Debates of March 7th, 2014

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

Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, in article 33, it says:

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

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

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

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

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

The other is self-identification:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the original agreement.

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

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

It says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the founding members list, it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will resume debate.

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

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

Statement by members.

International Women's Day

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would like to pay tribute to the women who have built Quebec and continue to build it every day. This year especially, my thoughts turn to our former colleague, Francine Lalonde, who was always ready to fight the good fight.

March 8 is an opportunity to look at what has been achieved, to call for change, and to celebrate the courageous actions of women determined to change things. It is a day to reiterate that equality must remain one of our goals.

Every year, the Collectif 8 mars, a coalition of women's groups, chooses a theme. This year, it chose “Keys within everyone's reach” to represent doors opened by women in our society and the importance of using all of the keys available to make strides toward a fairer and more egalitarian society.

The Bloc Québécois is strongly reasserting its commitment to stand up for Quebec women's interests in the federal political arena.

Farm Family of the Year Award

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, March is nutrition month in Canada, so it is fitting that I rise today and talk about apples. We know the old saying about an apple a day.

What brings this to mind are the award-winning apples that have been grown for 103 years by generations of the Bennett family on Garner Road in Ancaster. The Bennetts were recognized at a banquet last Saturday, receiving the Osborne L. Sager Farm Family of the Year award from the Hamilton-Wentworth Federation of Agriculture. My congratulations to Todd, Carrie, Richard, and Andrea Bennett, the current partners in the popular local apple store and farm.

Not only are the Bennetts innovative farmers and entrepreneurs, they are also big contributors to the community, their church, and the history of the village of Ancaster.

My congratulations to everyone involved in carrying forward the very best of this Ancaster institution and doing the legacy of their forefathers so very proud.