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.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone on this side of the aisle is actually arguing about the RCMP's fundamental right to unionize. We are clearly arguing for the right for each individual member of the RCMP, as we would fight—as I would fight, as I did fight in Bill C-25—for the individual right of a member to have a secret ballot for union certification.

I would suggest to the hon. member, as I suggested earlier to the House, that it is a fundamental tenet of democracy to have secret ballots. When we go to the polls, we do not raise our hands when we vote. We walk behind a screen and cast our ballot in secret. Given the fact that it is that fundamental tenet of democracy, I would say that on the basis of union certification the same should hold true.

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me acknowledge my colleagues', and I say that in the plural, co-operation with respect to both Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, and Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act, today. We appreciate that co-operation.

This afternoon, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill C-33, First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act. That debate will conclude tomorrow and we will then proceed with a committee study of this important legislation this spring.

Monday shall be the fourth allotted day. We will debate a proposal from the New Democrats.

The Liberals will then get their turn on Tuesday, which shall be the fifth allotted day. I am still waiting to see a proposal from the Liberal leader on the economy. Maybe he is still finessing his newest definition of the middle class. I recommend to him the recent study from the U.S.A., the one that has been widely reported, which demonstrated that the Canadian middle class, according to his recent definition, that is the median income, is doing better than ever in history. For the first time, the Canadian middle class is doing better than its American counterpart. Perhaps we will see that on Tuesday as the subject of debate in the Liberal motion, since they claim that the middle class is their priority.

On Wednesday, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act. I want to take this time to acknowledge the hard work of the members of the procedure and House affairs committee. My friend was just talking about the hard work they have been undertaking and the difficult pressure they are under. Largely, it should be said, it is a result of the lengthy filibuster, of which the New Democrats were so proud, at the start, whereby the committee lost many days, when it could have heard witnesses.

Notwithstanding that loss of work, those delay tactics, and the obstruction by the New Democrats, the committee has got on with its work. It heard from almost 70 witnesses. It had over 30 hours of meetings. Now it has gone on to complete about a dozen or so hours of detailed study of the clauses of the bill and the government's reasonable and common-sense amendments to the bill. I expect that it will complete that work shortly.

Despite the long hours the committee members are putting in, I know that they will be keenly anticipating the appearance, before the next constituency week, of the Leader of the Opposition at that same committee. That will, of course, be in compliance with the House order adopted on March 27 respecting the allegations of inappropriate spending and the use of House of Commons resources by the New Democratic Party. There the hon. member for Outremont will have the opportunity to answer many important questions of interest to all Canadians, including, I am sure, some questions from his own caucus members, who have been dragged into the scheme the NDP leader has put in place.

Finally, on Thursday morning, we will consider Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, at report stage and third reading. After question period, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-8.

Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, according the departmental documents, Bill C-25 would enable the Governor-in-Council to implement the agreements reached between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to create a landless band for the Qalipu Mi'kmaq people.

The Liberal Party believes this legislation is actually focused on unnecessarily restricting the legal rights of individuals to pursue damages flowing from the band's troubled enrolment process.

When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, the Mi'kmaq communities were not recognized as first nations under the Indian Act.

This left many indigenous people in Newfoundland with uncertain legal status and robbed them of the same benefits and recognition first nations in the rest of Canada were and are entitled to.

Talks to rectify this uncertainty have occurred on and off ever since, and in 1989 the Federation of Newfoundland Indians commenced a legal action to obtain recognition for Mi'kmaq individuals. The most recent phase of discussions to rectify this injustice began in 2002, culminating in an agreement in principle signed in 2007.

The 2007 agreement proposed specific terms for the recognition of membership in, and operation of, the future Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation.

Canada ratified the agreement in principle in 2008. Unfortunately, the Conservative government badly mismanaged the negotiations and implementation of membership criteria. Initial estimates of likely band membership were approximately 10,000 to 12,000 individuals. The enrolment committee has now received 103,000 applications. This unexpected volume of applications led to a huge amount of confusion, and has left the government scrambling to manage open-ended criteria to which it originally agreed.

In the summer of 2013, the federal government and the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation band raised a supplemental agreement which adjusted the guidelines used to implement the membership criteria. These new guidelines were designed to make it more difficult to meet the enrolment criteria, and all applications are being reviewed under the new guidelines.

This has led to numerous rejections and left many who had applied under the original criteria very disgruntled with the process. In fact, this review could result in individuals who have already been granted membership in the band losing their status.

The Liberal Party recognizes that both the agreement and supplemental agreement flow from a nation to nation process that must be respected. However, it is unclear whether the bill is actually required to implement these agreements and, as I noted before, half of the bill is actually focused on limiting the government's potential liability for mismanaging this process.

It should be stressed that the federal government has been intimately involved in both designing and implementing the enrolment process.

Clause 4 of the bill provides that no one may receive “any compensation, damages or indemnity” from any entity, including the Crown, because of being removed from the schedule to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation band order.

The government, in a process that has been mired in confusion and controversy, is now asking parliamentarians to prejudge whether applicants may be entitled to compensation for any mismanagement or the impacts of the retroactive changes to how the membership criteria are being interpreted.

As we learned from testimony at committee, this legal indemnification was not requested by the band and is not something it is looking for. It is clear that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development badly underestimated the number of applications that would be put forward during the membership process, relying extensively on measures of self-identification of indigenous heritage.

This is particularly puzzling given that we know that generations of prejudice and marginalization induced many in Newfoundland to hide their indigenous heritage. As a result, whole family histories have been buried.

Whether damages are appropriate in specific cases is matter that is more appropriate for a court to decide. A judge will have the benefit of the facts on each particular case or class of cases.

It is unacceptable for the minister to use legislation to insulate his department from possible damages using a bill that he claims is simply to implement the agreements reached with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and more recently the Qalipu First Nation.

Pre-emptively removing access to legal damages that an individual would be otherwise entitled to, flowing from an enrolment process that has been the subject of such confusion and controversy is simply wrong.

That is the reason the Liberal Party of Canada will be voting against Bill C-25.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief on this. I am speaking to Bill C-25, Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act. This is very short legislation, with simply four clauses. As the parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out, it would grant a power to add or remove names that was unclear that the Governor-in-Council currently had.

I want to put add a couple of details. In 2008, an agreement was to establish a landless band for the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland. The parties intended that the founding membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation would be granted primarily to persons living in or around the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities named in the 2008 agreement.

While individuals living outside 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.

As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, there was substantially more applicants than was anticipated and there was, perhaps, a lack of clarity around how the documentation would be applied.

That resulted in a supplemental agreement. On July 4, 2013, Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians announced the supplemental agreement that clarified the process for enrolment in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation and resolved the issues that emerged in the implementation of the 2008 agreement.

In the supplemental agreement, I want to specifically refer to two things. One was they reiterated, in section 8, the self-identification as a member of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland. They said:

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. 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 the same supplemental agreement in section 5 it says:

Determinations. 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.

As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, there were a number of questions that arose during testimony. We sought clarification from the department and the minister's office with regard to a number of them. I want to reiterate for the record about how those would be resolved.

One of the questions was whether there was some sort of an appeal process. The other question was how the Governor-in-Council got the list. The parliamentary secretary already addressed that in the question and answer.

From the guidance we received, it says that a person's whose name is added to, deleted or omitted from the Indian registry and a band list may protest that decision in accordance with section 14.2 of the Indian Act. Furthermore, the first nation or one of its members may also protest the addition to or deletion or omission of a person's name from the Band list under subsection 14.2(2) of the Indian Act.

It is important to note that the decision of the registrar with respect to whether or not to add a name to the Indian Register and the departmentally maintained band list under paragraph 6.1(b) and 11.1(b) is not discretionary and would not involve a review of the Qalipu enrolment application nor of the enrolment committee review process. Rather, if an applicant is found to be eligible for founding membership by the enrolment committee, in accordance with the agreements, and his or her name is added to the schedule as a founding member, the registrar only has the authority to register that person and will not review the enrolment application. That protest of the registrar's decision would be rather straightforward.

The evidence upon which the registrar will base his decision is whether or not the individual's name appears on the schedule. If the name does not appear on the schedule, then the registrar will not have the authority to add it to the Indian register or the band list under paragraph 6.1(b) and 11.1(b) respectively. The registrar's decision on a protest may also be appealed to the courts in accordance with section 14.3 of the Indian Act, but again the courts would likely not review the enrolment committee's decision under this provision and instead would be limited to reviewing this information that was before the registrar in rendering his decision, namely the presence or absence of a name on the schedule.

I think it is clear that both the registrar and the Governor-in-Council will not be in a position to override decisions that are being made by the enrolment committee. However, the enrolment committee has an appeal master, so there is a process by which members can actually appeal the enrolment committee's decision.

Finally, there were some questions around the abilities of people going to the courts. The clarification we sought was around that issue. What we received was that clause 4 protected the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation and the Government of Canada from liability. However, the clause did not prevent individuals from appealing the enrolment committee determination or to challenging in court through a judicial review application their exclusion from the schedule to Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation band order.

Based on that clarification, the New Democrats are confident that the bill reflects the wishes of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq and we are supporting the bill before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise before the House to explain the necessity of Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation act.

The genesis of this issue dates back to a historical oversight at the time Newfoundland joined Confederation that left Mi'kmaq residents on the island of Newfoundland outside of the Indian Act.

From the 1950s through to the 1980s, the Government of Canada provided funding to Newfoundland and Labrador for social and health programs aimed at first nation communities located in the province. However, both the federal government and the Mi'kmaq population on the island realized that formal recognition of Mi'kmaq communities was needed to replace the ad hoc and inadequate existing arrangements, which did not take into account Mi'kmaq governance or cultural heritage.

In 1989 the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, representing approximately 7,800 members from the nine Mi'kmaq communities across the island, along with chiefs of six affiliated groups, began a Federal Court action seeking eligibility for registration under the Indian Act. The litigation was resolved through the 2008 Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq Band.

The agreement set the stage for the recognition of the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland as a landless band and its members as Indians under the Indian Act. This entitled eligible members to rights and benefits similar to those available to status Indians living off-reserve. It was always understood that the founding membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation would be granted primarily to people living in or around the 67 Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities named in the agreement.

To allow adequate time to assess who could satisfy the criteria for membership, the 2008 agreement provided for a two-stage enrolment process meant to identify the founding members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. The first stage of enrolment, which concluded on November 30, 2009, saw 23,877 people registered as founding members through the recognition order, and three subsequent amendments to the schedule to the order were made to add founding members' names.

It was during the second phase that issues emerged that led to concerns, shared by both Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, about the credibility of the enrolment process.

During the four-year enrolment process, over 101,000 applications were received. Of these, more than 70,000 applications were received in the final 14 months of the process, and more than 46,000 of them were sent in the last three months before the deadline. That was 80,000 more applications than were originally anticipated by both parties. Both parties recognized that the numbers were not credible and could undermine the integrity of the first nation.

A large percentage of the applications submitted during phase two were sent by individuals not residing in the identified Mi'kmaq communities in Newfoundland. Of special concern was the insufficient level of detail in the supporting evidence provided by many applicants.

It became obvious that the original intent of the parties to the 2008 agreement could be compromised and that greater clarity was needed regarding the requirements of the application process. That led to the negotiation and eventual signing of the 2013 supplemental agreement, which provided clear direction to the enrolment committee about possible evidence to support the claims contained in people's applications. It also offered detailed information to applicants about the documentation the committee is looking for to determine their eligibility to become founding members.

The original 2008 agreement is still fully in effect. In fact, the criteria for membership under the 2008 agreement and the 2013 supplemental agreement are exactly the same. The 2013 supplemental agreement extended the timeline to review all 101,000 applications received during the two-stage enrolment process, resulting in the assessment of unseen applications and a reassessment of the applications already considered. This was the only way to be sure that the rules of eligibility for founding membership were fairly applied, that all applications were treated equally, and that applicants were given a reasonable chance to demonstrate their entitlement to founding membership.

In early November 2013, the enrolment committee sent letters to all the people whose applications had not been previously rejected. It indicated whether their application had been determined to be valid or invalid, based on the requirements set out in the 2008 agreement.

Approximately 94,000 applicants received letters confirming the validity of their applications. The letters included information regarding next steps in the assessment of their applications and what additional proof they had the opportunity to provide in support of their applications.

Some 6,000 applicants received letters indicating that their applications were invalid and would go no further.

It is conceivable that some of the current 23,877 founding members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation will lose their memberships as a result of this comprehensive review. In turn, this means that these individuals would lose their entitlement to be registered as Indians under the Indian Act, and any rights or benefits flowing from it.

This gets to the heart of the matter before us today.

Bill C-25 is an essential part of preserving the integrity of the enrolment process. It would ensure that the Governor in Council is properly authorized to carry out the last step in the process, which is the creation of a new founding members list to modify the existing one.

It is not entirely clear that the Governor in Council has such authority. There is no express authority set out in the Indian Act to amend a recognition order establishing a band, and it is uncertain whether the Indian Act specifically allows the Governor in Council to remove names from the schedule of such an order.

Certainty is critical to correct the problems that arose during the initial enrollment process. Without this act, we cannot finalize the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation's founding membership list and fully implement the 2013 supplemental agreement. This would be an enormous disservice to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, which has been waiting for some time to have these issues resolved.

It is long past time that we settle these matters once and for all so that the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation can move forward with confidence to a better future.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, as reported without amendment from the committee.

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

One of the provisions in C-23 is the requirement for Elections Canada to communicate with Canadians as to the methods and how to vote. This would address some of the concerns, as you're saying, that a lot of younger people in particular aren't aware not so much as to whether they should be voting, what their constitutional rights are, and the benefits of participating in the voting process, but as to the nuts and bolts of how to. That in itself would be a promotional campaign, because any time you're talking about voting in an election in general, you're promoting the fact that an election is imminent.

In other words, a concentrated campaign directed, perhaps targeted, towards younger voters on the how-tos, the nuts and bolts of what you need to do to be able to vote, when the election would be held, where the voting would be held, how, and what kinds of ID you would need to vote—would that be effective, in your view?

[Adam Shedletzky, Co-Founder, Leadnow.ca]

Thank you for inviting the Leadnow community to testify before this committee.

My name is Adam Shedletzky and I'm a co-founder of Leadnow.ca.

Our mission is to help people across Canada deepen our democracy to create a more open, just, and sustainable society.

Canadians from all walks of life have expressed overwhelming opposition to the proposed changes to our elections law. From the 60,000-plus Canadians who have signed our petition, to current and past Chief Electoral Officers, to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, to the 160 Canadian and 19 international political science scholars, to journalists and editorial boards across the country, the response has been clear: the Fair Elections Act is fundamentally unfair. It stacks the deck in favour of the Conservative party and it cannot be fixed. The Leadnow community therefore calls on you to recommend that the House of Commons kill the bill and start over from scratch.

Unfortunately, this committee was unwilling to travel outside the Ottawa bubble to hear from Canadians across the country. I am grateful that through the Leadnow community, I am able to directly convey to this committee the wisdom and concerns of everyday Canadians who shared their perspective with us on Facebook and over email.

To start, we’re glad that the prohibition on vouching has received so much critical attention both in the media and here in committee, and that reports indicate that Minister Poilievre may be open to changing course. Yet, unfortunately, the issue of vouching is only one of numerous significant concerns Canadians have with this bill. In fact, Liane Tanguay expressed fear that the debate surrounding vouching is a red herring, that Mr. Poilievre will eventually concede to give the appearance that the final bill is a reasonable compromise.

Liane outlined several of our community’s other major concerns, stating that:

There is no good policy reason for the incumbent in a riding to appoint the polling supervisor, who among other things will have custody of advance ballots.... There is no reason to muzzle [Elections Canada] or to exempt fundraising costs from financing limits.

Also, “There is no reason for investigations and their outcomes to be kept from the public.”

Gail Silva was specifically concerned that because of this new law, Canadians will never find out what happened in the robocall fraud of 2011. This fear appears to be well founded, as Elections Canada recently decided to postpone their report on the robocall scandal until after the next election.

It is completely outrageous that three years after the robocall fraud of 2011, Canadians still do not know which political operatives played dirty tricks during the last election. In response to this attack on our democracy, Elections Canada requested that Parliament provide our elections watchdog with the power to compel witness testimony, just like the Competition Bureau can. This was partially because political operatives have refused to testify, significantly hampering the ability of Elections Canada to restore Canadians’ faith in the integrity of our democracy.

The robocall registry and new penalties for impersonating elections officials do not adequately empower Elections Canada to catch political operatives orchestrating election fraud. Mary Kolz wants to know why our elections watchdog was not given the specifically requested power to compel testimony.

One of Pattie Whitehouse's concerns is that “Removing the ability of Elections Canada to educate Canadians about voting and to encourage us is counterproductive to the goal of increasing voter engagement”.

While Minister Poilievre is correct that political parties are generally effective at encouraging Canadians to vote, that is only true insofar as in their interest to do so. Political parties have finite resources. They target those resources at those demographic groups most likely to vote. Youth are by far the least likely to vote, so they are largely ignored.

In fact, only 40% of youth said that political parties reached out to them, versus 75% of Canadians over 65 years old. Elections Canada has found that young people who take courses in government or democracy are 14% more likely to vote than those who do not.

The simple truth is that self-interested political parties are not adequately incentivized to conduct outreach to reverse the alarming trend of declining youth voter turnout. As Katie Omstead and Matthew Olewski state, the crisis in Canadian democracy is one of low voter turnout, especially amongst our youth. In this context, we need to be giving Elections Canada more power and capacity, not less.

Many Canadians have also sent in comments expressing outrage over the lack of consultation with experts, opposition parties, or Canadians before the introduction of a bill that is so fundamental to our democracy. One party ramming through such changes without widespread buy-in would cause Tim Thiessen, for example, to lose faith in our democratic process.

Lastly, people like Meghan Marentette and Holly Pender-Love wish that instead of fighting to protect our rights, we could be having a conversation around bold steps that could revitalize our democracy, such as moving towards online voting or making voting mandatory.

From The Globe and Mail editorial board to non-partisan chief electoral officers, to respected academics, to everyday Canadians, the message is clear. This bill is fundamentally flawed. It needs to be killed. Let’s start from scratch, together, to collaboratively draft a truly fair elections law that all Canadians can support.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing your questions.

[Bill Casey]

The thing that comes to my mind is that when I go on the Internet, I can see where Elections Canada brought to the attention of the government—to all governments since 1993—in two written reports that this is the most unfair aspect of Elections Canada, and it has not been addressed. I wonder if the drafters of this bill, the fair elections act, looked at those recommendations and didn't regard them or didn't look at them. Elections Canada has made these recommendations twice and has called them draconian—it has called its own rules draconian—and I repeat that word because it is very effective. There is something wrong in the process when Elections Canada makes those recommendations twice. To me, it's the most obviously unfair aspect of Elections Canada.

I often think they should change the name of the act if they're not going to make that fair. I don't think you can call it the fair elections act if you allow this unfairness to remain.

Your question is about the process. I think there is something lacking in the process if Elections Canada criticizes its own regulations and nothing is done about it.

[Keith Lanthier, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you and this committee for inviting me here this evening.

As I indicated, my name is Keith Lanthier. I live in the riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's in Nova Scotia.

When I heard that these hearings were only going to be in Ottawa, I knew that I needed to do something. One option would have been to discuss it with my member of Parliament, but there was not enough time, and I was not confident that I would even get a response. It was important for me to have a voice.

Fair elections are the cornerstone of any democracy. I must admit that in the past I really didn't give it a lot of thought. I had very few expectations when there was an election. There was always a sense of accomplishment after voting, but that's where it ended.

This changed for me in the May 2011 federal election with the robocalls scandal, and the changed mood intensified with the introduction of Bill C-23 in Parliament. Canadians from across this country are discussing the fair elections act and thinking about the critical role that fair elections play in our democracy.

From my perspective there are two basic questions. Will the fair elections act strengthen Canada's democracy by ensuring that every eligible Canadian is able to exercise his fundamental right to vote? Will it ensure that our elections are fair? While there may be some positive provisions in this bill, from my perspective the answer to both of these questions is no.

First, there are provisions in the bill to remove two methods of voting that have proven to be effective in ensuring that voters who do not have standard ID documents showing their name and current address can vote. These are the voter information cards and the vouching system.

In the last federal election more than 100,000 Canadians used the vouching system in order to cast their ballot. There are many reasons they may not have had the necessary documentation. Every year 13% of Canadians move house, and roughly four million Canadians don't have a driver's licence. There are many groups that may be negatively impacted if these changes are implemented.

The minister has repeatedly stated that these changes are necessary to ensure that there is no voter fraud. Harry Neufeld acknowledged that there were irregularities in 1.3% of the cases but that there was no evidence of voter fraud. He also noted that there are multiple reasons for these administrative errors. Mr. Neufeld made a number of recommendations, and none of them included the elimination of vouching or voter information cards.

It is also extremely important that elections be independent and transparent. One of the problems with Bill C-23 is that it changes the rules by which election officials, including central poll supervisors, are selected. There are concerns that these changes will compromise the non-partisan nature of these roles.

The role of the Chief Electoral Officer will also significantly change. The bill will prevent him and Elections Canada from engaging with the public in the same way with respect to our democracy. This includes engaging with children and youth, who are the next generation of voters. The student vote program reached more than 500,000 students in the last election. The decline in voter turnout is clearly an issue, I think we can all agree, but not reaching the next generation of voters is clearly not the solution.

Finally, when there is suspected voter fraud, there must be the necessary mechanisms in place to conduct thorough investigations. Bill C-23 simply states that an independent investigation will be initiated, if there are sufficient grounds. The investigator will still have no power to compel witnesses to testify. That is the key reason that Canadians still have limited information about the improper use of robocalls in the last election.

This is in sharp contrast to section 11 of the Competition Act, whereby a judge can order someone to present evidence under oath or to produce documents, if the court is satisfied that the information is relevant to the inquiry.

These are just some of the serious flaws with this legislation that I can mention in the time that I have. It is for these reasons and other concerns that Bill C-23 must be withdrawn.

All Canadians deserve to be part of this conversation, and not just those who've been able to make a written submission or appear before this committee. It is too vital to our democracy to be a ball bouncing back and forth between political parties.

It is also my strong belief that any serious discussion of electoral reform has to include the possibility of adopting some form of proportional representation. This way, every vote counts. Canadians want to be engaged in this discussion—I've certainly had many around my own area—and it is necessary to respect this. There can be no legitimacy without a comprehensive and consultative process.

Thank you.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, that completes our deliberations on Bill C-25.

Our next meeting will be with regard to the briefing on wills and estates, colleagues. A background document will be circulated to you as members as soon as it's through translation, and we will have a briefing on Tuesday with regard to wills and estates.

If there's nothing further, colleagues, we'll adjourn.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, we'll call this meeting to order. This is the 19th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Today we are completing our study of Bill C-25, an act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order in reference to this legislation. We will be going clause by clause.

Before we do that, we have a question for our departmental officials.

Ms. Crowder, we'll turn to you.