that are based on international labour, environmental and human rights norms; make public its findings; recommend remedial actions; and recommend sanctions by the Government of Canada, such as withholding financial and political support to any company that does not comply with standards.

Public Transit

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour for me to present a petition today that calls on the federal government to adopt a national public transit strategy. As everyone knows, Canada is the only G8 country without such a strategy.

It is extremely important for the people of Alfred-Pellan, the eastern part of Laval. There are many issues with public transit in that area, especially with buses. As well, the Train de l'Est commuter train was supposed to run through the riding. I know that many people in the eastern part of Laval would be pleased to see a national public transit strategy put in place to facilitate transit, be it for suburban areas or for more urban or rural areas. This is something that is very important to us.

Fisheries Act

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions today.

The first petition is from citizens across Canada who say that whereas habitat refers to the water or land necessary for the survival of all species, including fish, and that habitat destruction is the most common reason for species decline and extinction, and weakening of habitat protections in section 35 of the Fisheries Act will negatively impact Canada's waters, and quality of fisheries, and the changing of the wording of the Fisheries Act or laws affecting the health of Canada's ecosystems must be based on the best science available.

Whereas it is critical that any changes to the Fisheries Act not jeopardize the ecosystems in which we, and future generations, depend, simply to provide short-term profit for a few, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to keep section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act as it is currently written with its emphasis on—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the hon. member that it is not the practice of the House to read the petitions, but to provide a summary.

I see he has one or two more, so I would urge him to provide a very brief summary to the House.

Public Transit

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from thousands of Canadians.

The petitioners say that 92¢ per dollar paid in taxes goes to the federal and provincial governments, not to municipalities that operate most transit services. They call on the government to provide long-term funding to provide access to public transit across Canada and a substantial down payment in the upcoming budget.

Shark Finning

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition comes from thousands of Canadians across the country calling on a ban on the importation of shark fin to Canada.

41st General Election

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to present two petitions.

The first relates to the ongoing investigation of the calls that were made, generally referred to as robocalls, in 2011.

It is a timely petition because, as we know, Bill C-23 actually has a good regime. One part of Bill C-23 that I like is the part that deals with regulating robocalls.

The petitioners in this case are from the Ottawa area and some from British Columbia. They are calling for a full inquiry to get to the bottom of what occurred in 2011.

Justice

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition also comes from constituents in Saanich—Gulf Islands calling for this House to reject any bill that involves mandatory minimum sentences.

The petitioners cite numerous studies from around the world that mandatory minimum sentences are not effective as a deterrent but actually drive up the cost of the criminal justice system and are unfair to our youth.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are five motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-15. The chair has received word from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that she does not wish to proceed with Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments on the proposed amendments by congratulating my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

I would like to start by congratulating my friend and colleague the member for Western Arctic for the extraordinary work he has done and the leadership he has shown in this file.

The amendments proposed would delete clauses 136 and 137 of Bill C-15, and it is important to get on the record to explain why. This is quasi-constitutional work that we are doing here today. As the House knows, the travaux préparatoires and the debates follow this type of amendment if it ever has to interpreted by the courts in the future.

The people of the Northwest Territories have worked toward gaining more province-like powers for decades. The NDP is in favour of devolution and supports the NWT in taking over federal responsibilities in the north. At the same time, Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod and his team of negotiators should be congratulated for achieving this significant evolution in the governance of the Northwest Territories.

Bill C-15 would provide the people of the NWT with something that we who live in the provinces take for granted: control over what happens on our land and the ability to profit from the development of our natural resources.

In less than 50 years, governance in the Northwest Territories has evolved from a colonial administration run by a committee of bureaucrats here in Ottawa to a fully elected and accountable government. I have had a chance to meet the members and the premier, to visit them in their House. The evolution they have gone through is quite extraordinary.

Therefore, Bill C-15 is a major step in that evolution, which the NDP fully supports.

For those of us who live in the provinces, it is only natural that we control our own resources. However, that was not the case for the Northwest Territories.

The preparatory work is often consulted by the courts when there is a constitutional matter at issue, or in this case quasi-constitutional, since this will affect the very foundation of how a territorial government is organized.

Unfortunately, the Conservative insistence that changes to the regulatory process be included in Bill C-15 is contrary to a respectful nation to nation process when dealing with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Canada. This, for the NDP, is crucial. An NDP government would make sure that no decision taken at our cabinet table would fail to respect first nations treaty rights, inherent rights, and Canada's international obligations.

The changes to the system of land and water boards, created through first nation land claim agreements, are disrespectful to the Dene and Métis of the Northwest Territories. The Conservatives heard over and over from the NWT's aboriginal governments and many concerned residents that they did not support these changes, but the Conservatives, unfortunately, were deaf to these concerns.

However, as a number of first nations have raised concerns about the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, we proposed amendments based on these concerns during the committee review, to make sure that Bill C-15 meets northerners' expectations.

Our member for Western Arctic tried splitting the bill at committee so that we would not impede devolution but allow for a full debate on the more controversial changes to the MVRMA. Once again, we are trying to find workable solutions, but the Conservatives are up to their old tricks.

At report stage, we are moving that clauses 136 and 137, creating a single regulatory board for lands and waters and eliminating the regional land and water boards, be deleted. These sections would eliminate the current system of regional land and water regulatory boards and change the structure of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board to an 11 member board with a chair appointed by the federal minister. This system was created as part of the implementation for the Gwich'in and the Sahtu land claim agreements, and the Tlicho lands, resources, and self-government agreement.

However, by unilaterally changing this system, the Conservatives are ignoring the spirit and intent of these modern day treaties. The original system consisted of three regional land and water boards corresponding to the three settled land claim areas, and the Mackenzie Valley board for projects that span more than one region or are located in areas where there is no settled land claim. This system gives the people, particularly aboriginal people, of the Northwest Territories a voice in how their land and waters are developed.

It is for that reason that the official opposition, the New Democrats, believes that these sections should be deleted. Let the good parts go through. Have the proper debate. Develop a respectful nation to nation approach. That is the way for the future.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition has continued to spread misinformation about the bill. If he had read the sections of the land claims agreements he spoke of, particularly sections 25.4.6 of the Sahtu agreement, 24.4.6 of the Gwich'in agreement, and 22.4.1 of the Tlicho land claim agreement, he would have seen that they all clearly and specifically contemplate a larger board, which is what the bill would implement.

He also mentioned that he spoke with Premier Bob McLeod. The premier is in full agreement that the bill proceed as it is currently structured.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition why he will not take the word of Bob McLeod. Why will he not let this bill go ahead? It is clearly in order. It is clearly what the people of the NWT are looking for, so why do we not just get on with the job?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is what is no longer in order in Canada: failure to fully respect, recognize, and work with first nations. That is part of our colonial past.

As I said during my remarks, we will be backing those parts of the bill that would provide for devolution. That is a step in the right direction. What is a step backward is imposing this type of regulatory model on people who had agreements. It is not because the premier or anyone else says it can go through in that form that we are allowed to simply ride roughshod over the concerns of first nations, and the Supreme Court has told us this time and again.

The problem with the Conservative approach, of course, is their bundling, as they like to do in their budgets and budget implementation acts. They will put some things in that people agree with, like the devolution aspect, and then they will put some things in that they know are controversial and divisive. That is the approach the Conservatives take.

We will take the following approach.

Every decision an NDP government will take on first nations issues will be respectful of treaty rights, inherent rights, and Canada's international obligations. This bill does not.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would comment on what Premier McLeod said in committee about the section on the MVRMA. He said:

This is federal legislation, so why would we have an open discussion in our territorial legislature? The federal institution is there for federal legislation. That's what the House of Commons is there for. That's what you are there for. We're not here to debate federal legislation. We debate our own territorial legislation.

To me, this does not sound like a premier who has agreed to and has the support of his legislative assembly for the changes contemplated for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. In fact, what he has said repeatedly is that we will have a commitment that will be reviewed after five years. What he says, and what has happened here, is that the territorial government has been put in a place where, if they want devolution, they will have to accept those changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

In this type of negotiation between the federal and territorial government, how does it make anyone feel when we have this kind of heavy-handed action taking place?