House of Commons Hansard #54 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was qalipu.
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on cluster munitions. The petitioners are saying that they should, indeed, be brought to an end and that Bill S-10 should be amended accordingly to make sure that actually happens.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions here dealing with the issue of a mining ombudsman.
People are concerned about the mining practices of Canadian companies in other parts of the world. They wish that the Government of Canada would take more responsibility to make sure that it listens to the complaints and concerns heard from workers and others in these countries, and that it would conduct investigations to make sure that our companies conduct themselves with the level of respect and moral standards that we would expect.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition about fair electoral representation. It is from members of my constituency, who are concerned about the winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post system. They urge members of the House to conduct an investigation and to undertake significant consultation in the country to examine alternatives to the system we have right now.
Is it not ironic that we have this particular petition for a fairer electoral system at the same time we are dealing with the foolishness of the government's bringing in its unfair elections act?
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by residents of Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland, B.C., who believe that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. In the interest of public safety, they want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentences.
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce two petitions. The first calls on Parliament and the Conservative government to really look at the way we work with scientists, and to take some collective action on global warming.
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in the chamber to table a petition signed by hundreds of constituents of my great riding of Sudbury. They call on the government to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post and to look instead for ways to innovate, for example, by establishing postal banking services.
These cuts to a service as essential as home mail delivery will affect the most vulnerable Canadians, such as seniors and people with physical disabilities.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
February 28th, 2014 / 12:10 p.m.
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
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 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.
Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation ActGovernment Orders
Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.
Conservative
Mark Strahl ConservativeParliamentary 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.