House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nation.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question.
As others have mentioned, the review process will last until the summer of 2015, about a year and a half from now. Once the review process is completed, the schedule that sets out the membership of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation will be finalized. Then the leadership of the first nation can form the elections and get people into place to move forward to work together.
I guess the short answer is about a year and a half.
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that we are having a cordial and quite intelligent debate. All MPs truly want to find a solution to this problem. This should happen more often.
I have a relatively simple question about children who were adopted and presently have the status of their parents, who quite often are white. Can my distinguished colleague guarantee that, in these rather critical cases involving people who quite often do not know much about their past, a special effort will be made to ensure that they do not lose their status?
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member here for 20 years. I was a member of the opposition for 13 of those years. Holding the government to account is an important role, but at the same time, opposing just to oppose is not particularly helpful to the people of Canada. I agree with my colleague that attacking each other just to attack is not particularly helpful either.
I think the people of Canada are pleased and relieved when members work together in a constructive and respectful way, as we are doing on this legislation. I hope that ethic will spread and grow. That would be great.
We do stand together with this new first nation. It has an important role. It is excited about its future. There are some technical bumps in the road, but we are getting those paved over and we are going to set this first nation on a good path forward.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in this House to offer my support for Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation act.
I will be sharing my time with my good friend and member for Kootenay—Columbia today.
In order to truly understand why this legislation is necessary, I think it is important to have an understanding of the unique circumstances and processes that all parties have gone through in order to bring this bill to this point.
When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, there was no agreement between the new province and Canada on if, how, or when the Indian Act would be applied to the province's Mi'kmaq, who lived primarily on the island of Newfoundland, and the Innu, who lived primarily in Labrador.
From the 1950s to the 1980s, Canada provided ad hoc funding to the province for social and health programs for the aboriginal communities living in that province. Over time, however, both the federal government and the first nation population expressed a desire for a more systemic application of the Indian Act system.
In 1984 the Indian Act was extended to Newfoundland for the first time, to the Mi'kmaq community at Conne River, known as the Miawpukek First Nation. In 2002 it was also extended to Innu bands in Labrador, the Mushuau Innu First Nation and Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation.
Initial efforts to improve relations between Canada and the majority of Mi'kmaq communities on the island of Newfoundland did not result in an agreement. In the late 1980s the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, an organization representing Newfoundland's Mi'kmaq, commenced litigation against Canada, seeking recognition for their members as Indians under the Indian Act and damages and compensation for unpaid benefits.
In 2008 Canada settled the court action through the Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band, which is the 2008 agreement that established a process to recognize the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland as a landless band and its members as Indians under the Indian Act.
The intent of the 2008 agreement was to establish a landless band for the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland. The parties intended that the founding membership of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation would be granted primarily to persons living in or around the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities named in the 2000 agreement. While individuals living outside of these communities could also become members, the intent of the parties was that non-residents would be required to have maintained a strong cultural connection with a Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community, including a sustained and active involvement in the community, despite their absences.
The 2008 agreement provided for a two-stage enrolment process. The first, which ended on November 30, 2009, was intended to identify the founding members. The second provided for a 36-month process to guarantee that all those who were eligible would have an opportunity to apply and be added to the list of founding members.
After the end of the first stage, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, or recognition order, was issued on September 22, 2011. It was this order that established the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band's status as an official first nation.
As a result of the recognition order and three subsequent amendments that were made to this schedule, 23,877 individuals were listed as founding members of the first nation and became entitled to registration as Indians under the Indian Act.
By the time the second stage ended, on November 30, 2012, more than 101,000 applications had been received.
As a result of the large, unanticipated number of applications received—particularly during the last two months of the enrolment process, when over 46,000 applications were received between September 1 and November 30, 2012—both parties agreed to enter into discussions to explore improvements to the enrolment process to ensure that it reflected the original intention of the parties and to provide additional time to ensure that all applications could be reviewed.
Extensive discussions and negotiations between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians commenced in the fall of 2012 and resulted in the supplemental agreement, which was announced on July 4, 2013.
The supplemental agreement clarifies the process for enrolment and resolves issues that emerged in the implementation of the 2008 agreement, such as the fact that the number of membership applications far exceeded the expectation of both parties, that it was not possible to review all of the applications within the time limits provided in the 2008 agreement, and that the original guidelines for assessment of applications did not provide sufficient clarity and detail to reflect the original intentions of the parties concerned.
The supplemental agreement ensures that the enrolment process is aligned with the original intent of the 2008 agreement. It meets the objective shared by Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians that all applications be treated fairly and equitably and in accordance with the criteria the parties originally negotiated to establish eligibility for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. It does not change the founding members enrolment criteria set out in the 2008 agreement. Instead, the supplemental agreement provides clarification of the requirements for enrolment, additional documentation requirements for applications, and an extension of the 2008 agreement timelines.
Under the supplemental agreement, all applications submitted since the enrolment process began in December 2008 will be assessed or reassessed by the enrolment committee, except those that had previously been rejected. It is estimated that the review process will take approximately two and a half years. While we recognize that this is a substantial amount of time, it is necessary to ensure that the original intent of the agreement is honoured and that those individuals and only those individuals with Qalipu Mi'kmaq ancestry will be registered.
The requirement under the supplemental agreement to review all applications received, including those found to be eligible under the previous process, means that it is possible that a number of the 23,877 founding members will lose their membership and their entitlement to be registered as Indians under the Indian Act if they do not meet the criteria of the 2008 agreement, as applied in accordance with the original intention of the parties. This means that only individuals with genuine Qalipu Mi'kmaq heritage will be registered as Indians through the process.
This is part of the reason Bill C-25 is so important. It gives the Governor in Council the authority to amend the recognition order so that it accurately reflects those individuals who are rightfully entitled to Indian status and the benefits therein.
Certainty is required to ensure that the supplemental agreement can be implemented and can thereby ensure the integrity of the enrolment process and of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. This certainly can only be obtained by implementing legislation that would provide the Governor in Council with the appropriate authority to make the required corrections to the recognition order and to ensure that persons who have Qalipu ancestry receive the rights and benefits they are entitled to.
For this reason, I urge all members to support Bill C-25 and impart to all members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation the status that is rightfully theirs. Legislation is required to provide the Governor in Council with the authority necessary to amend the recognition order, or more specifically, to add names to or remove names of founding members from the schedule to the order after the enrolment process under the supplemental agreement is completed.
An amendment to the schedule to the order in council will be required to add the names of those found to be entitled to be members and to remove the names of those found not to be entitled to be members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly important for us as Canadians to move forward on these settlement agreements so that we can bring assurance to the territories of our country but also to ensure justice for first nations people who have been denied it for so long.
I would like to ask my colleague a question. The issue of landless communities across this country is serious. We are dealing with communities that have been fighting for their basic right to be recognized, in some instances, for well over a century. In the Quebec region, there are the Algonquin of Wolf Lake. Between Ontario and Quebec, there are the Algonquin in the Mattawa region. That is just in one small area, but right across the country there are unresolved cases dealing with the rights and recognition of people who do not have status or a land base recognized by the federal government.
Could my hon. colleague tell us whether he thinks this agreement could be a model and whether we could start to move forward on solving some of these outstanding problems that have plagued our country for much too long?
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has hit on some very important questions. The questions are, basically, fairness, equity, and living up to the commitments this country has to its first nations brothers and sisters. This is a perfect example of how, working with a first nations community and an Innu community, we can make sure that we do the right thing and that people who are entitled to certain rights and benefits in this country get those rights and benefits. This is a government that has been doing that since day one. I forget the exact number, but it is significant, if we compare that same time span to the age of this country, which is almost 150 years old.
The member is entirely correct. This is about fairness. It is about having a model we can use in other negotiations with our first nations brothers and sisters and the whole aboriginal community right across this country, from north to south and east to west.
I want to thank him for the question. He and I both know that this is setting us on the right path and is a good blueprint for future such agreements.
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, I want to ask the member specifically about clause 4 of the bill. It is a four-clause bill and is technical in nature, so I know he will have an opportunity to get to it rather quickly.
There have been some concerns raised when people hear that there is a limiting of liability. Sometimes people think that we are taking away, for instance, the right of an individual to sue or take action against the government if they are not enrolled in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. Could the member take this opportunity to clarify what clause 4 actually does and the limited nature of it in relation to the actions that can be taken by an applicant?
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, this has to do with, quite frankly, liability, fairness, and equity.
Clause 4 in the bill provides certainty that no compensation or damages will be paid either by Canada, the first nation, or any other party to the individuals who are determined not to be members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation once the enrolment process is completed. However, it does not prevent those individuals from appealing the enrolment committee determination pursuant to the agreement, nor does the clause prevent court challenges to the agreement or to the schedule to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.
Such a clause is not uncommon in this federation. Similar clauses are found in both the 1985 legislation removing discrimination from the Indian registration provisions of Bill C-31 and the recent Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, which was Bill C-3.
Clause 4 supports the overall integrity and credibility of the membership enrolment process of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation by ensuring that applicants who are found not to be entitled to registration do not obtain compensation for the benefits that are only intended for registered Indians.
Once again, it relates to the first question of fairness and equity and making sure that our agreements strike the right balance.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia know that we have about four minutes remaining in the time provided for government orders today, but we will get started just the same. I will give him a one minute signal so he will know when we are coming to that point.
The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this important bill today, Bill C-25, which has been brought forward with regard to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq Indians of Newfoundland.
I will outline some important parts of the bill. It is not a large bill, but it has some important facts that have been spoken to here today with regard to fairness and equitable treatment of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq.
On June 23, 2008, the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians entered into the agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band. On September 22, 2011, the Governor in Council made the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, which started a significant move forward with the bill. On June 30, 2013, the parties to the agreement entered into a supplemental agreement to clarify how to apply certain clauses to the June 23, 2008 agreement. There were representatives of both parties and an independent chair, who was jointly selected by both parties.
This allowed us to provide the parties with a new and final founding members list, which will form the basis of the recommendation to the Governor in Council to amend the schedule to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order. It is quite important, because it outlines what will happen with this agreement when it moves forward.
I think there is recognition in this House of the importance of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq peoples and how we need to come to a finalization with Bill C-25. I appreciate the opposition's move forward in recognizing this.
Clause 4 of the bill states:
No person or entity has a right to claim or receive any compensation, damage or indemnity from Her Majesty in right of Canada, any employee or agent of Her Majesty, a band, a council of a band or any other person or entity only because any person's name, or any person's date of birth, was omitted or removed from the schedule to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.
That is quite important, because we want to ensure that those who have the right to be on this list can be on it. It is a great opportunity to move forward and for the Qalipu Mi'kmaq people to regain what they so rightfully recognize as important to them.
We should also recognize that clause 3 of the bill states:
The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, in particular to add the name of a person to, or remove the name of a person from, the schedule to that Order, along with the person's date of birth.
There is a lot of flexibility in the bill to ensure that we recognize the Qalipu Mi'kmaq people.
I look forward to any further questions that may come. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you want to move forward with interjections. Thank you for allowing me to speak at this time.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, March 6, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
In my opinion the yeas have it.
I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, I request that we see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
moved that Bill C-565, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park) and to make a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to go into more detail on my Bill C-565, which would provide protection for Gatineau Park.
First, I want to thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for seconding my motion for second reading today. I must also thank all of my colleagues who helped get petitions signed in support of my bill.
Gatineau Park's size, beauty and significance make it a national treasure. I am fortunate enough to live just a few minutes from the park, so every single day I can see just how much the people in my region love our park. Anyone who has visited our side of the Ottawa River knows that this park plays a huge part in the lifestyle of families in Gatineau and the surrounding communities. The people of the national capital region care about protecting this park.
It is not just the people of the Outaouais who enjoy this green space. With 2.7 million visitors a year, Gatineau Park is one of the most visited parks in Canada. However, as incredible as this may seem, Gatineau Park does not benefit from any permanent protections to preserve its natural and historical heritage. In fact, it is currently the only major federal park from which sections can be severed without parliamentary review or approval, despite how precious and fragile Gatineau Park's natural environment is. It is high time for this to change.
The purpose of my bill is simple: to remedy this absurd situation by giving Gatineau Park the same sort of protections that our national parks enjoy. We cannot wait any longer. We must act now if we want to leave a healthy park to future generations.
Recent studies clearly demonstrate this. There is a real risk of losing natural habitats. We can no longer be satisfied with the status quo in this matter. Climate change and increased urban development on the periphery of the park are just two examples of the pressures currently facing the park.
Over the past 20 years, the population has grown significantly in the national capital region. There is every indication that this trend will continue, if not increase further. It is important to ensure that the housing development that goes along with such a population increase will not be done at the park's expense. Canadians want to know that the park will not be parcelled out and sold off to real estate developers.
I can think of a thousand reasons for us to join forces to protect Gatineau Park. Its natural heritage, its importance to the economic development of the Outaouais and the many opportunities for outdoor activities that it offers are just a few examples. From an ecological standpoint, Gatineau Park is a truly unique green space. It is home to a surprising variety of wildlife: 230 species of birds live alongside over 50 species of mammals and a dozen species of reptiles. Visitors will also find a few thousand species of plants and about 50 different kinds of trees.
That biodiversity is all the more impressive given that it includes a significant number of endangered species. In fact, Gatineau Park is home to more than 90 endangered plant and 50 endangered animal species. For example, the only known populations of spiny softshell turtles in Quebec are found in Gatineau Park. The park plays a key role in maintaining balanced ecosystems in the Outaouais region. Protecting Gatineau Park better will help preserve our region's rich natural heritage.
The park is a very important symbol of our heritage. It is home to many Algonquin first nations heritage remains. There are also two official residences in the park: the residence of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Prime Minister's country residence. The Mackenzie King Estate alone attracts 60,000 visitors each year. They come to admire the beautiful gardens and historic buildings.
Gatineau Park is really part of the identity of the national capital region.
Protecting Gatineau Park better will also encourage economic growth in the national capital region. The most recent studies have shown that Gatineau Park generates nearly $25 million in annual economic spinoffs and is a source of more than 400 jobs. It goes without saying that the park is a major attraction in the area and plays a major role in recreational and tourism development in the Outaouais. In addition, the park hosts many large-scale events, such as the Keskinada Loppet cross-country skiing competition, which I had the pleasure of attending just a few weeks ago.
I could go on and on about why Gatineau Park is such an exceptional place and why it deserves to be protected.
I wanted to recognize that exceptional nature by taking action. On April 22, 2012, I launched my “Together, let's protect Gatineau Park” campaign. Over the past months, I have carried out broad consultations involving various stakeholders. I invited members of the public to a major public consultation on the future of the park on May 26, 2012. I also met with the mayors of the communities surrounding the park, the chief of the Kitigan Zibi Anishnabeg Algonquin community, NGOs, National Capital Commission executives and the member of the provincial assembly. From those many discussions, I concluded that we all share a desire to protect the unique character of Gatineau Park and that we want its beauty to be known across Canada for many years to come.
The petition in support of my bill has received over 5,000 signatures. It is clear that protecting Gatineau Park is a priority for the people of the Outaouais and the national capital.
My bill would implement simple and effective measures.
First, we want to enshrine the park's boundaries in law. Currently, the park's boundaries can be changed, and the public lands that make up the park can be sold by order in council. Parliamentarians would have no say in the matter. My goal is to provide the park with legal protection similar to that afforded our national parks. The government would then have to pass a law every time it wants to change those boundaries. If these boundaries are enshrined in law, Gatineau Park will make up 7.8% of the land in the national capital region. That is really something.
Second, my bill would give the park official status by legally creating Gatineau Park, a conservation park situated in the national capital region. I am sure that all of the members here would be very proud to recognize the park as such.
Third, my bill would give the NCC two new missions: protecting Gatineau Park's natural biodiversity, as well as its underlying ecological structure and environmental processes, and promoting education and leisure activities within the park; and acquiring the privately owned real property situated in Gatineau Park.
My bill would also make it a mandatory requirement to meet six management objectives for Gatineau Park, which correspond to the principles applied by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to national parks, which are category II protected areas.
The first objective is to manage the area in order to perpetuate, in as natural a state as possible, representative examples of physiographic regions, biotic communities, genetic resources and unimpaired natural processes.
The second objective is to maintain viable and ecologically functional populations and assemblages of native species at densities sufficient to conserve ecosystem integrity and resilience in the long term.
The third objective is to contribute in particular to conservation of wide-ranging species, regional ecological processes and migration routes
The fourth objective is to manage visitor use for inspirational, educational, cultural and recreational purposes at a level which will not cause significant biological or ecological degradation to the natural resources
The fifth objective is to take into account the needs of indigenous people and local communities, including subsistence resource use, in so far as these will not adversely affect the primary management objective.
The last objective is to contribute to local economies through tourism.
Going back to the measures in the bill, the fourth prohibits the sale of public lands situated in Gatineau Park. It indicates that the NCC will no longer require the approval of the governor in council to purchase real property in Gatineau Park. This will facilitate and expedite the NCC process for purchasing private properties located within the park when they come on the market.
Finally, my bill amends the Department of Canadian Heritage Act:
...to specify that Gatineau Park is included in the organization, sponsorship and promotion of public activities and events, in the National Capital Region, that will enrich the cultural and social fabric of Canada.
These measures will not only help protect the integrity of the park, but also ensure the quality of its recreational experience.
Today, I am very pleased to confirm that my initiative has the support of leading environmental protection agencies as well as the petitioners. I have support from Nature Québec, Conseil régional de l'environnement et du développement durable de l'Outaouais, and the Ottawa Valley chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
Gatineau Park was created 76 years ago and still does not have legal protection or official status. As elected members, we have a responsibility to correct the situation and provide the park with the necessary legal protections to preserve it for current and future generations.
Since 2005, a number of private members' bills seeking to better protect Gatineau Park have been introduced in the House. They all died on the order paper.
Today we must seize this opportunity to finally respond to the will of the people of Hull—Aylmer, the national capital region, and Canada as a whole to ensure that this national treasure is preserved.
The message I have for my colleagues today is simple: let us put partisan interests aside and protect Gatineau Park together.
Bob Dechert ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. She went on at some length about the protection of animals and plant species in the park that are very special. That all sounded very good to me. I have had the opportunity to visit the park many times. I think it is a wonderful place, and I encourage all Canadians to visit it when they are in the national capital region.
One thing that concerns me though is that in proposed paragraph 10.1(1)(e) of the bill, it appears to allow hunting and fishing in this great treasure of the national capital. That seems very dangerous to me. There are thousands of Canadians, many young schoolchildren, that go there. I believe there are camps there in the summer, and throughout the year, children’s classes go there on hiking expeditions and that sort of thing. Now, she is suggesting that people be allowed to hunt there.
My question is, given the limited enforcement powers of the National Capital Commission and its officers, how would she suggest that hunting be regulated in the park, to keep visitors safe, and how much would that cost?
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his support for the park, for his visit, and for telling people what it is like and asking them to visit the park. As he said, it is really a good opportunity. It is great, especially in the fall and winter. It is so lovely.
Going back to his question. The bill does not change anything. It would just introduce that part. If there is something my colleague does not like in this or that part of the bill or he wants to question, the best way to do it is to send the bill to committee. If we need to change something because of this, it is not a problem, we could talk about it and look at it. However, it does not change the principle of what we have right now in the law.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a really good overview of what the bill is about. Many people have been working on this initiative for many years, including me, and working with the government, I might add. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs reached out to us to work together on this. Sadly, before the last election we were not able to finish the bill and have it accepted and passed through the House to the Senate. I know the government cares about this, and I think we are able to work together on it.
There is a question some have posed about why this cannot be a national park. Most people are surprised that Gatineau Park does not have the protections and that Gatineau Park is not actually a park in statute. One of the questions is why is it not a national park. I want to ask my friend that question.
Second, if she has time to respond, why are so many of these groups supporting the bill? She mentioned a couple of them, so perhaps she could tell us a little about why these groups are supporting this initiative.