2014-03-07

Government Orders
Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act[Stage Direction]
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.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): 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.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): 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.
[Interjection]
Maurice Vellacott: 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.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): 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?
[Interjection]
Maurice Vellacott: 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.
Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): 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?
[Interjection]
Maurice Vellacott: 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.
Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): 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: 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.
[Interjection]
Patricia Davidson: 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: 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?
[Interjection]
Patricia Davidson: 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: 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: 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.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: 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.
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): 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?
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: 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.
Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): 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.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: 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 (Mr. 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.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): 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 (Mr. 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.

Statements By Members
International Women's DayMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): 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 AwardMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): 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. 
Pink Tie EventMs. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended a “pink tie” event put on by the Montreal regional conference of elected officials. The evening's theme was “the added value of equality”. At the event, I met women entrepreneurs, presidents of chambers of commerce and boards of directors, and women elected as officials of the City of Montreal.
Women are becoming increasingly active in a wide range of sectors and are assuming their rightful place in decision-making positions. They are demonstrating courage, creativity and leadership.
In LaSalle—Émard, I wish to commend the achievements of groups dedicated to women's advocacy: Mamies immigrantes pour le développement et l'intégration; the Centre communautaire des femmes actives; and the Association Messinese de Montréal. 
As chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I tip my hat—and my pink tie—to all women who really help make our society better.
State Visit to IndiaHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on February 21, I had the honour to accompany Their Excellencies Governor General David Johnston and Mrs. Johnston on the second state visit to India. I also had the honour and privilege to accompany the then Governor General Roméo LeBlanc on the first state visit in 1998. This state visit followed the Prime Minister's two visits to India, which I was also part of. 
In 2006 the Conservative government stated in the throne speech that building relations with India was one of its priorities. As Their Excellencies stated, with 1.2 million Indo-Canadians it is but natural that Canada and India have a strong, vibrant relationship. The theme of the state visit was education, innovation, and entrepreneurship. 
We were accompanied by a very strong delegation of Canadians. Their Excellencies and Rideau Hall staff maintained a very robust program to achieve the objectives of the visit. To all of them we owe a big hand of applause.
Violence Against WomenHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is International Women's Day. It is a day dedicated to celebrating the successes of women and girls and to renewing our resolve to fight for gender equality around the world.
It is also an opportunity to think about how we can do better. I hope that all Canadians will remember a tragedy that is close to their hearts, namely our government's ongoing failure to protect the most vulnerable in Canada: aboriginal women and girls.
Wednesday, at a memorial just outside, family and friends of Loretta Saunders demanded justice, a justice that is only possible when meaningful action is taken to prevent the loss of any more mothers, daughters, sisters, or friends. 
Today, the special committee on violence against aboriginal women and girls will table its report. I am once again adding my voice to the friends and family of Loretta Saunders, the premiers, and thousands of others demanding that the government call a national public inquiry to address this critical issue. The time for action has long since passed. 
Henry TaschukMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to a dedicated educator and family man who touched the lives of many, leaving an indelible mark of excellence in his community. Henry Taschuk was a teacher, a math consultant, a principal for Edmonton public schools, and a hockey and softball coach in the community. He was profoundly admired, respected, loved, and appreciated by the thousands of students he taught and mentored during his 35-year career. 
A loving husband for 46 years to Jean, a devoted father to daughters Stephanie, Jennifer, and son-in-law Martin, and adoring granddad to Cassidy and Jude, Henry was a true family man, always taking great pride in his Ukrainian heritage and rural upbringing and delighting in traditional gatherings with extended family and friends. We have many fond memories of Henry's brilliant sense of humour and his genuine love of family and children. I am proud to have called him not only my brother-in-law but my friend.
On February 28, Henry Taschuk passed away. Henry, rest in peace. You are greatly missed.
Paralympic Winter GamesMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today, the 11th Paralympic Winter Games open in Sochi. Great athletes from across Canada will be taking part in the games. Medallists Benoît St-Amand and Ina Forrest will be competing in sledge hockey and wheelchair curling respectively. A special mention goes out to Yves Bourque, who, at age 46, is participating in the Paralympic Winter Games for the first time in the para-Nordic cross-country skiing event.
These Canadians are true role models. In addition to keeping up with the demanding lifestyle of a high performance athlete, they have to deal with the challenges of their disability. We think this shows extraordinary tenacity and determination. However, following the recent events in Ukraine, I sincerely hope that the games will remain safe and unfold harmoniously in the spirit of sportsmanship
In closing, on behalf of the NDP and myself, I wish the best of luck to our athletes who are representing Canada's colours on the world stage. 
Nuclear Industry in CanadaMr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Canadian Nuclear Association and the wider nuclear industry in Canada on their successful annual conference here in Ottawa last week. 
Many Canadians may not realize that the nuclear industry across the nation represents almost $7 billion of economic activity and employs 71,000 Canadians across the country. Canada has long been a leader in the nuclear sciences and industries. We were the second nation to have controlled nuclear fission, and in the decade since then, our technology and expertise have been sought after around the world.
In my riding of Durham, people are very proud of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. In 2003, the Institute of Nuclear Operators gave it an award as one of the top plants in the world based on an assessment of safety, operations, and management. 
I salute the thousands of people who work at Darlington. It is part of the nuclear system that generates 50% of the electricity in Ontario, all of it GHG emission-free.
Journey of RecoveryMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a journey of recovery. On May 17, 2012, 13-year-old Lydia Herrle was struck by a garbage truck near her home in Wilmot township. The next month, I spoke in this house, asking all Canadians to pray for her recovery. Our prayers were answered. Lydia's recovery is a miracle. 
A few months later, Lydia said, “I will be able to tie my shoes all by myself when I am fourteen. My hand will be steadier when I am fourteen. I'll be able to feed myself—even soup!” 
Lydia is so grateful for the support she has received. She would like, foremost, to thank God for his steadfast presence with her, as well as her therapists and teachers for their compassion and expertise; her family, friends, and community for their love; and all Canadians who have prayed for her or encouraged her in her journey of recovery. 
Tomorrow Lydia turns 15. We can only imagine the things she will be able to do when she is 15. Happy birthday, Lydia.
La FrancophonieRobert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, in this country that is enriched by its cultural diversity, March is the month when we celebrate the Francophonie here and abroad. When we celebrate linguistic diversity, we also celebrate the place and the vitality of one of Canada's founding nations.
By celebrating the Canadian Francophonie, we ensure a greater understanding and sharing of this heritage by everyone. Canada has chosen to be a bilingual country, which is not an easy task. It requires everyone's support, respect for the other experience and a desire to express our Canadian identity in both official languages. 
However, la Francophonie is also 77 states and governments on five continents, including 32 that have French as their official language. It accounts for 13% of the world's population and 20% of international trade. La Francophonie has a very bright future because 60% of francophones today are under the age of 30.
Consequently, at a time when many communities throughout the world are in turmoil, I hope that we, francophones and francophiles, will celebrate and work together in order for Canada to become a model of growth and development for the peoples and cultures that share the same space.
Canadian Film IndustryMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to offer my sincere congratulations to the seven talented Canadians who were recognized last weekend at the 86th Academy Awards. The critically-acclaimed film Dallas Buyers Club, directed by Canadian Jean-Marc Vallée, won three Oscars this year. Six deserving Canadians won scientific and technical awards. Yves Boudreault, André Gauthier, Benoit Sévigny and Robert Lanciault won an Oscar for the design and implementation of a software called FiLMBOX, and Tibor Madjar and Colin Doncaster each won a scientific and technical award for their scientific and technical achievements in the film industry.
Our government is very proud that Canadians continue to shine on the international stage through their meaningful contributions to the film and entertainment industries and the arts. We will continue to support and promote film and television production in Canada. 
International Day for the Elimination of Racial DiscriminationMr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP): Mr. Speaker, March 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The UN encouraged the international community to eliminate all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination by declaring this international day in 1966, to commemorate the day in 1960 when police in Sharpeville, South Africa, opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful protest against the pass laws imposed under apartheid. In a world in which people are increasingly interconnected, tolerance, intercultural dialogue and respect for diversity have become essential. This international day is an opportunity for us to rally around the fundamental principle of the United Nations charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the equality of all human beings. Let us give this day the recognition it deserves. 
International Women's DayMrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 8, Canadians will come together to celebrate International Women's Day. This year's theme is “Strong Women, Strong Canada: Canadian Women — Creating Jobs One Business at a Time!”. This year's theme reflects the priorities announced in economic action plan 2014, including plans to support women entrepreneurs by increasing mentorship opportunities. 
Today the London Abused Women's Centre is hosting their annual International Women's Day breakfast, bringing together Londoners from all backgrounds to celebrate and recognize the many women and girls across London. 
Our government is working to support women-led businesses through the economic action plan for this reason. When women-led businesses succeed, communities benefit and Canada prospers.
William MacRaeHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at the RCMP's Depot Division training academy in Regina, hundreds of people will gather to pay their final respects to the late William MacRae.
Retired Superintendent MacRae was an icon of Canada's national police force. He passed away last week at the age of 87.
Born in Manor, Saskatchewan, Bill served in the Royal Canadian Navy in World War II. He joined the RCMP in 1948, trained in Regina, and was assigned to J Division in New Brunswick before coming home to Depot in 1960. 
He was a superlative trainer. He commanded respect. He inspired excellence. He was an innovator and helped bring police training into its modern era.
After his retirement in 1979, Bill remained active in public service and was involved in everything from working with disabled children to serving as aide-de-camp to the Lieutenant Governor. I got to know him working on the RCMP Heritage Centre.
Thank you, Bill MacRae. Our thoughts and prayers are with Muriel and the family.
Festival of NowruzMr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as spring arrives in Canada we look forward to celebrating the Nowruz, the Persian new year across our country.
In 2009 the House of Commons unanimously proclaimed Nowruz officially to acknowledge its importance. As the government liaison to the Persian and Iranian community in Canada, I am pleased that our government has put great emphasis on building relations with Canadian people of Iranian background.
In addition to regular informal discussions, our Prime Minister and several cabinet ministers have, on many occasions, held formal round tables with people in the Canadian Iranian community, responding to their needs and taking part in their efforts to introduce the highlights of Persian culture to Canadians.
While our government takes issue with the Iranian regime on matters of human rights, nuclear proliferation, and its destabilizing of the Persian Gulf region, wherever possible we make sure these criticisms are consistent with our support of the interests of Canadian Iranians. As we approach Nowruz, our thoughts are with the people of the Persian Gulf region and with people of Iranian background in Canada.
We are thankful to those who share the legacies of Cyrus the Great for their support for freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
Happy Nowruz. Nowruz mobarak. Nowruz pirooz.
Electoral ReformMr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, completely debunked the myths that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has been trying to spread for weeks.
He could not have been more clear. The Conservatives will deny tens of thousands of voters of their right to vote and will treat every honest Canadian as a potential cheat. He explicitly spoke out against the measure that excludes fundraising from the spending limit. He spoke at length about the bill's many other flaws.
However, the Conservatives want us to ignore this expert on our democratic system and would prefer that we listen to the opinions of a few “normcore” MPs who, to make themselves more interesting, are inventing all sorts of stories about potential fraud. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform himself has been accused of making things up by none other than Harry Neufeld, the very person the minister keeps using to defend his botched reform.
Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that takes the integrity of our electoral system seriously. They deserve a government that does not use every trick in the book to try to keep experts from testifying. They deserve an NDP government.
Paralympic Winter GamesMr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today marks the official opening of the Sochi 2014 Paralympic Winter Games.
The Canadian Paralympic Team, made up of 49 athletes and five guides, will be led into the opening ceremony by Canada's flag-bearer, B.C.'s own two-time medallist and wheelchair curling member, Sonja Gaudet. 
Our team will join the more than 575 athletes representing 45 countries in six sports at these Paralympic Games. Our Canadian athletes have been training and preparing for this incredible milestone in their sports careers for years, and I know they are ready to compete against the world's best in their pursuit of excellence in Sochi. 
Our government is proud to support the Canadian Paralympic Committee with annual funding of more than $5 million in direct funding, along with funding to our Paralympians through our amateur athletes assistance program.
I, along with Canadians across the country, will be watching, cheering, and believing as our athletes compete for Canada while proudly wearing the Maple Leaf.

Oral Questions
Democratic ReformMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer refuted every argument made by the minister on the unfair elections bill.
Today, we learned that Harry Neufeld, the author of the other report used by the Conservatives to disenfranchise voters, also disagrees with the minister.
Will the government agree to bring Mr. Neufeld to the committee?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course we will.
I disagree with Mr. Neufeld's conclusions, but I do not disagree with his facts. His facts remain the same, and I will cite them in exactly the same way as I have. They are the following, in his own report: 
 Errors that involve a failure to properly administer these procedures are serious. The courts refer to such serious errors as “irregularities” which can result in votes being declared invalid. 
The Neufeld report also said that courts may overturn elections as a result of the errors, the kind of which we saw related to vouching.
 We think that is very serious. We are going to solve that problem.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, Harry Neufeld clearly contradicted the Conservatives and the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.
He says there is not a shred of evidence that voter identification card problems alleged by the government actually happened. He says that the minister has been using that statement, the one he just quoted, out of context and inaccurately. 
Why does the government not ask Harry Neufeld to appear in order to shed light on what he really thinks?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I hope that Mr. Neufeld will testify.
I disagree with his opinion, and I will continue to talk about the facts. The facts indicate that when voters voted without identification, there were over 50,000 irregularities, serious mistakes that could contribute to a court overturning an election or declaring a person's vote invalid.
We are looking at these facts, and our policy is the right one.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Neufeld said, “I never said there was voter fraud”.
This expert is very concerned about the fact that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform's bill will disenfranchise people, such as students, seniors and members of aboriginal groups, who have a harder time producing proof of address.
Why is the minister refusing to take these concerns seriously?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I have quotes from the Neufeld report in which he says, on page 14, in reference to procedures like vouching: 
 Too frequently, the errors are so serious that the courts would judge them to be “irregularities” that violate the legal provisions that establish an elector’s entitlement to vote. 
On page 10, he said: 
 ...the Supreme Court made it clear that such errors in other circumstances could contribute to a court overturning an election. 
That is very serious. Those are the facts he has stated. I will continue to accurately cite those facts.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, western Canada has been having a grain crisis for months now. 
The Minister of Transport has been aware of the situation. On Wednesday, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that a solution would be introduced at the right time and place. However, the right time was several months ago.
Why did the Conservatives allow rail companies to take farmers hostage for so many months before taking action?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there have been a number of complicating factors affecting grain logistics, one of them being cold temperatures and the other a record harvest, an additional 20 to 25 million tonnes in grain harvested.
Our farmers need a safe, reliable, and efficient logistics systems. As we have said previously, our government is taking action to help our farmers move their grain to port.
I would ask my opposition colleagues to put aside the rhetoric and instead follow the announcement that is going to be made this morning, showing that our government is taking action.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, it is a government of inaction.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport have known about this grain crisis for months, and they did nothing.
Millions of tonnes of grain lie unmoved. Farmers are unpaid. Western communities are losing millions. Conservatives have let farmers lose millions on undelivered grain, waiting for the government to act.
Why has the government waited so long to finally take action?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, just to show how disconnected the NDP is from western grain farmers, the NDP has been advocating a monopoly by the Canadian Wheat Board as the only solution. I would like to read a quote about just how ridiculous a solution that is. Levi Wood, the president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, states:
 It’s preposterous to suggest that the move to marketing freedom is the cause of this year’s shipping problems. In the first year of an open market, our wheat and barley moved to market without a hitch. The problems being experienced in this second year are instead related to the failure of the railways to provide adequate shipping capacity to move this year’s crop. 
We agree. I ask the NDP to get current on this file.
Foreign AffairsMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in February, the government announced that it was implementing personal sanctions against former President Yanukovych and his close associates. I am not referring to travel bans, but to the freezing of personal assets. These assets could be in the tens of billions of dollars.
We heard subsequently that this had not actually happened and was awaiting Ukrainian government concurrence. Can the government inform the House as to whether these sanctions are now actually in place?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canada is working very closely with its allies, including the G7 and NATO members, on this matter. I point out that Canada has already frozen the assets and applied travel bans to members of the Yanukovych regime.
The Prime Minister has announced, at the request of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, that we have frozen the assets of members of the Yanukovych regime.
InfrastructureMarc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, Canada's labour market suffered another net loss in February. There are still 250,000 more Canadians without a job than before the recession. If the government increased its investments in infrastructure, that would create jobs in the construction, transportation and manufacturing sectors. Why is the government cutting the building Canada fund and making practically no effort to implement it in time for the spring construction season?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: job creation and economic growth. We sympathize with those Canadians who lost their jobs in February. 
While monthly employment numbers can be volatile, Canada's overall job growth since the depths of the global recession remains the best among all G7 countries, with over 1 million net new jobs created. 
As we have always said, Canada is not immune to the global economic challenges beyond its borders. That is why our Conservative government is working hard to help create jobs and economic growth in economic action plan 2014. 
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, we are three weeks from the new fiscal year and the report on plans and priorities tabled by the infrastructure minister just yesterday does not even include money for the new building Canada fund. We are told that negotiations are under way with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities about getting the program up and running by April 1. 
The fund was announced 12 months ago, so why are municipalities not able to apply for funding right now?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there the Liberals go again with their funny math. The fact of the matter is that we are making record investments in infrastructure. These investments are far more significant than the previous Liberal government made. We have invested over $53 billion in infrastructure for municipal, provincial, and territorial project priorities. That includes the gas tax fund, which, in and of itself, is $2 billion a year.
Democratic ReformMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Harry Neufeld, who literally wrote the report on the last election, has said that the minister's claims about voter fraud are wrong. He said that the minister has no evidence to support his wild claims. He said that the Supreme Court did not find any evidence of voter fraud.
We want to hear from Mr. Neufeld. Will the government allow Mr. Neufeld to come to committee, without any parliamentary tricks and without interference in the committee's work? Can we get an ironclad guarantee that Mr. Neufeld will be able to come to committee?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine why he would not be called to committee. I have already said that three or four times.
We are going to keep quoting Mr. Neufeld's report, because it contains the facts that obviously support our position that people should have ID when they show up to vote. I disagree with his opinion, but I will continue to accurately cite his facts, like I will right now. Relating to errors on vouching, he said:
 Errors that involve a failure to properly administer these procedures are serious. The courts refer to such serious errors as “irregularities” which can result in votes being declared invalid. 
That is serious. Our ID laws should be, too.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The top priority of the government is about voter fraud that it does not know about and actually has no evidence of. This is quite astonishing.
Conservatives are clearly reluctant to accept Mr. Neufeld's evidence. Perhaps that is because the government's arguments are not actually based on fact. It is more about the minister's gut feeling and prejudice. The question is this: will the Conservative government actually listen to Mr. Neufeld's evidence and be guided not by this citing of “could”, “maybe”, or “should” but by actual evidence of voter fraud? Mr. Neufeld said there was not any, and the Supreme Court said there was not any. Are we actually to believe just the minister?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I have not stopped quoting Mr. Neufeld. In fact, right here, on page 64, it says that there were 50,000 irregularities related to vouching in the last election alone.
Now, the NDP members are losing this debate, so they are playing partisan procedural tricks in committee. We know their next step will be to push out some phony poll to manipulate perceptions of public opinion. The reality is that Canadians believe there should be good voter identification rules to ensure that people vote only once and only in the ridings where they live.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer told us in no uncertain terms that thousands of voters will lose their right to vote as a result of the Conservative electoral “deform”. He presented amendments in an attempt to prevent this ludicrous situation.
Did the minister hear Marc Mayrand's proposals and will he accept his recommendations concerning the voter identification card?
Pierre Poilievre: Yes, unfortunately, I did hear his comments.
I will cite it. He said the Supreme Court found that these irregularities could not even compromise an election. In fact, the Supreme Court said precisely the opposite of what Mr. Mayrand reported.
 I will quote right out of Mr. Neufeld's report: “The courts refer to such serious errors as 'irregularities' which can result in votes being declared invalid”. The same report went on to say that the irregularities linked to vouching could ultimately overturn an election result.
Those are the facts, and I would advise Mr. Mayrand to read them.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, it has taken them two years to bring forward this reform bill and they did not even bother to do it right.
Yesterday, the minister stated that Canada will be the only democracy in the world to limit the freedom of expression of election officials if his electoral “deform” bill is passed with no amendments. 
Will the minister listen to Marc Mayrand and take out this measure from his bill?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer will be able to continue speaking to the media after the fair elections act is passed. That is not an issue.
But the NDP wants to ignore the hard facts around the irregularities related to vouching. The reality is, regardless of what push poll they will send out in the next couple of days, Canadians believe there should be a form of identification so that we know who is voting and that they live in the riding in which they are casting a ballot. That is a bare minimum. It is common sense. That is the fair elections act.
Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer indicated that the voter identification requirements set out in the unfair elections bill will make voting harder for certain groups, such as seniors. This will have a harmful effect in areas with a high concentration of seniors.
In Chaudière-Appalaches, the percentage of people aged 65 and over is nearly 3% higher than elsewhere in the country, and in Montmagny, it is 8% higher. Voters in Chaudière-Appalaches will be particularly affected by the unfair elections bill.
Why are the Conservative ministers from Chaudière-Appalaches refusing to allow us to consult with our constituents and stand up for their rights?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, seniors will have plenty of ways to identify themselves at the polling stations. There are 39 forms of identification allowed, including the health card.
There are the hospital bracelets worn by residents in long-term care facilities, Veterans Affairs health care cards, old age security cards, public transportation cards, library cards, and I could go on. There are 39. I do not have time to list them all.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, top election experts were crystal clear yesterday that the minister's bill is based on make-believe and fearmongering. His plan to unilaterally end all use of the voter information card is not based on any evidence of voter fraud whatsoever. 
In 2011, 73% of the electors who voted in seniors residences and long-term care facilities cast their votes using their voter information cards. Now, that is as many as 800,000 seniors. 
Why is the minister so hell-bent on disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of seniors?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I just listed a whole host of different forms of identification that are specifically available to seniors. In addition to the ones I have already listed, there is also one of the following, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, a soup kitchen, a student or seniors residence, a long-term care facility: an attestation of residence, a letter of stay, an admission form, a statement of benefits. That is in addition to the old age security cards they can use, the health cards they can use, or a hospital bracelet they can use. There are plenty of opportunities to identify oneself, and the fair elections act will make sure that people know about them.
EthicsMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is rather amazing. This government continually surrounds itself with fraudsters and untrustworthy people, and then when, surprise, surprise, they break the law, they suddenly become private citizens.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister realizes, but the Prime Minister's senior advisor is not a private citizen. At what point did the Prime Minister find out that Bruce Carson was engaged in illegal lobbying?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday. These are allegations with respect to a private citizen who did not receive any government contracts. As soon as we heard about these allegations, we immediately informed the RCMP.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP started investigating Bruce Carson back in 2012 about whether he was using his insider influence with the Conservatives to land lucrative deals with impoverished first nations who had dirty water. 
Bruce Carson was the ultimate insider. The Conservatives even called the scheme the “secret sauce”, but it was the Prime Minister who approved the sauce when he hired this convicted fraud artist. What was the Prime Minister thinking when he allowed a convicted criminal to slip through the security checks and work in his inner office? What was he thinking?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the hon. member. I know he won an Ontario Speaker's Book Award last night for a book he wrote. I congratulate him on that.
At the same time, again, these are allegations with respect to a private citizen who did not receive any government contracts. As soon as the government found out, we immediately informed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. At the same time, any individual found in contravention of the very tough laws this government has put in place should face the full force of these laws.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his very kind and professional words. 
I agree with him that these are very serious issues. Issues of influence pedaling are serious crimes, and yet the Prime Minister's chief of staff knew about this, the Clerk of the Privy Council knew about this, major Conservative cabinet ministers knew, even Senator Doug Black knew that they were applying the secret sauce. Yet we are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister is always conveniently out of the loop whenever something illegal is happening in his office. When are they going to get to the bottom of this?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, again, it was this government that brought in the accountability act. It was this government that brought in strong rules with respect to lobbying, the Ethics Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Lobbying. All of these measures help ensure the highest standard of ethics. At the same time, any individual found in contravention of the very tough laws we have brought in, I agree, should face the full impact of these laws.
EmploymentMr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in my riding, Bourassa, is particularly high. Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Finance began its study on youth employment in Canada.
I asked senior officials what programs exist to help youth, newcomers, persons with disabilities and members of cultural groups find a job. I did not get a response. Instead of spending millions of dollars on partisan ads, what is the Conservative government doing to help those people find work?
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no government has done more for young people, people with disabilities, and aboriginals than this Conservative government under the leadership of the Prime Minister and under the leadership of this Minister of Finance. 
Our government will strongly continue to support youth employment. In fact, this summer, literally thousands and thousands of young people will get jobs and employment due to the financial support. In the budget there is $100,000 to support youth internships in this country.
Aboriginal AffairsCarolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, all week the Minister of Justice has demonstrated that he does not understand that first nations actually are seeking meaningful action to stop the ongoing tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women. They are demanding the elimination of rampant sexism and racism in policing, better support, and inclusion of the families of victims, but most of all, they want to see action to actually prevent this happening to others.
Will the minister stop the intransigence and finally call a national public inquiry?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to stop the action and the forward-looking policies of this government to stop and have an inquiry. I want to say that we will keep doing what we have been doing.
We will continue with policies like ending house arrest for sexual assault, strengthening sentences for child sex offences, toughening the penalties for those who import, produce, and traffic in date rape drugs, and the list goes on. 
We have tabled some 30 bills in the House of Commons and have taken numerous initiatives across the country to directly invest in programs that help women and girls, especially those on reserve. What we do not need now is to stop and talk and study. We need more action, and I think the hon. member would agree with that.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, today the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women tabled its report. 
I ask the chair of the committee, the member for Mississauga South, whether she believes the report actually reflects the testimony of witnesses, or does she believe it was improperly influenced by the six Conservative parliamentary secretaries on the committee, taking orders from the PMO?
The trust between the government and first nations has long been broken. Does the chair of the committee agree that today's report will break the trust of indigenous people in Parliament?
Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was an honour for me to chair this Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women. This was formed by an all-party unanimous decision in the House of Commons. 
I believe that this report will go further to take action. This government has taken action with tougher crimes that the Minister of Justice was talking about, but more important, this report will outline, as members will find shortly, all of the actions that have been taken and all of the actions that can be taken.
I want to thank all members of the special committee for their work, including the member for St. Paul's.
TaxationMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada does not have the resources it needs to monitor money laundering.
The Conservatives have plenty of money to go after the unemployed and charities they do not approve of. However, when it comes time to go after the real bandits—white collar criminals who cheat on their taxes and launder millions of dollars—the Conservatives never seem to have the money.
Will the minister give the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre the money it needs to crack down on money laundering?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our government believes in keeping taxes low, but we also believe in ensuring that all corporations and Canadians pay their fair share of tax. That is why, since 2006, we have moved aggressively to close over 75 tax loopholes, and the loopholes we are closing amount to billions of dollars annually. That means lower taxes for all Canadians, not just a select few.
Shamefully, New Democrats have voted against every single attempt by our government to close tax loopholes since 2006. Why are New Democrats working so hard to protect tax loopholes?
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, the question is not about loopholes. It is about the resources necessary to actually fight money laundering.
FINTRAC is clear. Conservatives are not providing the resources necessary to do the job. We are talking about money laundering and billions in lost revenues. FINTRAC must now review a massive amount of data from online casinos and bitcoin transactions, so why has the government failed to give it the resources it needs to go after 21st century money launderers and tax cheats?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the resources are in place. There are nearly 400 more tax auditors today than there were in the past and when we formed government.
If the member would look at economic action plan 2013, we committed to crack down on those who avoid paying their fair share of taxes and to ensure tax fairness for all Canadians. In order to implement that, we put nearly 400 more tax auditors in place. That is the government doing the job it was elected to do.
VeteransMs. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim that cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada will not affect the quality of services provided.
We have a report that states the opposite. On page 11, the Report on Plans and Priorities states that:
 ...there is a risk that quality service delivery could be affected due to VAC’s increasing reliance on partners and service providers in the federal, provincial and municipal governments as well as private sector. 
Why is the minister making decisions that are bad for our veterans?
Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, veterans have said they want faster services with less paperwork and red tape, which led to the veterans affairs transformation initiative in 2010. 
As the report clearly indicates, any risks associated with such a wholesale change are being addressed by listening to veterans and experts. By streamlining our business practices with National Defence Canada and our partners, veterans affairs modernization will meet the needs of Canadian veterans.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the report goes on to say that there is a risk that the modernization of VAC programs will not be achieved and will not meet the needs of Canadian veterans and their families. That is the government's own report. The Prime Minister said on January 28 in the House, “What is happening here is a significant increase in service”. The Prime Minister is saying one thing and the Minister of Veterans Affairs own report is saying something completely different. This is one reason why veterans in this country do not trust the Conservative government.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell me when the government is going to reverse these draconian cuts and give our veterans the services they so rightfully deserve?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, the modernization of Veterans Affairs’ 50-year-old process is important and, so far, has eliminated dozens of forms and countless hours of headaches for Canadian veterans. More work must be done to ensure a seamless delivery of benefits and services available for veterans transitioning from the military, none of which is consistent with how Veterans Affairs Canada operated even a decade ago.
The only thing the NDP is interested in is more federal public servants to process more forms and red tape.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while western Canadian grain producers had a record harvest this past year, farmers are depending on the railways to move their crops efficiently to market. For far too long, the railways have over-promised and under-delivered. Poor rail service is costing farmers money, and this needs to change.
Could the parliamentary secretary please tell the House how our government is taking action to put hard-working Canadian farmers first, including those in my riding of Medicine Hat?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, today in Winnipeg, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport announced concrete measures to get grain moving in western Canada. Our government will require the railways to move more than double the amount of grain currently being moved, or face penalties up to $100,000. In addition, we will be introducing get-to-work legislation to further address this situation.
We are sending the message that the way the railways have performed with respect to grain movement is unacceptable. Farmers knew we would act, and we are acting.
Aboriginal AffairsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, first nations education should be a priority for the federal government today, but the Conservatives are making first nations children wait until 2015 to end the spending cap that has kept their schools chronically underfunded. To make matters worse, we now learn that the government did not even spend the money that it promised; $33 million was “re-profiled”.
When the need is so great, why is the government failing to invest money that it promised?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thought the member was going to congratulate the government for not allowing these funds to lapse so they would be lost. Being re-profiled means that the funds will be spent and invested on the construction of schools on first nations territory.
The government's commitment to education can be no clearer than in the budget, where an incremental $1.9 billion is going to be invested. If the member really cares about education, she should have supported the budget.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister claimed an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls was unnecessary. When asked to explain himself, the minister insultingly replied that you're not Canadian if you don't understand the problem.
An inquiry would investigate the root causes of violence against indigenous women. It would bring closure and some measure of justice to the families.
When will the minister listen to all Canadians and call a national inquiry?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I said no such thing, nothing even remotely resembling what she has put forward in her question. What I have said is that we have some 40 reports already tabled. In fact, what we have now, as referenced by the member for St. Paul's, is a 41st report dealing with these issues, all of which direct and call upon all levels of government to do more about violence and to do more in programming, which is exactly what our government is doing.
Rather than having more talks and studies and inquiries, we need action. That is what the government is doing. That is what her party is opposing. 
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the appalling comments made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development are inexcusable, because they are recurrent. Furthermore, they clearly demonstrate that the minister is not taking this situation seriously.
Over 800 aboriginal women have been murdered or have gone missing since 1990. Their families, friends and communities want justice. The measures the Conservatives have brought forward are not working. Women continue to disappear. 
Instead of making inappropriate comments, will the minister finally take this matter seriously and launch a public inquiry?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, there has been no government more firmly committed to taking action on violence against women and girls, against women on reserve, against those who have suffered violence, including young women like Loretta Saunders. What we do not need is any pause in the ongoing efforts of the government to attack violence at its core. That means tougher laws and sanctions for those who commit offences. It means more programming, more education, more opportunities on reserve. It does not necessitate more study. We have had over 40 now, including the one just completed by Parliament. So I say to the hon. member, while talk and advocating for more studies is one thing, taking action, what this government is doing—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Manicouagan.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, their measures are not working, because no one has a proper understanding of the problem, since there has been no public inquiry.
Staying on the topic of the incompetence of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, over $33 million has not been invested in first nations education, despite the crisis that exists in that regard.
Can the minister tell us exactly when that $33 million will be allocated to education infrastructure, as initially planned?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I will simply repeat to the member what I said yesterday in committee. 
Because of circumstances beyond our control, $33 million set aside to build schools on reserves could not be invested. Those funds have been carried forward to the 2014-15 budget and will be invested for the original purpose, that is, building schools for first nations.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the so-called emergency action announced today on grain is little more than what the railways had already projected to do themselves in the weeks ahead. 
Second, the government needs to fix the useless railway service legislation, Bill C-52, designed by the government, which fails to define service, fails to measure performance, and fails to impose damages payable to farmers. 
Third is compensation. The system designed by the government has imposed costs and losses of $5 billion over the last five months. Will farmers get any of that money back?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for western farmers in Canada. Up until two days ago, the opposition's solution was to bring back the mandatory Wheat Board monopoly. That is exactly what western grain farmers do not want.
Today the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture have announced action on behalf of the government, to help our grain farmers move their grain to port. I would ask the opposition, particularly the Liberals, to stop sniping from the sidelines and, instead, get on board and help our western Canadian grain farmers. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the farmers—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, let me give a message to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Transport: It is just not good enough. 
Quite frankly, farmers and prairie farmers have been in need for months and the government has sat back and done nothing. 
We are challenging the government to stand up and listen to the needs of our prairie farmers. Will the government be prepared to expand interest-free cash advances and meet with the banks today? Will the government make that commitment?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I said, today is indeed a great day for western Canadian grain farmers, as this government takes action to support them in moving their grain to port. 
The Liberal Party is mired in its Wheat Board theories and about how that would fix the problem, and that is absolute nonsense. Today, the minister announced that we are going to require the railways to more than double the amount of grain currently being moved or face penalties of up to $100,000. Also, we will be introducing get-to-work legislation to further address the situation. I ask the Liberals to get on board and to help western Canadian grain farmers.
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the CRTC does not have a commissioner for the Quebec region. We just found out that the position has been vacant for almost nine months. The CRTC is conducting a major study on the future of television without Quebec at the table. That is unbelievable.
The same thing is happening at the Supreme Court. Major cases are being heard without adequate representation from Quebec. 
Why do the Conservatives keep making the same mistakes? It is unacceptable. Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage please tell us why it is taking her so long to get to work and appoint a competent commissioner to represent Quebec at the CRTC?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will let him know that the CRTC is doing its work and fulfilling its mandate. When it comes to the filling of positions, whether they be in Quebec or anywhere else in our country, we ensure that they are done properly, that there is full research, and interviews have taken place to produce the person who is going to do the best job for both the CRTC and this country. That is exactly what we intend to do, and we are going to do it. We are going to get it done right.
Rail TransportationMr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Transportation Safety Board revealed that the oil that exploded in downtown Lac-Mégantic was much more volatile than MMA had declared. Forty-seven innocent people were killed.
Does the Minister of Transport still believe that the companies should regulate themselves, or will she take responsibility and impose strict rules on rail companies that put the lives of Canadians at risk?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. The industry is regulated and the minister has taken action with respect to a protective direction with the full force of law on properly classifying. That is because the health and safety of Canadians is a priority for this government. This directive will ensure that all crude that is being transported be properly tested, classified, and the results sent to Transport Canada. This is an additional means of monitoring industry compliance and it will bring great security benefit to all Canadians.
Aboriginal AffairsStella Ambler: Mr. Speaker, over the past year, the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women has heard from over 60 witnesses, including members of families of victims of violence. The testimonies from these families were especially moving. They told us that they are tired of reports and that they want real, tangible action. They want tougher sentences for perpetrators and real protection for victims of violence.
As chair of the committee, I look forward to tabling the committee's report today after question period. In the meantime, could the Minister of Justice please inform the House what actions our government is taking to combat violence against indigenous women?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga South for her leadership, and all members of the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, for the work they have done and the effort they have put forward on this important issue.
I have no doubt that this report will, in fact, better inform the action our government has already taken, and will continue to take, to address the violence, tragic disappearances, and brutal murder of indigenous women in Canada. The fact is, this government is taking action. We have a comprehensive justice agenda, which is focused on preventing these crimes while ensuring that offenders receive the tough sentences that they deserve. 
The time for talk is over. The time for action is now. It is time for the opposition to start supporting important criminal justice initiatives.
Rail TransportationHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why do railroads provide such bad service to grain farmers? Some people in the government blame the revenue cap in the Transportation Act, but getting rid of the revenue cap is a sure guarantee of only one thing: farmers' freight rates would double and service would be lousy.
To investigate who benefits from the revenue that comes from moving grain, will the government launch a full railway costing review? It is time. The last one was done in 1992.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, given the current problem with moving grain to port, we are making an announcement today to benefit our farmers in that regard. 
The railways have performed poorly in this regard, which is why the announcement will be asking them to double the transport of grain from the western Prairies to port. Otherwise, they will face fines of up to $100,000. We will also be introducing legislation here in the House, get to work legislation for the railways.
Status of WomenManon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, women with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty than men with disabilities. According to Statistics Canada, these women are also almost twice as likely as other women to be the victims of domestic violence. In addition to physical violence, almost all women with disabilities experience psychological, verbal or emotional abuse. One of the major obstacles to breaking this cycle of abuse is that these women may be afraid to speak out because of isolation and dependence issues.
What programs are in place to break this cycle of poverty and abuse?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls here in Canada. Since 2007, we have invested over $63 million in funding over 300 projects to end violence against women and girls. It is the highest level of funding ever. We also launched a call for proposals that will support local projects to help prevent cyber and sexual violence against women and girls. We introduced legislation that would give police and prosecutors new tools to address cyberbullying.
If the members opposite are serious about making Canada safer for women and girls, they should support our initiatives.
International DevelopmentPatricia Davidson: Mr. Speaker, people in my riding are concerned with the health of newborns and their mothers around the world, especially in developing countries.
Since 2010 with the signing of the Muskoka initiative, Canada has been instrumental in helping drive global efforts to help mothers and children, pledging $2.85 billion to an initiative that will save the lives of 1.3 million children and 64,000 mothers.
Can the parliamentary secretary please update the House on the announcement that was made yesterday furthering our country's support for women and children?
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our commitment continues.
Canada is well on its way to achieving our goals under the Muskoka initiative. Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that Canada will hold a maternal, newborn and child health, MNCH, summit in May. This summit will provide the opportunity to build consensus on where to focus our efforts to maximize future results.
Canadians agree that children everywhere deserve a healthy, productive life and that no woman should lose her life bringing another into the world.
Our commitment is clear.
Natural ResourcesAndré Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, it was disappointing to see the National Energy Board authorize Enbridge's line 9B reversal project, even though the company is not abiding by all the conditions set by the Quebec National Assembly. Quebec only wants to ensure that Enbridge—which is responsible for the worst-ever oil spill on American soil—fully complies with all of the security regulations.
When will the Minister of Natural Resources intervene and ensure that security measures will be taken before this project gets under way, in particular by creating an intergovernmental oversight committee, conducting a review of oil transportation legislation and requiring a sufficient financial guarantee to ensure that Enbridge can pay for any and all damage in the case of a disaster? 
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, this decision is good news for Quebec and for Canada.
The National Energy Board made this decision. A number of people were involved in the hearings. I think over 170 people participated in this.
This is great news, not only for the people of Quebec but for all of eastern Canada, which will have a greater supply of western Canadian oil, thereby allowing us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is also extraordinarily good news for Montreal and Lévis, Quebec. We will have refineries.
It is good news for the people in the Maritimes. All around, it is a very good news day for Canada. It is good news for eastern Canada.
Air TransportationMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Cons. Ind.): Mr. Speaker, recently in the House, I brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport that a proposed wind turbine project named Sumac Ridge threatened the future of the Peterborough regional airport, and I requested that she investigate the matter and intervene.
Given the substantial investment and significant growth that has occurred at Peterborough airport since the Prime Minister  himself cut the ribbon at the new facility, it is shocking that the Ontario government would permit any new build to interfere with this incredible regional success story.
 Can the minister confirm that she is seized with the situation, and can she update the house in this regard?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peterborough for the question. As was said in the House earlier on this matter, the Ontario government is responsible for approving land use plans when it comes to wind turbines. The federal government does not approve wind turbine projects. The role of the federal government and Nav Canada is to ensure that wind turbines do not cause concerns with respect to aviation safety.
As I reported earlier, because of the importance of this issue to the member, the minister said she would have her officials look into the matter. I can confirm for the House that officials are in fact looking at the matter presently.
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that response, and the government for demonstrating its commitment to the future and success of the Peterborough airport.
This situation at Peterborough airport highlights a very serious problem with Ontario's Green Energy Act, in that consultations with airports are not required on the siting of wind turbines. The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association is one of several groups joining with the City of Peterborough calling for a new and more robust review system, involving consultations with Nav Canada prior to any consent being granted for the construction of wind turbines within any aerodrome in Canada.
Will the government direct Nav Canada to immediately undertake to discuss any and all wind turbine applications with airport owners so they can better understand the future growth of these airports?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I will simply remind the member that wind farm proponents are the ones who are responsible for engaging interested parties, including Nav Canada. Nav Canada is a private company and, as such, it provides its input insofar as impacts on aviation safety are concerned.
Points of OrderHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture made a substantive error in his answers. He claimed that the doubling of car movement would be such a wonderful thing. However, the doubling of car movement only gets to the normal movement of rail cars and does nothing to deal with the backlog.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I do not think that is a point of order. 

Routine Proceedings
Missing and Murdered WomenPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I committed to tabling documents in this House. I now have those documents in both official languages.
I am pleased to table the list of initiatives on missing and murdered aboriginal women that my department has taken since 2010.
These reports, as numerous as they are, now number 41, with another being tabled today. They include such recent reports as “Forsaken: the report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry” by the hon. Wally T. Oppal. 
At the same time, I am tabling a list of some 40 studies dealing with the tragic situation, as well as 30 government bills that we have introduced dealing with public safety issues.
As far as programs are concerned in this list of 64, the detailed information setting out those programs and dollar amounts is also available on the website contained in this list.
While I am on my feet, I want to take this opportunity to apologize to the Speaker and members present for impertinence yesterday on my part here in the House of Commons. I have great respect, after 17 years, for the dignity of this chamber and I want to take this opportunity to apologize.
Foreign AffairsDeepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2012-13 progress report on Canada's action plan for the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on women, peace, and security.
Committees of the HouseStella Ambler: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women entitled, “Invisible Women: A Call to Action, A Report on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women in Canada”. 
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have to stand and talk about the lack of consensus on the special committee studying violence against indigenous women.
The testimony we heard from family members and witnesses who knew some of the women who went missing or were confirmed murdered was heartfelt and full of pleas to the government to take extraordinary action to recognize that this is a public emergency and that it should be treated as such. Instead, the final report basically said that the status quo was fine, and most recommendations suggested that things should continue as they were.
New Democrats fundamentally disagree. We believe that a national action plan to address violence against indigenous women and girls needs to be agreed upon and implemented as soon as possible, and that a national public inquiry into the cases of missing and murdered aboriginal women should be one of its first undertakings.
We understand the depth of the problem and the ways that sexism and racism intersect in Canada, and how that makes indigenous women and girls more vulnerable to violence. We heard from police officers, front-line workers, and national organizations that the current levels of funding are not adequate to deal with this crisis. As parliamentarians, we choose the priorities for funding, and it is Canada's shame that indigenous women and girls have never been made a priority by any government.
PetitionsMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to table three petitions. 
The first petition is with respect to the devastating cuts to service and the huge price increases at Canada Post. 
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the government to create a mining ombudsman to ensure responsible mineral exploitation.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the third petition, prepared by Fair Vote Canada, calls upon the government to ensure Canadians have a fair electoral system.
 I am pleased to table these petitions on behalf of hundreds of Canadians. I look forward to the government's response.
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions concerning the protection of Gatineau Park. This issue is very important to the petitioners since there are parts of Gatineau Park that might be severed off or sold without Parliament's review or approval. That is why it is important. I have many signatures.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition. These petitioners from British Columbia indicate that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They want to see that changed and toughened up so that we have some new mandatory minimum sentences for persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They want the Criminal Code to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter. They have some other good suggestions in this proposal as well.
 It is my privilege to present this good petition from citizens of British Columbia, where I did spend some earlier years of my working life.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition signed by people from Ontario and Quebec. They are calling on the government to provide legal protection to ensure the integrity and the future of Gatineau Park. It is necessary to continue protecting the environment for future generations.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions.
The first is signed by 1,133 residents of the Montreal area who are calling on the federal government and Aéroports de Montréal to take measures to reduce the noise from planes taking off from and landing at Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport.
An MP does more than just present petitions. My colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville took steps to strengthen dialogue between Aéroports de Montréal and the citizens' group Les pollués de Montréal-Trudeau. He found both parties showed goodwill toward serving the common interest. 
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a second petition signed by many Quebeckers who are calling on the Government of Canada to act swiftly and effectively in response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria and to increase the number of government sponsored refugees, as well as providing the necessary resources to support these actions.
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of people in the Gatineau area who are calling for protections for Gatineau Park, since it is home to rich biodiversity unique to the region, including 90 endangered plant and 50 endangered animal species. They are simply requesting that we examine the issue in order to protect the environment and strengthen the laws concerning the protection of Gatineau Park.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. 
The first petition is with respect to the protection of Gatineau Park, as many of my colleagues have already mentioned. It is an important issue for all Canadians, particularly those in the region. It is in support of my colleague's bill on the protection of Gatineau Park.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon the government to do more to help support the people of Syria, particularly by helping refugees and providing support to refugees so they are able to settle here in Canada.
Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition regarding Gatineau Park. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to adopt legislation giving Gatineau Park the necessary legal protection to ensure its preservation for future generations. 
I have visited this park many times, and I truly hope that the government will take this seriously.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by people from the Montreal area who are calling on the government to create a legal ombudsman mechanism for Canadian mining companies operating abroad. The goal is to ensure that their operations are conducted responsibly and that they respect human rights and the environment and demonstrate social responsibility with respect to labour.
José Nunez-Melo: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by 100 people who are very concerned about Gatineau Park.
Much like my colleagues here, I think that this petition is very important. It calls on the House of Commons to adopt legislation to protect this massive park in the Gatineau area.
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition calling for greater protection for Parc Gatineau.
The signatories to the petition point out that there are more than 90 plants and 50 species of animals at risk contained within the park. 
The very fact that so many are rising today shows the concern Canadians have for the protection of Parc Gatineau.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by many members of my community who are concerned about the Government of Canada increasing the size of the House of Commons. They feel we do not need more members of Parliament.
They are suggesting that the money should instead be spent on issues such as seniors' pensions, bedside nurses, and so forth.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am presenting a petition that calls on the government to take action to protect Gatineau Park.
As some may already know, Gatineau Park is one of the most visited parks in Canada and one that I am very familiar with. There is no question that this park is very important. Bill C-565, which proposes protections for this park, will be debated this afternoon.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to the House a petition that attests to the need to give special status to Gatineau Park to preserve it for future generations.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a certified petition to protect Gatineau Park.
It is very unfortunate that, even today, we have to present petitions and private members' bills to preserve this great resource, our parks, for future generations. We need to preserve and protect them. Unfortunately, we have to keep doing it over and over again.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, you know how proud I am to represent the riding of Trois-Rivières, which is largely made up of seniors.
Hundreds of these individuals signed a petition proposed to them by the leaders of the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées. They are calling on the government to do more about old age security and the guaranteed income supplement so that seniors, who contributed to the development of this country, no longer have to live below the poverty line.
I am pleased to join with them and support their petition.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a second petition that was given to me by constituents in my riding who are extremely concerned about the practices of Canadian mining companies abroad.
They are calling for the creation of a legal ombudsman mechanism, given that the mandate of the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor is so weak. 
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I am also presenting a petition in support of my bill, Bill C-565.
At the same time, I would like to thank my colleagues who worked so hard to get petitions signed to support this bill, which will give Gatineau Park true legal protection. After 76 years, it is time that Gatineau Park had legal protection.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 197, 214, 218, 250, 251, 271, and 277.
Hon. Geoff Regan:  With regard to spending under the Scientific Research and Experimental Development program for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: (a) how much funding was granted in each province and territory; (b) how much funding in each province and territory went to small businesses; (c) how much funding in each province and territory went to big businesses; (d) how much funding in each province and territory went to an individual; (e) how much funding in each province and territory was for basic scientific research; (f) how much funding in each province and territory was for applied research; and (g) how much funding in each province and territory was awarded for other research?
Andrew Saxton:  Mr. Speaker, the scientific research and experimental development program, or SR and ED, is a federal tax incentive. It is not a funding opportunity through a grant or contribution. 
The tax incentive has two components. The first is an income tax deduction, which allows immediate expensing of eligible expenditures. Eligible expenditures in 2014 include most of the costs that are directly related to SR and ED, including salary and wages, materials, and overhead. 
The second is an investment tax credit in respect of eligible expenses. The general rate is 15% in 2014. An enhanced rate of 35 % is provided to small and medium-sized Canadian-controlled private corporations, or CCPCs, on their first $3 million of eligible expenditures. Unused credits earned in a year are generally fully refundable for small and medium-sized CCPCs on their first $3 million of current expenditures. Unused credits can be carried back three years and forward twenty years. 
Information on the tax expenditures related to the SR and ED program can be found in “Tax Expenditures and Evaluations 2013”, available at http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2013/taxexp13-eng.asp. 
Mr. Raymond Côté:  With regard to contaminated water from the Port of Québec flowing into the St. Lawrence River in July 2013: (a) what action was taken by the government in response to this incident; (b) were there any complaints filed by the public regarding this incident; (c) what were the findings of any investigations into such complaints; and (d) what action, if any, was taken to ensure that such an incident would not reoccur or to serve as a deterrent? 
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in July 2013 Environment Canada enforcement officers conducted a follow-up inspection at the Port of Quebec. Environment Canada issued an inspector’s direction in 2011 requiring that those responsible for the deposits take all measures consistent with safety and with the conservation of fish and fish habitat. The Port of Quebec is currently complying with the requirements of the inspector’s direction. 
With regard to (b), there was one complaint regarding this incident. 
With regard to (c), scientific analysis of the samples of water from the sedimentation basin of the Port of Quebec did not demonstrate any effective deleterious substances in the effluent discharge into the St. Lawrence River. 
With regard to (d), as per the directive mentioned above, Environment Canada informed the responsible parties, in writing, of their obligations under the Fisheries Act. 
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:  With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which Alberta employers have been issued a positive Labour Market Opinion, broken down by region and National Occupation Classifications: (a) for Alberta's minimum wage in the following years, (i) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.00, (ii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.00, (iii) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.40, (iv) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $8.80, (v) September 1, 2011--present: $9.40; and (b) for the following wage rate ranges for the following years, (i) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.01-$7.50, (ii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.01-8.50, (iii) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.41-$8.90, (iv) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $8.81-$9.30, (v) September 1, 2011--August 31, 2012: $9.41-$9.90, (vi) September 1, 2012--August 31, 2013: $9.76-$10.25, (vii) September 1, 2005--August 31, 2007: $7.51-$8.00, (viii) September 1, 2007--March 31, 2008: $8.51: $9.00, (ix) April 1, 2008--March 31, 2009: $8.91- $9.40, (x) April 1, 2009--August 31, 2011: $9.31-$9.80, (xi) September 1, 2011--August 31, 2012: $9.91-$10.40, (xii) September 1, 2012--August 31, 2013: $10.26-$10.75? 
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the nature of this request would require a prohibitively long and extensive manipulation of data generated by the system. Therefore, ESDC is unable to answer this question in the time allotted.
Ms. Irene Mathyssen:  With regard to the Wolseley Barracks: (a) what was the reason for the 2013 demolition of the three buildings at the Barracks; (b) why has said work been called to a halt; (c) how much is the demolition predicted to cost; (d) how much money was spent on repairs to the three buildings between 2008 and 2013; (e) how much is the demolition supposed to save in the long run; and (f) how will those receiving training at Wolseley Barracks be housed once all the designated buildings are gone? 
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence, DND, and the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, conduct frequent infrastructure reviews to ensure that infrastructure meets our needs and entitlements. 
With regard to (a), following a review of the infrastructure at Wolseley Barracks in London, Ontario, three buildings were slated for demolition in the summer of 2013 as they are no longer required by DND/CAF. 
With regard to (b), asbestos was discovered between the walls in some of the buildings and therefore, to be prudent, demolitions were suspended on October 3, 2013. Investigations continue on the best way to proceed, but the overall demolition plan has not changed in scope. 
With regard to (c), the contract for demolition was awarded for a total cost of $249,000. This amount will be amended by the additional work requirements caused by the discovery of asbestos, although the exact value of the amendments has not been finalized. 
With regard to (d), approximately $145,000 was spent on repairs to the three buildings between 2008 and 2013. 
With regard to (e), those three buildings are estimated to cost approximately $140,000 annually for operations and maintenance, O&amp;M, and payment in lieu of taxes, PILT. Therefore, it is estimated that the demolition will result in an annual cost avoidance of approximately $140,000. 
With regard to (f), there are sufficient classrooms in the remaining buildings to continue to run courses at Wolseley Barracks. Courses can also be held in local training or range areas, such as Cedar Springs and 4 Canadian Division Training Centre in Meaford. 
Ms. Elizabeth May:  With regard to the importance of regularly updating and enforcing the Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals: (a) when will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food commit to providing sustained funding for the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC); (b) how does the Minister anticipate enforcement of these Codes will be funded and executed; and (c) will the Minister commit to independent, third-party verification of the NFACC Codes of Practice to ensure that producers are compliant with these industry Codes?
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) the Government of Canada’s approach to addressing animal care and welfare at the farm level includes working closely with a network of industry stakeholders and responsible organizations. The Government of Canada has been supporting the National Farm Animal Care Council, or NFACC, in developing and updating the “Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals”, establishing a framework for on-farm assessments, and providing critical leadership for Canada’s efforts. Since the establishment of NFACC in 2005, the Government of Canada has invested over $4 million in support of its activities and approaches in dealing with animal care and welfare issues. 
Future funding for NFACC may be provided under the Growing Forward 2 agri-marketing assurance system. It is up to individual organizations to apply for this funding. The Government of Canada continues to provide technical support to NFACC and the codes initiative and is committed to working collaboratively with all stakeholders in addressing issues related to animal welfare. 
With regard to (b), requirements in the codes of practice are enforced under provincial legislation and regulations. However, it is important to note that responsibility for implementation and enforcement does not rest with just one group. Implementation of the codes occurs in multiple ways: through voluntary producer uptake, on-farm assessment programs, quality assurance programs required by markets, and provincial regulation. The first responsibility for implementation of the codes rests with the producers and others who handle animals. Canadian farmers take their responsibility seriously, which is why, in addition to the code requirements that all are expected to follow, each code also contains recommended practices, an important tool for encouraging continuous improvement in the industry. Meanwhile, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments share legislative and enforcement responsibility for animal welfare, with provincial governments having the primary legislative authority for the on-farm handling of animals. At the federal level, regulations regarding the humane transport and humane slaughter of animals in federally inspected facilities are enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Collaboration among all the various stakeholders is a key aspect of Canada’s approach to ensuring that good practices are followed. 
With regard to (c), animal care assessment programs are key to demonstrating that the codes of practice are being followed. One key goal under the NFACC animal care assessment framework is to ensure that the programs developed are both transparent and credible. Livestock and poultry producers recognize the need for developing effective assessment programs in order to demonstrate that animals are properly treated and cared for on-farm. Several commodities have already begun implementing on-farm assessments or are developing their programs, and more are expected to do so as codes are updated. Third-party assessments may play a role in the programs as they are developed over time, especially as market requirements develop. 
Mr. Ryan Cleary:  With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW), how much funding does the FFAW receive annually for the Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures Program? 
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union received the following annual amounts of funding from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from the Atlantic lobster sustainability measures program: for fiscal year 2011-12, $2,656,640; for fiscal year 2012-13, $4,492,374.04; and for fiscal year 2013-14 to date, $392,602.87. 
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet:  With regard to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014: (a) what is the total amount of funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) agency; and (b) what agency was responsible for allocating this funding by (i) province, (ii) federal electoral district, (iii) municipality?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, the nature of this request would require a prohibitively long and extensive manipulation of data generated by the system. Therefore, ESDC is unable to answer this question in the time allotted. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsDan Albas: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 179, 199, 210, 225, 237, 240, and 261 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Scott Simms:  With regard to employees and contractors of the government of Canada within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) how many such employees or contractors have there been in total per year since 2004, broken down by (i) riding (current boundaries), (ii) riding (proposed boundaries), (iii) full time, part time or occasional status, (iv) permanent, indeterminate, or temporary status, (v) total gross income for each response in (iii) and (iv), (vi) department, office, facility, or contract location; and (b) what are the projected responses for all clauses in (a) between now and 2019? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:  With regard to the development and operation of the Canadian Multiple Sclerosis Monitoring System (CMSMS) announced in March 2011: (a) what are the government's baseline assumptions for the CMSMS, (i) how many Canadians live with MS according to the government’s source, (ii) what is the government's source; (b) what have been the challenges in developing the system between March 2011 and today, (i) how has each challenge been overcome, (ii) what are the achievements to date, (iii) what milestones has the government planned between December 2013 and December 2015 and by what dates; (c) what is the cost of developing the system, broken down by costs to date; (d) how much money did the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) contribute to the development of the CMSMS, (i) were there any other partners involved in the development of the system, (ii) if so, who are they, (iii) what has each contributed; (e) who was involved in the design and development of the CMSMS, (i) from what departments/institutions were they, (ii) were potential conflicts of interest declared and, if so, how; (f) what health information does the CMSMS track, specifically, with regard to (i) chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), (ii) impacts of CCSVI treatment, including but not limited to use of the following scales, Expanded Disability Status Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory, (iii) pharmaceutical treatments for MS, (vi) adverse drug reactions by MS drug; (g) who is/was overseeing pilot testing, (i) who is/was responsible for ensuring that patient information is/was protected, (ii) who is/was responsible for the integrity of the results; (h) were ethical reviews for pilot testing necessary and, if so, on what date did each pilot site pass ethical review; (i) when is pilot testing expected to/did it take place and at which MS clinics will/did testing occur; (j) on what date did recruitment of patients begin for each pilot site and what methods are/were used to recruit patients; (k) how many MS patients are/were recruited for each site and how is/was consistency ensured across sites; (l) what information are/were MS patients given about the pilot testing and how their information will be/was protected and used, (i) is/was participation voluntary, (ii) can/could patients pull out of the testing at any time, (iii) what health information is/was being tracked at each pilot site and at what time intervals, (iv) what health information is being/was tracked about CCSVI and impacts of CCSVI treatment, including but not limited to use of the following scales, Expanded Disability Status Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory, (v) what health information is/was being tracked about pharmaceutical treatments for MS, (vi) what adverse drug reactions are/were being tracked by MS drug; (m) what is the relationship between the clinical trials and the CMSMS, (i) will data be transferred from one to the other and, if so, how will this happen, (ii) when will it begin, (iii) who will be responsible for the oversight; (n) what are the estimated operating costs annually for the CMSMS and at what sites is/will the CMSMS operating/operate; (o) how much money is/will the CIHR contributing/contribute to the operation of the CMSMS, (i) are/will there be any other partners in the operation of the CMSMS and, if so, (ii) who are they, (iii) what will they each contribute; and (p) how will the results of pilot testing be communicated to patients, the medical community and the general public and by what date is reporting expected to occur?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Rodger Cuzner:  With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) Processing Centres and EI Call Centres: (a) what goal has been set with respect to percentage of EI applications processed through automation; (b) what is the time table for achieving this goal; (c) what was the percentage of automation achieved in EI processing, for the fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; (d) for EI processing centres, (i) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date, (ii) what is the variance in total employees and in the percentage of term versus indeterminate employees from one year to the next, (iii) what is the planned number of employees for fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, (iv) what is the rationale for any reductions in employees; (e) what is the service standard for processing claims that take longer than 28 days to process; (f) what has been the annual result in achieving this standard for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; (g) what are the reasons for not achieving the standard in the years requested, if applicable; (h) what is the EI call centre agent workday occupancy metric and what is the government's rationale for this measure; (i) what has been the EI call centre agent workday occupancy target and result, nationally and broken down by province, for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; (j) for EI call centres, (i) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date, (ii) what is the variance in total employees and percentage of term versus indeterminate employees from one year to the next, (iii) what is the planned number of employees for fiscal years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, (iv) what is the rationale for any reductions in employees; (k) how many EI claims were processed for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date; and (l) with respect to the program indicator (percentage of initial and renewal EI claims finalized within 21 days from date of filing and 21 days of registration of revised EI claims), what was the standard and results achieved for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 to date and why was the standard not achieved?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Dennis Bevington:  With regard to the study and treatment of eating disorders: (a) how many major eating disorder studies have been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) including treatment, prevention or epidemiology research; (b) how many CIHR peer review committees include members who have expertise in eating disorders; (c) are questions about eating disorders included in national databases; (d) what Health Canada eating disorder initiatives are in place; (e) what are the reasons for which Health Canada does not include low body mass index (BMI) as a separate category; (f) is the Public Health Agency of Canada tracking eating disorders in terms of prevalence, access to treatment and availability of services; (g) is Statistics Canada tracking eating disorders; (h) what are the rates of eating disorders among First Nations, on reserve and in the territories; (i) what barriers to care for Aboriginal Canadians have been identified; (j) have eating disorders been integrated into obesity prevention initiatives in Aboriginal communities; (k) are these initiatives gender and culturally sensitive; (l) in the case of obesity-related research or healthy weight initiatives conducted by the government, are there safeguards in place to ensure ‘no harm’; (m) has the government conducted any research studies examining the full spectrum of eating disorders, from those affecting people with low BMIs to those affecting people with high BMIs; (n) what research efforts by Canada are underway to address those refractory cases currently being treated in long term care mental health facilities; (o) what actions is the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) taking concerning eating disorders; (p) are eating disorders included in MHCC reports; (q) of the MHCC management (board, executive staff and directors) are there any persons with expertise in eating disorders; (r) has the MHCC developed guidelines for treatment and/or prevention of eating disorders and, if not, why not; (s) have Health Canada or other government agencies performed a review of funded eating disorder services and, if not, why not; (t) have Health Canada or other government agencies tracked co-morbid disorders such as eating disorders coupled with psychiatric illnesses; and (u) have Health Canada or other government agencies tracked eating disorders coupled with medical disorders? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Stéphane Dion:  With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): (a) what is the Department’s information management (IM) strategy; (b) on what date was the IM strategy established; (c) who participated in the development of the IM strategy; (d) which groups or organizations were consulted or gave input in developing the IM strategy; (e) which departments, agencies or offices were consulted or gave input in developing the IM strategy; (f) which individuals were consulted or gave input in developing the IM strategy; (g) what is the DFO Records Retention Plan; (h) on what date was the Records Retention Plan established; (i) who participated in the development of the Records Retention Plan; (j) which groups were consulted or gave input in developing the Records Retention Plan; (k) which departments, agencies and offices were consulted or gave input in developing the Records Retention Plan; (l) which individuals were consulted in developing the Records Retention Plan; and (m) what are the benchmarks for record retention?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Kirsty Duncan:  With regard to proposals approved for funding by the former Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), for fiscal years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, in an Excel spreadsheet, broken down by (i) the fiscal year when the project was approved, (ii) the title of the project, (iii) the amount that was approved, (iv) the date (year-month-day) that the proposal was received by CIDA in its final form, (v) the date (year-month-day) that an approval memo was first delivered to the Minister’s Office for consideration as indicated in CIDA's memo tracking system, (vi) the date (year-month-day) that the proposal received final approval, what were: (a) all the proposals approved for funding by the Multilateral Branch; (b) all the proposals approved for funding by the Geographic or Bilateral Branch; and (c) all the proposals approved for funding by the Partnership with Canadians Branch?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Judy Foote: With regard to the closure of the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre St. John’s (MRSC St. John’s), operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, in May, 2012, and its consolidation with the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Halifax (JRCC Halifax): (a) how many search-and-rescue (SAR) cases has the JRCC Halifax handled from 2006, through to the closure of the MRSC St. John’s, broken down by month and totaled by year; (b) how many SAR cases has the JRCC Halifax handled since the closure of the MRSC St. John’s which would have previously been handled by MRSC St. John’s, broken down by month and year; (c) what tactical measures were undertaken by the government to mitigate SAR service losses to areas formerly serviced by MRSC St. John’s; (d) were there additional employees hired at JRCC Halifax to deal with the increased workload from the closure of MRSC St. John’s and, if so, how many additional employees, broken down by full-time, part-time and contractual employment; and (e) what training, if any, was given to existing and new staff at JRCC Halifax specific to ensuring local knowledge of (i) the unique Newfoundland and Labrador dialects, (ii) geographic makeup of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is it the pleasure of the House that all remaining questions be allowed to stand?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): When the House last left the question, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London had seven minutes remaining in his remarks.
The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that for the last hour and a bit everyone has been held in suspense waiting for the final seven minutes, notwithstanding the excitement of question period.
I was talking about how we came to where we are today and the 2008 agreement and the eligibility process. To be eligible for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band, the 2008 agreement stipulated that individuals must be of Canadian Indian ancestry, be a member or a descendant of a member of a pre-Confederation Mi'kmaq community, self-identify as a member of a Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland, and be accepted by the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland based on a demonstrated or substantial cultural connection.
When the application process began in 2008, Mi'kmaq leaders and Canada expected that somewhere between 8,700 and 12,000 people would be entitled to band membership. This range seemed realistic given that there were roughly 10,500 members of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians at the time. Imagine the surprise when over 101,000 applications were submitted by the time the enrolment period ended in November 2012. Almost half of these applications, roughly 46,000, were received in the final three months before the deadline of that four-year process. Most of the applications received were from people living outside of Newfoundland.
As Chief Brendan Sheppard has stated: “It was neither reasonable nor credible to expect such a huge number of individuals to become members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation...”. Not surprisingly, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and Mi'kmaq residents of the province were worried about the credibility of the enrolment process and the integrity of the first nation. They wanted to be sure that the objectives of the 2008 agreement would be respected.
The intent of the 2008 agreement and the desire of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland was that membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation would be granted primarily to the people living in or around the province's Mi'kmaq communities named in the agreement. While individuals living outside these communities could also become members, the goal of the original signatories was that non-residents would be required to have a strong cultural connection to the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community. This includes a sustained and active involvement in the community despite their absence.
By the fall of 2012, all parties agreed that additional steps were needed to clarify the document's requirements for the enrolment process. In response, a chief federal negotiator was appointed to explore the measures to address issues connected to the enrolment process. Fred Caron, a lawyer and former assistant deputy minister at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, collaborated closely with the chief and council of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians.
They jointly agreed on the need for improvements. On July 4, 2013, the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians announced a supplemental agreement, which resolves the issues that emerged in the implementing of the 2008 agreement.
For instance, the 2013 supplemental agreement extends the timelines to review applications, ensuring that all previously unprocessed applications will be thoroughly reviewed and also ensuring that all applicants will be treated fairly and equitably.
It ensures that all applications received during all phases of the enrolment process will be assessed or reassessed, except those previously rejected. This guarantees that all applicants, no matter when they applied in the process, will be treated in a manner that ensures that their application is considered to the fullest extent required to determine membership.
Especially important, the 2013 supplemental agreement guaranteed that anyone whose application is reviewed will be sent written notification and that those who have submitted a valid application will be given the opportunity to provide additional documentation if required.
It also clarifies how an applicant's self-identification as a member of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland is assessed. It provides guidance related to an individual's acceptance to the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland. This information is particularly relevant to individuals not residing in Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities.
This reasonable approach is the only way to ensure the integrity of the enrolment process and that the rules of eligibility for memberships are fairly applied so that all applicants are treated equitably. That is what Mi'kmaq residents of Newfoundland demand and what all Canadians expect.
I would remind members that status brings with it a range of important social and economic benefits, something that cannot and should not be taken lightly. For these reasons, determination of the eligibility of applicants is being made by the enrolment committee, which includes two federal representatives, two Mi'kmaq representatives, and one independent chair.
In the meantime, all current members will retain their status cards. They will continue to be eligible for benefits that are conferred on registered Indians until such time as their status might change, based on the determination of the enrolment committee.
Acquiring first nations status will help the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland create and maintain a strong foundation of Mi'kmaq culture, growth, and development. This will lead to a better future for today's generation and all those who follow. This is something that generations of Mi'kmaq residents of the province have fought long and hard for, since the 1970s. It is time to resolve this complex and long-running matter, so that those who belong to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation can finally realize this potential.
Some Liberal members are suggesting that the supplemental agreement signed by our government and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, which is essential for the establishment of the fairness and equitability of all applicants, stands for nothing. These assertions speak to members putting their own personal motives ahead of the interests of those they claim to represent. Our government asserts that the integrity and credibility of the band should be upheld above all else. 
These interests are what make Bill C-25 so important. Once the review process is over, the schedule to the order in council that legally created the first nation in 2011 will need to be amended. This is to reflect the fact that some of the names will likely be removed and others will be added to the list of the names of the founding members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation.
I call on all parties to join us in passing Bill C-25. Let us take these important steps in the process for the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland, so they can finally settle these issues and move on to enjoy the benefits of being a first nation.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his presentation. I would like to ask him, to his knowledge, how many nations want to negotiate or are currently negotiating to obtain recognized status as a band without a land base.
Does he think that the bill now before us provides for measures that should be put in place in the future or does the bill have shortcomings that need to be corrected immediately?
[Interjection]
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the member an exact answer, but I can tell him the importance of this piece of legislation. Bill C-25, although technical in nature, would enable the Governor in Council to amend the schedule for the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order to ensure that only eligible individuals, in accordance with the enrolment criteria outlined in the 2008 agreement, are granted Indian status and the membership of the first nations.
It is important that we get this piece passed. To answer the member's question, it could be used as a model in the future. However, let us worry right now about Bill C-25, getting it done right, and, because of the timeline that has already taken place, getting it done as quickly as possible.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the issue of status with bands has enormous significance, right across the country. Many people are looking for status. Many people should have status, but do not, and many people who have very marginal claims for status would push for it.
In this case, we understand that there have been many people coming forward claiming the right of status. The question is, how will those claims be adjudicated? What steps will be taken to ensure the validity of the claims? Is there going to be a process in place for appeal? What is the timeline in which this will happen? Justice delayed is justice denied. 
We want to make sure this is done properly and that the people who are actually eligible are able to benefit. Could my hon. colleague tell me what the plan is, and what the timeline is for the implementation?
[Interjection]
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the minutes I had spent speaking in the House would probably answer most of those questions, but I will try to go at them again.
The review includes a reassessment of applications of those whose names currently appear on the schedule to the order that legally created the first nations. They have become members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nations and are entitled to registration under the Indian Act. It is expected that the review process will last until the summer of 2015 and be followed by an appeal period. Once the process is completed, the schedule to the order that legally created the band, and which contains the list of names of the founding members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, will be amended. We are looking at between now and then for the review of the rest of the applications and completion of the process.
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have learned as we have debated this bill is that there is a need for fairness for all applicants, whether they applied early on in the process or they were part of the 46,000 people who applied in the last three months of the process. That brought the total number up to 101,000 applicants, who represent about 11% of the number of registered Indians in Canada.
It has been suggested by some members, in particular the member for Western Arctic, that there should be a special class of applicants. I wonder if the member would agree with me that we should treat all applicants, all 101,000 of them, in the same way.
[Interjection]
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, that question fits well with what we are trying to decide here today. 
A large amount of applications happened at the end of the process. Some decisions had already been made, but for the most part this is a process concerning the whole Qalipu Mi'kmaq nation. All of the applicants will be reviewed and studied in the same way, going back to those who were already there. It is only fair to look at all applicants in the same light rather than rushing because there were so many applications at the end of the process.
It is also clear that there is a need for us to get to it. Bill C-25 should pass so that we can finish this process and work on establishing the Qalipu Mi'kmaq nation and who rightfully belongs to it.
Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 
First, the purpose of the legislation is important. I want to make it clear and state for the record that Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act, carefully and fully respects and upholds the original intent of the 2008 agreement between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians that created the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. In particular, it fully respects and upholds the eligibility criteria set out in the 2008 agreement. 
Some parts of this debate may have created concern or confusion in the minds of some Canadians about these points. There should not be any concern or confusion. The original agreement is fully and completely respected and upheld. 
The bill before us, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act, is primarily created to enable the Governor in Council to amend the schedule of names and birthdates of founding members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. The Indian Act is unclear as to whether this is possible, so the Parliament of Canada wants to make it clear that the Governor in Council can make the amendment to the schedule of founding members of this new first nation.
As others have said, the reason that amending this schedule of membership was needed was because the Qalipu Mi'kmaq leadership foresaw that those wanting to join the new first nation would be those people living in or around the 67 Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities identified in the 2008 agreement. The parties expected that people would want to be members of this new first nation and that the number of eligible members would be around 9,000 to 12,000. There were about 10,000 members of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians at that time. 
What happened, as other members have said, was that although individuals living outside of those communities could also be members, the intent was that even non-residents could have some strong cultural connections with the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community. However, to everyone's surprise and shock, there was a flood of applications. In fact, there were about ten times the number of applications received than had been foreseen. There were over 100,000 applications during the four-year enrolment process, and most of these, over 70,000, were received in the final year before the enrolment deadline. Therefore, all of a sudden the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation was faced with this incredible flood of applications. 
It became very clear that there needed to be some precision put forward to operationalize the agreement that created the first nation and the founding members enrolment. The flood of late applications was not only concentrated toward the end of the enrolment period, in fact almost 50,000 were submitted in the last three months before the application process ended. However, about two-thirds of the applicants did not live in Newfoundland or anywhere close to Mi'kmaq communities; they lived elsewhere in Canada.
Therefore, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians recognized that these numbers were not credible and threatened to undermine the integrity of the enrolment process, and that there would be no time to review these applications before the end of the enrolment process. The Government of Canada and the federation entered into discussions, and after very careful discussion in July 2013, a supplemental agreement was reached in which all applications that had been submitted, except those that had been rejected, would be reviewed for a second time.
It is clear that there has to be some integrity in the process. The Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation wants to make sure that people joining its community have a real and substantial connection and really care about the community and have a commitment to the community. The first nation wants to make sure that people are not just throwing in an application for personal benefit. 
The new agreement clarifies the kind of documentation that would be required. It extends the original time limits and treats everyone fairly by applying the same criteria to everybody.
The applicants have already been given notice that their applications are to be assessed or reassessed. The applicants have an opportunity to provide any additional documentation that would be required, given the clarification of the requirements for membership. The deadline was even extended to February 10, 2014. 
The only clarifications that were made were designed to eliminate confusion and misunderstanding about the requirements of the enrolment process, such as documentary requirements. The agreement also extended the timeline in order to make sure that everybody had a chance to make a clear and complete application. 
The supplemental agreement that the Federation of Newfoundland Indians reached with the Government of Canada carefully and fully respects and upholds the criteria for enrolment that were originally set out. It does not change them in any way. Nothing changes. 
However, there seemed to be some confusion about what would be required. That has been clarified, and applicants have a chance, in light of those clarifications, to submit further documentation and to have another review of their application. The legislation would not alter the enrolment criteria in any way, but it makes clear what is required.
What would the bill do? The bill would provide the Governor in Council with the authority to remove names from the schedule of founding members. It would also prevent individuals from collecting any compensation or damages from the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation or the Government of Canada if it is found that their claim to be not legitimate. This is not a new clause. It is legislation under the Indian Act. It protects the taxpayers of Canada and the first nation from a flood of claims that otherwise could paralyze the work of this group.
This is legislation that the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation needs. The first nation has agreed that it needs to go forward, and I hope that members will support it.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the issue of deciding band lists is very complicated. It certainly has to be done in a manner that is fair to the people who have a right to participate as band members and it needs to ensure that the people who have a marginal claim do not get put on the band list, because there are enormous consequences for the administration in any first nation if it has to deal with people who have very marginal claims who are expecting resources, education, and other resources to be moved through the band.
Given the enormous number of people who have come forward over this period to claim a right to participate as band members, what is the balance between the federal level and the community in ensuring that decisions about the band lists are reached in an accurate and fair manner?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague and his party for standing with the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation and supporting this important legislation for them.
The member will know the process that has been put in place to assess these applications is a very careful and thorough one. In addition to that, any applicant who is rejected has a right to pursue the matter through the courts as far as that applicant wishes to go.
The Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation is bending over backwards to be inclusive for all those who truly qualify, but at the same time it wants to make sure there are no Qalipu Mi'kmaq of convenience, so to speak. This is a very complete and careful process that fully respects the rule of law and the rights of appeal, even through the levels of our courts.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the other question I have is in terms of the timeline.
These band lists, especially if there are 100,000 people or so making a claim, have enormous implications for the validity of their elections process. We have to understand who is eligible to vote for leadership and who is not.
Has there been a decision in terms of whether the electorate will be within the community or within a larger territory or will include certain members? How is it going to affect the upcoming elections the community will be facing?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: 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: 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? 
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: 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.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): 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: 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?
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has hit on some very important questions. The questions are, basically, fairness, equity, and living up to the commitments this country has to its first nations brothers and sisters. This is a perfect example of how, working with a first nations community and an Innu community, we can make sure that we do the right thing and that people who are entitled to certain rights and benefits in this country get those rights and benefits. This is a government that has been doing that since day one. I forget the exact number, but it is significant, if we compare that same time span to the age of this country, which is almost 150 years old. 
The member is entirely correct. This is about fairness. It is about having a model we can use in other negotiations with our first nations brothers and sisters and the whole aboriginal community right across this country, from north to south and east to west.
 I want to thank him for the question. He and I both know that this is setting us on the right path and is a good blueprint for future such agreements.
Mark Strahl: 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?
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: 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 (Mr. 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: 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 (Mr. 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? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  On division 
The Acting Speaker:  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) 
[Interjection]
Hon. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I request that we see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. 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. 

Private Members' Business
National Capital ActNycole Turmel:  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.
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): 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?
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: 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: 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.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I have done a lot of surveys and discussions with specific groups, and they are aware that there is nothing really protecting the park. Over the years we have seen some changes in the park. In the early nineties, lots were sold by the National Capital Commission to private people, and we all disagree with that. People were really enthusiastic about my bill and about making sure it reflects what they were looking for. Also the first nations; I met with them and the mayors, and they are really happy about the bill and what it protects. 
Going back to why we cannot say it is a national park, it is because 2% of the park belongs to private people. In the bill we encourage the National Capital Commission to buy those lots inside the park to make sure it becomes better and becomes a national park. There is also the Quebec part. Quebec has some interest in this park, so if we want to call it a national park we have to negotiate with Quebec and we have to look at the private people who own part of the park. It is only 2% but enough that we cannot call it a national park.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the importance of protecting Gatineau Park and why Bill C-565 misses the mark on this important issue.
We can all agree that Gatineau Park is one of the jewels of the national capital region. The park represents 7.5% of the total land area of the national capital region and comprises 361 square kilometres of green space; 200 kilometres of exhilarating cross-country trails; 165 kilometres of breathtaking hiking trails; 50 lakes; a downhill ski resort; multiple ecosystems, such as the Eardley Escarpment and Pink Lake, as well as boasting a great diversity of wildlife.
Remarkably, this pristine natural environment lies within a 15-minute drive of Parliament Hill in downtown Ottawa, a fact that no doubt contributes to its over 2.7 million visitors each year. We, as Canadians, and especially as residents of this region, are lucky to have Gatineau Park but also the greenbelt and other urban parks situated so close to the capital.
The government entrusted the hefty responsibility of protecting the park and all of the capital region's green space to the National Capital Commission through the National Capital Act in 1959. The commission was mandated in that act to prepare plans for, and to assist in the development, conservation, and improvement of, the national capital region, including Gatineau Park, to ensure that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada reflected its national significance. That mandate remains relevant and important to this day and the commission continues to implement it faithfully. Notably, the government reaffirmed the importance of the commission's continued implementation of that mandate of planning, conserving, and improving the entire national capital region, including Gatineau Park, in the first budget implementation act of 2013. 
This government understands and shares Canadians' interest in Gatineau Park and continues to support the NCC's efforts, and itself also continues to play a leadership role in taking meaningful action to protect and conserve the park. Our government wants to reiterate to Canadians its absolute commitment to protecting Gatineau Park and other green spaces in the national capital region.
The government has demonstrated its ongoing commitment by twice introducing an act to amend the National Capital Act and other acts in the recent past, once as Bill C-37 in 2009 and then again as Bill C-20 in 2010. Both of these bills contained strong legislative protections for Gatineau Park, including provisions that defined the boundaries of Gatineau Park, strengthened the importance of the environmental stewardship role of the National Capital Commission, and both defined and required the commission to apply the concept of ecological integrity. These bills also sought to comprehensively update the commission's outdated authorities and governance structure to ensure that the commission had the necessary tools at its disposal to truly protect the national capital region's natural spaces and to fulfill its entire mandate.
While both of these government bills unfortunately died on the order paper, I am pleased to note that the government plans to introduce a similar bill in the near future, again illustrating its commitment to protecting the park. In this respect, our government's position is that Bill C-565 does not offer a particularly effective approach to protecting Gatineau Park and is far too restricted in scope. 
Need I remind the opposition whip that in the national capital region we live and work in close proximity to many more green spaces than Gatineau Park alone? We are also surrounded by the greenbelt and multiple urban green spaces that fall under federal authority and the NCC's stewardship. Bill C-565 unfortunately only introduces measures to protect one of these parks, Gatineau Park, coincidentally the park closest to the opposition whip's riding.
Our government feels that the approach in Bill C-565 is far too narrow, and we have always taken a strong position, as evidenced by the previous bills just mentioned, that any reopening of the National Capital Act must ensure the enhanced protection of all green spaces in the national capital region, including Gatineau Park and the greenbelt.
Bill C-565's restricted scope also means that it would only focus on one dimension of the National Capital Act concerning Gatineau Park, and in so doing would neglect to address some of the other aspects of the act that could use updating.
While the government strongly believes that the National Capital Commission remains the federal body best placed to ensure the promotion, protection, and conservation of green spaces in the capital region, including Gatineau Park, we also need to provide this crown corporation with a modernized governance structure and updated authorities, in addition to strengthened protective measures for the park, the greenbelt, and other properties held by the commission. This would enable it to better continue to successfully implement its mandate. 
As I noted earlier, the government is committed to reintroducing new legislation in the near term, similar to previous Bills C-37 and C-20, which would offer these more comprehensive reforms to the act and provide a more broad-based protection to the green spaces in our capital region.
Its ambit aside, there are also insurmountable and substantive problems with Bill C-565. I will only address one here, that being its problematic imposition of an obligation on the NCC to buy all real estate property in Gatineau Park. We are talking about 377 properties that are privately owned in the Park, with a roughly estimated current value of $100 million. Adopting this amendment in Bill C-565 would clearly cause the market prices of properties in the park to inflate, while concurrently legally obligating the commission to purchase these same properties, regardless of the price. This is far from a responsible way to spend taxpayers' money.
It is important to note that in September 2008, our government sought and obtained an order in council that grants the commission with the authority to purchase private properties in Gatineau Park without seeking Governor in Council approval for each specific purchase. This has already provided the commission with a more efficient and streamlined process for increasing its ownership of property within the park according to the established priorities and resources available.
The National Capital Commission has explicitly identified the acquisition of properties in the park as one of its priorities, and has set aside funds exclusively for this purpose. Our government provided a $10-million increase in ongoing annual funding for capital expenditure to the National Capital Commission in its 2007 budget.
The commission has to date adopted a balanced approach that maximizes the benefits to taxpayers by buying properties based on availability, price, and pre-determined priority. The commission plainly already has the authority, the funds, and the solid policy and planning mechanism to effectively manage acquisitions in Gatineau Park.
 I will conclude by reiterating the government's commitment to introducing comprehensive legislation to amend the National Capital Act in the near future. This legislation would protect Gatineau Park, as well as other federally owned green spaces like the greenbelt. It would provide updated tools for the National Capital Commission to continue to deliver on its mandate and to perform its valued work.
The government is committed to protecting Gatineau Park for Canadians, not only in the present, but for decades to come.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will share the reasons why I believe Gatineau Park needs better legal protection and why the Liberals will be supporting Bill C-565 at second reading. We will vote to have this bill studied in committee, where we will propose amendments to the sponsor, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.
Gatineau Park is the only federal park that is not protected by Parliament. Unlike national parks, this park's boundaries can be modified and its land sold and roads can be built through it without Parliament's involvement. Gatineau Park is managed by the National Capital Commission, which does not ban commercial or industrial activities or land development.
Because of inadequate legal protection, Gatineau Park has lost a significant amount of land. When the National Capital Commission redrew the boundaries in the 1990s, it severed 48 properties, a total of 1,508 acres. At the same time, 334 acres were allotted for the construction of roads—roads that were built in violation of the commitments made in the master plan—bringing the total number of acres severed up to 1,842, or nearly 5 km2.
In addition, because the land management system is inadequate, the NCC has allowed considerable urbanization within the park. Since 1992, 125 residences have been built inside the park.
Despite repeated NCC commitments to acquire private property, some 296 private properties consisting of 2,112 acres remain within Gatineau Park. Moreover, several large private properties remain inside the park, which risk being turned into major subdivisions, impeding the park's evolution as a conservation site intended for public enjoyment.
Gatineau Park must be given the same kind of legal protection and parliamentary oversight as national parks across Canada. Through amendments to the National Capital Act, the park must acquire the legal status, borders and effective land management mechanism needed to ensure transparency in its administration and guarantee its long-term protection.
We must give this park the protection framework that various citizens' groups have been advocating for decades, and help the NCC fulfill its commitment to gradually acquire private properties, while respecting landowners' rights to continue to live in the park.
The Liberal Party of Canada has long been committed to the preservation of Gatineau Park and its environment, heritage and many social and recreational attractions. 
In 2004, Liberals were first to put the issue of Gatineau Park legislation on the floor of the House for discussion, followed by the NDP with Bill C-444, Bill C-367, and Senator Mira Spivak with Bill S-210, Bill S-227 and Bill S-204. All bills died due to elections or prorogation.
On June 9, 2009, the Government of Canada tabled Bill C-37 with much criticism from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Gatineau Park Protection Committee, who argued that the bill fell well short of offering Gatineau Park a proper legislative framework, failed to meet basic park protection criteria, would allow boundary changes, perpetuated development and road building, and would thus impair the park's ecological integrity.
On November 8, 2012, our colleague for Hull—Aylmer introduced Bill C-465, which the Gatineau Park Protection Committee criticized for encouraging residential development inside the park, ignoring issues related to Quebec's territorial integrity, providing no mechanism for public consultations, and placing private property interests above the public interest.
Reintroduced with amendment as C-565, this bill establishes only a moral obligation to ecological integrity by dedicating the park to future generations. Necessary measures to ensure the protection, preservation, and management of Gatineau Park for the benefit of current and future generations are put forth with little framework and no legislative backing.
Additional amendments are clearly needed to better back NCC objectives of management and long-term conservation and restoration. As it stands, the bill lacks statutory protection and adequate parliamentary oversight, and thus fails to effectively support the establishment of measures that would better protect and preserve the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park.
Even more, the bill contradicts section 14 of the National Capital Act, which stipulates that the NCC can resort to expropriation of private lands whenever it becomes necessary for the purposes as its mandate.
As stated by Jean-Paul Murray, secretary of the Gatineau Park Protection Committee:
 By stipulating that the NCC cannot infringe on private property rights, this bill is an open invitation to landowners to subdivide and develop their land as they see fit, since it will entrench their right to do so... [T]hat clause works against another section of her bill mandating the NCC to acquire private park land—acquiring private land and encouraging its development are contradictory objectives.... 
It is clear that additional amendments are needed to better back NCC objectives of long-term ecological integrity while still respecting the rights of land owners. 
At this point, before further consultations and discussion, at least two amendments are needed.
First, there is a need for a right of first refusal. Clear regulations would obligate a property owner to give the NCC the first chance to purchase the property should the owner decide to sell, subsequent to which park land may be bought and sold on the open market. By no means does a right of first refusal limit property rights of land owners. Only owners themselves have the power to bring about the circumstances that vest any right in the NCC to buy their property. Rights of land owners must and should continue to be respected.
This amendment requires that landowners give the NCC a right of first refusal. It in no way limits property rights. It allows owners of real property located in Gatineau Park to continue living there and pass their property on to their children through inheritances or trusts.
Second, the bill should provide protective legislation for Gatineau Park via an amendment to the National Capital Act. Such a legislative framework by Parliament would support the NCC's role as park manager and would give the park the same kind of statutory protection and adequate parliamentary oversight given to national parks throughout our beautiful country.
It is likely that other amendments will also be required. Indeed, critics also argue that the bill provides no mechanism for public consultation, provincial or community; completely ignores the issues of Quebec's territorial integrity; and fails to make conservation the first priority of park management, which is a cornerstone of the National Parks Act and a requirement different citizen groups insist is necessary.
We have some work to do. We are looking forward to examining this issue thoroughly in committee with the member for Hull—Aylmer and all of our colleagues, as well as anyone who gives testimony before the committee, so that we may give this extraordinary park, Gatineau Park, the legal protection it deserves.
To conclude, I am very disappointed by the remarks from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
The Minister of Foreign Affairs was previously the minister of the environment and has been the minister for this region for eight years now. In that eight-year time span, he has appointed two CEOs to the NCC and one chair of the board, but has taken no action whatsoever to strengthen the ecological integrity of this beautiful national park on our doorstep. Shame on that minister with all his powers and influence. To hear again the parliamentary secretary claim that some legislation is forthcoming is disappointing at best.
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Hull—Aylmer for introducing this bill. The NDP has been bringing this issue forward in the House for a long time. My colleague from Ottawa Centre also introduced a bill in this regard, as did his predecessor, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, in 2005.
As a member who represents Montreal's south shore, I find it worthwhile to speak about this bill. It contains principles that are important to everyone, particularly in Quebec. The bill seeks to put Gatineau Park on the same footing as other national parks by creating a proper legislative framework to make sure the park receives the environmental and other types of protection necessary to preserve our heritage for future generations.
With all due respect for my colleagues from the Outaouais region, I am going to tell a story about my riding in order to show my constituents why the values reflected in this bill are important to us, to all Quebeckers and to all Canadians.
My riding is home to Mont Saint-Hilaire, the first biosphere reserve recognized by UNESCO in the 1970s. The biosphere extends beyond the borders of my riding. In my region, there are many orchards, and apple picking is very a popular activity. People banded together and demonstrated to protect certain borders of this green space and keep it safe from private development by various contractors. Population growth is a significant issue for a region like mine. That is what I am hearing about the national capital and Outaouais regions. This is a challenge that is becoming more and more common.
Two of the five Quebec municipalities that had the highest number of births in 2012 are in my region. In 2011, one of the municipalities in my region was among the three cities with the highest growth in Quebec. There is a lot of growth in the second tier of Montreal suburbs. Population growth results in a need for some municipalities to rezone and build more housing, for example. We accept this reality. We want to welcome people to live in our area. What is important to the NDP is to do it in a balanced way. I hope that this is also important to the other parties. We need to understand the economic, demographic and environmental realities.
From my reading of the bill and research I have done about Gatineau Park, I can see that there is a similar issue. We want to make sure that there is no confusion. Giving Parliament more power to change boundaries is one way to achieve that goal via compromise. The work needs to be done by taking everyone's opinion into account, not by decree.
I would like to go back to the example I gave earlier. A group of citizens got together to protect the orchards on and around Mont Saint-Hilaire. People managed to create what they call “the green belt”. That is interesting. The green belt is very good for the region's economy. People from all over Quebec, Canada and the United States, including Massachusetts, go there to pick apples. The orchards are protected thanks to the work of citizens in my riding. They worked to maintain the integrity of part of that land and to take a balanced approach to development going on in the region, especially in the municipality of Mont-Saint-Hilaire. That is the kind of vision we see in the bill introduced by my colleague from Hull—Aylmer.
It is a little disappointing to hear what the government has to say about it. Unfortunately, during private members' business, we do not have much of a chance to respond to the government's position. 
The government seems to be rather closed-minded. I find that very difficult to understand. Especially since this bill, as I mentioned, would put Gatineau Park on an equal footing with other national parks. I believe my colleague from Ottawa Centre mentioned that in the question he asked my colleague a little earlier.
It is very surprising to see such a lack of legal protections for a park that is so important at the regional and national levels. When we take that into consideration, we realize that improvements are necessary.
The government's position seems even more curious when we consider that it introduced related bills in the past, which unfortunately died on the order paper as a result of an election or prorogation. Those bills had the same objective. At the time, we believed that the bills did not go far enough, but at least they were a step in the right direction.
I hope that the government members will think about this issue. I did hear some comments indicating that the government seems to understand the importance of protecting this legacy and this park. We shall see how the remaining MPs vote. I hope that they will realize that this is very important.
My colleague has a clear mandate to do this work on behalf of the public. After all, this was brought forward during the election. The petitions presented are indicative of the NDP's support for the bill. We all worked with my colleague from Hull—Aylmer to present petitions signed by several thousand people. They all believe that this bill is a step in the right direction and that it is needed to properly protect the park.
Even though I am not from the national capital region, I know that the National Capital Commission takes a different approach to running parks and historic institutions in the region. It is not managed like anything else. That is not a criticism; just a statement of fact.
This reality calls for some nuance, which is taken into account in the bill. I do not think that should be an argument against the bill. This bill takes into account the legal provisions that already exist in the National Capital Act. That is important to point out in the House today.
At the end of the day, the NDP thinks it is very important to consider protecting this environment and heritage.
Far too often, in matters of the environment and heritage, there is not enough consideration for future generations. It is great that we can enjoy Gatineau Park today. We must certainly take advantage of that. I have had the chance to visit the park, and it is a gem not just for the region, but for Quebec and Canada as well.
However, it is important that we be able to enjoy it beyond today. The park must be maintained for future generations to enjoy. We must not be greedy with this type of park. Of course we should enjoy it now, but we must also pass it on to the next generation. That is extremely important.
The NDP's balanced position is to promote environmental protection and understand the nuances that must be taken into account when considering the various existing laws, while moving forward in a progressive manner. After all, we are forward thinkers. That is exactly the position we advocate when it comes to the environment. These legal provisions and this bill constitute a common sense approach.
We clearly must support this bill. I join with my colleague from Ottawa Centre and my colleague from Hull—Aylmer, the bill's sponsor, in supporting this bill. I would like to congratulate her once again for her efforts.
I urge all my colleagues to follow this example and support the bill.
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-565. 
Gatineau Park has an important place in our national capital region's history. The idea for a park in the Gatineau hills dates back to the 1800s.
In the early 20th century, two reports were commissioned, both of which recommended that the Canadian government create a park in the hills.
On July 1, 1938, the Government of Canada recognized the concept of Gatineau Park and the groundwork was laid with the introduction of a budget for the purchase of land in the Gatineau valley.
In 1959, the government introduced the National Capital Act. This legislation created the National Capital Commission, which was given the authority and responsibility to protect Gatineau Park, as well as many other properties, parks, and green spaces in an extensive area defined in the act as the national capital region.
The act states that the commission's mandate is:
 ...to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance. 
Gatineau Park is fully subject to this mandate, as it forms part of the national capital region.
 Today, the park's millions of annual visitors, who are both residents of the region and tourists, enjoy its trails, forests, and lakes year-round, and I certainly enjoy them myself.
In recent years, there have been numerous efforts made by the government to study and improve the tools and mechanisms by which the commission administers and protects land and properties within the capital region.
In 2006, an independent panel was commissioned to study the mandate, mission, and activities of the commission. Many people and interest groups who were consulted felt the long-term sustainability of the green capital lands—especially Gatineau Park and the greenbelt—were at risk and strongly advised that formal protections of these lands be strengthened.
The panel subsequently published its report, which included 31 recommendations regarding the commission's operation, governance, and resources.
One key recommendation was to strengthen the commission's environmental stewardship role with respect to green spaces in the capital region, including Gatineau Park.
In 2009, and again in 2010, this government introduced Bill C-37 and Bill C-20 respectively, both titled “An act to amend the National Capital Act...”.
These bills defined boundaries for Gatineau Park, strengthened the importance of the environmental stewardship role of the National Capital Commission, and defined ecological integrity.
These bills were much more proactive and forward-looking than Bill C-565 and, unlike the chief opposition whip's bill, they also updated the commission's outdated authorities and governance structure and protected other federally owned lands in the region, following closely the recommendations of the panel from 2006.
The intention of these legislative proposals was to provide the National Capital Commission with all the tools it needs to fulfill its mandate.
Unfortunately, both these bills died on the order paper.
I wish to inform the chief opposition whip that I will be opposing her bill, for the following reasons.
First, the government will be introducing, shortly, a bill to amend the National Capital Act, which is far more comprehensive than Bill C-565. The government's bill would modify the governance structure of the National Capital Commission; clarify the commission's responsibilities regarding planning and sound environmental stewardship; establish boundaries for Gatineau Park and the greenbelt; enhance the National Capital Commission's regulation-making powers; as well as reduce some outdated constraints related to real property authorities.
It would be similar, in fact, to the former legislation introduced by the government in the recent past.
Second, Bill C-565 would impose a mandatory and legislative obligation on the National Capital Commission to acquire all real properties in Gatineau Park. This obligation would be extremely costly as there are presently more than 300 privately owned properties in the park. The consequences of legislating this obligation would be to inflate the prices of the properties within the park, and the National Capital Commission would be required to purchase them at any price. This is not a responsible way to spend taxpayers' money. This element of Bill C-565 is neither necessary nor desirable.
In 2008, the government put in place responsible measures through an order in council providing the commission with the authority to acquire any available real property inside Gatineau Park. The National Capital Commission uses due diligence to take into account the availability and the prices of properties, as well as the resources it has available in prioritizing property purchases in the park. These purchases, I think members will agree, must be made responsibly.
Third, although Bill C-565's proposed legislated obligation on the National Capital Commission to protect biodiversity in Gatineau Park would generally align with government policy, the current mechanisms in place, as well as the forthcoming government bill, would accomplish this goal more effectively.
The National Capital Commission is already mandated to protect biodiversity and promote educational and recreational activities in the entire national capital region, which includes Gatineau Park. The commission's 2005 Gatineau Park master plan also establishes priorities for actions in the areas of conservation and stewardship. Moreover, the forthcoming government bill would define and implement the concept of ecological integrity, which more accurately parallels existing government conservation legislation and policy, including the Canada Parks Act, and which would ensure that sound environmental stewardship is a main priority in managing the park.
Fourth, with regard to the boundaries of Gatineau Park, Bill C-565 proposes the same delineations as the previous government bills on the subject, using the 1997 boundaries established by the NCC board of directors. However, Bill C-565 also includes a prohibition on selling or transferring any public lands within the boundaries of the park. The inclusion of this prohibition in Bill C-565 illustrates the lack of knowledge and experience of the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer concerning the flexibility required to ensure effective long-term management of Gatineau Park.
Currently the National Capital Commission has designated Gatineau Park as national interest land mass, or NILM. NILM properties cannot be sold or transferred without Governor in Council approval. This NILM designation enables the National Capital Commission and the government to protect parks and federal lands that are of national interest, but it also provides the necessary flexibility to sell, transfer, or acquire properties when necessary in the public interest and to service communities.
Fifth, Bill C-565 states that the National Capital Commission cannot infringe on real property rights. In my opinion, this amendment is redundant, as real property rights are protected in the Code civil du Québec and are an area of provincial jurisdiction.
 Sixth, Bill C-565 states that the National Capital Commission is to take into account the needs of the aboriginal populations and local communities, including the use of subsistence resources. Bill C-565 does not elaborate on whether this is meant to create hunting and fishing rights within Gatineau Park. If so, the National Capital Commission would have to modify or create regulations to ensure proper oversight and monitoring of these activities. This would be costly for the National Capital Commission and could have consequences for visitors to the park. An impact assessment would also have to be done to ensure that this inclusion aligns with government-wide aboriginal policy and treaty rights.
 Finally, Bill C-565 would amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to specifically refer to Gatineau Park. The reason is that in September 2013, economic action plan 2013 transferred the activity and event mandate to promote Canada's national capital region from the NCC to the Department of Canadian Heritage, and a corresponding amendment was made to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. However, since Gatineau Park is already part of the national capital region, there is no requirement to specifically identify this part of the capital region and not others. 
Moreover, pursuant to an memorandum of understanding signed in October 2013 between the NCC and the Department of Canadian Heritage, the National Capital Commission continues to assume responsibility for, among other things, the management of activities, events, and promotions for Gatineau Park and the Mackenzie King Estate, while the Department of Canadian Heritage continues to manage activities relating to the urban lands for the capital region. 
I am of the opinion that Bill C-565 is not an effective vehicle for protecting Gatineau Park. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the government's commitment to introducing comprehensive legislation shortly, which would ensure the continued long-term protection of Gatineau Park and provide the National Capital Commission with the tools necessary to manage and protect the entire capital region for all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
Before I read the order, I would like to extend, on behalf of the speakership, best wishes to all hon. members as they go to their ridings over the next two weeks. May you remain safe and productive. We will see you back here in two weeks.
It being 2:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 24, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)