Jean Crowder

[Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, I am rising to speak to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The bill we are debating is the final step in the ratification process. This is the bringing into force of the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

This has been a very long process. In fact, the Yale First Nation was formally accepted into the British Columbia treaty process on April 26, 1994. In 1996, the BC Treaty Commission declared the Yale First Nation treaty table ready to begin negotiations on February 8, 1996, and the provincial bill received royal assent on June 2, 2011. Of course, it has taken two years for Canada to bring the bill forward for debate. Unfortunately, we are debating it at nearly midnight in June, when surely we could have been talking about this bill many months ago.

The minister outlined some of the key provisions in the bill. I am not going to cover that same ground. I need to declare that New Democrats will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to considering this bill at committee shortly.

There are a couple of issues that I think are going to present ongoing challenges. One of the issues that continues to not be resolved both in the Yale treaty and the B.C. treaty process is the issue of overlap.

One of the background papers provided to the aboriginal affairs committee members noted that the Supreme Court, in a variety of court decisions, has indicated that the Crown has an obligation to consult with, and where appropriate, to accommodate the interests of first nations claiming aboriginal rights and title over areas subject to a treaty or final agreement.

The paper went on to indicate that it is desirable to have first nations resolve overlap issues among themselves. Canada and British Columbia have continued to encourage Yale First Nation efforts to discuss or resolve any shared territory issues with neighbouring first nations. In fact, there is certainly a dispute over shared territory with the Sto:lo Nation. As a result of some of the discussions that were going back and forth, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement was amended to allow reasonable public access to Yale First Nation land, by request, for non-commercial recreational purposes, such as hunting, fishing and other recreational activities. Such requests cannot be unreasonably refused by Yale First Nation.

As a measure of that, Yale First Nation Chief Robert Hope has entered into five written access protocols with Sto:lo individuals and has indicated that he is willing to do so with individual fishers or first nations bands to clarify and streamline the process for seeking access to fishing and cultural sites. There are non-exhaustive objective criteria for the refusal of access under the reasonable access provision. However, that measure has not been satisfactory to Sto:lo.

The challenge of the issue of overlap and shared territories is a critical one that must be dealt with, as well as implementation. There is an implementation plan in the agreement, and one would hope that this implementation plan goes more smoothly than other implementation plans with other land claims agreements, as the Land Claims Agreements Coalition will note.

With regard to the overlap, I want to touch on a couple of points. One goes back to the mission statement of the BC Treaty Commission. On January 28, 1991, representatives of the governments of Canada, British Columbia and the First Nations Summit put their signatures to the report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force. It made a number of recommendations, and one was that first nations resolve issues related to overlapping traditional territories among themselves. The analysis in the task force report as it relates to this recommendation is that first nations must discuss overlaps with neighbouring first nations preparing for negotiations, a process for resolving overlaps should be in place before a treaty is concluded, and the BC Treaty Commission can provide advice on dispute resolution and services.

We heard from the BC Treaty Commission in a pre-study in anticipation of this bill coming forward. Chief commissioner Sophie Pierre indicated that, in her view, best efforts had been made by all parties in the dispute over shared territories. Her strong recommendation was that the House adopt Bill C-62.

I also want to refer to the Lornie report from November 3, 2011, with regard to recommendations on shared territory dispute avoidance and resolution. The reason I am raising this issue is I want to encourage the government to look for opportunities to put together a better mechanism so we do not have final agreements coming before the House with unresolved issues around shared territories.

I can point to other agreements like the Tsawwassen agreement, in which there still was unresolved issues by the time we came to the House to debate Tsawwassen. It did pass, but there were issues with the Sencot'en Alliance, Penelakut and Cowichan peoples around some of the fishing rights.

With regard to the Lornie report, it recommended that there should be provided resources to support effective dispute resolution and resolution options for all first nations affected by potential conflicts relating to shared territories and overlap issues arising out of treaties, whether or not those first nations were participating in the B.C. treaty process.

There were a number of examples pointed out in the Lornie report of how these overlap issues were not getting resolved and how it was creating challenges within communities. The Lornie report went on to indicate that some overlap disputes appeared to be virtually irreconcilable through discussions and a few first nations had resorted to the courts to attempt to protect their interests. It said that the courts system, however, was expensive and time consuming and typically delivered either an all or nothing outcome, or sent the parties back to negotiate an agreement.

I do not think it is in the best interests of the nations involved in these disputes or the communities at large to have these unresolved issues going forward as we enter into final agreements.

Mrs. Jean Teillet, chief negotiator and legal counsel of the Sto:lo Nation, did indicate that in the past the government had provided a road map forward. She cited a number of cases. One was the Tlicho in the Northwest Territories, just north of Great Slave Lake, which borders on Nunavut, borders on Saulteau territory and on the bottom it borders on a people called the Akaitcho people.

I was in the House when the Tlicho agreement came forward. Because the government had taken a leadership role in working and setting some parameters for Tlicho to move forward on resolving the issues around the shared territories and the overlaps, by the time the agreement came to the House, we were able to pass that agreement at all stages because there were no issues around disputes over that shared territory.

This was one example that was provided. There were a number of others, including the 1975 agreement with James Bay and the Northern Quebec agreement, where there were islands in James Bay that were hotly in dispute.

Ms. Teillet indicated that the government, working with the first nations that were negotiating, was carving out those islands. They were pulled out of the agreement and then the govenrment said that it would give them all the rest of the agreement, it would sign it, but it would take this disputed area out of the agreement for now, it would give them the whole agreement, then it would come back when they had solved that overlap problem and it would figure out how to put it back in their treaty.

She also talked about the Nunavik agreement signed in 2006 and the Nunavut agreement in 1993.

Therefore, there are a number of examples where there have been either the resources or the parameters put in place to encourage the nations involved to sort out those overlapped and shared territory disputes before the final agreement is signed. It is unfortunate that we do not have that kind of agreement before us in the House today.

However, having said that, the Yale First Nations negotiated a treaty in good faith. It went through the B.C. Treaty Commission process and met the various stages that had been outlined that nations in British Columbia agreed to back in 1991. Therefore, what we have before us is a treaty negotiated in good faith that the New Democrats will support.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on another witness we heard, who was from Metro Vancouver.

Metro Vancouver is a provider of drinking water to a number of first nations communities. They outlined a whole series of problems and indicated very clearly that some of the service providers of water systems, municipalities in particular, were also not consulted on this.

They raised a number of issues around lack of consultation; transfer of responsibilities, which is unknown; changes with bylaw regulation and enforcement; legislative and jurisdictional uncertainties; regulatory authority over Indian reserves, which is unclear; and financial liabilities requiring clarification. They also went on to say that the adequate implementation plan is lacking. I referred to that earlier, that there are simply not enough details in this bill to actually assess a number of factors.

Based on that, New Democrats do not feel this bill should go forward until some of these very serious questions are answered. Liability is certainly one issue, whether it is metro Vancouver, or the first nations communities that are going to have absorb this liability.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, the parliamentary secretary expressed the hope that the official opposition would support the bill.

The NDP will not support the bill, and I will lay out my reasons. Part of that reasoning has to do with the fact that at committee, we presented a number of amendments, none of which were accepted by the government. The problem is that we heard loudly and clearly from a number of witnesses about some very serious concerns about the legislation.

I will start with the report of the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations. It laid out, even before we got to the stage of debating Bill S-8 in the House and at committee, some conditions it saw as being important for the legislation to move forward. It started out by saying, “Preconditions: provide resources, discuss and deal with high risks”. In the report it indicated:

The federal government must close the resource gap. First and most critically, it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to establish by the regulatory requirements. While attempting to assume that putting a regulatory regime in place would reduce the dangers associated with water systems, exactly the opposite might happen. This is because creating and enforcing a regulatory regime would take time, attention and money that might be better invested in systems, operators, management and governance.

But the problem is more fundamental than the resources that would be lost to creating a regulatory regime. The underlying issue is that the federal government has never provided adequate funding to meet the 1977 policy commitment as comparable facilities on reserves...

Apart from any legal duty, however, we believe that meaningful discussion between the federal government and first nations is necessary if any action to improve the safety of water on reserves is to be effective and responsive.

It goes on to say:

Deal with high risk communities immediately... Any of the options would take time--probably several years--to reach the ultimate goal of safer drinking water for all First Nations. In the meantime, however, many reserve residents face serious risks from the drinking water available to them, sometimes from collective systems, but very often from individual wells or other water sources.

When government members talk about Bill S-8, they talk about it providing safe drinking water for first nations. When I posed the question for the parliamentary secretary with regard to how long this would take to develop the regulations, there was no answer.

Literally, we can see years before those regulations are developed and implemented. In the meantime, it does not deal with the very immediate risks that a number of first nations have identified. A number of first nations communities have been under boil water advisories for years, not months, not weeks, not days.

When Chief Rose Laboucan, came before the committee, she talked about the fact that they had a $6 million water plant in their communities and they were consistently off and on boil water advisories. Therefore, it is not just having a water plant in place; it is ensuring it is a water plant that is appropriate for first nations communities. This bill, in and of itself, will not guarantee safe drinking water.

I will run through parts of the bill because there are places where we have some serious objections. The first one is right in the preamble, so even before we get into the clauses of the bill. The preamble states that the two departments, Health and Indian Affairs, have committed to working with first nations to develop proposals for regulations to be made under this act. “Working with first nations”, that is not language around consultation.

To refer to the report of the expert panel on safe drinking water, it said:

The second precondition is the need for the federal government to assess whether it has a legal duty to consult with First Nations affected by any of the three options. This duty, according to the Supreme Court, “arises” when the Crown had knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.

As my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou reminds me, it is not only the duty to consult, it is the duty to accommodate. That element around consultation is not outlined in the bill. Nor have we had any satisfactory answers.

The parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out that the bill had been before the House in a number of different iterations. With regard to any kind of comfort about the level of consultation that took place in order to come to this final bill, when the first nations technical services advisory group, an Alberta organization, came before the committee, it talked about what the consultation process looked like.

I will quote from its document. It says:

Disappointingly, the Government of Canada has never responded to any of the concerns and issues identified in the Impact Analysis, which has left Alberta First Nations wondering why Canada asked for and funded the Impact Analysis if it never intended to review it, respond to the concerns it raises, or meet with First Nations to discuss it. Sure, there is a legal obligation to consult, but the TSAG is more concerned about the practical implications of Canada's failure to consider the Impact Analysis because it means that Bill S-8 has been developed without any meaningful input from First Nation leaders, communities or water systems operators in Alberta.

In the earlier days, the government talked about the fact that Alberta was in support of the bill. However, when it provided input, as was outlined by the speaking notes from the technical services advisory group, it was disregarded. It did not even hear back as to why its input was disregarded and not considered in this latest version of the bill.

The issue around consultation needs to be clearly spelled out for people to have any kind of confidence that meaningful consultation will take place. In too many pieces of legislation that have come before the House in the last two years, there has not been meaningful consultation. It has been probably the one criticism that has been a thread throughout every bill that has come before the House dealing with first nations.

When it comes to clause 3 of the bill, clause 3 is the section that has what the government likes to call a “non-derogation” clause, but what like first nations like to call a “derogation” clause because it starts out sounding like a non-derogation clause but then it throws in the zinger. At the end of clause 3, it states, “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands”. Essentially, what we have is a non-derogation clause that now becomes a derogation clause.

When the Blood Tribe came before the House, it actually provided a briefing note that said:

In the current version, the abrogation and derogation clause, section 3, is now broader in scope proposing to allow the Act and the regulations to potentially abrogate or derogate from our constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty Rights to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands. Rather than protecting such rights, the provision suggests that it can directly violate those rights and disregard Canada’s legal obligation to protect Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

That position is reconfirmed by the Canadian Bar Association.

The Canadian Bar Association is also very critical of this derogation clause instead of a non-derogation clause. It said:

We believe that the qualification “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the drinking water on First Nation lands” is in itself an explicit abrogation or derogation of existing Aboriginal or treaty rights pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The qualification in section 3 of Bill S-8 does not, in our view, ameliorate the constitutional problems identified in our earlier submissions on Bill S-11.

We have been unable to find any precedent or explanation for this proposal which would still, in our view, abrogate or derogate from section 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982 in order to provide safe drinking water to First Nations. This provision raises two key issues:

is it necessary to implement the objectives of the bill?

if so, is it constitutionally valid? Can Parliament use its legislative power under section 91(24) to abrogate or derogate unilaterally from the rights protected by section 35?

The attempt to abrogate and derogate aboriginal and treaty rights by statute or regulation would set a dangerous precedent and should not slip by without full explanation and discussion.

In the testimony we heard before our committee from anybody who was a proponent of the bill, nobody could explain why it would be a legitimate use in clause 3 to actually derogate from inherent rights. We proposed an amendment that would have removed the derogation part on clause 3 and it was voted down.

I want to turn to testimony we heard from Akwesasne. When Akwesasne came before the committee, they indicated they were in the middle of negotiating an agreement that would give them jurisdiction over some of these areas. They asked that a provision be in the bill that would delay it coming into force for self-governing first nations that were developing their own water codes, or for other nations that were in a similar kind of an agreement.

The case presented for this was say, for example, these regulations were being developed and coming into force just before a first nations would be signing an agreement that would allow them to implement their own drinking water regulations. The first nations could then be covered by Bill S-8, and then there would be a delay before they could actually implement their own drinking water provisions.

We suggested an amendment that was similar to one under the matrimonial real property legislation. In fact, we lifted it right out of that bill. It talked about the fact that for a first nations in the process of becoming self-governing, or with one of these other treaty agreements, that the bill would not come into force for three days after the day.

That would respect and allow the time to complete those negotiations so that a first nations would not be forced to deal with two different pieces of legislation. That, too, was denied, even though it was in the matrimonial real property bill which allowed self-governing first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property codes. It would have been a reasonable thing to insert in this bill.

When the next amendment we put in, we heard consistently from first nation after first nation, and from the expert panel, that resources were absolutely critical. In this case, we asked the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Health to take into account the capacity of each first nation to comply with the prescribed standards to install their drinking water and waste water systems, and to train the operators of these systems.

Now the reason we inserted that particular amendment was because first nations who testified raised a number of concerns about their capacity to comply with the regulations and what the liability would be for the community if they were unable to comply. It seemed to be a reasonable request to ask that the government assess capacity to comply.

If there is not capacity to comply, then it would seem incumbent upon the government to ensure there are resources available, whether it be for infrastructure or training of operators, to ensure first nations could actually meet the regulations being set out before them. Again, that was denied.

We also proposed an amendment that requires capital infrastructure life cycle planning, so that future capital needs are known and expected and can be appropriately budgeted for at the local, regional and national level.

The parliamentary secretary, in his speech, did point out that there are some challenges with infrastructure in first nations communities with regard to the life cycle, the way the infrastructure was originally put together, and certainly with ongoing operations and maintenance.

The government likes to refer to itself as being fiscally responsible. Any of us who have been in control of large budgets know that what has to be done is not only the fiscal year planning but also the longer term planning, the 5-year, 10-year, 25-year cycles. When dealing with large infrastructure projects, it is essential that this kind of life cycle planning is done.

Asking to establish a system of capital infrastructure life cycle planning, again, seems like a reasonable thing to do, particularly when first nations are going to be told they have to abide by the regulations or else there are penalties and a possibility that property could be seized, as laid out in Bill S-8. However, that amendment was voted down as well.

I see that I only have two minutes left, and I have another 25 minutes worth of notes, so I will try to whip through this.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for outlining the reasons that the government continues to support the bill. It was interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about this being a flexible approach, whereas what we heard from a number of witnesses was that the bill was too vague and raised a number of concerns around a number of issues including liability, consultation and levels of service.

I specifically want to ask the member about consultation because in the preamble of the bill it talks about working with first nations, but nowhere in the preamble does it talk about consultation. With regard to consultation, I wonder if the member would be prepared to commit to developing the terms of reference for developing the regulations in conjunction with first nations. Would the Conservatives actually assign adequate resources for first nations to be at the table to develop the terms of reference and the regulations, and could the member indicate a timeline by which they hope to have the regulations completed?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the foreign takeover aspect. We know that for years, and I have been here since 2004, New Democrats have been calling for greater clarity in foreign investment guidelines. We have seen thousands of acquisitions for which the kinds of oversight and guidelines that should have been required were not in place.

The Conservative government committed to consult Canadians and stakeholders on any more changes to the act, but there is a concern that the coming into force of these multiple new amendments will be determined through regulations.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that there has been no thorough public consultation on these changes and that the government did not move forward to do that consultation before it made substantive amendments to the foreign investment guidelines. As well, what would he like to see in terms of a consultation process?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

We have seen an anti-labour agenda from the Conservative government. It has done it through the back door with private members' bills. Bill C-377 is a really good example of a bill that tried to impose the kinds of reporting requirements on the trade union movement to which other organizations were not subject.

Bill C-60 is another attempt to take a run at crown corporations and the collective bargaining process that is in place. This, again, plays into the government's agenda and people need to be concerned about what is going on.

Our country is a stronger place because of fair and free collective bargaining and we do not want processes that interfere with that.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, there are a number of credit unions. It is an area that has been hard hit at times with changes in the resource industry. For example, in a small town called Youbou, the mill closed down a number of years ago and in Lake Cowichan, a neighbouring small town, found itself at a point where the big banks were closing down their branches.

With regard to the deductions for credit unions, it allowed them to occupy a space where big banks would love to see some of the credit unions close down so they could occupy a monopolistic space in some of the smaller towns. Therefore, it is absolutely essentially that the support we provide for credit unions stays in place so they can continue to provide the community service.

I know credit unions in Nanaimo—Cowichan are a vital part of the community. They are the ones supporting local activities, local businesses and opening the doors for businesses that might not be able to get loans and support from the larger financial institutions. It is really disappointing to see this in Bill C-60. It is an important way for many of the communities to survive financially.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats oppose Bill C-60 both with regard to the process and with regard to the content. This is another example. The bill is 115 pages and will make amendments to 49 different pieces of legislation. Of course, a bill of that scope and magnitude deserves thorough examination by members of Parliament.

Because of the time allocation imposed on the bill at both second reading and report stage and because of a very unsatisfactory process when the bill was before committees, the House has not had an opportunity to study the bill in the kind of depth it should be studied.

Part of the concern is that this budget implementation bill would do a number of things. First of all, it would raise taxes on Canadians by introducing tax hikes on credit unions and small businesses in addition to hiking tariffs on thousands of products that were announced in the budget.

It would give Treasury Board sweeping powers to interfere in free collective bargaining and impose employment conditions on non-union employees at crown corporations. It would amalgamate the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency with no reference to the ODA Accountability Act regarding the purpose of aid.

It would amend the Investment Canada Act to dramatically reduce the number of takeovers subject to review and introduce new rules regarding foreign state-owned enterprises. It proposes an inadequate Band-Aid fix for the flawed approach to labour market opinion in the temporary foreign worker program and proposes to increase fees for visitor visas for friends and family coming to visit Canadians. It would push ahead with work on a national securities regulator instead of working consensually with the provinces, and it would remove the residency requirement for committees of directors for financial institutions such as banks and life insurance companies.

People in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan pay close attention to pieces of legislation before the House, and I have had a number of concerns raised. One of them that I mentioned was the amalgamation in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

This is an example of an email sent to me by a constituent. This person said:

I am a constituent in your riding and a concerned citizen who cares about efforts to end global poverty and promote human dignity.

For the past 45 years, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has supported the work of Canadian organizations involved in international development. Thanks to this collaboration, they have made a tremendous contribution in supporting the efforts of poor communities gain access to education and healthcare, ensuring food security, and promoting human dignity.

We have seen the results of this good work and I want Canada to remain as engaged as I am.

I am asking you to ensure that CIDA's mandate of poverty reduction and promoting human rights remains central, and that sufficient resources will be allocated to fulfill that mandate.

I also want to ensure that the many Canadian organizations, which have an excellent track record in responding to the needs of the poor, will remain key partners of the Government in its actions to end global poverty.

That is just one example of the kinds of concerns that have been raised by my constituents with regard to proposed changes in the bill. That particular amalgamation of CIDA with foreign affairs is an important matter that should have an independent review and not just be rammed through in an omnibus piece of legislation.

Another one, on which I received literally over 1,000 emails, is the CBC. On Vancouver Island, CBC is a much-loved institution. For years, islanders fought for a CBC presence on Vancouver Island. Finally, a number of years ago, we ended up with CBC Victoria. In a recent survey, CBC Victoria was one of the most-listened-to radio stations in the morning. That speaks to the way people see the CBC on Vancouver Island and in my riding.

The bill threatens to make some changes. In this connection I want to refer to a letter of May 23 that was sent to the Prime Minister. It was signed by dozens of people, including academics and so on. They said:

Dear Prime Minister:

We express deep concern about a proposal on pages 108/109 in Bill C-60 that would undermine the arms-length relationship between the CBC, our national public broadcaster, and the federal government.

The Broadcasting Act states that the CBC “shall, in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence”.

As you know, this statement places the CBC on a par with its counterparts in other free and democratic countries. It is what makes the CBC a public broadcaster - as opposed to a state broadcaster. Independence from governmental interference is the key distinction between the two - throughout the world.

Bill C-60 proposes to amend the Financial Administration Act to permit the government to set the mandate for and audit CBC's collective bargaining as well as give the government a veto over CBC's collective agreements. This means that the government would become the effective employer of CBC's personnel, including its journalists, producers and story editors.

Such powers would intrude into CBC's independence well beyond it employee's compensation. Conditions of work are an integral part of CBC's collective agreements with its various employee groups. Such conditions currently provide assurance of the integrity of CBC as an independent national public broadcaster, as required under the Broadcasting Act.

For example, conditions of work in the CBC's collective agreements ensure that:

Journalists cannot be pulled off assignments without good reason.

Journalists do not have to fear retribution, including loss of employment, as a result of reporting the news.

CBC is required to protect the authority of producers over the content, form and budget of a program.

Producers cannot be removed from a program without justification, and they have the right to refuse to produce a program if they do not agree with its content or form.

Were Bill C-60 to pass without amendment, any government could change such provisions in its own interest--at great cost to Canadian democracy.

The federal government already has more than ample influence over CBC through appointment of its CEO and board of directors, and the allocation of its federal grant.

We therefore urge in the strongest terms that Bill C-60 be amended to remove all references to the CBC.

As I mentioned, that is the full text of the letter that was sent to the Prime Minister on May 23.

The New Democrats did attempt to amend Bill C-60 by putting forward a motion that would have seen the references to CBC carved out of the bill, introduced as a separate bill in the House of Commons and then we would be able to have a full debate on it. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not agreed to those amendments.

As I mentioned, I have received over 1,000 emails on this matter. These are a couple of examples.

One person wrote:

The CBC must be independent from the government. That is why I object to the government taking control of the lion's share of the CBC's budget. The Prime Minister should not have direct control of the salaries and working conditions of CBC journalists and creative staff. I do not want any politician exercising such control over our national public broadcaster. I urge you to abandon this plan.

Another person wrote:

I am writing to object to the proposal to undermine the CBC's editorial independence contained in Budget Implementation Bill C-60. No public broadcaster anywhere in the free world faces the degree of political interference that is proposed for the CBC in Bill C-60. This Bill would give the government the opportunity to turn the CBC into a political propaganda machine rather than a public broadcaster. For the sake of our country and our democracy I urge you to work to have provisions concerning the CBC removed from Bill C-60.

That is just a small sample of the emails that came in.

I also want to touch on another aspect with regard to Bill C-60 and the importance of maintaining that journalistic independence. In a column I wrote recently, I was referencing an organization called Reporters without Borders. It is responsible for issuing the press freedom index.

It indicated that Canada had fallen from 10th to 20th place. This report states that Canada is now behind Costa Rica, Namibia and Lichtenstein. The RWB has blamed the Conservative government's action and incessant attacks on the journalistic principles of anonymous sources for the slip in the ranking.

This is evidence of the kinds of concerns that have been raised by my constituents and thousands of people across Canada.

We have also seen another attack in another bill that is a private member's member before the House, Bill C-461, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information), and would put some further restrictions on CBC's abilities to operate independently.

Sadly, with the budget implementation bill, we have seen an effort to shut down parliamentary debate. The efforts to curb CBC's journalistic independence is just another example of the lack of transparency and accountability that the government continues to demonstrate through its various pieces of legislation that it has rammed through the House.

I encourage all members to vote against Bill C-60 and ask the government to bring back a bill and a process that allows us to fully debate such legislation that would have such far-ranging effects.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-60, but actually I am disappointed to have to rise to speak to Bill C-60 because of the process that has been used to get the bill before the House and to ram it through.

New Democrats object—

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Shawn Atleo sent a simple message this weekend. The level of unrest this summer will depend on whether the Prime Minister is willing to follow through on his commitment to aboriginal people.

Can the Prime Minister tell us who the high-level person is in the Prime Minister's Office responsible for implementing the January 11 agreement?