Bill C-25 (Historical)

Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act

An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order

This enactment grants to the Governor in Council the power to amend the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band Order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, we have eight minutes left in the question and comments period for the member for St. John's East.

The hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his concern about getting this bill right. Quite obviously, some things have gone wrong already with the process that has been undertaken for this legislation. The minister indicated that they thought they were going to get 8,000 or 9,000 people signed up, but they ended up with 23,800. Now they have had another 58,000 show up in the very short period after that.

I guess I can go back to the more than 23,000 who have been registered and accepted already. The indication from the minister is that all of those registrations are now under question. Over the past four years, anyone who was first nation and would have been accepted under this registration may have made choices in their lives. They may have made choices about investing in the Mi'kmaq communities and in Newfoundland. They may have made choices about where and how they live. They may have made choices about their relationships. All of a sudden, those 23,000 people are put in some degree of question.

This bill would actually take out the liability of the government for anything that it does to those 23,000 people. Is that not the case?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the concerns here. Obviously, the legislation appears to be necessary to remove people who have been included, but what we are really looking at here is the importance of aboriginal status and the need for a fair and equitable process.

The member raised the question, what about the people who may have been wrongfully included? It is a very good question, “wrongfully” meaning only in the sense that this new enrollment process may exclude them. However, they do have a right to appeal; I do know that much.

We want to find out if there is some provision to ensure that people who have made decisions and choices as a result of being included and are now not included have some recompense. The bill specifically says that one cannot sue for damages for being either excluded or left out.

These are absolutely some of the questions in the process that have to be answered by the Conservative government as to what would happen to them.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech, with so much information, and for sharing on an important matter like this.

Some of the facts and figures the member was speaking about were such that over 101,000 people applied for membership from this first nation, but during the reassessment process approximately 6,000 of those claims were found to be invalid, and approximately 94,000 were deemed valid if further documentation were provided.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on this and how we could ensure fairness in the whole process.

Also, under article 33 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, first nations have the right to determine their own membership. Perhaps I could hear the member's comments on that piece as well, because I know he is actively involved.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is certainly valid.

One of the issues here is that members of the aboriginal groups themselves had a hand in determining what the criteria were. So the question really is on the application of those criteria being fair and equitable. Unfortunately, they discovered that some of the definitions, or how these criteria were spelled out, were subject to interpretation and perhaps insufficiently clear, which is in part what may have caused the large number of applicants. It may also have caused some anomalies to occur in the process.

By reaching a new agreement in 2013 as to how the enrollment process would operate and providing for more opportunities for people to bring forth evidence, they are trying to get a fair process.

The question is, did they get it right? Will this process end up being fair to those who were included and will it be fair to those who may not have met the criteria, which is also a big question?

Clearly, a lot of people have an interest in being part of this band.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as we delve further into the bill before us, I think we are starting to see that there are some very particular issues surrounding it for many people.

There is this whole question of the government's liability in a process that it entered into, expecting 8,000 people to sign up for it, and over a period of four or five years realizing that many more people were signing up for the process. I find it almost incomprehensible that within the bureaucracy of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the people who were obviously in charge of this process let this thing get away from them in the fashion it has. Now the government wants to wash its hands of the responsibility it had throughout this whole process in order to ensure that it is fair and correct.

I suppose we will have to take the bill to committee to better understand from the bureaucrats why they let this process turn into the farce that it is today.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question points to the history of the federal government's failure to acknowledge its responsibility for aboriginal people in Newfoundland. Since 1949 the aboriginal people in Newfoundland have been seeking recognition. The Mi'kmaq were denied recognition or status under the Indian Act and thus the right to access the programs and benefits that such status entails. This is the first opportunity for them to seek that recognition.

Despite the criteria and the people who have negotiated this agreement for a particular subset of, I guess, I could call it, the Mi'kmaq—those who live in certain communities and have an attachment to those communities—obviously everyone else who has a claim to aboriginal status based on their ancestry and rights in existence or inherent rights are seeking recognition through this process. That exposes the unfairness.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation act. It is most important that we put this bill into perspective.

We cannot lose sight of what the agreements behind this bill are attempting to redress. The legal rights of Newfoundland's Mi'kmaq people have been in limbo since their status under the Indian Act was left unresolved in 1949, when Newfoundland joined Confederation. Exclusion from status under the Indian Act not only denied Newfoundland's Mi'kmaq people access to the supports that are available to other first nations with that status, but it also robbed them of recognition of their identity and cultural heritage.

The damage done and the marginalization of several generations led many people to hide their aboriginal ancestry. As a result, huge segments of family histories were lost forever.

Decades of unsuccessful negotiations and protracted legal action over a period of many governments meant that this fundamental issue remained unresolved for far too long.

The most recent phase of discussions to redress the historic exclusion of the status of Newfoundland's Mi'kmaq people began in 2002, when the previous Liberal government initiated renewed negotiations in good faith with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. The talks focused on the recognition of the Mi'kmaq people in Newfoundland under the Indian Act and, after constructive discussions, an agreement in principle was signed in 2007.

On September 26, 2007, the Prime Minister said that for more than half a century the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland had been among the “forgotten people”, as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples calls its members. They never stopped fighting for recognition and now that title can be cast aside at last.

Ratified in 2008, the agreement would create the landless Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band and ensure that Mi'kmaq people in Newfoundland would be able to achieve recognition, status under the Indian Act, and the dignity denied them for far too long.

The Liberal Party believes that any legislation, directives or policies to implement agreements between the Crown and the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation must be based on the premise that legitimate applicants must not be excluded from the enrolment process.

We are concerned that unfortunately this bill seems more focused on protecting the federal government from being sued over its mistakes in how it implemented this historic agreement and on limiting the legal recourse of membership applicants for the new first nation.

We understand that the government expected far fewer applications than the 103,000 it eventually received. However, if the process was flawed or if the criteria or guidelines were problematic, then the fault lies with the Conservative government, not with the applicants. It was the Conservative government that negotiated the criteria for enrolment and how those criteria would be administered. That process was set down in guidelines that were appended to the original agreement.

Because the volume of applications was greater than expected, last year the government entered into a supplemental agreement with the Qalipu first nation and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. Pursuant to that supplemental agreement, the government is now in the process of reviewing all applicants, including those who have already been granted status. While the government asserts that the supplemental agreement does not change the membership criteria, it does change the guidelines for how those criteria are to be assessed. There is no question that these changes will potentially have an impact on enrolment, and that is why a review of all applications, including those that have already been granted, is under way.

While section 10 of the supplementary agreement affirms that it does not affect the status of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band, the agreement could alter its founding members list. As a result, members who do not meet the additional enrolment criteria could lose their band membership and Indian status. The power of cabinet to remove individuals from the founding members list is confirmed in clause 3 of Bill C-25 and is one of two substantive things this bill would do.

The Liberal Party recognizes that both the 2008 agreement and last year's supplementary agreement flow from a nation-to-nation process that must be respected. The criteria negotiated between the parties should be viewed as an agreement between two nations. However, while the government claims that this bill is necessary to implement the 2008 and 2013 agreements, we are very concerned that the true purpose of the bill is to indemnify the federal government from legal liability for its mistakes during the botched enrolment process.

It is this denial of legal recourse to applicants that is of the greatest concern to the Liberal Party. Clause 4 of this bill is clearly designed to shield the federal government from potential liability for damages flowing from its incompetence in implementing the original agreement. Subclause 4(1) states:

No person or entity has a right to claim or receive any compensation, damages or indemnity from Her Majesty in right of Canada, any employee or agent of Her Majesty, a band, a council of a band or any other person or entity only because any person’s name, or any person’s date of birth, was omitted or removed from the schedule to the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band Order.

This limitation of access to a legal recourse is causing many people to question the legitimacy of this bill. The repeated mistakes and oversights of the federal government through the process to create the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band have led to unnecessary confusion, and many applicants are feeling frustrated and wronged by a process that should have fostered reconciliation about a historic wrong. The Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland is preparing to launch a class action lawsuit against the federal government over the constantly changing process for membership in this new band.

The process that is under way is meant to right hundreds of years of wrongs, but this government's negligence is instead exacerbating the feeling of victimization among many members of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation.

People who have a legitimate complaint against the federal government for mistakes or mismanagement should not have that legal recourse cut off by the bill. It should be for the courts to decide whether damages related to the enrolment process are appropriate and not for parliamentarians to prejudge that issue with this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate here today on Bill C-25, an act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.

The proposed legislation would enable the Governor in Council to fully implement the agreements reached between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, which provided for the establishment of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band as a band under the Indian Act. More specifically, the legislation would help ensure that only those with a legitimate claim to membership are entitled to be registered following the completion of the enrolment process.

I want to underscore that the fundamental principle of this legislation is the preservation of the integrity and credibility of the membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. In that same vein, I want to use this occasion to underscore that the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians are united in the desire to achieve our shared goal, which is to enable the Mi'kmaq in the province to build a strong foundation for cultural growth and development.

As my colleagues may be aware, in 2007 our government reached an agreement in principle with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to create the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation and signed the final agreement a year later, in 2008. The 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band provided for the creation of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation as an Indian Act band and established the enrolment process for its members to be recognized as Indians under the Indian Act.

I want to be very clear that the proposed legislation reflects the original intentions of the parties, Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, with respect to the creation of a founding members list as set out in the 2008 agreement. From the outset, it was understood by both the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the federal government that the agreement would apply primarily to people who live in or around the communities named in the 2008 agreement.

In that spirit, the 2008 agreement also set out four criteria for membership in the band, as negotiated and agreed to by the parties. These four criteria are Canadian Indian ancestry, descent from a member of a pre-Confederation Mi'kmaq community, self-identification as a member of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland, and acceptance by the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland, based on a demonstrated and substantial cultural connection.

While non-residents could also become members, they would need to have maintained a strong, substantive cultural connection with a Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community, meaning that they were expected to have sustained an active involvement in their community despite their absence.

November 30, 2009, was the initial deadline to establish the band's founding members. After the end of this first stage, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, or the recognition order, was issued on September 22, 2011. Based on enrolment to that point, a total of 22,877 people were determined to be founding members.

However, as set out in the final agreement, there was a second stage of 36 months to ensure that all would have ample opportunity to apply and be added to the founding members list. This second stage of the enrolment period ended on November 30, 2012. It was during this second stage of enrolment that issues with the process became apparent.

As we have heard today, an unexpected and, many would argue, unreasonable number of individuals submitted applications to join the band during the second phase. Approximately 75,000 additional people submitted applications, bringing the total number of applications for membership to the first nation to more than 101,000.

When the application process began back in 2008, Mi'kmaq leaders and Canada expected that somewhere between 8,700 and 12,000 people would be entitled to band membership. This range seemed realistic, given that there were roughly 10,500 members of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians at the time. Imagine the surprise when over 101,000 applications were submitted by the time the enrolment period ended on November 30, 2012.

To put this into perspective, this figure represents about 11% of all registered Indians in Canada.

Almost half of these applications, roughly 46,000, were received in the final three months before the deadline of a four-year process. Most of the applications received were from people living outside Newfoundland.

As Chief Brendan Sheppard has stated:

It was neither reasonable nor credible to expect such a huge number of individuals to become members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation.

Not surprisingly, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians was worried about the credibility of the enrolment process and the integrity of the first nation. It wanted to be sure that the objectives of the 2008 agreement would be respected, that the enrolment process was fair and equitable, and that those accepted for membership satisfied the criteria set out in the original 2008 agreement.

In response, the parties negotiated a supplemental agreement, which was announced in July 2013. It was introduced to bring greater clarity to the requirements of membership and the enrolment process.

The 2013 supplemental agreement addresses shared concerns about the integrity of the enrolment process for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. It clarifies the process for enrolment and resolves issues that emerged in the implementation of the 2008 agreement, such as the fact that the number of membership applications far exceeded the expectations of the parties, that it was not possible to review all of these applications within the time limits provided for in the 2008 agreement, and that the original guidelines for the assessment of the applications did not provide sufficient clarity and detail to reflect the original intentions of the parties.

For example, the 2013 supplemental agreement extends the timelines to review applications, ensuring that all previously unprocessed applications will be considered and also ensuring that all applicants will be treated fairly and equitably. Especially important is that the 2013 supplemental agreement guarantees that anyone whose application is reviewed will be sent written notification and that those who have submitted valid applications will be given an opportunity to provide additional documentation.

The parties also clarified how an applicant's self-identification as a member of the Mi'kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland is assessed. As well, guidance is provided in relation to an individual's acceptance by the Mi'kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland.

In other words, anyone wishing to join the first nation needs to prove his or her eligibility for membership.

Regarding group acceptance, applicants have to demonstrate that they were accepted by the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq Group of Indians through their active involvement in Mi'kmaq culture before the first nation was officially formed. This information is particularly relevant to individuals not residing in Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities.

Determinations on eligibility are being made by the enrolment committee, which includes two federal representatives, two Mi'kmaq representative, and one independent chair.

This reasonable approach is the only way to ensure the integrity of the enrolment process and to ensure that the rules of eligibility for membership are fairly applied so that all applicants are treated equitably. This is what Mi'kmaq residents of Newfoundland demand and what all Canadians expect. Let us remember that status brings with it a range of important social and economic benefits, something that cannot and should not be taken lightly.

The supplemental agreement was a result of extensive discussions and negotiations with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and addressed all the major concerns that had arisen during the second phase of the enrolment process.

I want to assure the House that the criteria set out in the original 2008 agreement remain unchanged. The supplemental agreement only provides clarity about the kind of information people need to provide to establish that they meet the criteria to demonstrate their eligibility for membership, as well as providing guidance to the enrolment committee on how it should be assessed.

The assessment process is currently under way and will take approximately two and a half years to complete. It is expected that the enrolment committee will complete its work by the summer of 2015, followed by an appeal period.

Let me be very clear. During the review process, there will be no change in Indian status for existing members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. While the process is under way, individuals who are currently registered as Indians under the Indian Act will retain their Indian status and, therefore, their access to programs available to registered Indians.

However, at the end of the enrolment process, it is possible that some individuals who are not found to have a legitimate claim to membership may lose their Indian status as a result of the reassessment of their application. Those individuals would no longer have access to programs and services provided to registered Indians.

Bill C-25 is an essential part of that enrolment process. It would enable the Governor in Council to amend the schedule to the recognition order, which will list the final approved names of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation founding members. The existing list must be updated to reflect the changes that will have taken place as a result of the review launched under the supplemental agreement.

While the Governor in Council has the authority under paragraph 2(1)(c) and subsection 73(3) of the Indian Act to declare a body of Indians to be a band for the purposes of the Indian Act, there is no express authority in the act to amend an order establishing a band.

While there is likely authority to add names to the schedule of the recognition order, it is unclear whether the act currently allows the Governor in Council to remove names from the schedule. Certainty is required to ensure that the supplemental agreement can be fully implemented. That certainty can only be obtained by enacting legislation that would provide the Governor in Council with the appropriate authority to make the required corrections to the recognition order, specifically to revoke the Indian status of those individuals who are found not to be entitled to be members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation.

The legislation is an essential part of the enrolment process, in order to fully implement the agreements. It would ensure that the Governor in Council is properly authorized to carry out the last step in the process, which is the issuance of a new founding members' list to modify the existing one.

This may all sound quite complicated, but at the end of the day, this process and this legislation is about ensuring that people who are truly eligible to be members of the band are granted that privilege.

Acquiring first nation status will help the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland create and maintain a strong foundation for Mi'kmaq cultural growth and development. This will lead to a better future for today's generation and all who follow. This is something that generations of Mi'kmaq residents of the province have fought long and hard for since the 1970s. It is time to resolve this complex and long-running matter so that those who belong to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation can fully realize this potential.

I call on all parties to join us in passing Bill C-25. Let us help preserve the integrity of the first nation in a fair and equitable manner. Let us ensure that the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation can get on with the work of building a proud Mi'kmaq first nation in Newfoundland.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we all support the notion of having a resolution, if imperfect, to the outstanding claims by the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland and Labrador to play a role in self-government and to have access to services that they were so long denied, but there are some questions that deserve answers.

I note in the new agreement that new applications were being considered but there was an exception. New applications would not be accepted from someone who had previously been rejected, while on the other hand, there seems to be a process for rejecting people who had previously been accepted. I am having trouble getting my head around that in terms of fair and equitable. If someone can make a mistake by including someone who maybe would not be included under the new interpretation, then surely someone could have made a mistake in excluding someone who would not have been included in the first place.

I wonder if the member could clarify why that is being done this way and what happens to people who would be wrongfully rejected?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is that there was a deadline for all applications to be submitted in a full and complete manner. If individuals had submitted their applications early in the original process, they would have had adequate time to make adjustments, to provide additional information. However, over 45,000 applications came in during the last three months, right before the deadline. Had those applicants applied earlier in the process, they would have had adequate time to appeal. However, given the last minute rush that appeared to spike that number up to 101,000 applications, they simply ran out of time and that deadline had to be firm. That is why that decision was taken.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's speech. I think it was important to clarify the government position on why this legislation is necessary.

However, there have been comments, specifically from one member of the Liberal Party who has claimed that this legislation is in fact unnecessary. It seems to me that it is necessary. The parliamentary secretary has articulated the reasons for that.

It seems to me that the first nation would be desiring to ensure that only those people who in fact should be on the list are included on the list. It is probably part of what was agreed to in the agreements that were negotiated and agreed to in 2008 and 2013.

Would the parliamentary secretary elaborate on why this legislation is needed to ensure that taxpayers and the first nation are protected?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and for his great work as the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee. He is certainly a valuable member of Parliament who brings a great deal of knowledge on this file.

As I said in my speech, when we look at the numbers presented here, we had 101,000 applicants when they were initially looking at around 10,000. The number of applications was 10 times higher, representing over 10% of the total number of status Indians in Canada.

With that many applications far exceeding the original expectation, it simply was not possible to review all of them, as was laid out in the original agreement. There were too many to review by the deadline.

The original assessment of those guidelines was not sufficiently clear, obviously. The supplementary agreement seeks to tighten that up, to make sure that all applications will be reviewed based on the original intent of the agreement.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate today with interest. I do find it unfortunate that we have to go back and revisit this, and that the government did not get it right in the first place.

This might be just the tip of the iceberg. I know in Nova Scotia, a number of first nations people are claiming status and trying to establish new reserves, outside of Digby for example. I draw the attention of my colleague to a recent court case, R v. Smith, where one of the proponents of these new first nations claims brought this case to court.

Does the government have a plan to deal not only with this one case we are discussing today but also with the multiple cases that will probably arise based on treaty claims from a couple of hundred years ago?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition seems to have a theme today, which I think is insulting to the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. The argument from the opposition is that somehow the government has made a debacle of this thing.

This is an agreement that we made with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. I know it is a matter of principle for them to make that argument; however, the opposition is being quite insulting to the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, which is a full partner in this process and has agreed with us on every step we have taken to ensure the integrity of that process.

On all of the cases mentioned by the hon. member, the Government of Canada has a legal duty to protect status Indians and to carefully evaluate any applications. We will take all of those on a case-by-case basis.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today we heard the minister as well as the parliamentary secretary outline the great amount of work, in both negotiations, over the past years. It has been a lot of hard work and dedication by all sides.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to elaborate further, particularly on the co-operation and consultation that worked toward the supplemental agreement in 2008 with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. I think it is really important for us to hear how much work has gone toward the creation of this bill through that process.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset it was understood by both the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the federal government that the agreement would apply primarily to people who live in or around the communities named in the 2008 agreement.

Not surprisingly, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and Mi'kmaq residents of the province expressed concern about the credibility of the enrolment process. The surge in applications in the second phase was the primary concern that was raised. We wanted to ensure that the objectives of the 2008 agreement would be met. Both parties agreed that we needed to tighten up that process, and they wanted to ensure that the enrolment process was fair and equitable and that those accepted for membership satisfied the criteria set out in the original agreement.

The FNI and our government negotiated a supplemental agreement, which was announced in 2013. We have been working hand in hand with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and will continue to do so.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for giving us more clarification. I think that a lot more work is going to be required on the bill. It seems like a very simple bill at first, but there are many other details that have come into it.

I would like to do a historical reconnaissance here on the application process started in 2009. By 2012, 23,000 applications had been processed. As the minister told us earlier, it was originally anticipated there would be 8,000 applications.

At what point did the government put up some red flags about what was going on with this process, with the way it was being done, and the fact that probably over three times the anticipated number of applications had been received? When did the government start to recognize what was going on here?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it was during the second phase of enrolment, the final 36 months, that it became very clear things were not as they had originally been intended, when we saw a spike of 46,000 applications in the final four months alone of that application process.

Certainly, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Mi'kmaq communities themselves raised the concern that this was simply not a realistic number, that this was far outside the intent of the original agreement. It was during that second phase that there was a real awareness of how widespread this issue had become.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to a bill, which, as I mentioned earlier, on first reading seems very simple and straightforward but reveals quite a bit about what the government has been doing over the last number of years and its failure to act correctly in this matter.

Even when the parliamentary secretary answered my question, it is clear that he chose to ignore the fact that in the first period of time the number of applicants were three times over what was originally anticipated. He only talked about the last four months of the program, where the number went over by 45,000 applicants.

How does government work when the process it is entering into with the expectation of 8,000 applicants blossoms to 24,000 applicants? The government simply seems to ignore that fact. Only when the second phase of the application process came in, with 45,000 applications being put on the table, did the government wake up and realize it had some issues with what it was trying to do. What a careless way to run a government. How careless the government is with its business with the first nations people of this country.

I want to get that point in because it was left undone by the parliamentary secretary in his comments in answer to my first question.

What we have is an interesting bill. There is a problem with the huge application process for registration for joining the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation membership order. In my own home community, membership lists of first nations, of Métis people, are very complex issues, and that is when we are dealing with 1,000 people. When we are dealing with 500 people, the complicated nature of these membership applications is quite clear. The government has known for 40 years that this is not an easy issue to deal with.

When we set this thing in motion, we had a failure. Let the government admit that it created a failure with the process it put into place. The first step toward fixing it would be to admit the failure.

Now a bill has come forward to fix some of the issues we are engaged with here, not to determine the nature of what has happened, but simply to find a way to reduce the government's exposure on this issue.

First the Conservatives want to have a system on any of the previously accepted registrations for this band. They have gone through a process with five individuals, two from the first nations, two from the government, and one independent person, who have examined the first 23,800 applications that were made. They were accepted and put in place. The minister now wants the opportunity to take those off that list as he sees fits. Further, he does not want to have any responsibility for doing that. He wants to walk away from that clean.

The minister indicated that he is worried about the taxpayers of this country being liable for the mistakes that the government made. The taxpayers are liable for the mistakes that elected representatives make on their behalf. That is part of government. That is the way the government should operate. That is the way that government has a responsibility to operate.

It is interesting. When it comes to liability, we have made many international agreements over the last 20 years, through the Liberals and the Conservatives. They have guaranteed multinational companies with the right to sue the government if any of the provisions they enter into when they come into this country for investment purposes are changed through government legislation. The Liberals and the Conservatives signed agreements internationally that the government is under obligation to allow itself to be sued, and we have seen many large suits come of that to date.

On one hand, the government is fine with protecting the opportunities to sue for liability on the part of multinational corporations. Now we come to the 23,800 citizens of this country, who under a due process were given registration for Mi'kmaq claims.

I am not saying that all of these people would have a case for damages if they were to be taken off of the list. I am not saying they would even bother to do that. I am saying that they took the time to put the application in. They felt that they had a right to be on the list because they put their application in. They were accepted. Many of them would have made decisions about their life and their time based on the decision that was made by the tribunal about their participation in the Mi'kmaq membership order.

Someone has made a decision. They may have changed their lifestyle. They may have relocated to a different community. They may have established a business in an area that could be considered reserve land in the future, with tax benefits. They might have done one of a hundred things that would have put their life in a different direction previous to the decision that was made by the registration tribunal.

There it is. On one hand, we have a government that is quite willing to sign international agreements to allow multinational corporations to sue us at any time that we change a law here in Parliament, but on the other, it wants to put a law in place to make sure that Mi'kmaq people do not have the opportunity to sue it for something it has done wrong to them.

What kind of logic is that? What kind of equity is that in the system? Why do citizens of this country have substandard rights compared to multinational companies?

I find that the parallel between the two is indicative of the nature of the Conservative government, and the nature of our country, in some respects. We have been governed by the Liberals and the Conservatives for many years, and they have permitted this type of differentiation to go on.

That is the philosophy that we are dealing with here. As with the first reading and second reading of any bill, we want to talk about what the philosophy is going forward. There it is, folks; that is what is happening here.

What do the Mi'kmaq peoples think about this? The Mi'Kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland was set up to try to deal with what is going on with this bill and the process of registration. It is not impressed with this legislation.

I would like to quote from The Western Star, a newspaper from Atlantic Canada, about Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act. It said:

While the federal government is saying the bill will be an assurance that everyone applying to become a member of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation will be treated fairly and equitably, there are concerns that the proposed legislation’s real purpose is to protect the federal government from being sued by people who feel they are not being treated fairly or equally.

[Mr. Hector] Pearce is vice-chairperson of the Mi’kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland, a group which was formed to fight for the rights of those who feel they are being wronged in the process of enrolment in the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation.

“Once I started reading it, my blood started to boil a little bit,” said Pearce after reading the wording of Bill C-25. “We’re not shocked but we are very disappointed with the legislation. This government has put up so many roadblocks to this Qalipu registration process that nothing surprises us anymore”.

Of course, not only is he concerned about the bill; he is concerned about the process that was followed earlier. Every Canadian would be a little concerned about a process that the government initiated when it thought it was going to get 8,000 applicants and then part of the way through the process that number was exceeded by 300%.

One would think that the government would have taken some action to ensure that what it was doing was correct and working in a good fashion. Now that it has received 100,000 applicants, of course, it has to do something. It has been forced into it. It realizes, too, that is has created some liability for itself if it starts limiting the nature of registrations. If 100,000 people want to be registered and 23,000 people in Newfoundland have already been given membership in this band, one would have to say that maybe some of the qualifications should be changed so that more people are not put into this registration process. We are going to see a backtracking on the registration process and some new rules.

We should remember that this process is subjective. The government itself said it. It said that the registration is determined by people's heritage, but also by their contribution to the community and Mi'kmaq society. That is very subjective. Throughout my time in northern Canada, I have seen membership lists that have been fought over on that basis for years and years. Those are very difficult, time-consuming, and subjective ways of determining membership.

Once we get past the idea that people have the blood heritage of the Mi'kmaq in relationship with others in a similar location in the country and they have rights of membership, and we get into the area where they have to show they have been active participants in the community and the community accepts them, those things become very subjective, difficult to determine, and very likely to be the cause of some dispute, which may lead to liability.

Those are things that the government ought to realize going forward. It has put itself in a position where many people are going to be disappointed with the results of this work that is going ahead right now. It has made choices, and those choices are going to come back and haunt it. What it should do, very clearly, is to reduce its liability for its mistakes and ensure it can make any choice it wants with the 23,800 people who have already been registered and the 70,000 people who have put their names forward for registration. This is a very difficult issue.

New Democrats want to take this issue to committee because we want to come to some kind of understanding of what has happened. That may be part of what can be done. I am not holding my breath over this because I saw the action on Bill C-15. The government made some changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the Northwest Territories which took away constitutionally protected parts of land claims agreements. That process is now going to court. The lesson that the government is learning is that it should take away the opportunity for first nations people to go to court over things that are inherently their right to do.

Land ownership is something that people have a right to in this country, and first nations, through their processes, have a right to land and resources. What is being said is that the government is going to arbitrarily determine who has a right to that land and resources through this membership process. If we told private citizens in Canada that we were arbitrarily going to determine whether they have a right to the land and resources that they think they do, I suspect that would not sell very well to Canadians.

Canadians understand that with heritage and the ownership of land through that process of one's ancestry, if it has not been legally taken away from them, they have some rights to it. This is something the government has to operate with carefully. It is taking a very strong step toward this limited liability, which is something it would never think of doing to multinational corporations that exist outside the country but is quite willing to do to the citizens of Canada.

This is an interesting proposition. We will take it to committee. We will have a chance to give it a good, thorough airing, I hope. With the Conservative majorities we have had, the committee has had a tendency to slow down accepting witnesses, The committees have been abysmal in their ability to open up to have the type of examination many of these issues take. I will once again give the instance of Bill C-15, where one day was given to the people of the Northwest Territories in Yellowknife to give their evidence in front of the committee.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Nine and a half hours.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Nine and a half hours. That was it. That speaks for itself in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully some better heads will come together over this in committee and the bill will be given a very thorough examination.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech. I am a little unclear, so I will ask this carefully. Does he think it is reasonable that 101,000 people would be members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation? Does he think it is reasonable that 46,000 of them would be received in the last two months and that this should not raise alarm bells? Does he really think the people who submitted their applications during phase one should be subjected to a different criteria of evaluation than those whose applications were received during the second stage?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my reading of it is that certain people have been given membership in this Mi'kmaq first nation, and those 23,800, as indicated by the minister earlier in his conversation, will now be under some scrutiny to see whether that registration is appropriate. Those people will be judged.

I am very concerned about any change to any of the processes that go forward for the 23,800 who have already been registered, and of course for the other 45,000 people who have come forward or the 70,000. I am not sure of that final figure. I would like to see them judged in a fashion similar to the one for the first 23,800. That would be fair.

Quite clearly the process was not well thought out in the beginning, and because of that, we have ended up in this situation here today. What we have to take into account are the rights of the individuals involved. That is the primary order.

I reference my experience in the Northwest Territories with the membership lists and viewing the process they go through. I think of the time it took for bands with 500 members to ensure that their membership lists were correct and followed a correct order. This is a very large task in front of everyone to determine that with 100,000 people. There is no question about it. I just want to make sure that the rights of those 100,000 are respected and that the rights of the 23,800, which they entered into with the government when they applied and were accepted and who have made choices based on their acceptance, are also protected.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to share his experience dealing with important first nations issues at committee and perhaps about the lack of time and focus important issues receive from the Conservative government.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in many cases, for things that come forward to us in committee, there is a process whereby the time is limited and the choices people have to invite people to speak in front of the committee are constrained. Opposition parties are only given as many committee members as the government chooses, in relation to their seats in the House of Commons. Right there, simply through that process, the government holds an ability to limit the choices of witnesses that will be in front of the committee. Since the current majority government has come into place, we have seen that happen.

It is a game that is played at committee now. It is difficult. The government wants to move legislation through as quickly as possible, in many cases. Witnesses are assigned, as I say, per capita, according to the number of seats in the House. That is a very limiting factor.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to clarify whether his understanding is that there are really two issues at stake here. One is that a fair number of people actually disagree with the eligibility criteria, because they are not included in it for one reason or another. A criterion relates to people who have a direct and ongoing association with these particular communities. That is one question that is out there politically.

The second question is about the fairness of the process. Would the member agree that what is really necessary is to ensure that we have a fair and equitable process for all those who have applied, including those who were already previously accepted?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, that is true. I completely agree with the member. There is one other issue, and that is if people's expectations, through the original process, were raised, and they actually changed their lives in any fashion or did something that would have put them at some degree of risk, or they relied on this for some part of their future activities and planned accordingly. That implies some degree of responsibility on the part of the government.

Courts are very good at deciding responsibility. That is our system. I do not like seeing that opportunity being taken away from people to make those choices.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not know if the hon. member heard it, I was clear in my speech that those 23,877 members who received status in the initial enrolment will continue to receive Indian status benefits until this process is completed and the appeals process has been exhausted. We are looking at late 2015.

These people have been receiving benefits. They will continue to receive benefits during this phase, even as a result of this bill. However, everyone is aware now and has been put on notice that there is a new process and that everyone will be evaluated again. That will give some time to those individuals. There is no cutting-off of benefits right now, which might be a concern of the member.

Also, clause 4, the legal clause in the bill about protecting the government, which the member talked about, would not prevent individuals from appealing the enrolment committee's determination, nor would this clause prevent court challenges to the agreement or to the exclusion from the schedule of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order. This is a very limited clause that has been enacted in other pieces of legislation.

It was also part of Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. It says that if people are determined not to be members of the Qalipu band, they do not have the right to seek compensation for that decision. They still have the right to the court process on the actual enrolment order. I want the member to be aware of that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary repeated what he said. I did not really have a problem with anything he said.

I am talking about people who over the past five years have received notification that they have membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. They may have moved to a different community. They may have reasserted their lifestyle as first nations. They may have bought houses or set up businesses. Those are the types of choices that have been made by these 23,800, and they will still be making these choices right up until the time somebody tells them they are no longer members. Until that time, they have to live their lives based on the fact that they have now been taken on as members of a first nation.

Those are the types of liabilities. I do not think the government has a right to take away from individuals the right to sue government for making mistakes that they suffer for directly.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-25, an act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.

We in the NDP are concerned about the indemnification provisions in the bill and whether or not they will deny anyone the right to further action in being recognized as a member of the Qalipu first nation. I would like to refer to the work my colleagues the MPs for St. John's East and St. John's South—Mount Pearl have already undertaken on this important issue. They have raised problems with the original agreement in principle creating a landless Qalipu first nation where children removed from Mi'kmaq families and adopted out would seem to lose all rights to membership under the agreement.

We recognize that the agreement before us is a negotiated agreement with the first nation, but we are concerned that the Conservatives have once again rushed a process and, instead of providing certainty, they have created anxiety and concern among all people applying to be part of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation.

Since the Indian Act separated first nations into status Indians and those without status, determining the citizenship rights of any person to be part of a first nation has been a highly charged process. We in the NDP are only offering equivocal support to the bill because we have questions about its provisions, and as we know, we will only get those answers from witnesses at committee. We have made it very clear that we are concerned when it comes to two areas in particular. One is the membership criteria and the second is the fairness of the process.

Speaking to those points, I want to refer to some of the coverage that Bill C-25 has received from Mi'kmaq people in Newfoundland itself. I refer specifically to Mr. Hector Pearce of the Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland, which has real concerns about Bill C-25. He stated:

We are not shocked but we are very disappointed with the legislation. This government has put up so many roadblocks to this Qalipu registration process that nothing surprises us anymore.

Mr. Pearce goes on not just to express concern but to refer to possible actions that he and the Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland will be taking.

What we in the NDP have been saying on Bill C-25, and also on other bills that relate to first nations people, is that it is time for the government to learn from the wrongs of the past and recognize that in negotiating with first nations directly, which is a very important step, we must respect the importance of a fair membership process and a clear understanding that status membership has been an issue that has been very problematic for indigenous people in our country. I know from my constituency, many first nations people are proud of their status in their first nation and of their treaty rights, but they are very concerned about the continued existence of their nation, particularly with respect to how their children and their grandchildren will be considered under the Indian Act. We know that Bill C-31 created significant change. It allowed for fairness by recognizing the children of first nations women who had children with non-indigenous men. However, we know that, as people intermarry and as families grow across the country, there needs to be a continued understanding of Indian status and respect for Indian status of indigenous people coming down the line. This is something that has been raised by first nations leaders across the country.

I recognize that Newfoundland has a very different experience, in terms of its entry into Confederation later on and the recognition of first nations people, and has had a different trajectory from other parts of the country. However, that is no excuse not to learn that first nations must be partners at the table in making sure that something as important as membership, as status in their community, must be front and centre.

I also share the concern around the process. I realize that the Mi'kmaq first nation and its advocates have worked a long time with the federal government to seek recognition. I want to acknowledge that work, because I realize from first nations leaders in my part of the country how important and how tireless that work can be.

There is nothing more frustrating for first nation members, for first nation leaders and advocates, than a process that seems rushed and that seems not to have taken into consideration the kinds of key factors that should have been considered all along. I think of first nations in northern Manitoba that have struggled to ensure that their land claims are recognized and that their children and grandchildren down the line will be recognized as members of that first nation, as I mentioned.

Even though some first nations in my area had great success in having band membership recognized amongst future generations, the federal government has been slow in equipping those members with their treaty cards. I think of the Peguis first nation, the largest first nation in Manitoba. About 1,300 members of the Peguis band are still waiting for their treaty cards from the federal government.

The process matters to all Canadians. For first nations people who have worked far too long on an issue as important as this, it is of the utmost importance.

We have great hopes that this issue will be dealt with fairly in committee and that we will receive the kinds of answers we need, so we can make a decision accordingly. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has a pretty dark history when it comes to shepherding legislation on indigenous issues through committee. We only hope that the Conservatives will take this issue seriously when it gets to committee. We will certainly be doing the very same every step of the way.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Churchill will have 10 minutes when the debate resumes for questions and comments.

It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would first indicate that I am splitting my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton, so the House will only have the privilege of hearing me speak for about 10 minutes. Then I will leave the floor for questions and comments.

The bill has been spoken to already. There have been many persuasive arguments to support this important piece of legislation. First and foremost, Bill C-25 would enable the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation to finalize its membership list. That process began with the 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, signed by the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, but it has yet to be completed. For reasons other speakers have already explained, and as others will hereafter, the full implementation of that agreement has been delayed.

As the House may know or may have already heard during this debate, the very first stage of that enrolment process ended on November 30, 2009. The first stage resulted in the issuance of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order on September 22, 2011. As a result, 23,877 individuals were enrolled as the band's founding members. With that they gained Indian status under the Indian Act, giving them access to certain federal programs and services, as they should have.

However, issues with the enrolment process became apparent during the second stage of the enrolment process, which ended on November 30, 2012. Just to remind the House, an additional 36 months were provided under that original 2008 agreement to guarantee that everyone who might be eligible to become a member of Qalipu Mi'kmaq band had ample time to apply.

Much to the surprise of both parties, more than 75,000 additional people took the opportunity to apply for membership, bringing the total number of applications to over 101,000. To put that into perspective, that figure represents about 11% of all registered Indians in Canada, so it is a very significant number. It is also worth noting that over 46,000 applications were sent in during the last three months, the last quarter before that November 30, 2012 deadline.

Concerns were raised by both parties to the agreement that these numbers were possibly not credible and that the integrity of the enrolment process had been undermined. Consequently, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Government of Canada agreed to the need for a supplemental agreement, which was announced in July 2013. The parties were able to use those provisions in the 2008 agreement to amend the original agreement.

The supplemental agreement provides greater clarity surrounding the criteria for band membership. It provides the necessary detail to ensure that the original intent of the 2008 agreement is respected and that the integrity of the process is protected. This is of great concern to the leaders of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and to our government, as it should be to all members of the House.

To be clear, the enrolment criteria set out in the 2008 agreement remain the same. Nothing has changed with respect to that. The supplemental agreement clarifies how to assess that criteria and which documents may be considered. Anyone wishing to join the first nation needs to prove his or her eligibility for membership. That is the responsible and appropriate thing to do, from the point of view of the Newfoundland first nation and the Government of Canada and all citizens across this great country.

Applicants must provide documentary evidence that they self-identified as being members of a Newfoundland Mi'kmaq group prior to 2008. They also have to demonstrate that they were accepted by the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq group of Indians through their active involvement in Mi'kmaq culture before the first nation was officially formed.

The supplemental agreement also allows more time for the enrolment committee to process the tens of thousands of unexpected applications. That is essential to ensure that everyone who submitted an application is treated fairly and equitably and that there is due consideration given to each application in the process.

This process will ultimately resolve any lingering questions about who is or who is not a member of the band, and it will provide clarity for the entire enrolment process. However, to accomplish this, another step is required, and the fact is that legislation is necessary to enable the Governor in Council to amend the recognition order once the enrolment process under the supplemental agreement is complete.

An amendment to the schedule will be required to add the names of those who are found to be entitled to be members and also to remove the names of those on the list who are determined to be ineligible for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, according to the criteria.

It is possible that some of those initially deemed to be founding members will no longer be entitled to Indian status, should the current review reveal that they do not meet the enrolment criteria. However, I want to underline that there will be no changes to the schedule until the review process is over. All those currently registered as Indians under the Indian act will continue to have access to designated programs and services until that time.

Despite the steps our government is taking to come to a conclusion on this matter to ensure clarity and fairness for applicants, the members of the Liberal Party thus far have suggested that the agreement with the FNI establishing clear criteria for enrolment in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation stands for nothing, that it is of no account and is not important at all. We believe that it is. It is crucial, and I think that any complacency or lack of regard for integrity is an example of what the Liberal members are doing on this. It is really a matter of putting their own personal interests before the interests of those they claim to represent.

I am sure that all other members of the House can understand that clarity is essential. I think fair-minded people would admit that. It is essential for everyone involved but especially for the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland. They want this kind of clarity and integrity.

Yesterday, on the floor of the House of Commons, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the House leader for the NDP, mistakenly referred to this legislation as a treaty. Maybe it was misspoken on his part or a slip, but I want to make it very clear to the members in this House that this is not about a treaty.

When the member does his homework, he will know that this is about an agreement entered into between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. It is the only way to ensure that the original intent of the 2008 agreement is respected and that the supplemental agreement can be implemented. It is vital for ensuring the integrity of the process.

Parliamentarians need to recognize that this can only be accomplished by enacting the piece of legislation before us. It would enable the Governor in Council to make the required amendments to the recognition order. Passage of Bill C-25 is necessary to finalize the membership list of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. It is the final step in fully implementing these agreements and going on from there.

It is incumbent on members on both sides of this House to ensure that this can take place and that we move on it. I urge all parties to join our government in ensuring the swift passage of Bill C-25 to complete the process for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation and its eligible members.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the government has invoked time allocation on the bill, given the fact that it has only been debated one Friday in the House, and today is the second Friday. Essentially we will have only a couple of hours of debate. As the member for St. John's East ably outlined, we are providing equivocal support for the bill, so it is not clear why the Conservatives had to shut down debate on it.

With regard to clause 4 in the bill, which deals with an indemnity clause, I wonder if the member could outline what he expects this indemnity clause in the bill to cover.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, clause 4 would support the overall integrity and credibility of the membership. I think it is crucial in the enrolment process of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. It would ensure that the applicants who are found not to be entitled to registration would not obtain compensation for benefits intended only for registered Indians. They are on the list presently until found otherwise, according to some very clear criteria.

Those benefits would not be clawed back. I think we would all agree that individuals who are rightfully a part of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation will continue to be, but there may be some on that list who are not eligible, according to clear criteria.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would echo some of my NDP colleague's comments regarding the issue of time allocation. We are also concerned about the way the government is using time allocation almost as a normal procedure in the passage of legislation. In fact, it is not appropriate.

Having said that, I wonder if the member could provide some comment regarding the appeal mechanism, if he is familiar with it. Individual applicants who might be going through the process may feel that they would like to challenge a decision. Could the member provide comment as to what an individual would be able to do in terms of appealing a decision?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would not prevent individuals from appealing the enrolment committee determination, pursuant to the agreement. They would have recourse to the courts and other legal processes. They could challenge through the courts their exclusion from the schedule of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation order. They would be deprived of none of that. They would have full access to any and all of that in terms of appeals they may feel they need to undertake as a result of being excluded from the order.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was some confusion between two members of the NDP the last time we debated this issue. The member for St. John's East was very clear that he expected the criteria to apply to all 101,000 applicants, whereas the member for Western Arctic made it clear that he thought the 23,877 members who had already received Indian status should be protected and should not be subject to the same criteria as the others who applied later.

Does the hon. member believe that there should be equality and fairness for all applicants, or does he believe that there should be special status for those who were approved early on in the process?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no grandfathering. The very clear and careful criteria that have been agreed to and the interpretation of the criteria would apply to all of them. To maintain the integrity of the process, everyone would get the same due process and the same thorough scrutiny.

In terms of procedural fairness, most of us would agree to have the same criteria. Nobody should sneak in under the wire. The criteria should not be applied differently to some who were already on the list. As I said before, there would be no clawing back for people deemed to have been on that list inappropriately. None of the benefits they might have received in the meantime would be taken back from them. They are currently still on the band list.

All of these together would be considered under the same consistent criteria that would be applied to all of them. None would be excluded.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for this legislation. I want to use this occasion to underscore that our government and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians are united in the desire to achieve our mutual goal: to enable the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians in the province to build a strong foundation for Mi’kmaq cultural growth and development. This is something we have jointly worked to achieve for a number of years and are determined to bring to fruition. However, it can only be accomplished with the passage of Bill C-25. This is why we hope that all members of the House will stand up for the integrity and credibility of the band, to the exclusion of personal motives, and vote favourably for the expedited passage of the bill.

Unlike the Liberals who would put self-interest ahead of the integrity of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation, we have made major progress in advancing the shared goal of officially recognizing the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation as a band under the Indian Act. Let me remind the House that it was this government that finally created the first nation, to resolve a court action. We reached an agreement in principle with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to create the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation in 2007 and signed a final agreement a year later, in 2008.

The 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation established a process to create a landless band and legally recognize its members as registered Indians under the Indian Act, providing them access to important federal programs and services previously unavailable to them. The order in council creating the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation was signed in September 2011. Both parties in the 2008 agreement intended that founding membership in the band would be granted primarily to individuals living in or around the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities named in the 2008 agreement. Of course, it was always understood that some people living outside these communities might become members of the first nation. However, it was also agreed by the signatories of the 2008 agreement that non-residents would be required to have maintained a strong cultural connection with the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community. This means a sustained and active involvement in the community, despite not having a physical presence.

In the 2008 agreement, the parties agreed to a two-stage enrolment process for founding membership in the new first nation. The first stage, which ended in November 2009, was intended to identify founding members of the band. The second stage provided an additional 36 months to ensure that anyone who might be eligible to join the first nation could still apply and be assessed for membership. This was something both Mi'kmaq leaders and our government felt was fair and reasonable. What was unreasonable, and unexpected, was the approximately 46,000 applications that arrived in the final months of the second stage of the enrolment process. Only 23,450 people self-identified as aboriginal residents of Newfoundland and Labrador in the 2006 census; however, more than 101,000 people had submitted applications to join the band by the time the application process closed on November 30, 2012—which, if accepted, would represent 11% of all registered Indians in Canada.

Not surprisingly, this raised a lot of eyebrows on the part of both the government and the FNI, and questions regarding the integrity and credibility of the enrolment process. A much lower number of applications was expected. No one ever imagined the number would be in excess of 101,000. Clearly, there was a need for greater clarity about who actually qualifies for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. This was essential to ensure there could be no misunderstanding about what is required to be eligible to become a member of the band. Only in this way could everyone submitting an application be treated fairly and equitably. Especially important, such clarity is vital to the integrity of the enrolment process. That is why the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the government jointly agreed to explore improvements to the process. Both parties wanted to be sure that applicants would provide sufficient detail to establish their eligibility for band membership.

They wanted to ensure that the enrolment process reflected the original intention of the parties and provided adequate time for all applications to be carefully reviewed. To accomplish this, the federal government signed a supplementary agreement with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians in June 2013 to resolve issues that emerged in the implementation of the 2008 agreement. This has led to a comprehensive review, currently under way, of all of the applications received from the very start of this process, except those already rejected. The supplemental agreement signed last July does not in any way change the rules of the game. It maintains the original criteria for band membership contained in the 2008 agreement.

Potential applicants must still satisfy four key criteria, which, I want to underline, were negotiated with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. These criteria were and remain as follows.

First, the individual must be of Canadian Indian ancestry. Second, the individual must be descended from a member of a Newfoundland pre-Confederation Mi'kmaq community. Third, the individual must also have self-identified, prior to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's creation, as a member of the Mi'kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland.

Fourth, and equally important, the individual must be accepted by the Mi'kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland, based on a substantial cultural connection. Acceptance is based on residency in one of the communities listed in the 2008 agreement or through frequent visits or communications with residents and by maintaining the Mi'kmaq way of life.

Both the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the government believe that this is a fair and reasonable way to assess who is ultimately eligible to be a member of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation.

There was also full agreement that enough time must be provided for this process to unfold, to give all those with valid applications a fair chance to provide the information required during the review. Only when this comprehensive process is complete can the parties be sure that the names of those who qualify go onto the band's membership list. It is at that stage that Bill C-25 would be required. The legislation is crucial to the implementation of the supplemental agreement. The legislation before us today is the last step required to resolve this long-standing issue, something both the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and members of the government are anxious to do.

Ultimately, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation act would provide the Governor in Council with the authority to amend the recognition order once the enrolment process resulting from the supplemental agreement is complete. This would allow the Governor in Council to add or remove names from the band membership list. As others have noted, it is possible that after closer examination, someone previously named as a founding member of the band might fail to satisfy the criteria I outlined earlier. Anyone who no longer qualifies for membership would subsequently lose his or her entitlement to Indian status, while those added would gain status under the act. This is only fair.

The House can rest assured that until all of this is sorted out, nothing will change. However, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation is looking to us, as parliamentarians, to help provide certainty for the future of the band. Let us make sure that the band's membership list is able to be finalized by quickly passing this legislation before us today.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a question that has arisen with respect to resources for membership. We know from Bill C-3, called the McIvor bill, which reinstated membership for a number of people who had been denied membership because of some gender discrimination, that there is a lengthy list of people waiting to get their status cards. This current legislation would increase that list of people waiting for their status card, which also impacts the ability of people to access benefits.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether the government is prepared to put additional resources into processing applications for status.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has spent countless hours working on behalf of first nations and we certainly appreciate what she has done in that regard. Her heart is definitely behind her work and what she has been doing.

This agreement is supported on both sides, by the FNI and by the government. That is extremely important. We must remember that each application for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq is being assessed on its own merits, and that is the way it should be. There is no quota for a maximum number of members who will be registered at the end of the enrolment process, but we need to ensure that all applicants are treated fairly and equitably. All applications, except those that have been previously rejected, will be reviewed.

Bill C-25 addresses technical requirements and provides the Governor in Council with the authority necessary to amend the schedule to the first nation band order. These are things that need to be done and certainty is required. We look forward to moving the bill forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments when she said, “Let us pass this bill quickly”. It brings to light a criticism of the government, that is quite legitimate, as to why that is. The government has been very familiar with the issue for months—not weeks, but months—and some might even suggest well over a year.

The Conservatives brought it in for second reading and allocated a couple of hours of debate. I think there is a very good chance it might have passed within that couple of hours without any time allocation, but then they try to give the impression that if we do not pass the bill within their time constraints, the world will come to an end; that it has to happen. They pushed the panic button, they brought in time allocation, and yet if anyone is negligent regarding the timing, one could say it was the government.

Why did it take the government so long to bring the legislation before the House and which now it is declaring is an absolutely urgent piece that requires time allocation. What took the government so long to bring it in?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we need to move forward with the bill, and swiftly. We have had years of discussions with the FNI regarding its aspirations for the recognition of the Mi'kmaq of the island of Newfoundland.

The parties to the agreements want to move as quickly as possible to, once and for, all complete the membership enrolment for the Qalipu Mi'kmaq, and the bill, being the last piece required to resolve this issue of the recognition, is something that both the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Government of Canada are anxious to do and to see it move forward.

We have to remember that Bill C-25 reflects the original intent of the parties as it was outlined in the 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq Band, and it supports the implementation of the 2013 supplemental agreement.

There is no reason not to move forward quickly, and we are moving ahead with this legislation now, making sure that all applicants are treated fairly and equitably during the review process. We want to make sure that everything is in place to act swiftly as soon as that enrolment committee makes the recommendation for the founding members list.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-25, an act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order. This legislation is a technical piece of legislation. It is comprised of a lengthy preamble, but the bill consists of only four clauses, and only clauses 3 and 4 are at the heart of the matter.

As has been indicated in the House, the NDP is prepared to support this bill going to committee for further review and study, so it is troubling that we once again saw time allocation on a matter that did not appear to require it. It would seem, from what members in the House have said, that all members are anxious to get this bill to committee for study. Therefore, we question what the government's motives were in arbitrarily shutting down debate for no good reason.

With regard to the bill, I want to touch on clauses 3 and 4. Clause 4 is the clause that allows the Governor in Council the power to amend the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order. This is important because this is the founding list of the band. While the minister has the power to recognize a group of people as a band under section 2 of the Indian Act, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada felt that it needed legislation to amend the founding list. It is not explicit in the Indian Act that the minister can add or remove people from a band once it is recognized, and I will come back to this point a little further in my speech.

The bill that is before the House does not alter the membership criteria. I know there are some concerns being expressed with regard to the membership criteria, but that is outside the scope of this legislation before the House. If people have concerns about the membership criteria, they need to work with the enrolment committee, the government, and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians in order to examine the membership criteria. That is absolutely outside the scope of this bill.

Clause 4 of the bill takes away the right to seek compensation from either the government or the band council, if one's name or date of birth is omitted or removed from the founding members list. People can still sue the government, but cannot make a claim for services or benefits not received because their names were not on the membership list at a certain time. People currently receiving benefits because they were enrolled before they were advised of the agreement in July 2013 will continue to receive benefits. If at some time their memberships are revoked, they will not have to pay back the benefits they have received to that point. That is New Democrats' understanding of the legislation, and that is why we want it to go to committee, so we can hear from independent witnesses about whether that interpretation of the legislation is the correct one.

I want to provide a little background. It is not a normal course of events to have a landless band being established. According to the department's briefing documents, in 1949, when Newfoundland joined Confederation, its first nations were not recognized as Indians under the Indian Act. In 1989, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians brought a lawsuit against Canada seeking Indian Act recognition. Finally, in 2007, the government settled this court action, and this led to the 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band of Newfoundland as a landless band under the Indian Act. In this case, we are not talking about a treaty or self-government; it is a landless band. This provides for an enrolment process to assess applications for membership in the new band.

As other members have pointed out, based on the membership criteria as outlined in the agreement, there was an expectation of how many people would be applying for membership. Because there was some ambiguity around the process, it resulted in far more applications than anticipated. These applications are assessed by an arm's-length enrolment committee, comprised of two representatives from Canada, two from the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, and an independent chair who is chosen by the parties.

As I mentioned, because of the very unexpected spike in applications, some questions emerged with regard to the integrity of the enrolment process. Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians entered into discussions to examine this issue in the autumn of 2012. In July 2013, the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians announced the supplemental agreement that treats all applicants fairly and equitably and ensures the integrity of the enrolment process.

I want to touch on a couple of matters with regard to membership. Again, this is at the heart of some of the dissatisfaction with how this process has unrolled. I want to come back to some essential facts around self-determination and membership. I want to turn to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. In article 3, it says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Then, in article 33, it says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.

I think that is an important point. The membership criteria was originally negotiated with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and had a very high acceptance rate for that original agreement in 2008 and the subsequent criteria that was outlined.

I want to touch a bit on the larger issue around self-determination and membership because I am sure it informed the process here.

The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs put together an article called “Who are the indigenous peoples?” There are two pieces in this that are relevant. One is self-determination:

Today, many indigenous peoples are still excluded from society and deprived of their rights as equal citizens of a state. Nevertheless they are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity, insisting on their right to self-determination.

The other is self-identification:

Self-identification as an indigenous individual and acceptance as such by the group is an essential component of indigenous peoples’ sense of identity. Their continued existence as peoples is closely connected to their possibility to influence their own fate and to live in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.

It goes on in the article to talk about the approach of the International Labour Organization, ILO, Convention no. 169.

The ILO Convention no. 169 states that a people are considered indigenous either:

because they are descendants of those who lived in the area before colonization; or

because they have maintained their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions since colonization and the establishment of new states.

Furthermore, the ILO Convention 169 says that self-identification is crucial for indigenous peoples. This criterion has for example been applied in a land-claims agreement between the Canadian government and the Inuit of the Northwest Territories.

When we come to the supplemental agreement, which leads us to clause 3 in this bill, it is the agreement that arose in 2013 because of some questions around the integrity of the enrolment process.

This supplemental agreement comes back to what I was just speaking about in terms of self-determination and self-identification. Some have argued that simple self-identification is sufficient to say that one is a member of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq. However, the supplemental agreement clarified and gave some background as to how the Federation of Newfoundland Indians negotiated the terms of membership, which relates to clause 3 about whether, as part of the Governor in Council, they are considered part of the foundation band members or are removed from the list.

Under section 8 in the supplemental agreement, it says the following:

Self-identification as a Member of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland.

In making the Agreement, the Parties were guided by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Powley where the Court recognized that belonging to an Aboriginal group requires at least three elements: Aboriginal ancestry, self-identification and acceptance by the group. The Supreme Court stressed that self-identification and acceptance could not be of recent vintage. This formed the basis for the criteria set out in paragraph 4.1(d)(i) of the Agreement.

That is the original agreement.

The Parties intended that the Enrolment Committee assess whether applicants had previously self-identified as Members of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland.

In annex A to the supplemental agreement, it lays out some additional context, which I think is important.

It says:

The words “current and substantial" must be given their due importance in the context of the Agreement. The core of community acceptance is past and ongoing participation in a shared culture, in the customs and traditions that constitute a community's identity and distinguish it from other groups. The connection that an applicant must show with a Newfoundland community of the Mi'kmaq Group has to be significant in quality and quantity; it must be true, profound and not of recent vintage. An applicant must demonstrate strong ties with the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland that pre-date or were contemporaneous with the signing of the Agreement and continued up to the date of the Recognition Order.

The frequent references to the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland in the Agreement show an intention by the Parties to the Agreement that acceptance by the Group must mean more than keeping a connection with one’s own family members. Section 25 of the Guidelines mandates that there be evidence of activities that are directly related to the traditions and culture of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland with an emphasis on belonging to a Mi’kmaq community represented by a band or organization in Newfoundland, or in the alternative, a wider participation with the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland in its activities and ceremonies so as to infer acceptance by the Group.

These are important matters, and the annex of the supplemental agreement outlines very specific tests that shore up the integrity of the enrolment process. For example, under “Subsection 25(b) Non-Residents”, it states:

In accordance with subsection 25(b), applicants who, on the date of the Recognition Order, were not residing in one of the locations of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland must demonstrate that, on a regular basis over a reasonably extended period of time, they frequently visited and/or communicated with Members of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland and participated in religious, ceremonial, traditional or cultural activities of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland.

As I mentioned, there is substantial detail about how that test could be met. In the regular course of affairs there is an appeal process, so that for members who feel they have met the test but the enrolment committee determines it has not been satisfied there is an avenue for appeal.

Further in the supplemental agreement, it talks about determinations. It says:

The Enrolment Committee will determine whether each applicant is eligible to be enrolled under the Agreement. Every applicant will be advised of the Enrolment Committee's determination of his or her eligibility only after the assessments or reassessments of all applications have been completed.

On the founding members list, it says:

Upon the completion of the assessments and reassessments of all applications by the Enrolment Committee and the determination of all appeals by the Appeal Master, the Enrolment Committee will provide to the Parties a single Founding Members List for the purposes of the Agreement, and the Minister will recommend to the Governor-in-Council that this Founding Members List be substituted for the current schedule to the Recognition Order.

On that particular point, it is clause 3 of Bill C-25, which says:

The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band Order , in particular to add the name of a person to, or remove the name of a person from, the schedule to that Order, along with the person’s date of birth.

Our understanding of that process is that the enrolment committee will make recommendations, and it is the enrolment committee that will determine whose names are on or off the founding members band list. That is very important, and it is a matter we certainly want to clarify at committee. We want to know how the process will work. Any of us would be very concerned if the Governor in Council could arbitrarily amend a founding member band list. That is a point that does require clarification.

As well, I had a question to the government about the indemnity clause. We want to clarify that it is as we understand it. We understand that members will still have the ability to sue the government under appropriate errors on the government's part, but that they will not be able to sue the band council or the government for compensation if their names are removed from the list or not added to the list. That is a matter that does require clarification at committee.

There is one matter that is not dealt with. It is with regard to the determination of who could be a member. It is an unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred throughout Canada, and it is referred to as a “sixties scoop”. What happened throughout Canada is that first nations children were removed from their homes and they were adopted.

In many cases, these children did not learn of their ancestry until they were adults. Therefore, there was never an opportunity for these children, who were forcibly removed from their homes and adopted out to non-native families, to maintain those cultural connections with their community and maintain their linguistic connections. We have heard stories from the Qalipu Mi'kmaq about children who were raised in other parts of Canada and were not able to maintain those cultural and linguistic ties and have now discovered that they have those roots.

The enrolment agreement did not address this particular matter. I would suspect there are not large numbers in that group, but I would encourage the government at some point to examine those particular cases where individuals would not be able to meet the cultural and linguistic ties that are required under the enrolment criteria. Except for the forcible adoption, those individuals would have maintained those community ties and connections.

It is a gap in the original agreement. It is certainly outside the scope of this particular piece of legislation to deal with it because, again, it is simply a technical document. It would not amend any of the enrolment criteria that were originally outlined. It would not amend the membership criteria regarding the cultural and linguistic ties that are outlined in the supplemental area. That is a problem for the overall enrolment process.

I will conclude by indicating that, once again, the NDP as the official opposition is supporting this bill getting to committee. We look forward to hearing from witnesses to clarify the intent and the scope of clauses 3 and 4 in the legislation. I expect it will be something that can be dealt with fairly expeditiously at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her speech. This is the first time in the House that I have been able to express my regret that she will not be seeking re-election after the next election. I have always appreciated her reasonable approach, which we saw again in her speech.

I would like some clarification, and I hope it is taken in the spirit in which it is asked. There were a couple of varying opinions from the opposition when we last debated this, on the eligibility criteria and how they should be applied, either across all applicants or simply across the second phase applicants who applied after the 23,877 original charter members were accepted. The lead speaker said that the rules should apply to all applicants, then the member for Western Arctic made it clear that he preferred a case where those 23,877 were exempted from the re-examination.

I wonder if she, as the chief critic for aboriginal affairs for her party, could clarify what her position and the position of the NDP is on that important question.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary first of all for his kinds words with regard to my not running again in 2015. I also appreciate the work he has done on committee.

With regard to bill C-25, it was tabled in the House and very rapidly called for debate. At that point in time, we had not had the opportunity to review it. The departmental briefing took place on the Thursday night before it was called for debate, so there was a limited opportunity for us to review the bill in its entirety and take a look at the implications.

What is clear from my speech is that the New Democrats firmly believe that the right to self-determination and self-identification has to rest with the first nation. The Federation of Newfoundland Indians has negotiated the enrolment criteria. If, at some point, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians wants to have those enrolment criteria reconsidered, that is a matter for the federation and the government to negotiate.

At this point in time, the enrolment criteria are outside of the scope of the bill, and I would encourage people who have some concerns with the enrolment criteria to work with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the government to examine them. I specifically mentioned the issue around the sixties scoop in my speech. That is something that requires some consideration.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there has been such abuse of time allocation motions and closure in the House that I hope I will have enough time to ask my question. I am joking, of course.

I find it very frustrating that Bill C-25 is subject to a time allocation motion. For once, and this is all too rare, our exchanges actually seem more like a discussion than an acrimonious debate. I think that is a great message, one that we should be sending more often to the public and all those who vote to elect MPs.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask my distinguished colleague a question. She has a great deal of expertise on aboriginal peoples. I read that according to article 33 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, first nations have the right to determine their own membership.

Having read the bill, does she think that Bill C-25 adheres to that rule and that Canada will therefore live up to its responsibilities as a signatory to the UN treaty?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset the member for Trois-Rivières indicated his puzzlement with why time allocation was moved on this legislation when there seems to be agreement to get it to committee. I would echo that puzzlement. I am truly puzzled about why we would do that. We have an opportunity to study the bill at committee and review. It is a short technical bill. I am not clear why the government did what it did with that.

There are a couple of important pieces in article 33, which states, “...to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions”. My understanding is that the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the government used the Powley decision, which talked about the linguistic and cultural connection to community, in order to determine membership.

When the Federation of Newfoundland Indians negotiated the original 2008 agreement, it had a high rate of acceptance for the terms and conditions of the enrolment criteria. It would seem that the first nations were self-determining in terms of who would become a member.

I did point out some concerns with people who are left out of the enrolment criteria. I do not think there was any ill intention on that with regard to the children from the sixties scoop, but it is something I would encourage all parties to examine.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the wonderful work that my colleague has done with first nations files and how well she has prepared and documented her information.

Earlier in her statement, she said it took almost 20 years to get that settlement. It seems it is always the same with the Liberals and the Conservatives. When there is something to settle with first nations, it takes a lot of time and hard work, but there is no action.

Could my colleague tell me why it would take so much time?

Why does it always take so much time? The government does not demonstrate much of a desire to resolve conflicts with first nations.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very puzzling point. In the case of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq, they had to go to court. In 1989 they brought forward a lawsuit against Canada seeking Indian Act recognition. Unfortunately, this is too often the case: in order for first nations to get their rights recognized, they are forced into court situations to have that determination. The government loses the case and then appeals the case, and eventually it will end up in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will side with first nations. First nations have taken 187 cases to court to have their inherent rights, their constitutional rights, recognized.

The other question that has not been resolved in debate around Bill C-25 is whether or not the government would put in adequate resources to move forward on recognizing status. Status cards need to be issued, and the department has been incredibly slow in issuing them, and that impacts on people's access to benefits and other things that are guaranteed with regard to the status card.

I posed a question to the government earlier with regard to whether the government would invest the required resources to make sure the backlog around membership applications is cleared up. I did not get a substantive answer. A backlog has already been generated as a result of Bill C-3, the McIvor decision, and this would only add to that workload.

I am hopeful that the government will recognize it has an obligation not only to pass legislation but to put resources in place to make sure the legislation can be implemented appropriately.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will resume debate.

I will let the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London know that we only have a few minutes left before members' statements. We will started and, of course, he will have the remaining time when we resume business on the question after question period.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that I will be splitting my time with the fantastic member for Calgary—Nose Hill. Members can stay tuned for her speech, which will be after mine.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-25, Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act.

I have listened to the debate here today, and I want to take this opportunity to reinforce the government's commitment to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation and to the official recognition of its members as status Indians.

I would like to expand on some of the points other speakers have raised. I especially want to focus on our approach for resolving this long-standing matter; an approach designed to treat everyone fairly and equitably. To do so, a brief historical overview of the complex issue is required.

As members know, this story dates back decades. It began in 1949 when Newfoundland first joined Confederation. At the time, there was no agreement between the province and Canada about if, how, or when the Indian Act would apply to the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland. In the absence of such an agreement, the Indian Act was never applied.

By the 1970s and 1980s, the Mi'kmaq groups in Newfoundland began calling for recognition. Various groups were led by the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, also known as the FNI, who commenced legal action against Canada in 1989.

Formal talks to settle the litigation and to correct the situation began in 2003. These talks led, in 2007, to an agreement in principle between the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to create the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, which resulted in a final agreement a year later, in 2008.

The 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band provided for the establishment of an Indian Act landless band for members of the current day Qalipu Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland, who resided in different Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities prior to 1949 or are descended from residents of such a Newfoundland pre-Confederation Mi'kmaq community. These members would gain access to specific benefits confirmed by Indian status. The agreement included specific criteria for the enrolment process of founding members.

I will stop here and pick up right after question period.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London will have seven minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next returns to debate on this question.

Statement by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last left the question, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London had seven minutes remaining in his remarks.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that for the last hour and a bit everyone has been held in suspense waiting for the final seven minutes, notwithstanding the excitement of question period.

I was talking about how we came to where we are today and the 2008 agreement and the eligibility process. To be eligible for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band, the 2008 agreement stipulated that individuals must be of Canadian Indian ancestry, be a member or a descendant of a member of a pre-Confederation Mi'kmaq community, self-identify as a member of a Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland, and be accepted by the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland based on a demonstrated or substantial cultural connection.

When the application process began in 2008, Mi'kmaq leaders and Canada expected that somewhere between 8,700 and 12,000 people would be entitled to band membership. This range seemed realistic given that there were roughly 10,500 members of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians at the time. Imagine the surprise when over 101,000 applications were submitted by the time the enrolment period ended in November 2012. Almost half of these applications, roughly 46,000, were received in the final three months before the deadline of that four-year process. Most of the applications received were from people living outside of Newfoundland.

As Chief Brendan Sheppard has stated: “It was neither reasonable nor credible to expect such a huge number of individuals to become members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation...”. Not surprisingly, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and Mi'kmaq residents of the province were worried about the credibility of the enrolment process and the integrity of the first nation. They wanted to be sure that the objectives of the 2008 agreement would be respected.

The intent of the 2008 agreement and the desire of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland was that membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation would be granted primarily to the people living in or around the province's Mi'kmaq communities named in the agreement. While individuals living outside these communities could also become members, the goal of the original signatories was that non-residents would be required to have a strong cultural connection to the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community. This includes a sustained and active involvement in the community despite their absence.

By the fall of 2012, all parties agreed that additional steps were needed to clarify the document's requirements for the enrolment process. In response, a chief federal negotiator was appointed to explore the measures to address issues connected to the enrolment process. Fred Caron, a lawyer and former assistant deputy minister at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, collaborated closely with the chief and council of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians.

They jointly agreed on the need for improvements. On July 4, 2013, the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians announced a supplemental agreement, which resolves the issues that emerged in the implementing of the 2008 agreement.

For instance, the 2013 supplemental agreement extends the timelines to review applications, ensuring that all previously unprocessed applications will be thoroughly reviewed and also ensuring that all applicants will be treated fairly and equitably.

It ensures that all applications received during all phases of the enrolment process will be assessed or reassessed, except those previously rejected. This guarantees that all applicants, no matter when they applied in the process, will be treated in a manner that ensures that their application is considered to the fullest extent required to determine membership.

Especially important, the 2013 supplemental agreement guaranteed that anyone whose application is reviewed will be sent written notification and that those who have submitted a valid application will be given the opportunity to provide additional documentation if required.

It also clarifies how an applicant's self-identification as a member of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland is assessed. It provides guidance related to an individual's acceptance to the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland. This information is particularly relevant to individuals not residing in Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities.

This reasonable approach is the only way to ensure the integrity of the enrolment process and that the rules of eligibility for memberships are fairly applied so that all applicants are treated equitably. That is what Mi'kmaq residents of Newfoundland demand and what all Canadians expect.

I would remind members that status brings with it a range of important social and economic benefits, something that cannot and should not be taken lightly. For these reasons, determination of the eligibility of applicants is being made by the enrolment committee, which includes two federal representatives, two Mi'kmaq representatives, and one independent chair.

In the meantime, all current members will retain their status cards. They will continue to be eligible for benefits that are conferred on registered Indians until such time as their status might change, based on the determination of the enrolment committee.

Acquiring first nations status will help the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland create and maintain a strong foundation of Mi'kmaq culture, growth, and development. This will lead to a better future for today's generation and all those who follow. This is something that generations of Mi'kmaq residents of the province have fought long and hard for, since the 1970s. It is time to resolve this complex and long-running matter, so that those who belong to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation can finally realize this potential.

Some Liberal members are suggesting that the supplemental agreement signed by our government and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, which is essential for the establishment of the fairness and equitability of all applicants, stands for nothing. These assertions speak to members putting their own personal motives ahead of the interests of those they claim to represent. Our government asserts that the integrity and credibility of the band should be upheld above all else.

These interests are what make Bill C-25 so important. Once the review process is over, the schedule to the order in council that legally created the first nation in 2011 will need to be amended. This is to reflect the fact that some of the names will likely be removed and others will be added to the list of the names of the founding members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation.

I call on all parties to join us in passing Bill C-25. Let us take these important steps in the process for the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland, so they can finally settle these issues and move on to enjoy the benefits of being a first nation.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his presentation. I would like to ask him, to his knowledge, how many nations want to negotiate or are currently negotiating to obtain recognized status as a band without a land base.

Does he think that the bill now before us provides for measures that should be put in place in the future or does the bill have shortcomings that need to be corrected immediately?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the member an exact answer, but I can tell him the importance of this piece of legislation. Bill C-25, although technical in nature, would enable the Governor in Council to amend the schedule for the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order to ensure that only eligible individuals, in accordance with the enrolment criteria outlined in the 2008 agreement, are granted Indian status and the membership of the first nations.

It is important that we get this piece passed. To answer the member's question, it could be used as a model in the future. However, let us worry right now about Bill C-25, getting it done right, and, because of the timeline that has already taken place, getting it done as quickly as possible.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of status with bands has enormous significance, right across the country. Many people are looking for status. Many people should have status, but do not, and many people who have very marginal claims for status would push for it.

In this case, we understand that there have been many people coming forward claiming the right of status. The question is, how will those claims be adjudicated? What steps will be taken to ensure the validity of the claims? Is there going to be a process in place for appeal? What is the timeline in which this will happen? Justice delayed is justice denied.

We want to make sure this is done properly and that the people who are actually eligible are able to benefit. Could my hon. colleague tell me what the plan is, and what the timeline is for the implementation?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that the minutes I had spent speaking in the House would probably answer most of those questions, but I will try to go at them again.

The review includes a reassessment of applications of those whose names currently appear on the schedule to the order that legally created the first nations. They have become members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nations and are entitled to registration under the Indian Act. It is expected that the review process will last until the summer of 2015 and be followed by an appeal period. Once the process is completed, the schedule to the order that legally created the band, and which contains the list of names of the founding members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, will be amended. We are looking at between now and then for the review of the rest of the applications and completion of the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have learned as we have debated this bill is that there is a need for fairness for all applicants, whether they applied early on in the process or they were part of the 46,000 people who applied in the last three months of the process. That brought the total number up to 101,000 applicants, who represent about 11% of the number of registered Indians in Canada.

It has been suggested by some members, in particular the member for Western Arctic, that there should be a special class of applicants. I wonder if the member would agree with me that we should treat all applicants, all 101,000 of them, in the same way.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question fits well with what we are trying to decide here today.

A large amount of applications happened at the end of the process. Some decisions had already been made, but for the most part this is a process concerning the whole Qalipu Mi'kmaq nation. All of the applicants will be reviewed and studied in the same way, going back to those who were already there. It is only fair to look at all applicants in the same light rather than rushing because there were so many applications at the end of the process.

It is also clear that there is a need for us to get to it. Bill C-25 should pass so that we can finish this process and work on establishing the Qalipu Mi'kmaq nation and who rightfully belongs to it.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

First, the purpose of the legislation is important. I want to make it clear and state for the record that Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act, carefully and fully respects and upholds the original intent of the 2008 agreement between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians that created the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. In particular, it fully respects and upholds the eligibility criteria set out in the 2008 agreement.

Some parts of this debate may have created concern or confusion in the minds of some Canadians about these points. There should not be any concern or confusion. The original agreement is fully and completely respected and upheld.

The bill before us, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act, is primarily created to enable the Governor in Council to amend the schedule of names and birthdates of founding members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. The Indian Act is unclear as to whether this is possible, so the Parliament of Canada wants to make it clear that the Governor in Council can make the amendment to the schedule of founding members of this new first nation.

As others have said, the reason that amending this schedule of membership was needed was because the Qalipu Mi'kmaq leadership foresaw that those wanting to join the new first nation would be those people living in or around the 67 Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities identified in the 2008 agreement. The parties expected that people would want to be members of this new first nation and that the number of eligible members would be around 9,000 to 12,000. There were about 10,000 members of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians at that time.

What happened, as other members have said, was that although individuals living outside of those communities could also be members, the intent was that even non-residents could have some strong cultural connections with the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community. However, to everyone's surprise and shock, there was a flood of applications. In fact, there were about ten times the number of applications received than had been foreseen. There were over 100,000 applications during the four-year enrolment process, and most of these, over 70,000, were received in the final year before the enrolment deadline. Therefore, all of a sudden the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation was faced with this incredible flood of applications.

It became very clear that there needed to be some precision put forward to operationalize the agreement that created the first nation and the founding members enrolment. The flood of late applications was not only concentrated toward the end of the enrolment period, in fact almost 50,000 were submitted in the last three months before the application process ended. However, about two-thirds of the applicants did not live in Newfoundland or anywhere close to Mi'kmaq communities; they lived elsewhere in Canada.

Therefore, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians recognized that these numbers were not credible and threatened to undermine the integrity of the enrolment process, and that there would be no time to review these applications before the end of the enrolment process. The Government of Canada and the federation entered into discussions, and after very careful discussion in July 2013, a supplemental agreement was reached in which all applications that had been submitted, except those that had been rejected, would be reviewed for a second time.

It is clear that there has to be some integrity in the process. The Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation wants to make sure that people joining its community have a real and substantial connection and really care about the community and have a commitment to the community. The first nation wants to make sure that people are not just throwing in an application for personal benefit.

The new agreement clarifies the kind of documentation that would be required. It extends the original time limits and treats everyone fairly by applying the same criteria to everybody.

The applicants have already been given notice that their applications are to be assessed or reassessed. The applicants have an opportunity to provide any additional documentation that would be required, given the clarification of the requirements for membership. The deadline was even extended to February 10, 2014.

The only clarifications that were made were designed to eliminate confusion and misunderstanding about the requirements of the enrolment process, such as documentary requirements. The agreement also extended the timeline in order to make sure that everybody had a chance to make a clear and complete application.

The supplemental agreement that the Federation of Newfoundland Indians reached with the Government of Canada carefully and fully respects and upholds the criteria for enrolment that were originally set out. It does not change them in any way. Nothing changes.

However, there seemed to be some confusion about what would be required. That has been clarified, and applicants have a chance, in light of those clarifications, to submit further documentation and to have another review of their application. The legislation would not alter the enrolment criteria in any way, but it makes clear what is required.

What would the bill do? The bill would provide the Governor in Council with the authority to remove names from the schedule of founding members. It would also prevent individuals from collecting any compensation or damages from the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation or the Government of Canada if it is found that their claim to be not legitimate. This is not a new clause. It is legislation under the Indian Act. It protects the taxpayers of Canada and the first nation from a flood of claims that otherwise could paralyze the work of this group.

This is legislation that the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation needs. The first nation has agreed that it needs to go forward, and I hope that members will support it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of deciding band lists is very complicated. It certainly has to be done in a manner that is fair to the people who have a right to participate as band members and it needs to ensure that the people who have a marginal claim do not get put on the band list, because there are enormous consequences for the administration in any first nation if it has to deal with people who have very marginal claims who are expecting resources, education, and other resources to be moved through the band.

Given the enormous number of people who have come forward over this period to claim a right to participate as band members, what is the balance between the federal level and the community in ensuring that decisions about the band lists are reached in an accurate and fair manner?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague and his party for standing with the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation and supporting this important legislation for them.

The member will know the process that has been put in place to assess these applications is a very careful and thorough one. In addition to that, any applicant who is rejected has a right to pursue the matter through the courts as far as that applicant wishes to go.

The Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation is bending over backwards to be inclusive for all those who truly qualify, but at the same time it wants to make sure there are no Qalipu Mi'kmaq of convenience, so to speak. This is a very complete and careful process that fully respects the rule of law and the rights of appeal, even through the levels of our courts.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the other question I have is in terms of the timeline.

These band lists, especially if there are 100,000 people or so making a claim, have enormous implications for the validity of their elections process. We have to understand who is eligible to vote for leadership and who is not.

Has there been a decision in terms of whether the electorate will be within the community or within a larger territory or will include certain members? How is it going to affect the upcoming elections the community will be facing?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question.

As others have mentioned, the review process will last until the summer of 2015, about a year and a half from now. Once the review process is completed, the schedule that sets out the membership of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation will be finalized. Then the leadership of the first nation can form the elections and get people into place to move forward to work together.

I guess the short answer is about a year and a half.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that we are having a cordial and quite intelligent debate. All MPs truly want to find a solution to this problem. This should happen more often.

I have a relatively simple question about children who were adopted and presently have the status of their parents, who quite often are white. Can my distinguished colleague guarantee that, in these rather critical cases involving people who quite often do not know much about their past, a special effort will be made to ensure that they do not lose their status?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member here for 20 years. I was a member of the opposition for 13 of those years. Holding the government to account is an important role, but at the same time, opposing just to oppose is not particularly helpful to the people of Canada. I agree with my colleague that attacking each other just to attack is not particularly helpful either.

I think the people of Canada are pleased and relieved when members work together in a constructive and respectful way, as we are doing on this legislation. I hope that ethic will spread and grow. That would be great.

We do stand together with this new first nation. It has an important role. It is excited about its future. There are some technical bumps in the road, but we are getting those paved over and we are going to set this first nation on a good path forward.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in this House to offer my support for Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation act.

I will be sharing my time with my good friend and member for Kootenay—Columbia today.

In order to truly understand why this legislation is necessary, I think it is important to have an understanding of the unique circumstances and processes that all parties have gone through in order to bring this bill to this point.

When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, there was no agreement between the new province and Canada on if, how, or when the Indian Act would be applied to the province's Mi'kmaq, who lived primarily on the island of Newfoundland, and the Innu, who lived primarily in Labrador.

From the 1950s to the 1980s, Canada provided ad hoc funding to the province for social and health programs for the aboriginal communities living in that province. Over time, however, both the federal government and the first nation population expressed a desire for a more systemic application of the Indian Act system.

In 1984 the Indian Act was extended to Newfoundland for the first time, to the Mi'kmaq community at Conne River, known as the Miawpukek First Nation. In 2002 it was also extended to Innu bands in Labrador, the Mushuau Innu First Nation and Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation.

Initial efforts to improve relations between Canada and the majority of Mi'kmaq communities on the island of Newfoundland did not result in an agreement. In the late 1980s the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, an organization representing Newfoundland's Mi'kmaq, commenced litigation against Canada, seeking recognition for their members as Indians under the Indian Act and damages and compensation for unpaid benefits.

In 2008 Canada settled the court action through the Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band, which is the 2008 agreement that established a process to recognize the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland as a landless band and its members as Indians under the Indian Act.

The intent of the 2008 agreement was to establish a landless band for the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland. The parties intended that the founding membership of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation would be granted primarily to persons living in or around the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities named in the 2000 agreement. While individuals living outside of these communities could also become members, the intent of the parties was that non-residents would be required to have maintained a strong cultural connection with a Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community, including a sustained and active involvement in the community, despite their absences.

The 2008 agreement provided for a two-stage enrolment process. The first, which ended on November 30, 2009, was intended to identify the founding members. The second provided for a 36-month process to guarantee that all those who were eligible would have an opportunity to apply and be added to the list of founding members.

After the end of the first stage, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, or recognition order, was issued on September 22, 2011. It was this order that established the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band's status as an official first nation.

As a result of the recognition order and three subsequent amendments that were made to this schedule, 23,877 individuals were listed as founding members of the first nation and became entitled to registration as Indians under the Indian Act.

By the time the second stage ended, on November 30, 2012, more than 101,000 applications had been received.

As a result of the large, unanticipated number of applications received—particularly during the last two months of the enrolment process, when over 46,000 applications were received between September 1 and November 30, 2012—both parties agreed to enter into discussions to explore improvements to the enrolment process to ensure that it reflected the original intention of the parties and to provide additional time to ensure that all applications could be reviewed.

Extensive discussions and negotiations between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians commenced in the fall of 2012 and resulted in the supplemental agreement, which was announced on July 4, 2013.

The supplemental agreement clarifies the process for enrolment and resolves issues that emerged in the implementation of the 2008 agreement, such as the fact that the number of membership applications far exceeded the expectation of both parties, that it was not possible to review all of the applications within the time limits provided in the 2008 agreement, and that the original guidelines for assessment of applications did not provide sufficient clarity and detail to reflect the original intentions of the parties concerned.

The supplemental agreement ensures that the enrolment process is aligned with the original intent of the 2008 agreement. It meets the objective shared by Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians that all applications be treated fairly and equitably and in accordance with the criteria the parties originally negotiated to establish eligibility for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. It does not change the founding members enrolment criteria set out in the 2008 agreement. Instead, the supplemental agreement provides clarification of the requirements for enrolment, additional documentation requirements for applications, and an extension of the 2008 agreement timelines.

Under the supplemental agreement, all applications submitted since the enrolment process began in December 2008 will be assessed or reassessed by the enrolment committee, except those that had previously been rejected. It is estimated that the review process will take approximately two and a half years. While we recognize that this is a substantial amount of time, it is necessary to ensure that the original intent of the agreement is honoured and that those individuals and only those individuals with Qalipu Mi'kmaq ancestry will be registered.

The requirement under the supplemental agreement to review all applications received, including those found to be eligible under the previous process, means that it is possible that a number of the 23,877 founding members will lose their membership and their entitlement to be registered as Indians under the Indian Act if they do not meet the criteria of the 2008 agreement, as applied in accordance with the original intention of the parties. This means that only individuals with genuine Qalipu Mi'kmaq heritage will be registered as Indians through the process.

This is part of the reason Bill C-25 is so important. It gives the Governor in Council the authority to amend the recognition order so that it accurately reflects those individuals who are rightfully entitled to Indian status and the benefits therein.

Certainty is required to ensure that the supplemental agreement can be implemented and can thereby ensure the integrity of the enrolment process and of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. This certainly can only be obtained by implementing legislation that would provide the Governor in Council with the appropriate authority to make the required corrections to the recognition order and to ensure that persons who have Qalipu ancestry receive the rights and benefits they are entitled to.

For this reason, I urge all members to support Bill C-25 and impart to all members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation the status that is rightfully theirs. Legislation is required to provide the Governor in Council with the authority necessary to amend the recognition order, or more specifically, to add names to or remove names of founding members from the schedule to the order after the enrolment process under the supplemental agreement is completed.

An amendment to the schedule to the order in council will be required to add the names of those found to be entitled to be members and to remove the names of those found not to be entitled to be members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly important for us as Canadians to move forward on these settlement agreements so that we can bring assurance to the territories of our country but also to ensure justice for first nations people who have been denied it for so long.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. The issue of landless communities across this country is serious. We are dealing with communities that have been fighting for their basic right to be recognized, in some instances, for well over a century. In the Quebec region, there are the Algonquin of Wolf Lake. Between Ontario and Quebec, there are the Algonquin in the Mattawa region. That is just in one small area, but right across the country there are unresolved cases dealing with the rights and recognition of people who do not have status or a land base recognized by the federal government.

Could my hon. colleague tell us whether he thinks this agreement could be a model and whether we could start to move forward on solving some of these outstanding problems that have plagued our country for much too long?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has hit on some very important questions. The questions are, basically, fairness, equity, and living up to the commitments this country has to its first nations brothers and sisters. This is a perfect example of how, working with a first nations community and an Innu community, we can make sure that we do the right thing and that people who are entitled to certain rights and benefits in this country get those rights and benefits. This is a government that has been doing that since day one. I forget the exact number, but it is significant, if we compare that same time span to the age of this country, which is almost 150 years old.

The member is entirely correct. This is about fairness. It is about having a model we can use in other negotiations with our first nations brothers and sisters and the whole aboriginal community right across this country, from north to south and east to west.

I want to thank him for the question. He and I both know that this is setting us on the right path and is a good blueprint for future such agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member specifically about clause 4 of the bill. It is a four-clause bill and is technical in nature, so I know he will have an opportunity to get to it rather quickly.

There have been some concerns raised when people hear that there is a limiting of liability. Sometimes people think that we are taking away, for instance, the right of an individual to sue or take action against the government if they are not enrolled in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. Could the member take this opportunity to clarify what clause 4 actually does and the limited nature of it in relation to the actions that can be taken by an applicant?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has to do with, quite frankly, liability, fairness, and equity.

Clause 4 in the bill provides certainty that no compensation or damages will be paid either by Canada, the first nation, or any other party to the individuals who are determined not to be members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation once the enrolment process is completed. However, it does not prevent those individuals from appealing the enrolment committee determination pursuant to the agreement, nor does the clause prevent court challenges to the agreement or to the schedule to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.

Such a clause is not uncommon in this federation. Similar clauses are found in both the 1985 legislation removing discrimination from the Indian registration provisions of Bill C-31 and the recent Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, which was Bill C-3.

Clause 4 supports the overall integrity and credibility of the membership enrolment process of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation by ensuring that applicants who are found not to be entitled to registration do not obtain compensation for the benefits that are only intended for registered Indians.

Once again, it relates to the first question of fairness and equity and making sure that our agreements strike the right balance.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia know that we have about four minutes remaining in the time provided for government orders today, but we will get started just the same. I will give him a one minute signal so he will know when we are coming to that point.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this important bill today, Bill C-25, which has been brought forward with regard to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq Indians of Newfoundland.

I will outline some important parts of the bill. It is not a large bill, but it has some important facts that have been spoken to here today with regard to fairness and equitable treatment of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq.

On June 23, 2008, the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians entered into the agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band. On September 22, 2011, the Governor in Council made the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, which started a significant move forward with the bill. On June 30, 2013, the parties to the agreement entered into a supplemental agreement to clarify how to apply certain clauses to the June 23, 2008 agreement. There were representatives of both parties and an independent chair, who was jointly selected by both parties.

This allowed us to provide the parties with a new and final founding members list, which will form the basis of the recommendation to the Governor in Council to amend the schedule to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order. It is quite important, because it outlines what will happen with this agreement when it moves forward.

I think there is recognition in this House of the importance of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq peoples and how we need to come to a finalization with Bill C-25. I appreciate the opposition's move forward in recognizing this.

Clause 4 of the bill states:

No person or entity has a right to claim or receive any compensation, damage or indemnity from Her Majesty in right of Canada, any employee or agent of Her Majesty, a band, a council of a band or any other person or entity only because any person's name, or any person's date of birth, was omitted or removed from the schedule to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.

That is quite important, because we want to ensure that those who have the right to be on this list can be on it. It is a great opportunity to move forward and for the Qalipu Mi'kmaq people to regain what they so rightfully recognize as important to them.

We should also recognize that clause 3 of the bill states:

The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, in particular to add the name of a person to, or remove the name of a person from, the schedule to that Order, along with the person's date of birth.

There is a lot of flexibility in the bill to ensure that we recognize the Qalipu Mi'kmaq people.

I look forward to any further questions that may come. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you want to move forward with interjections. Thank you for allowing me to speak at this time.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, March 6, 2014, 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.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

On division

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I request that we see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.