2014-02-28

Government Orders
Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation ActHon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC):  moved 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. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise and speak to this important legislation that will protect the integrity of the enrolment process for membership in the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation.
Before I outline some of the issues that arose during the enrolment process and explain this bill’s objectives, I want to take a moment to describe a bit of the history that led to the creation of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation and to the development of the bill we have before us today.
When Newfoundland joined Confederation back in 1949, the province faced unique issues related to the application of the Indian Act in the province. At the time, there was no agreement between the province and Canada as to if, how or when the Indian Act system would be applied.
Therefore, first nations in Newfoundland were not recognized as Indians under the Indian Act. In the absence of the Indian Act system, Canada provided ad hoc funding to the province to provide social and health programs for the Mi’kmaq of Newfoundland. However, the members of that first nation were not entirely satisfied with the situation.
In 1972, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians formed, with the mandate to promote the health, social, cultural, economic, and educational well-being of the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq. Its primary goal was to obtain recognition of the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq's eligibility for registration under the Indian Act.
 From 1976 to 1981, various studies were carried out and discussions took place regarding the application of the Indian Act to the Federation of Newfoundland Indians.
After initial efforts to improve relations between Canada and the majority of the Mi'kmaq communities did not result in an agreement, in 1989 the federation launched a Federal Court action against Canada seeking recognition under the Indian Act.
In 2007, the government settled this court action through an agreement in principle to create the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band as a landless band under the Indian Act and to have its members be eligible for the same federal programs available to other off-reserve registered Indians. This agreement in principle was ratified in March 2008 by 90% of the eligible members of the FNI who voted. That led to the signing of the agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band by Canada and the FNI in June 2008. 
The creation of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation was, and remains, an important step forward for the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland. In addition to giving members of the first nation access to certain federal programs and services, it is very important to note that first nation status provides a strong foundation for Mi'kmaq cultural growth and development. At the official signing ceremony in 2008, Chief Brendan Sheppard said:
 ...Mi’kmaq people are finally able to claim their birthright, and while we must not forget our history, we must look forward to the future and do the best we possibly can to develop the tremendous potential that exists among our people. 
However, the establishment of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation has not been without its challenges. As set out in the 2008 agreement, there was a two-stage enrolment process, which ran from December 1, 2008 to November 30, 2012, a four-year period. The first phase, which ended on November 30, 2009, was intended to identify the founding members. The second phase provided for a 36-month process to guarantee that all those eligible would have the opportunity to apply and be added to the list of founding members.
At the end of the first stage, a Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band recognition order was issued by the governor in council on September 22, 2011 that established an Indian Act band and identified its members in a schedule. There was a recognition order, and attached to it was a schedule listing who these members were. As a result of the recognition order and three subsequent amendments made to the schedule, 23,877 individuals were listed as founding members. This number represented all those who had applied prior to November 30, 2009, the end of the first stage of the enrolment process, and who were determined, under the original process, to be eligible for founding membership as per the 2008 agreement. That made sense in light of the fact that the 2006 census revealed that there were approximately 23,450 residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who self-identified as aboriginal. 
However, in the second stage, the 36 months following the first stage, we saw another approximately 70,000 applications come in. By November 30, 2012, the deadline for applying, the total number of applications had soared to more than 101,000 applicants. Roughly 46,000 of those had been submitted between September 2012 and the end of November 2012. This in itself is quite telling. 
From December 1, 2008 to the end of August 2012, 46,000 applicants had not yet taken any steps in an enrolment process that had started three years and five months earlier. At the last minute, about 46,000 people decided that they were Mi'kmaq Indians in Newfoundland and that they belonged to this group.
One can imagine the surprise of the band members and everyone when the numbers came in. They were approximately 10 times the initial projection of about 8,700 to 12,000 individuals, based on membership data provided by the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, an assessment of historic census data, and other estimates. 
These figures would have resulted in a single band that was equivalent to about 11% of all registered Indians in Canada. In addition, almost 70% of the more than 100,000 applicants do not reside in any of the Mi'kmaq communities targeted for recognition in this initiative. They live elsewhere in Canada.
This was not at all reflective of the original intent of the parties as set out in the 2008 agreement, which was that founding membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation would be granted primarily to persons living in or around the 67 Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities named in the 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 sustained and active involvement in that community.
There was no time, and this is another important consideration, to consider the additional applications prior to the end of the enrolment process established by the 2008 agreement, which was November 30, 2012. According to that agreement, if these applications were not processed or reviewed, it ended, so they could not be reviewed.
It was obvious to both Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians that something needed to be done if the integrity of this first nation was going to be protected. At a minimum, greater clarity about eligibility was required, as the process had become unsustainable.
The Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Government of Canada agreed to review the effectiveness of the implementation of the 2008 agreement and to look at possible solutions.
In July 2013, the president of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and I announced a supplemental agreement to address shared concerns about the integrity of the enrolment process for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. 
The 2013 supplemental agreement, which we signed with the federation, protects the integrity of the first nation by ensuring that only those with a legitimate claim to membership and registration are enrolled. That is all we care about, protecting the integrity of that first nation. 
At the same time, it provides for a fair process that ensures the fair and equitable treatment of all applicants in a manner that respects taxpayer dollars. More specifically, it extends the timeline to review applications, ensuring that all applications previously unprocessed will be processed, since they could not be processed under the agreement of 2008.
 Second, it ensures that all applications received during all phases of the enrolment process will be assessed or reassessed, except those that were rejected. This guarantees that all applicants, no matter when they applied during the process, will be treated fairly and equitably.
Third, this supplemental agreement guaranteed that anyone whose application was reviewed would be sent a notification and that those who had submitted valid applications would be given an opportunity to provide additional documentation in support of their applications. This deadline has now passed. 
In November 2013, all applicants received one of two letters. In cases where an application was invalid because it did not meet the basic requirements to be assessed, the letter advised the applicant that his or her application had been denied. About 6,000 people received that letter. 
Where an application was valid, the letter advised the applicant that he or she could provide additional documentation relating to the criteria of self-identification and group acceptance by January 30, 2014. We extended that to February 10, by the way, due to extreme weather conditions in Newfoundland. 
Fourth, the supplemental agreement clarifies how an application for self-identification as a member of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland is assessed.
Finally, it provides guidance regarding an individual's acceptance by the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland. This information is particularly relevant to individuals living outside because of the group acceptance requirement in the agreement of 2008.
I want to underscore that the supplemental agreement does not change the enrolment criteria set out in section 4.1 of the 2008 agreement. The criteria remains the same. As per the 2008 agreement, the applications will be assessed by an enrolment committee, which includes two representatives from the Government of Canada, two representatives from the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, and one independent chair. The enrolment committee will conduct a comprehensive assessment or reassessment of all applications that were not previously rejected, in accordance with the criteria for membership that was originally negotiated. It is estimated that this process will take about 2.5 years, after which individuals will be informed of the results of the assessment or reassessment of their application. It is possible that some individuals may lose their Indian status as a result of this process. Those individuals would no longer have access to programs and services provided to registered Indians. 
In order to implement the supplemental agreement and address our shared concern with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians regarding the integrity of the enrolment process, we will need to amend the schedule to the order that created the first nation. That is why we need Bill C-25. We are asking Parliament to enable the Governor in Council to amend the schedule of the order creating the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation that lists the names of the founding members. 
To be clear, we are not asking to change the recognition order that created the Qalipu first nation. Instead, we are providing the Governor in Council with the authority to make changes to the schedule to the order which lists the names of the first nations founding members. 
In addition, the legislation would prevent individuals from collecting compensation or damages from either the Government of Canada or the first nation in the event that at the end of the enrolment process they are found not to have a legitimate claim to membership and are omitted or removed from the schedule. I want to reassure the House that there will be no change in Indian status for existing members during the review process, and while it is underway individuals currently registered will retain access to programs and services. If there are some who are deemed not to be members, there would be no clawback at the end of the enrolment process for the benefits they may have received from the date they were declared members of the band. 
I ask all members to think of the integrity of that first nation and also our responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada, because this is at the heart of the bill.
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, the bill would deal with the specific aspect of the enrolment process.
However, in his introduction, he talked about the failure for an agreement to include and apply the Indian Act in Newfoundland at the time of Confederation.
In fact, the history of aboriginal people in Newfoundland since Confederation has been a history of neglect of the federal government's constitutional responsibility for aboriginal people in Canada. Access to services and programs has been denied to aboriginal people for two generations, since 1949. This is an attempt to try to reap some circumstances where the Mi'kmaq, the 65 communities that are listed in the annex, have some access to programs. 
First, it is an agreement without land. The Mi'kmaq were required to give up a claim for land in order to get what they were entitled to from the Government of Canada. That is a concern. A lot of people wonder why this unique situation has been applied in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Second, there are two aspects of the 100,000 people to which the minister refers. Many of them have claims based upon ancestry, perhaps not the self-identification and acceptance that are claimed in these particular criteria that are set forth. 
Would there be claims, or potential claims, extinguished by this process? Clause 4 talks about no right to sue for damages. Would that be part of extinguishing any right, or does the minister have another explanation for that?
Third, what about people who, as children—and I am aware of certain cases, as I know others are also aware—were taken from their families and adopted out of these communities, who did not have an opportunity to self-identify and have an association with the aboriginal way of life that is recognized in these treaties?
Does the Government of Canada take the view that they have no claim to aboriginal status and Indian status and it will not consider such claims in the future?
[Interjection]
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, there are many issues that have been raised by the hon. member.
With respect to land, it was the request and demand of the Mi'kmaq first nation that a landless band be created. There was no claim to any territory along with this. The prime concern was to first be recognized as status Indians under the Indian Act. The landless band was the method agreed to in order to get there. That was the agreement in 2008.
On the issue of ancestry, the criteria for membership into the Qalipu first nation, again, was agreed to. What we are talking about is the implementation of a settlement agreement following an action that had been started by the federation, as I indicated in my main address to the House this morning. These criteria have nothing to do with blood; there was no such requirement or criteria agreed to.
 What was required by way of criteria is clearly laid out. It is a question of self-identification and group acceptance for those who are living in those communities and living the cultural way of life of the Mi'kmaq. These are the criteria that were agreed to and are being applied.
On the question of damages, it does not take away the right of individuals to go to court. However, they cannot claim damages because they were omitted from the list, or were on the list and have been removed because they were determined to not be eligible. This is simply to protect the taxpayers of Canada.
I will be blunt. If individuals had obtained status under the previous order and that status has been taken away because of the process in place, they could argue that they are entitled to these benefits for the rest of their life. If they are not genuine and eligible members of that band, according to the criteria agreed to, they ought not be able to claim damages from anybody. That is why section 4 is there.
With respect to adopted children, if they had been taken away from a Mi'kmaq, of course that situation would not prevent that person from applying and being considered a member of that community, as long as the criteria are respected.
I think that answers all of the hon. member's questions.
The Deputy Speaker: We have had a very lengthy exchange on that question and comment. However, the points were lengthy and needed a long response from the minister.
The hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should make clear to the House that this is not enabling legislation for the establishment of the Qalipu band. It is an add-on piece to cover up the mistakes of the government that the Conservatives feel they made. 
What needs to be clear here is that the minister made a statement that this would indemnify the government and prevent ineligible, illegitimate applicants from seeking damages; however, the courts will decide that. It is not the minister who will decide that. 
The proposed legislation before us today would prevent anyone from getting reasonable access to the court system to determine whether or not the government is at fault and has erred over an eight-year process. 
Let us be very clear with each other here. This is a four-clause piece of legislation. Clauses 1 and 2 are simply pro forma. However, clause 3 suggests that it would enable the government to make a revision to the Governor in Council, which establishes a schedule of membership for the Qalipu band and registry under the Indian Act. 
Under the technical briefing we received yesterday from senior officials, we discovered, as we suspected all along, that the government does not need that legislative right to add to the schedule. It needs that reinforcement to delete from the schedule, because there have already been four separate additions.
Now clause 4 in the bill before us would not give immunity to anyone other than the government for its own mistakes. The Qalipu band was formed on one basis, and one basis only. The Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland had access to the courts. They filed a court challenge in 1989 and, if it were not for that, there would be no Qalipu band—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. We have one minute left for the minister to respond. 
[Interjection]
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to hear a Trudeau Liberal not being concerned about taxpayers and the families of Canada who have to foot the bill all the time.
When the member says that the people would be prevented from going to court, I invite him to read clause 4. It would not prevent anyone from going to court. They can go to court if they want to. They can seek a declaration about their status and whatever they want, but they will not be entitled to damages.
The reason is very simple. If one is not an eligible and rightful member of a first nation, then one ought not to be entitled to damages, to the benefits to which one would not be entitled.
This is simply about protecting the taxpayers and the integrity of that first nation.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that is all the time we have for questions and comments.
The hon. Chief Government Whip.
[Interjection]
Hon. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we have had two questions from the opposition and no opportunity for a question from this side. The minister gave lengthy answers, but I think it was an abuse of process to allow a lengthy series of questions from the official opposition and a rant from the Liberal member but nothing from the government side.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but an appeal of my decision to continue with the debate, which is not allowed under the rules of the procedures of this House.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. John's East.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the members of the opposition will have plenty of time to debate this legislation, provided that the government calls it again. My understanding, however, is that there seems to be some interest in having this passed very quickly and without the necessary debate. As can be seen by the questions and debate with the minister so far, there is considerable interest in this question in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
While there might be interest, given the history of aboriginal matters in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to which the minister alluded and to which I alluded in my question and comment intervention, the reality is that Newfoundland's history with aboriginal peoples as a part of Canada's history and before is one that is subject to a great deal of historical debate and controversy. However, since Confederation, it has been under the legal regime of the Constitution of Canada and is the responsibility of the Government of Canada in terms of its fiduciary role with respect to aboriginal peoples and its constitutional responsibilities under section 92 of the Constitution Act.
The problem has been that aboriginal people in Newfoundland and Labrador did not get access to the same programs, services, and funding that were made available to other aboriginals in Canada. That has been a source of significant conflict and significant neglect. Historically speaking, a lot has been lost along the way in terms of advancement and the benefits to aboriginal people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
When we look at the chronology, even the one produced by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, we see huge gaps between mentioning 1949 as the time of Confederation and the next entry, some time in the 1970s, with the consideration of the Innu nation. It talks about the variety of studies and discussions regarding the application of the Indian Act to the Innu in Labrador, some 25 years later. It was initially agreed to by the Government of Canada that the Mi’kmaq of Conne River develop an application, and the recognition of the Conne River first nation was in 1984, 34 years after Confederation.
We have had a long period of neglect. I took an interest in this back in 1987, when I was first a member of Parliament, and had a paper commissioned, looking into the terms of union. The resulting paper was called Pencilled Out, because during the terms of union negotiations between the Government of Canada and the representatives of Newfoundland and Labrador, there was series of draft agreements, which included, up until the second or third versions, a provision for Indians—as they were then universally known—in Newfoundland and Labrador, but at later stages of negotiations that was all removed. 
It was removed for various reasons that have been given historically. One suggestion was that they would lose the right to vote if they became recognized under the Indian Act. There were other reasons given for that historically, but the fact of the matter is that they were excluded from the benefits and provision of services, including non-medicare benefits that were available everywhere else in Canada, such as special health benefits, drug programs, important access to education, and other programs that were available throughout Canada to everyone who qualified as status Indians. 
This agreement, this Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation act, is an attempt by the Mi'kmaq to retrieve or achieve something that they should have been entitled to, going back to 1949. It is imperfect because it deals with individuals who are still a part of the communities that traditionally had Mi'kmaq populations. The minister says 67, but I count 65 in the schedule, unless it has been amended. These 65 populations that are still associated would have rights under this band.
They have an enrolment process that, as is widely known, has resulted in people recognizing that at long last there will be an opportunity for the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland and Labrador to be recognized generally for their status within Canada as aboriginal people.
The minister is quite correct. This legislation is not about the big picture. It is not about the enrolment rules as such and it is not about the qualifications. 
Those agreements were made by the Federation of Newfoundland Indians on behalf of the communities and memberships in the various bands throughout Newfoundland that were associated with the Mi'kmaq people and the communities in which they resided. It was ratified by the people who participated in the vote, by some 90%, which is a fair indication that, with respect to the communities that have been identified here, there is a wide degree of acceptance as to what they hope to achieve by the creation of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band.
That part is the historical agreement that was made ultimately in 2008, with the modifications in 2013. We are talking about what the effect of this legislation would be on this process and what the effect would be on those who may be excluded by this process. We have some concerns about how this will be interpreted. 
The minister commented that people would still have access to the courts but they would not be able to get damages. The member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte has a more assertive understanding of what denying people access to the courts really means. That needs to be fully explored as this legislation proceeds. We would expect significant and proper and appropriate legal representation and expertise ought to be applied to this legislation to see whether it would do anything more than prevent someone from getting retroactive damages for not being recognized then as opposed to now, or whether it would extinguish any right or prevent someone from having access to the courts.
The minister indicated that access to the courts would be retained for the purpose of a declaration, that someone in the Qalipu first nation band should be covered by the agreements and should have access to the benefits. If that is indeed the case, then we would want to have expert opinion on that from people with knowledge of the law and knowledge of agreements like this and how similar types of legislation treat this. Are some special rules being created here to prevent individuals who may be wrongfully excluded from the band to get a proper adjudication from the court for getting the redress they need? I would certainly want to have clarification of that. 
With respect to the issue of enrolment itself, this legislation would not change the criteria for enrolment. The application of the criteria and the documentation necessary and the process to be undertaken to do that seems to have been a misjudgment by the people on both sides who negotiated this agreement. The Federation of Newfoundland Indians is represented by their leadership, including Chief Brendan Sheppard. The federation set up a procedure that it thought would be fair, equitable, and adequate to assess and deal with the applications. Clearly, it was not. I do not think anybody anticipated that the number of people who applied would be in the tens of thousands, three or four times more than what was anticipated. 
The timelines of the procedure, the committees that were set up, the time that was given in the agreement for processing applications, for making decisions, for issuing the applications, was totally and woefully inadequate, to the point that people were going to be denied the ability to participate in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band because their application would not be processed in the time that was set out in the agreement and in all of the legislation.
Clearly something had to be done to modify the enrolment process and the assessment of that. 
As the minister pointed out, the new regime, with two members of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, two members representing the Government of Canada and an independent third party, is a process that has been agreed upon. They have timelines. I have not heard any complaints about the adequacy of the time that people have had to apply, although there are still people, I understand, who are learning about this process, for one reason or another, and still feel that they have not had an opportunity to be considered. Some may say that is because they have not self-identified as a Mi'kmaq and they have not participated and been accepted by these groups as a member, something to which we should all give consideration. 
The minister said it is not about ancestry, but indeed it is about ancestry. One of the criteria required, among other requirements, is that an individual self-identify as a member of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland and be accepted as a member of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland.
This is an agreement in relation to a subset of people who are aboriginal Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland and Labrador. This subset of people continues to self-identify with the Mi'kmaq group of Indians and is accepted by them. That implies an association with an existing group, as opposed to someone who has left.
It would be grossly unfair, arbitrary, and unjust to those people I have referred to, such as those who may have been removed from their homes for one reason or another. It could have been for stereotyped reasons of government officials. It could have been the practices of child welfare organizations. It could have been for legitimate reasons of child protection that removed a child from the particular home, circumstance, or situation, which ended up in that individual being raised elsewhere without knowledge of their ancestry and their identity as an aboriginal. That is something they may have learned many years later as an adult. It would be grossly unfair for them to not be considered as having an opportunity to identify with their ancestry, their history, their culture, their true identity as an aboriginal person.
I do not see any real provision for that here, and it needs to be addressed and redressed. There are significant problems with that from a moral, legal, and entitlement point of view, and it does need to be addressed.
The minister made some comments, which I find encouraging, although I do not see them in the legislation. I do not see them in any of the agreements that his comments will be taken up by individuals concerned about the fact that they have been potentially left out for the future with the Mi'kmaq group of Indians as under the Qalipu first nations band.
Regardless of the criteria, there had to be a process. I do not think anybody would disagree with that. If we lay down the criteria, someone has to decide whether an individual is in that criteria. 
Yes, I could agree that it is the failure of the Government of Canada to ensure that there is a process that is available and that will work, but it is also fair to say that neither the Federation of Newfoundland Indians nor the Government of Canada anticipated the numbers of people who wished to be considered members of the Qalipu first nations band. 
I will not denigrate their desire, which the minister seemed to do by suggesting that they showed up at the last minute, claiming to be of aboriginal ancestry. Given the history of Newfoundland and Labrador and the history of neglect by the federal government of its responsibilities from the time of Confederation on, it is not surprising that there are people the government wanted to assimilate, wanted to ignore, refused, and failed to provided the services being given everywhere across country. For example, the non-insured health services, the Innu and Inuit of Labrador were denied access to non-insured health benefits that every status Indian in Canada had access to as long as they existed and were recognized.
 It is a shameful history. I brought attention to that when I was first a member of Parliament in 1987, because I knew of the history of negotiations about Confederation. I remember the premier of Newfoundland, Joseph Smallwood, saying that we did not have any Indians in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, they did not have any on paper because they refused to recognize their existence. Yet here we have the Innu of Labrador, the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland, and now 100,000 people saying that they are of aboriginal ancestry and proud of it, and they want to have that recognized. I am not saying every single one of them meets whatever criteria are laid out, clearly they probably do not, but there has to be a process. It has to be fair, equitable, and it has to come to a conclusion.
To be fair, there is a process and a process of appeal so that if people are denied because they do not meet the criteria, they do have the right of appeal. There is a time for appeal and the process would go on for some longer period before final decisions are made.
 We want to know what this legislation is all about. Is it necessary to have this legislation to achieve the creation of this band? Yes, it is controversial, as I mentioned in my remarks to the minister—what is it with this “landless” band”? Sixty-five communities that are identified as being Mi'kmaq communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to have access to some services and programs, but what about a land-based or resource on which they lived for hundreds of years? There is no role for that. 
 I suspect that was perhaps the only way they believe that they could achieve any recognition by the Government of Canada of their rights. Land claims negotiations in Canada are glacial. The government seems to keep hoping that aboriginal people and their claims will go away. I have not read the book, but I recently saw a quotation from Thomas King's book, The Inconvenient Indian. He has come to the conclusion that the whole history of aboriginal rights in North America is about one thing: land. It is about land that he calls the white man wanted, and that is the major thrust of any policy toward aboriginals in North America.
Here we have a landless band, which says something about what was trying to be achieved here certainly by the Government of Canada. The minister says it was the choice of the Mi'kmaq. I doubt very much that the Mi'kmaq said, “We do not really want any land, we do not need a land base for hunting, fishing, forestry, and looking after our families”. For centuries they had lived on the land in these communities as aboriginal people. They were stewards of that land.
There are a lot of complexities. There is a lot of negative history associated with this whole process and we do not want to see it repeated in a process that is not fair. If it takes away rights, if it denies people access to the courts to establish those rights, then we have a significant problem with that. We want to ensure that when the bill is studied, it gets full consideration by experts so that nothing is done that is going to damage the future possibilities for the aboriginal people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the Mi'kmaq, but we do want to see the Qalipu band get the recognition and the services, programs, and the future that it deserves.
Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was a little puzzled by this member's assertion that somehow this legislation was not properly tied to the negotiated agreements of 2008 and 2013 with the Qalipu Mi'kmaq.
It seems to me that this legislation, which calls for a fair and equitable enrolment process, is important protection on the part of the Parliament of Canada by passing this legislation for the members of this first nation. I am just puzzled about why the member would not want this protection for members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq.
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member of Parliament for Calgary—Nose Hill for her interest in the future of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation.
Of course my comments, if she was listening carefully, would have underscored that we want to ensure that there is a fair and equitable process, and that this would be the purpose of committee hearings: listening to experts to ensure that not only the process itself is fair but also that those who may not be included in this process do not have their rights extinguished as aboriginal people. As I pointed out, this legislation does not clearly include, as a subset, all those who have a reasonable and rightful claim to aboriginal ancestry as Mi'kmaq in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Deputy Speaker: It is time for statements by members. The member for St. John's East will have eight minutes remaining in the question and answer period when we return to this bill.
The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

Statements By Members
Georges HamelMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the country music community has lost one of its greats, Georges Hamel, who was known as the gentleman of country music.
Georges Hamel began his career 40 years ago as a member of Victoriaville's Trio Western. He went on to become one of the most popular artists on the country music scene in Quebec and North America, selling two million records and winning four Félix awards and the medal of the National Assembly of Quebec. He had recently released his 44th album.
In paying tribute to Georges Hamel, Premier Pauline Marois said that he had “opened doors for many artists of his era and paved the way for the next generation”. Hamel's legacy includes vibrant songs about the everyday lives of ordinary people, songs he had sung from the time he released his first album, Guitare, chante avec moi, up to his latest hit, Une fleur pour vous, a chart-topper from the day it was released.
My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I would like to express our most sincere condolences to his wife, his two daughters, the rest of his family and his fans.
Winter Olympic GamesMr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in the House of Commons to pay tribute to some exceptional people from my riding of Durham. It had two proud athletes at the Sochi Olympic games and I would like to highlight their achievements.
Newcastle's Tara Watchorn played defence on our gold-medal winning women's hockey team. Growing up in Newcastle and playing in Durham, she got a scholarship to Boston University before making her first Team Canada. Her parents, Bob and Jacquie, were on hand in Sochi with their lucky loonies to watch their daughter win, and tomorrow, March 1, between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. at the Newcastle town hall, we can praise her achievement and see her gold medal up close.
As well, Matt Morrison from Burketon in my riding appeared in his second Olympic games. He grew up skiing at the Brimacombe ski resort and has done my area proud in two Olympic games as a proud member of the men's snowboard team.
These exceptional people have not only inspired our community, but will also push our next generation to achieve, and I celebrate that.
Dartmouth—Cole HarbourMr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 
Every day in my riding of Darmouth—Cole Harbour people are standing up like never before to defend the Canada they love. They are calling, writing, tweeting, marching, and doing anything and everything to make their voices heard. I have hosted two town halls in the past month and both have set attendance records. People in my riding are upset. They are standing up for veterans, for Canada Post, and for VIA Rail. They are standing up for science, for the environment, and for democracy. 
The government may defy its own election laws, but it cannot defy the laws of physics. It will see that its attempts to divide Canadians will unify us. Its attempts to suppress the vote will drive people to the polls and its attempts to keep us quiet will only make our voices louder than ever.
CurlingMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to share that Kamloops will be hosting the country's best curlers over the next week for the 2014 Tim Hortons Brier. Tomorrow will be the beginning of the tournament that will determine who goes on to represent Canada at the 2014 Men's World Curling Championship in Beijing.
They will be playing there, of course, to double up on their recent gold medal sweep in Sochi. This will be the second brier held in Kamloops and this time we will be cheering on our Team B.C. extra loudly, especially for our hometown boy Jim Cotter in his fourth brier, who just missed representing Canada at the Olympics after his team came a close second to Brad Jacobs at the Roar of the Rings.
This year's tournament owes a lot to all of our local organizers, volunteers, and sponsors, and we look forward to showing the curlers and their fans the best that Kamloops has to offer. We are known as Canada's tournament capital. 
Welcome all to Kamloops, and go team B.C.
Human RightsHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week I delivered the keynote address at the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy, a moving and inspiring gathering of dissidents and former political prisoners who shared witness testimony of human rights violations in countries, including North Korea, Syria, Russia, Eritrea, Iran, and China. These heroes of humanity, the gold medallists, so to speak, of moral courage, personify the larger struggle for human rights in our time, transforming human history through their involvement in that history. It is our responsibility to break the silence, briser le silence, surrounding political prisoners, to advocate on their behalf, to let them know that they are not alone and that the violators of their rights will be held to account. 
I also spoke at the Kwibuka20, the official launch of the 20th anniversary of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsis, on behalf of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity. As part of Kwibuka, survivors bore witness and spoke movingly of the unspeakable horrors of the Rwandan genocide, unspeakable because they were preventable. While the international community dithered, Rwandans died.
We remember the past and the lessons of the past. 
I trust that all members of this place will join me as we unite to remember and bear witness, and to combat indifference and inaction, atrocity, and impunity, as we seek to pursue justice and human rights for all.
Winter Olympic GamesMr. Chungsen Leung (Willowdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is also my honour to congratulate our Canadian Olympic team for their incredible success at the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia.
 Canadians from coast to coast to coast have witnessed excellence and are truly inspired by the performance of all of our great athletes. This is the result of years of hard work, skill, and dedication, qualities that we all aspire to and admire. Winning 10 gold, 10 silver and 5 bronze medals, Canada has proven to be a world power on the world Olympic stage and the Canadian Olympic team has captured the spirit and joy of all Canadians. The sense of pride that we all feel as a nation is incredibly monumental. 
I am especially proud of the seven Torontonian athletes, who all competed with passion and professionalism. The diversity of our Canadian Olympians is truly inspirational. In 2018, we will look forward to sending our Canadian athletes to the next winter games in Pyeongchang, South Korea. This will be the third time in Olympic history that the winter games will be held in Asia.
Once again, congratulations Team Canada.
Rail SafetyMrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there was another train derailment last Saturday. This time, it happened in Montreal, right next to where people live.
This disaster reminds us of the many others that have occurred since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. Following two days of consultation with my constituents, I can sense their concerns and bewilderment regarding the long freight trains that go through my riding every day. Saint-Bruno is the busiest stretch of track in Canada, and thousands of cars carry dangerous goods right next to people's homes.
The Auditor General's report recommended that the department ensure that it has enough competent inspectors to monitor railway companies and safety management systems. 
Despite this troubling situation, there is nothing in budget 2014 to improve rail safety. The government must act immediately to prevent future tragedies like Lac-Mégantic.
The BudgetMr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition visited my beautiful riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.
While in the riding, the Leader of the Opposition visited Structurlam Products in Okanagan Falls. Structurlam is an exciting and innovative success story as the producer of value-added wood products, using a new technology called cross-lam construction. The Leader of the Opposition was quoted as saying, “This factory is a great example of something that is succeeding, and that is great to see.” I could not agree more. Structurlam Products and cross-lam construction were supported by our government's economic action plan under the investments in forest industry transformation program.
Now that the Leader of the Opposition has witnessed firsthand that our economic action plan is “succeeding, and that is great to see”, I hope that the members opposite will join our government in supporting the economic action plan in budget 2014 so that we can continue creating more good jobs here in Canada.
Food LabellingMs. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, our government committed to consulting with Canadian parents to improve the way nutritional information is presented on food labels.
I have been thrilled to work with our Minister of Health, who has asked me to spearhead consultations with families across the country to ensure that labels provide the best information for moms and dads.
I was pleased this week to see the First Lady of the United States announce new ways that they plan to present this information. It is encouraging to see these efforts toward healthy eating and healthy living not only here in Canada but also internationally.
In the coming months, I look forward to continuing these face-to-face consultations with Canadian families to gather the information about what food-labelling changes are needed to make healthier and more informed choices. Our government is going to make sure that Canadians receive the information they need to make the most healthy choices for their families.
Public Service of CanadaMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure and honour to represent many public service workers. These men and women provide important services for Canadians. They help immigrants settle in Canada and support our veterans and seniors. They make sure that pensions, employment insurance, and tax refunds are delivered on time. They keep our food safe, and they help grow Canadian businesses.
They deserve our respect, not false Conservative claims about wages and sick leave. Canadians deserve a strong public service, not more Conservative cuts. The Conservatives say that front-line services will not be affected by their cuts, but anyone who actually relies on these services knows it is not true. More and more of my constituents are coming to me and my staff, seeking help they cannot get from underfunded and overworked government offices.
Canadians deserve better. It is time for the government to start respecting and supporting our public service.
Richmond CenotaphMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I advise this House that two nights ago the cenotaph located in Richmond, British Columbia was vandalized.
Vandalizing a memorial for fallen soldiers is simply shameful. These are the men and women who sacrificed their lives to protect our country. This is why I support my colleague's private member's bill to bring criminal penalties against instead of a simple slap of the wrist of people who denigrate our veterans monuments.
I call on those who are responsible to come forward, and if anyone has any information about this crime to contact police immediately.
Artists for PeaceMs. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on February 14, I attended a very moving ceremony by Artistes pour la paix, an organization celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. At the ceremony, the artist for peace award went to Serge Lavoie, who is also known as the “guitar strummer”. In 2012, Mr. Lavoie was the victim of police brutality, an experience that did not deter, but perhaps reinforced his commitment to peace.
Tribute awards were presented to screenwriter Fabienne Larouche, visual artist Dominique Blain and, posthumously, filmmaker Arthur Lamothe, distinguished artists who inspire us all.
These awards prove that everyone can commit to peace in their respective fields. Individual commitment is essential to the health of our democracy, which is currently under attack. Congratulations to all those who are doing their part for peace and social justice. 
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member for Papineau once again yesterday demonstrated that he is in way over his head. Speaking about our government's historic investments in infrastructure, he alleged that our government had in fact cut—wait for it—“thousands of billions” of dollars, whereas one might want to say trillions of dollars.
Our infrastructure plan is very generous, the most generous in Canadian history. We are investing $70 billion in infrastructure over the next 10 years. This compares very favourably with the former Liberal government, which starved provinces and invested only a fraction of what we have invested in provincial and municipal infrastructure.
Perhaps, in the world of the member for Papineau, where budgets balance themselves, investing “thousands of billions” sounds realistic, but in the real world, the member for Papineau is clearly in way over his head.
Angèle ArsenaultHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that Acadia and all of Canada learned of the passing of Angèle Arsenault on Wednesday, February 26.
An ambassador for Acadia and music outside Acadia, Angèle Arsenault never forgot her roots, which inspired her to write fabulous songs such as Grand Pré and Y'a une étoile pour vous.
Originally from Prince Edward Island, Angèle Arsenault also played a major role in the life and cultural development of the Acadian community on the island.
There are very few people who have had such a great and profound impact in Acadia as Angèle Arsenault. She helped francophone Canada discover and come to know Acadian music and culture.
I join my colleagues in the House in offering our condolences to her family and saying one last goodbye to the great artist, Angèle Arsenault. We will always remember her.
Tidal PowerMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to participate in the unveiling of a tidal turbine on Wednesday at the technology park of the Canada Science and Technology Museum. It was developed as part of project led by Clean Current, funded by Sustainable Development Technology Canada. 
Based upon this project, Clean Current was able to incorporate further developments into its turbine technology. This is significant. It helps Canada secure its place at the forefront of efforts to develop sustainable energy. This 65-kilowatt turbine was Canada's first free-stream tidal power project. It generated 1,495 kilowatt hours of electricity, replacing diesel-generated electricity.
This is an innovative project. Our government is proud to support efforts to harness the power of the ocean and support Canadian clean technologies.
Government ExpendituresMr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Conservative government tabled the main estimates. Once again, it is one reckless cut after another, after another, after another. 
The Auditor General's budget is being slashed by $6.6 million; the Canada Revenue Agency is losing more than $175 million; and the Canada Food Inspection Agency is losing another $69 million. These agencies keep our food safe, go after tax cheats, and provide accountability for government spending, yet they are falling under the indiscriminate axe of the Conservative government.
However, not everyone is getting cut. While food safety, tax inspectors, and accountability face cuts, the budget of the organization tasked with electronic eavesdropping, the one that we recently learned was spying on Canadians, is almost doubling to $829 million.
Canadians deserve a government that will respect their privacy and invest in programs that help them. Canadians deserve an NDP government.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the next federal election is over a year away. The NDP is already waving the white flag, pleading to join a Liberal-led coalition. Canadians know what a Liberal-led NDP high-tax coalition would mean: a soft on crime agenda, repealing mandatory prison sentences for violent offenders; a reckless plan to legalize marijuana, making it easier for children to smoke; and massive spending increases of, as the Liberal leader put it, thousands of billions of dollars, otherwise known as trillions. Of course, the coalition would have budgets that balance themselves. Perhaps this is why the Liberal leader should not claim to be a math teacher.
When will the anti-trade leader of the official opposition stop passing the pipe in an effort to close a deal with the pro-drug-trade, high on smiles, low on substance leader of the third party? Canadians are looking for the opposition to do its job, not toke the flames of an unwanted coalition fire. 

Oral Questions
Foreign AffairsHélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that Russian troops are occupying the two main airports in Crimea, and Ukraine's border guards have indicated that 30 Russian marines have surrounded a Ukrainian coast guard base in Sevastopol.
Can the government tell the House what information it has about the situation in Crimea?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as we have said before, Canada fully supports the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. Any outside involvement in Ukraine's democratic aspirations would be a dangerous development. All countries should be working together in the pursuit of unity, freedom, and democracy.
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, former president Yanukovych has fled the country. There are reports of Russian troops occupying airports in Crimea. Ukraine has said that a coast guard base in Sevastopol has been surrounded by Russian marines. 
Can the minister update the House on the situation and tell us what the government has communicated to the Russian government regarding this very troubling situation?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, Canada will continue to work with our allies and like-minded countries to build a coordinated a path forward.
I would like to talk about some of the leadership that we have provided. The Prime Minister's decision to send a Canadian delegation to Ukraine is another example of Canada's leadership on the issue. This delegation is on the ground. It is listening and making clear that Canada wants to play a part in helping the Ukrainian people build their future.
Democratic ReformMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, although we have tried many times to get answers, Canadians still do not know why the Conservatives refuse to consult them about the Canada Elections Act.
Committees are always travelling across the country to consult Canadians. The Conservatives are willing to waste more than $600,000 for the other committees that travel, but not to consult Canadians about this bill. This time, the government does not want to hear anything.
Why, exactly, is the minister refusing to consult and respect Canadians?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have already conducted consultations and will continue to do so.
The fair elections act will ensure that political power stays in the hands of average Canadians by preventing special interest groups from wielding power and preventing violations of the law. It gives more powers to the commissioner, who can conduct investigations to enforce the law. It will make it easier for Canadians to vote.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that was a simple question on a reasonable and democratic proposal to consult with Canadians, yet the minister thinks only Ottawa Conservatives have a right to be heard.
The Conservatives were willing to spend more than $600,000 on travel for other committees and they did not think any of that was an expensive circus, so why now? Why with this bill? Why would they refuse to allow open and public consultations on such a critical piece of legislation that is the foundation of our democratic principles? Is the government really that scared of hearing what Canadians think of its unfair election act?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants people to provide input on the fair elections act, then he should simply put together a list of witnesses he wants to have testify on that very act. The committee in question would then take into consideration their ideas and consider the amendments that those witnesses bring forward. However, the NDP declared its opposition to the fair elections act before even reading a single word.
The Canadian people understand that the fair elections act would keep everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by putting special interest groups on the sidelines and rule breakers out of business.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, historically, changing the laws that govern our elections has always been a non-partisan exercise, but not for these Ottawa Conservatives. Canadians from all walks of life and in every region of the country need to be able to tell their government how our democracy will run, not the other way around. 
MPs travel and consult on new legislation all the time. What are the Conservatives afraid to hear with respect to their unfair elections act? Why will the minister not step out of his Ottawa bubble for just one minute, respect Canadians, consult with them, and allow the committee to travel?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the member talks about partisanship, which is why I regret so much that his party has taken such a partisan approach to this bill.
 NDP members announced before they even read the bill that they were opposed to it simply because it came from a different party. That is not the kind of leadership Canadians expect. He should have read the bill and studied his contents. He should be supporting a new ban on impersonators. He should support the new voter contact registry that would allow us to track robocalls and mass calling. He should support tougher penalties for voter deception. 
All of these things are right in the fair elections act, if only he would read it.
FinanceHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance agreed that income splitting is bad economic policy. This week, while the Minister of Finance was out of the country, the Prime Minister backtracked and decided that he wants to implement this bad economic policy.
Is the government still listening to the Minister of Finance, or is he just a figurehead with no real power?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the only income splitting the opposition understands is splitting the hard-earned income of Canadians from their pockets. 
Once we balance the budget, we will look at all ways of reducing the tax burden on Canadian families. In fact, since taking office in 2006, we have reduced over 160 different taxes, resulting in a savings to the average Canadian family of over $3,400 in 2014 alone. 
We are the only party reducing taxes on Canadian families. The Liberals and the NDP would both raise taxes to pay for their reckless spending schemes.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party cut taxes and had eight consecutive surplus budgets.
Income splitting was the Conservatives' signature tax policy in the last election, but it was not even mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, the blueprint for this session.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance were clearly on the same page last October. They must have agreed, to paraphrase the Minister of Finance, that income splitting was not that beneficial to society. 
What convinced the Prime Minister to flip-flop yet again and throw his Minister of Finance under the bus?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal leader, who thinks that budgets balance themselves, we are working hard to balance the budget for Canadians. Once we balance the budget, our government is committed to greater tax relief for all Canadian families. 
Only Conservatives can be trusted to lower taxes for families. We introduced pension income splitting for seniors, which the opposition voted against. As a result of our low-tax plan, the average Canadian family now pays nearly $3,400 less every year.
The BudgetDominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, groups that help people learn to read, write, and get their GEDs are being punished by the Conservative government. The Dartmouth Learning Network, the Adult Learning Association of Cape Breton, MetroWorks Halifax, Skills Up!, and other groups that help disadvantaged people are facing massive cuts.
The Minister of Employment and Social Development is telling provinces to find the money elsewhere, which the Minister of Finance says they can find by raising taxes.
Will the government tell Terry Wilson, Fred Spencer, or Pam Leary why the Conservatives are asking them to fend for themselves?
Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question. 
The federal government has significantly reduced and restructured its proposal based on provincial feedback. Today I am very excited that the Minister of Employment and Social Development has announced that an agreement on the Canada job grant has been reached with the provinces.
Training should lead to guaranteed jobs, not just training for the sake of training. Training should involve the employers. We are very proud of this agreement.
Democratic ReformRobert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives promised a new elections law, it was meant to empower Elections Canada to fight the fraud we saw during the 2011 election. Instead, the Conservatives are using the act to muzzle Elections Canada and make it harder for thousands of Canadians to make their voices heard.
This law forms the cornerstone of our democratic process. It deserves better than a partisan rewriting. 
Will the Conservatives admit that the bill is flawed and needs to be changed?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, according to the former chief electoral officer, the bill is an A minus. The committee, of which all parties have some membership, can work together to turn it into an A plus.
As to the issue of the investigator, he is the watchdog, and the fair elections act would give him sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. That is what Canadians have asked for. That is what the fair elections act would provide.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, experts from all areas have pointed out major problems, including with the power granted to the Chief Electoral Officer, the investigative power of Elections Canada and the vouching for voters system. The minister believes that the only democratic reform possible is the one that was created in his ivory tower in Ottawa.
When will he get out of his bubble and go to the communities to listen to what the thousands of Canadians who signed the petition have to say about this reform?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, one of the reforms in the fair elections act will create a registry of automated calls or mass dialling of voters. 
This will enable authorities to monitor calls and will provide evidence to investigators, should allegations be made. This will all be put on a list. Those making the calls will have to keep a record of the words that were used for one year. This will also allow our investigators to know what happened.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, changing the Elections Act is to change the very benchmarks of democracy. This has to be done in the most non-partisan and transparent manner, so that Canadians can continue to have faith in our electoral system.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives think that the benchmarks of this democracy have to be established behind closed doors, without consulting Canadians and the Chief Electoral Officer.
Why does the minister refuse to get out of his Ottawa bubble before changing the benchmarks of our democracy?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the NDP has taken such a partisan approach to this bill. They announced their opposition to the fair elections act before they even read a single word of it.
If they had read it, they would know that the bill gives more power to investigators, imposes harsher sentences on those who break the law, and eliminates the illegal funding methods that the NDP and the Liberals used in the past. It is a good bill. 
The BudgetMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as expected, the report on budget expenses is in line with the government's draconian cuts to services for Canadians.
Still, I was surprised to see that the budget for some items was actually increased. For example, Communications Security Establishment Canada, the electronic spy agency, is now getting almost twice as much money. 
Why are the Conservatives wasting $400,000 on electronic spying after cutting essential services to Canadians?
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is anything but waste. In actual fact our government has committed to protecting Canadians from the threat of terrorism and cyberattacks.
The safety of Canadians is a primary concern of our government. It may not be theirs.
 In so doing, agencies are following the rules and acting within the law. The party opposite should support those efforts and get onside with other Canadians.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, what? Are they spying on veterans now?
The Conservatives got rid of the long form census and made all kinds of cuts to Statistics Canada, and now they are at it again. 
This time, they are cutting $15.6 million. They say that they are trying to find other sources of data to replace the census.
Why are they being so hard on Statistics Canada? Why do the Conservatives want to prevent Canadians from knowing what is going on in their own country?
Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of State (Science and Technology, and Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are always looking for ways to improve the quality of our data and protect privacy while reducing the regulatory burden and costs to taxpayers.
That includes using administrative data already collected by the government. Like all departments, Statistics Canada has to be as efficient as possible so that the government can balance the budget in 2015.
TaxationMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, year after year, the Conservatives continue slashing services that are essential to Canadians.
Tax havens represent a major challenge for Canada. Ignoring the problem will only make it harder to pay for our social programs. Despite all that, the Conservatives are cutting $175 million from the Canada Revenue Agency's budget to fight tax evasion.
Why are the Conservatives throwing in the towel when it comes to fighting tax havens?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that taxpayer money is spent where it will do the most good, and we are working to ensure that the government's programs are efficient and effective and achieving the expected results for Canadians.
The SenateNiki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, when we asked for the Senate Ethics Officer to appear before a committee on estimates, Conservatives blocked any attempt to hear from her. Now Conservatives are boosting her budget by $300,000.
 With all the scandals surrounding this unaccountable, unelected, and very expensive Senate, I am sure the Senate Ethics Officer must be very busy. However, will the Conservatives agree to ensure that she testifies at committee to justify this increase in her budget?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, everyone understands that agents of Parliament who are independent do their own financing and their own budget references. In fact, we are quite pleased that many of them have actually reduced their spending in line with what our government wants to see, and that is the balancing of our budget in 2015. We are working hard to do it, and we appreciate the efforts of others to do the same. 
We also recognize that we need to see savings made in the Senate as well, and we look forward to finding ways in which to do that.
The BudgetMr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's estimates hit the Canadian Food Inspection Agency extremely hard. They show a cut of $68 million in the agency's upcoming budget.
The most recent budget from the Minister of Finance said the Conservatives would add more inspectors. However, given that they would cut $68 million out of this budget, can the Conservatives tell us how they intend to ensure they get more when they would actually take $68 million away?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the safest and healthiest food systems in the world. Economic action plan 2014 would commit a new $400 million in spending to hire additional food inspectors. That is in addition to the $500 million we have already additionally invested.
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, the numbers they have come up with is that they would take 900 inspectors out, add 200 inspectors in, and somehow that would become more. The arithmetic is a bit skewed.
However, even the Auditor General's budget would be cut, by $6.5 million. Not only do we have numbers that are supposed to be more when they are really less, but the Conservatives would take money away from the Auditor General, who is supposed to see that they do what they said they would do in their budgets.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us if he has sat down with the Auditor General, and what kind of impact is going to happen when budgets are audited in the future and we are going to see fewer of them audited?
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that these are the estimates. What follows the estimates are supplementary estimates (A), supplementary estimates (B), and supplementary estimates (C). Then we have the public accounts, which do track for every member of Parliament how much we are spending. Why does the hon. member not wait for the public accounts?
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the death of Loretta Saunders has devastated her home community in Labrador, and the entire country. Tragically, while Loretta, herself an Inuit woman, was completing her research and thesis on missing and murdered indigenous women, her life came to a tragic end.
Yesterday the Minister of Status of Women was hiding behind her failing government programs. Will the minister make a commitment to continue the work of Loretta and call an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada?
Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers go out to the family of Loretta Saunders. This is a heinous crime, and the individuals responsible for this act should be punished to the full extent of the law.
It is our government that brought in tough on crime measures, and it is that party that votes against it.
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Status of Women callously suggested that current government programs are sufficient to deal with the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, and then resorted to a partisan attack. These are stories of human tragedy, loss of life, and the crushed dreams that families had for those who perished and remain missing. This is an issue that goes beyond politics. 
Will the minister apologize for her appalling insensitivity and agree that we must all work together to put an end to this ongoing epidemic of violence?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls, and that is why we have taken concrete action.
Our investments in local community-based projects have nearly doubled. We launched a call for proposals that supports local projects to help and prevent cyber and sexual violence against women and girls. We passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act to improve the safety of all Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable members of society. We increased support for victims of crime, and we launched the national action plan to combat human trafficking.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, clearly, a national public inquiry is the only way to get to the root causes of the tragedy of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls.
This reflects the recommendations of the international community, the demands of aboriginal leaders and the unanimous will of the premiers of the provinces and territories. 
Will the government commit today to launching a national public inquiry?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, ending violence against aboriginal women is a priority of this government. We have taken concrete action. We have invested $11 million since 2007 through Status of Women Canada toward local projects that work to eliminate violence against aboriginal women, and $24 million over two years for the family violence prevention program, which provides funding to shelters and violence prevention programming on reserve. We passed the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which extends basic rights and protections to aboriginal women on reserve, and those members did not support it.
Intergovernmental RelationsMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, because of pressure from the mayor of Quebec City and the hard work of the excellent member for Louis-Hébert, the government is finally listening to reason in terms of the ice oval.
After saying time and again that there was no federal money available for the ice oval, the Minister of Infrastructure  has finally come to his senses and found $32.5 million, which he took from the envelope for the 2007 infrastructure program.
How much of the 2007 program funding has not yet been spent?
Peter Braid: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Minister of Infrastructure was pleased to announce a financial contribution toward the ice oval project in Quebec City. 
It is important to point out that this contribution comes from uncommitted funds under Quebec's allocation of the existing 2007 building Canada fund, under which amateur sport infrastructure is eligible. The Province of Quebec recently identified this particular project as a priority in its budget. 
Any province that has uncommitted funds under the existing 2007 building Canada fund has the option to consider similar approaches.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, that is excellent news for Quebec City and for skaters, but it does not solve the problem for all other municipalities.
“That is an insult to municipalities”, said the mayor of Lévis in speaking about the eligibility criteria for the building Canada fund. According to Éric Forest, president of UMQ, “it is a flip-flop by the government...which has taken municipalities completely by surprise”. 
Can the government explain why it is refusing to fund sports and cultural infrastructure?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, in actual fact the mayor of Quebec City is extremely pleased about our government's support for this important ice oval project in Quebec City.
Moving forward under the $22-billion gas tax fund, a fund which we have doubled, which we have extended, which we have made permanent and indexed, recreational sports infrastructure under the new plan is an eligible category.
Veterans AffairsJack Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the government can change its mind, as we hope it will do with the closure of Veterans Affairs offices across the country and also increased access to mental health services.
Canada's veterans need specialized supports to help them. If the supports are not there, there is a risk that they will fall into homelessness, or even worse. Under pressure from the ombudsman and other advocacy groups, Veterans Affairs Canada has finally identified 250 homeless veterans across the country.
What is the government going to do to provide services to these vets, to identify others, and to make sure no veteran is forced to live on the streets?
Julian Fantino: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone can say that our government has not consistently uploaded funds to ensure that not only our veterans but also their families are well cared for. We will continue to do that. At the very same time, initiative after initiative that we have included in budget after budget, that party voted against. 
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the question was about homeless veterans.
In Montreal alone, at least 50 homeless veterans have been identified. Many of them have never used the services of Veterans Affairs Canada. 
The government has a duty to ensure that no one who has served in the armed forces for their country ends up homeless.
What is the government doing to identify and help homeless veterans, and what will it do to ensure that new veterans do not end up on the street? 
Julian Fantino: Mr. Speaker, Canadian veterans are eligible for thousands of dollars worth of benefits and services that are not available to the general public, which makes any case of a veteran living on the streets terrible and unfortunate and simply unnecessary. We are addressing those issues. 
Identifying veterans among the homeless is a daunting task. I call on anyone with information about a veteran living on the streets to contact my office or the department immediately.
Public SafetyMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we were shocked to learn that the RCMP had reclassified hundreds of sports shooting rifles from non-restricted to prohibited. This happened after they had been legally sold in Canada for more than a decade. While there have been no criminal incidents reported with this rifle, with a stroke of the RCMP's pen, individuals who may have owned this rifle legally for the last 12 years are considered criminals as of today.
 I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could please tell the House what the government's position is on this reclassification and confiscation scheme.
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are in fact very troubled by the situation that has arisen from the Swiss Arms rifle. This decision was made by bureaucrats and not by politicians. That is why the Minister of Public Safety has ordered an urgent review of this unfortunate decision. I would like to let all Canadians know that all options are on the table to ensure that no firearms owner who acted in good faith suffers any consequences as a result of this terrible situation. All of the options are being explored on a very urgent basis. 
International TradeMs. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once we signed the free trade agreement with Europe, Quebec cheese producers started working on finding an appropriate compensation formula. They developed a plan that would ensure that additional import quotas were run by producers and that would harmonize the standards. These adjustments would be phased in over seven years.
This plan would provide appropriate compensation for cheese producers and would cost the federal government virtually nothing.
Will the Conservatives seriously consider this proposal?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the agreement between Canada and Europe will pump $1.5 billion a year into Canada's agricultural sector and $12 billion a year into Canada's economy.
Our government has always advocated for Canada's supply management system, and we will continue to do so with this agreement. The three pillars of our national supply management system will remain the same.
We will examine any potential effects of this historic agreement on the revenues of dairy farmers, and if the level of protection is negatively affected, we will provide financial assistance.
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of excellent Quebec cheeses have found their way to tables all across the country.
The thousands of tons of European cheeses that will be imported must not jeopardize that. That is why the government must carefully consider the proposal made by the Conseil des industriels laitiers du Québec. This proposal will allow us to comply with the free trade agreement and still ensure that this dynamic industry can be sustainable.
Is this proposal a good starting point to determine how to compensate Quebec cheese producers? 
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, this agreement will bring $1.5 billion a year into Canada's agricultural sector. That is a huge asset for the agricultural sector in Canada, including Quebec.
Canada has been granted unlimited access for all of its dairy products to the European Union, the largest and most lucrative market in the world. By comparison, under the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, the European Union has very limited access to the Canadian market, just 8% of our national consumption of cheese.
Natural ResourcesMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is one of the coldest winters in years, and families in northern Ontario are getting burned by the massive hikes in propane prices. The cost of propane has almost doubled this year. One family I talked to recently is reporting heating bills of $800 to $900 per month.
When will the government stand up for Canadians, like Kathy and Arthur, and support the NDP's call for an oil and gas ombudsman?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, in the chaos of the NDP's energy policy, we have discovered yet another startling idea: infringe on provincial jurisdiction. The distribution and pricing of propane is the responsibility of the provinces. 
We are concerned about the impact of high prices and scarcity on families. That is why we have asked the NEB and the Competition Bureau to look into these issues. That action is within federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not only getting squeezed by propane prices, they are getting gouged at the gas pumps, too. In Sudbury, gas prices are $1.40 a litre, and in the GTA they are $1.35 a litre. These price spikes hurt Canadians and have nothing to do with market forces.
Why will the Conservatives not support the NDP's long-standing call for a gas ombudsman to ensure competitive prices? Why will the Conservatives not stand up for Canadians getting hosed at the pumps?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, this has to be the height of irony. The NDP members, who have long called for action to have higher prices on carbon and higher prices on gas to limit consumption, which it thinks is a bad thing, are today complaining about the very things they have called for.
I can tell them one thing. A Conservative government will never impose a carbon tax, a carbon tax that would hurt all Canadians, a carbon tax that we know the NDP wants to see. We will not do that. We are going to stand on the side of Canadian consumers and keep gas prices—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
EmploymentMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the official unemployment rate does not tell the whole story about the economy. In that way it is a bit like the government. 
Statistics Canada's supplementary unemployment rate that adds in discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers was over 10% in January. This rate is known as the underutilization rate.
Why has the Conservative government allowed our great nation to perform so far below its potential?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our record when it comes to creating jobs. Over one million net new jobs have been created since the height of the recession. The unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the G7. That is because the government and this Prime Minister and this Minister of Finance understand budgets and finance, unlike the opposition, which thinks with pixie dust and well wishes the budget will balance itself.
[Intervention]
Some hon. member:  And unicorns.
Candice Bergen:  And unicorns, possibly.
We will stick to our plan. It is a good plan. It is getting results for Canadians.
SportsMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's Olympic athletes have inspired us with exceptional performances in Sochi, just as our paralympians will in the coming weeks.
At a time when obesity rates are rising and driving up health care costs, we should be seizing this momentum to encourage more participation and healthy lifestyles. The Conservatives have wasted this golden opportunity by presenting a budget that cuts funding for sports and active living. 
Given that the best health care cost is the one we do not have to spend, when will the government take concrete action to make improved fitness for all Canadians a national priority instead of gutting investments in sports infrastructure?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member was for the last five years, but if he had watched the Olympics in Vancouver, if he had watched the Olympics in Sochi, he would have seen a program we implemented and funded, with record proportions, called own the podium. It is a program that not only has helped athletes win medals but has helped athletes become better individuals. They are leaders in our communities. They are telling children it is time to get involved and time to take action. 
This government supports our athletes. I certainly have not seen the Liberal Party stand to support an athlete in this country in a long time when it comes to financial support.
Canada PostMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am receiving hundreds of letters from citizens concerned about the cuts to our postal service. Municipalities such as Nelson have written the minister urging Canada Post to reconsider its five-point action plan. Ending home delivery will have a huge impact on seniors, small businesses, those with disabilities, as well as many other Canadians.
Will the minister order Canada Post to put its proposed changes on hold until after the upcoming government postal review? Would she also ensure that the review process is open to public participation and will consider all innovative suggestions and proposals?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2012, Canada Post delivered one billion fewer letters than it did in 2006, but only the NDP thinks, as the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, “We definitely do not have a crisis at Canada Post”. It is the only party that believes there is no crisis.
 Canada Post must balance its finances without being a burden on Canadian taxpayers, and that is exactly what this government expects it to do.
Rail TransportationMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Acadie Nouvelle reported that mayors from New Brunswick and eastern Quebec have banded together to save passenger rail service in eastern Quebec and the Maritimes. 
People are worried, mayors are worried, and after the NDP put the pressure on, even Conservative MPs from New Brunswick said they were worried and were working behind the scenes to save the railway.
Will the Minister of Transport save VIA Rail service between Halifax and Quebec City, yes or no?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, let me say very clearly, when it comes to investments in VIA Rail, it is the Conservative members in New Brunswick who consistently stand up to ensure that VIA is supported, and not the NDP. The member knows, with respect to this specific line, that this was a business decision made by a private company. There is a regulatory process in place, which that company is following. While the discontinuance process is under way, CN is responsible for maintaining its track infrastructure.
Public SafetyMrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are few criminal offences that are more horrific than sexual offences against children. While the overall crime rate is going down, sexual offences against children are going up. Shockingly, parents have no way of knowing where dangerous pedophiles are in this country.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety please tell the House what the government is doing to crack down on high-risk child sex offenders?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, children are our most vulnerable and precious members of our society, and this government will do absolutely everything possible to protect them. Not only is this government ending the two-for-one specials for child sex offenders by introducing consecutive sentencing for these crimes, we will also introduce a publicly accessible registry of high-risk child sex offenders. 
On this side of the House, we believe that parents have the right to know where these dangerous pedophiles are. I call on all members of the House, including the NDP and the Liberals, to support our tougher penalties for child predators act.
Employment InsuranceMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the EI cuts imposed by the Conservatives have pummelled the seasonal economy in Prince Edward Island and have united Islanders against the Conservatives and the political minister from Egmont. In a blatant attempt to save her job, Conservatives have created two EI zones, granting favourable treatment to the minister's riding while further penalizing those in urban and rural Prince Edward Island.
Why has the government pitted Islanders against Islanders in a desperate move to salvage the minister's seat?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, with these changes, the EI system in every province and territory reflects the reality of the local labour market. EI benefits continue to be there for Canadians, including in areas where jobs simply do not exist outside seasonal or specialized industries. The unemployment rate in Charlottetown has been consistently lower than in the rest of the province. This change was made to better reflect the reality of the labour market in P.E.I.
PensionsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has a very strange idea of negotiation. 
After unilaterally announcing that federal retirees and former RCMP and Canadian Forces members will have to pay double for a more limited health care plan, he now wants them to negotiate.
Negotiation actually means exchange and agreement, not dictating major concessions. I have a very simple question. Will the President of the Treasury Board sit down and negotiate in good faith?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, I can assure this chamber that negotiations are ongoing. The hon. member may have been briefed by one side, but I can assure him that we have been negotiating for eight months.
What we have now is the preference of this government to continue those negotiations and to arrive at a fair and reasonable solution to the matter, which of course involves a voluntary supplemental plan that is still an excellent plan for our retirees, former public servants across the country.
The hon. member seems to be a mouthpiece for the union. I am going to be a mouthpiece for the taxpayer and for good common sense.
InfrastructureMr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was only two weeks ago in Stouffville that the Prime Minister announced the largest infrastructure spending program in Canada's history.
That means it only took the Liberal leader two weeks to spin some classic Liberal arithmetic, repeatedly stating that our government has foregone thousands of billions of dollars in infrastructure funding, numbers straight from the mouth of a part-time teacher.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities correct the record?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, indeed, our infrastructure plan is the largest and the longest in Canada's history, delivering $53 billion in new money for Canadian communities.
Unlike what the leader of the Liberal Party has said, it certainly does not remove thousands of billions in infrastructure funding. 
We would expect a former teacher to know that thousands of billions are normally referred to as trillions. Thousands of billions and budgets that balance themselves are typical Liberal accounting.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the cat is out of the bag. Yesterday, the Minister of Infrastructure put together a hasty announcement about funding to build an ice oval in Quebec City.
When asked where the money would come from, the minister stated that it was money left over from the infrastructure fund. What he did not say was that Quebec and the municipalities were already planning to spend those millions of dollars on other projects, such as widening highway 185 and the drinking water projects in Quebec City, Lévis and Trois-Rivières. Now they are worried that the federal government will cross those major projects off its list.
Can the minister guarantee that the money set aside for those other projects and for the Quebec City ice oval will definitely be available?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, again, it is important to point out that it was the Province of Quebec, in its recent budget, that identified this particular ice oval project in Quebec City as a priority.
We have announced support for this project through uncommitted funds from the 2007 building Canada fund.
With respect to Highway 185, we have not yet received a specific request from the province for the third phase of this project. This project would be eligible under the new building Canada plan.
The BudgetMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, last fall's Speech from the Throne made a vague reference to the government's commitment to balanced budget legislation.
On October 22, the Minister of Finance assured me and this House that the government intended to introduce balanced budget legislation, although his explanation as to what that might look like was somewhat perplexing.
On Wednesday I supported budget 2014, and I congratulate the government on its commitment to balancing the budget. However, I remain concerned about future budgets and future governments.
Why is there no mention of balanced budget legislation in the government's budget plan?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, in fact we will be balancing the budget in 2015. I am happy to say that we will not be balancing the budget on the backs of the provinces and individual Canadians.
I do not know why the member opposite does not like our budget, because so many Canadians across this country are actually praising the budget. 
For example, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Grand Challenges Canada, Canadian Digital Media Network, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Moody's, et cetera. We are getting praise from across the country on our budget 2014.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, during the 2006 crisis in Lebanon and after the 2009 earthquake in Haiti, the government issued guidelines allowing non-Canadian parents to accompany their Canadian minor children to Canada. Again last week, two Canadian children—Gabriel, 3 and Laya, 4—were unable to come to Canada because their Syrian mother was denied a visa. The only reasons provided were the war in Syria and the possibility that they may not be able to return home. I should add that this file was followed by the minister's office.
What has happened to the government since 2006? Why is it now asking a father and mother to abandon their children?
Chungsen Leung: Mr. Speaker, in the immigration file, we do have a process for adoptions to come through and these are going through a normal process and we will have the department look into it.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 38(6) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 655 petitions.
Situation in VenezuelaPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That the House express its deep concern at the escalation of violence in Venezuela; convey its condolences to the families of those killed or injured during the ongoing public protests; ask the Government of Canada to urge Venezuelan authorities to proactively de-escalate the conflict, protect the human and democratic freedoms of Venezuelan citizens, release all those detained during the protests, immediately cease all government interference with peaceful protesters, and ensure that those people who perpetrated the violence be brought to justice and bear the full weight of the law; encourage the Government of Canada to play a leading role in supporting a political dialogue in Venezuela that respects legitimate grievances and differences of opinion; and call for an end to divisive rhetoric and actions that only delay and jeopardize the inclusive political solution that the Venezuelan people deserve. 

The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsTarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several hundred people in my riding of Saint-Jean and neighbouring ridings. The petitioners are calling for the creation of a legal ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining that would ensure compliance with international standards regarding social responsibility, labour and environmental practices and respect for human rights.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, I have here close to 100 names of citizens from Kaslo, Ainsworth, Trail, Meadow Creek, and Nelson, who are concerned about Bill C-18, especially the changes to the Seeds Act or plant breeders' rights. They do not want further restrictions of farmers' rights or addition to farmers' costs, and they call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, in my second petition there are hundreds of names from B.C., Ontario, and Quebec in support of my Bill C-322, an act to prohibit the exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption, as well as horse meat products for human consumption, mainly because horses are commonly administered drugs that are strictly prohibited in the food chain and, thus, people would like us to support this bill.
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first is on the ability of tradespeople who have to travel for work to be allowed deductions when it comes to income tax.
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on cluster munitions. The petitioners are saying that they should, indeed, be brought to an end and that Bill S-10 should be amended accordingly to make sure that actually happens.
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions here dealing with the issue of a mining ombudsman. 
People are concerned about the mining practices of Canadian companies in other parts of the world. They wish that the Government of Canada would take more responsibility to make sure that it listens to the complaints and concerns heard from workers and others in these countries, and that it would conduct investigations to make sure that our companies conduct themselves with the level of respect and moral standards that we would expect.
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition about fair electoral representation. It is from members of my constituency, who are concerned about the winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post system. They urge members of the House to conduct an investigation and to undertake significant consultation in the country to examine alternatives to the system we have right now.
Is it not ironic that we have this particular petition for a fairer electoral system at the same time we are dealing with the foolishness of the government's bringing in its unfair elections act?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by residents of Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland, B.C., who believe that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. In the interest of public safety, they want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentences.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce two petitions. The first calls on Parliament and the Conservative government to really look at the way we work with scientists, and to take some collective action on global warming.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in the chamber to table a petition signed by hundreds of constituents of my great riding of Sudbury. They call on the government to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post and to look instead for ways to innovate, for example, by establishing postal banking services.
These cuts to a service as essential as home mail delivery will affect the most vulnerable Canadians, such as seniors and people with physical disabilities.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[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 Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, we have eight minutes left in the question and comments period for the member for St. John's East.
The hon. member for Western Arctic.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his concern about getting this bill right. Quite obviously, some things have gone wrong already with the process that has been undertaken for this legislation. The minister indicated that they thought they were going to get 8,000 or 9,000 people signed up, but they ended up with 23,800. Now they have had another 58,000 show up in the very short period after that.
I guess I can go back to the more than 23,000 who have been registered and accepted already. The indication from the minister is that all of those registrations are now under question. Over the past four years, anyone who was first nation and would have been accepted under this registration may have made choices in their lives. They may have made choices about investing in the Mi'kmaq communities and in Newfoundland. They may have made choices about where and how they live. They may have made choices about their relationships. All of a sudden, those 23,000 people are put in some degree of question.
This bill would actually take out the liability of the government for anything that it does to those 23,000 people. Is that not the case?
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the concerns here. Obviously, the legislation appears to be necessary to remove people who have been included, but what we are really looking at here is the importance of aboriginal status and the need for a fair and equitable process.
The member raised the question, what about the people who may have been wrongfully included? It is a very good question, “wrongfully” meaning only in the sense that this new enrollment process may exclude them. However, they do have a right to appeal; I do know that much. 
We want to find out if there is some provision to ensure that people who have made decisions and choices as a result of being included and are now not included have some recompense. The bill specifically says that one cannot sue for damages for being either excluded or left out.
These are absolutely some of the questions in the process that have to be answered by the Conservative government as to what would happen to them.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech, with so much information, and for sharing on an important matter like this.
Some of the facts and figures the member was speaking about were such that over 101,000 people applied for membership from this first nation, but during the reassessment process approximately 6,000 of those claims were found to be invalid, and approximately 94,000 were deemed valid if further documentation were provided. 
I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on this and how we could ensure fairness in the whole process. 
Also, under article 33 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, first nations have the right to determine their own membership. Perhaps I could hear the member's comments on that piece as well, because I know he is actively involved.
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is certainly valid.
One of the issues here is that members of the aboriginal groups themselves had a hand in determining what the criteria were. So the question really is on the application of those criteria being fair and equitable. Unfortunately, they discovered that some of the definitions, or how these criteria were spelled out, were subject to interpretation and perhaps insufficiently clear, which is in part what may have caused the large number of applicants. It may also have caused some anomalies to occur in the process. 
By reaching a new agreement in 2013 as to how the enrollment process would operate and providing for more opportunities for people to bring forth evidence, they are trying to get a fair process. 
The question is, did they get it right? Will this process end up being fair to those who were included and will it be fair to those who may not have met the criteria, which is also a big question? 
Clearly, a lot of people have an interest in being part of this band.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, as we delve further into the bill before us, I think we are starting to see that there are some very particular issues surrounding it for many people. 
There is this whole question of the government's liability in a process that it entered into, expecting 8,000 people to sign up for it, and over a period of four or five years realizing that many more people were signing up for the process. I find it almost incomprehensible that within the bureaucracy of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the people who were obviously in charge of this process let this thing get away from them in the fashion it has. Now the government wants to wash its hands of the responsibility it had throughout this whole process in order to ensure that it is fair and correct. 
I suppose we will have to take the bill to committee to better understand from the bureaucrats why they let this process turn into the farce that it is today.
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question points to the history of the federal government's failure to acknowledge its responsibility for aboriginal people in Newfoundland. Since 1949 the aboriginal people in Newfoundland have been seeking recognition. The Mi'kmaq were denied recognition or status under the Indian Act and thus the right to access the programs and benefits that such status entails. This is the first opportunity for them to seek that recognition.
Despite the criteria and the people who have negotiated this agreement for a particular subset of, I guess, I could call it, the Mi'kmaq—those who live in certain communities and have an attachment to those communities—obviously everyone else who has a claim to aboriginal status based on their ancestry and rights in existence or inherent rights are seeking recognition through this process. That exposes the unfairness.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation act. It is most important that we put this bill into perspective.
We cannot lose sight of what the agreements behind this bill are attempting to redress. The legal rights of Newfoundland's Mi'kmaq people have been in limbo since their status under the Indian Act was left unresolved in 1949, when Newfoundland joined Confederation. Exclusion from status under the Indian Act not only denied Newfoundland's Mi'kmaq people access to the supports that are available to other first nations with that status, but it also robbed them of recognition of their identity and cultural heritage.
The damage done and the marginalization of several generations led many people to hide their aboriginal ancestry. As a result, huge segments of family histories were lost forever.
Decades of unsuccessful negotiations and protracted legal action over a period of many governments meant that this fundamental issue remained unresolved for far too long.
The most recent phase of discussions to redress the historic exclusion of the status of Newfoundland's Mi'kmaq people began in 2002, when the previous Liberal government initiated renewed negotiations in good faith with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. The talks focused on the recognition of the Mi'kmaq people in Newfoundland under the Indian Act and, after constructive discussions, an agreement in principle was signed in 2007.
On September 26, 2007, the Prime Minister said that for more than half a century the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland had been among the “forgotten people”, as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples calls its members. They never stopped fighting for recognition and now that title can be cast aside at last.
Ratified in 2008, the agreement would create the landless Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band and ensure that Mi'kmaq people in Newfoundland would be able to achieve recognition, status under the Indian Act, and the dignity denied them for far too long.
The Liberal Party believes that any legislation, directives or policies to implement agreements between the Crown and the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation must be based on the premise that legitimate applicants must not be excluded from the enrolment process.
We are concerned that unfortunately this bill seems more focused on protecting the federal government from being sued over its mistakes in how it implemented this historic agreement and on limiting the legal recourse of membership applicants for the new first nation. 
We understand that the government expected far fewer applications than the 103,000 it eventually received. However, if the process was flawed or if the criteria or guidelines were problematic, then the fault lies with the Conservative government, not with the applicants. It was the Conservative government that negotiated the criteria for enrolment and how those criteria would be administered. That process was set down in guidelines that were appended to the original agreement.
Because the volume of applications was greater than expected, last year the government entered into a supplemental agreement with the Qalipu first nation and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. Pursuant to that supplemental agreement, the government is now in the process of reviewing all applicants, including those who have already been granted status. While the government asserts that the supplemental agreement does not change the membership criteria, it does change the guidelines for how those criteria are to be assessed. There is no question that these changes will potentially have an impact on enrolment, and that is why a review of all applications, including those that have already been granted, is under way.
While section 10 of the supplementary agreement affirms that it does not affect the status of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band, the agreement could alter its founding members list. As a result, members who do not meet the additional enrolment criteria could lose their band membership and Indian status. The power of cabinet to remove individuals from the founding members list is confirmed in clause 3 of Bill C-25 and is one of two substantive things this bill would do.
The Liberal Party recognizes that both the 2008 agreement and last year's supplementary agreement flow from a nation-to-nation process that must be respected. The criteria negotiated between the parties should be viewed as an agreement between two nations. However, while the government claims that this bill is necessary to implement the 2008 and 2013 agreements, we are very concerned that the true purpose of the bill is to indemnify the federal government from legal liability for its mistakes during the botched enrolment process.
It is this denial of legal recourse to applicants that is of the greatest concern to the Liberal Party. Clause 4 of this bill is clearly designed to shield the federal government from potential liability for damages flowing from its incompetence in implementing the original agreement. Subclause 4(1) states:
 No person or entity has a right to claim or receive any compensation, damages or indemnity from Her Majesty in right of Canada, any employee or agent of Her Majesty, a band, a council of a band or any other person or entity only because any person’s name, or any person’s date of birth, was omitted or removed from the schedule to the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band Order. 
This limitation of access to a legal recourse is causing many people to question the legitimacy of this bill. The repeated mistakes and oversights of the federal government through the process to create the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band have led to unnecessary confusion, and many applicants are feeling frustrated and wronged by a process that should have fostered reconciliation about a historic wrong. The Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland is preparing to launch a class action lawsuit against the federal government over the constantly changing process for membership in this new band.
The process that is under way is meant to right hundreds of years of wrongs, but this government's negligence is instead exacerbating the feeling of victimization among many members of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation.
People who have a legitimate complaint against the federal government for mistakes or mismanagement should not have that legal recourse cut off by the bill. It should be for the courts to decide whether damages related to the enrolment process are appropriate and not for parliamentarians to prejudge that issue with this bill.
Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate here today on Bill C-25, an act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.
The proposed legislation would enable the Governor in Council to fully implement the agreements reached between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, which provided for the establishment of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band as a band under the Indian Act. More specifically, the legislation would help ensure that only those with a legitimate claim to membership are entitled to be registered following the completion of the enrolment process.
I want to underscore that the fundamental principle of this legislation is the preservation of the integrity and credibility of the membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. In that same vein, I want to use this occasion to underscore that the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians are united in the desire to achieve our shared goal, which is to enable the Mi'kmaq in the province to build a strong foundation for cultural growth and development.
As my colleagues may be aware, in 2007 our government reached an agreement in principle with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to create the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation and signed the final agreement a year later, in 2008. The 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band provided for the creation of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation as an Indian Act band and established the enrolment process for its members to be recognized as Indians under the Indian Act.
I want to be very clear that the proposed legislation reflects the original intentions of the parties, Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, with respect to the creation of a founding members list as set out in the 2008 agreement. From the outset, it was understood by both the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the federal government that the agreement would apply primarily to people who live in or around the communities named in the 2008 agreement. 
In that spirit, the 2008 agreement also set out four criteria for membership in the band, as negotiated and agreed to by the parties. These four criteria are Canadian Indian ancestry, descent from a member of a pre-Confederation Mi'kmaq community, self-identification as a member of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland, and acceptance by the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland, based on a demonstrated and substantial cultural connection. 
While non-residents could also become members, they would need to have maintained a strong, substantive cultural connection with a Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community, meaning that they were expected to have sustained an active involvement in their community despite their absence.
November 30, 2009, was the initial deadline to establish the band's founding members. After the end of this first stage, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, or the recognition order, was issued on September 22, 2011. Based on enrolment to that point, a total of 22,877 people were determined to be founding members. 
However, as set out in the final agreement, there was a second stage of 36 months to ensure that all would have ample opportunity to apply and be added to the founding members list. This second stage of the enrolment period ended on November 30, 2012. It was during this second stage of enrolment that issues with the process became apparent. 
As we have heard today, an unexpected and, many would argue, unreasonable number of individuals submitted applications to join the band during the second phase. Approximately 75,000 additional people submitted applications, bringing the total number of applications for membership to the first nation to more than 101,000. 
When the application process began back in 2008, Mi'kmaq leaders and Canada expected that somewhere between 8,700 and 12,000 people would be entitled to band membership. This range seemed realistic, given that there were roughly 10,500 members of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians at the time. Imagine the surprise when over 101,000 applications were submitted by the time the enrolment period ended on November 30, 2012. 
To put this into perspective, this figure represents about 11% of all registered Indians in Canada. 
Almost half of these applications, roughly 46,000, were received in the final three months before the deadline of a four-year process. Most of the applications received were from people living outside Newfoundland.
As Chief Brendan Sheppard has stated:
 It was neither reasonable nor credible to expect such a huge number of individuals to become members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. 
Not surprisingly, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians was worried about the credibility of the enrolment process and the integrity of the first nation. It wanted to be sure that the objectives of the 2008 agreement would be respected, that the enrolment process was fair and equitable, and that those accepted for membership satisfied the criteria set out in the original 2008 agreement.
In response, the parties negotiated a supplemental agreement, which was announced in July 2013. It was introduced to bring greater clarity to the requirements of membership and the enrolment process.
The 2013 supplemental agreement addresses shared concerns about the integrity of the enrolment process for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. It clarifies the process for enrolment and resolves issues that emerged in the implementation of the 2008 agreement, such as the fact that the number of membership applications far exceeded the expectations of the parties, that it was not possible to review all of these applications within the time limits provided for in the 2008 agreement, and that the original guidelines for the assessment of the applications did not provide sufficient clarity and detail to reflect the original intentions of the parties. 
For example, the 2013 supplemental agreement extends the timelines to review applications, ensuring that all previously unprocessed applications will be considered and also ensuring that all applicants will be treated fairly and equitably. Especially important is that the 2013 supplemental agreement guarantees that anyone whose application is reviewed will be sent written notification and that those who have submitted valid applications will be given an opportunity to provide additional documentation.
The parties also clarified how an applicant's self-identification as a member of the Mi'kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland is assessed. As well, guidance is provided in relation to an individual's acceptance by the Mi'kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland.
In other words, anyone wishing to join the first nation needs to prove his or her eligibility for membership.
Regarding group acceptance, applicants have to demonstrate that they were accepted by the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq Group of Indians through their active involvement in Mi'kmaq culture before the first nation was officially formed. This information is particularly relevant to individuals not residing in Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities.
Determinations on eligibility are being made by the enrolment committee, which includes two federal representatives, two Mi'kmaq representative, and one independent chair.
This reasonable approach is the only way to ensure the integrity of the enrolment process and to ensure that the rules of eligibility for membership are fairly applied so that all applicants are treated equitably. This is what Mi'kmaq residents of Newfoundland demand and what all Canadians expect. Let us remember that status brings with it a range of important social and economic benefits, something that cannot and should not be taken lightly.
The supplemental agreement was a result of extensive discussions and negotiations with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and addressed all the major concerns that had arisen during the second phase of the enrolment process.
I want to assure the House that the criteria set out in the original 2008 agreement remain unchanged. The supplemental agreement only provides clarity about the kind of information people need to provide to establish that they meet the criteria to demonstrate their eligibility for membership, as well as providing guidance to the enrolment committee on how it should be assessed.
The assessment process is currently under way and will take approximately two and a half years to complete. It is expected that the enrolment committee will complete its work by the summer of 2015, followed by an appeal period.
Let me be very clear. During the review process, there will be no change in Indian status for existing members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. While the process is under way, individuals who are currently registered as Indians under the Indian Act will retain their Indian status and, therefore, their access to programs available to registered Indians.
However, at the end of the enrolment process, it is possible that some individuals who are not found to have a legitimate claim to membership may lose their Indian status as a result of the reassessment of their application. Those individuals would no longer have access to programs and services provided to registered Indians.
Bill C-25 is an essential part of that enrolment process. It would enable the Governor in Council to amend the schedule to the recognition order, which will list the final approved names of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation founding members. The existing list must be updated to reflect the changes that will have taken place as a result of the review launched under the supplemental agreement.
While the Governor in Council has the authority under paragraph 2(1)(c) and subsection 73(3) of the Indian Act to declare a body of Indians to be a band for the purposes of the Indian Act, there is no express authority in the act to amend an order establishing a band.
While there is likely authority to add names to the schedule of the recognition order, it is unclear whether the act currently allows the Governor in Council to remove names from the schedule. Certainty is required to ensure that the supplemental agreement can be fully implemented. That certainty can only be obtained by enacting legislation that would provide the Governor in Council with the appropriate authority to make the required corrections to the recognition order, specifically to revoke the Indian status of those individuals who are found not to be entitled to be members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation.
The legislation is an essential part of the enrolment process, in order to fully implement the agreements. It would ensure that the Governor in Council is properly authorized to carry out the last step in the process, which is the issuance of a new founding members' list to modify the existing one.
This may all sound quite complicated, but at the end of the day, this process and this legislation is about ensuring that people who are truly eligible to be members of the band are granted that privilege.
Acquiring first nation status will help the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland create and maintain a strong foundation for Mi'kmaq cultural growth and development. This will lead to a better future for today's generation and all who follow. This is something that generations of Mi'kmaq residents of the province have fought long and hard for since the 1970s. It is time to resolve this complex and long-running matter so that those who belong to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation can fully realize this potential.
I call on all parties to join us in passing Bill C-25. Let us help preserve the integrity of the first nation in a fair and equitable manner. Let us ensure that the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation can get on with the work of building a proud Mi'kmaq first nation in Newfoundland.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, we all support the notion of having a resolution, if imperfect, to the outstanding claims by the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland and Labrador to play a role in self-government and to have access to services that they were so long denied, but there are some questions that deserve answers.
 I note in the new agreement that new applications were being considered but there was an exception. New applications would not be accepted from someone who had previously been rejected, while on the other hand, there seems to be a process for rejecting people who had previously been accepted. I am having trouble getting my head around that in terms of fair and equitable. If someone can make a mistake by including someone who maybe would not be included under the new interpretation, then surely someone could have made a mistake in excluding someone who would not have been included in the first place.
I wonder if the member could clarify why that is being done this way and what happens to people who would be wrongfully rejected? 
[Interjection]
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is that there was a deadline for all applications to be submitted in a full and complete manner. If individuals had submitted their applications early in the original process, they would have had adequate time to make adjustments, to provide additional information. However, over 45,000 applications came in during the last three months, right before the deadline. Had those applicants applied earlier in the process, they would have had adequate time to appeal. However, given the last minute rush that appeared to spike that number up to 101,000 applications, they simply ran out of time and that deadline had to be firm. That is why that decision was taken.
Chris Warkentin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's speech. I think it was important to clarify the government position on why this legislation is necessary.
However, there have been comments, specifically from one member of the Liberal Party who has claimed that this legislation is in fact unnecessary. It seems to me that it is necessary. The parliamentary secretary has articulated the reasons for that.
It seems to me that the first nation would be desiring to ensure that only those people who in fact should be on the list are included on the list. It is probably part of what was agreed to in the agreements that were negotiated and agreed to in 2008 and 2013.
Would the parliamentary secretary elaborate on why this legislation is needed to ensure that taxpayers and the first nation are protected?
[Interjection]
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and for his great work as the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee. He is certainly a valuable member of Parliament who brings a great deal of knowledge on this file.
As I said in my speech, when we look at the numbers presented here, we had 101,000 applicants when they were initially looking at around 10,000. The number of applications was 10 times higher, representing over 10% of the total number of status Indians in Canada.
With that many applications far exceeding the original expectation, it simply was not possible to review all of them, as was laid out in the original agreement. There were too many to review by the deadline.
The original assessment of those guidelines was not sufficiently clear, obviously. The supplementary agreement seeks to tighten that up, to make sure that all applications will be reviewed based on the original intent of the agreement.
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate today with interest. I do find it unfortunate that we have to go back and revisit this, and that the government did not get it right in the first place.
This might be just the tip of the iceberg. I know in Nova Scotia, a number of first nations people are claiming status and trying to establish new reserves, outside of Digby for example. I draw the attention of my colleague to a recent court case, R v. Smith, where one of the proponents of these new first nations claims brought this case to court.
Does the government have a plan to deal not only with this one case we are discussing today but also with the multiple cases that will probably arise based on treaty claims from a couple of hundred years ago?
[Interjection]
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the opposition seems to have a theme today, which I think is insulting to the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. The argument from the opposition is that somehow the government has made a debacle of this thing.
 This is an agreement that we made with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. I know it is a matter of principle for them to make that argument; however, the opposition is being quite insulting to the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, which is a full partner in this process and has agreed with us on every step we have taken to ensure the integrity of that process.
On all of the cases mentioned by the hon. member, the Government of Canada has a legal duty to protect status Indians and to carefully evaluate any applications. We will take all of those on a case-by-case basis.
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, earlier today we heard the minister as well as the parliamentary secretary outline the great amount of work, in both negotiations, over the past years. It has been a lot of hard work and dedication by all sides. 
I would like the parliamentary secretary to elaborate further, particularly on the co-operation and consultation that worked toward the supplemental agreement in 2008 with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. I think it is really important for us to hear how much work has gone toward the creation of this bill through that process.
[Interjection]
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, from the outset it was understood by both the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the federal government that the agreement would apply primarily to people who live in or around the communities named in the 2008 agreement. 
Not surprisingly, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and Mi'kmaq residents of the province expressed concern about the credibility of the enrolment process. The surge in applications in the second phase was the primary concern that was raised. We wanted to ensure that the objectives of the 2008 agreement would be met. Both parties agreed that we needed to tighten up that process, and they wanted to ensure that the enrolment process was fair and equitable and that those accepted for membership satisfied the criteria set out in the original agreement. 
The FNI and our government negotiated a supplemental agreement, which was announced in 2013. We have been working hand in hand with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and will continue to do so.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for giving us more clarification. I think that a lot more work is going to be required on the bill. It seems like a very simple bill at first, but there are many other details that have come into it.
I would like to do a historical reconnaissance here on the application process started in 2009. By 2012, 23,000 applications had been processed. As the minister told us earlier, it was originally anticipated there would be 8,000 applications.
At what point did the government put up some red flags about what was going on with this process, with the way it was being done, and the fact that probably over three times the anticipated number of applications had been received? When did the government start to recognize what was going on here?
[Interjection]
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I think it was during the second phase of enrolment, the final 36 months, that it became very clear things were not as they had originally been intended, when we saw a spike of 46,000 applications in the final four months alone of that application process. 
Certainly, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Mi'kmaq communities themselves raised the concern that this was simply not a realistic number, that this was far outside the intent of the original agreement. It was during that second phase that there was a real awareness of how widespread this issue had become.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to a bill, which, as I mentioned earlier, on first reading seems very simple and straightforward but reveals quite a bit about what the government has been doing over the last number of years and its failure to act correctly in this matter.
Even when the parliamentary secretary answered my question, it is clear that he chose to ignore the fact that in the first period of time the number of applicants were three times over what was originally anticipated. He only talked about the last four months of the program, where the number went over by 45,000 applicants. 
How does government work when the process it is entering into with the expectation of 8,000 applicants blossoms to 24,000 applicants? The government simply seems to ignore that fact. Only when the second phase of the application process came in, with 45,000 applications being put on the table, did the government wake up and realize it had some issues with what it was trying to do. What a careless way to run a government. How careless the government is with its business with the first nations people of this country.
I want to get that point in because it was left undone by the parliamentary secretary in his comments in answer to my first question. 
What we have is an interesting bill. There is a problem with the huge application process for registration for joining the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation membership order. In my own home community, membership lists of first nations, of Métis people, are very complex issues, and that is when we are dealing with 1,000 people. When we are dealing with 500 people, the complicated nature of these membership applications is quite clear. The government has known for 40 years that this is not an easy issue to deal with.
When we set this thing in motion, we had a failure. Let the government admit that it created a failure with the process it put into place. The first step toward fixing it would be to admit the failure. 
Now a bill has come forward to fix some of the issues we are engaged with here, not to determine the nature of what has happened, but simply to find a way to reduce the government's exposure on this issue. 
First the Conservatives want to have a system on any of the previously accepted registrations for this band. They have gone through a process with five individuals, two from the first nations, two from the government, and one independent person, who have examined the first 23,800 applications that were made. They were accepted and put in place. The minister now wants the opportunity to take those off that list as he sees fits. Further, he does not want to have any responsibility for doing that. He wants to walk away from that clean. 
The minister indicated that he is worried about the taxpayers of this country being liable for the mistakes that the government made. The taxpayers are liable for the mistakes that elected representatives make on their behalf. That is part of government. That is the way the government should operate. That is the way that government has a responsibility to operate.
It is interesting. When it comes to liability, we have made many international agreements over the last 20 years, through the Liberals and the Conservatives. They have guaranteed multinational companies with the right to sue the government if any of the provisions they enter into when they come into this country for investment purposes are changed through government legislation. The Liberals and the Conservatives signed agreements internationally that the government is under obligation to allow itself to be sued, and we have seen many large suits come of that to date.
On one hand, the government is fine with protecting the opportunities to sue for liability on the part of multinational corporations. Now we come to the 23,800 citizens of this country, who under a due process were given registration for Mi'kmaq claims. 
I am not saying that all of these people would have a case for damages if they were to be taken off of the list. I am not saying they would even bother to do that. I am saying that they took the time to put the application in. They felt that they had a right to be on the list because they put their application in. They were accepted. Many of them would have made decisions about their life and their time based on the decision that was made by the tribunal about their participation in the Mi'kmaq membership order.
Someone has made a decision. They may have changed their lifestyle. They may have relocated to a different community. They may have established a business in an area that could be considered reserve land in the future, with tax benefits. They might have done one of a hundred things that would have put their life in a different direction previous to the decision that was made by the registration tribunal.
There it is. On one hand, we have a government that is quite willing to sign international agreements to allow multinational corporations to sue us at any time that we change a law here in Parliament, but on the other, it wants to put a law in place to make sure that Mi'kmaq people do not have the opportunity to sue it for something it has done wrong to them. 
What kind of logic is that? What kind of equity is that in the system? Why do citizens of this country have substandard rights compared to multinational companies?
I find that the parallel between the two is indicative of the nature of the Conservative government, and the nature of our country, in some respects. We have been governed by the Liberals and the Conservatives for many years, and they have permitted this type of differentiation to go on.
That is the philosophy that we are dealing with here. As with the first reading and second reading of any bill, we want to talk about what the philosophy is going forward. There it is, folks; that is what is happening here.
What do the Mi'kmaq peoples think about this? The Mi'Kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland was set up to try to deal with what is going on with this bill and the process of registration. It is not impressed with this legislation. 
I would like to quote from The Western Star, a newspaper from Atlantic Canada, about Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act. It said:
 While the federal government is saying the bill will be an assurance that everyone applying to become a member of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation will be treated fairly and equitably, there are concerns that the proposed legislation’s real purpose is to protect the federal government from being sued by people who feel they are not being treated fairly or equally. 
 [Mr. Hector] Pearce is vice-chairperson of the Mi’kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland, a group which was formed to fight for the rights of those who feel they are being wronged in the process of enrolment in the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation. 
 “Once I started reading it, my blood started to boil a little bit,” said Pearce after reading the wording of Bill C-25. “We’re not shocked but we are very disappointed with the legislation. This government has put up so many roadblocks to this Qalipu registration process that nothing surprises us anymore”. 
Of course, not only is he concerned about the bill; he is concerned about the process that was followed earlier. Every Canadian would be a little concerned about a process that the government initiated when it thought it was going to get 8,000 applicants and then part of the way through the process that number was exceeded by 300%.
One would think that the government would have taken some action to ensure that what it was doing was correct and working in a good fashion. Now that it has received 100,000 applicants, of course, it has to do something. It has been forced into it. It realizes, too, that is has created some liability for itself if it starts limiting the nature of registrations. If 100,000 people want to be registered and 23,000 people in Newfoundland have already been given membership in this band, one would have to say that maybe some of the qualifications should be changed so that more people are not put into this registration process. We are going to see a backtracking on the registration process and some new rules.
We should remember that this process is subjective. The government itself said it. It said that the registration is determined by people's heritage, but also by their contribution to the community and Mi'kmaq society. That is very subjective. Throughout my time in northern Canada, I have seen membership lists that have been fought over on that basis for years and years. Those are very difficult, time-consuming, and subjective ways of determining membership.
Once we get past the idea that people have the blood heritage of the Mi'kmaq in relationship with others in a similar location in the country and they have rights of membership, and we get into the area where they have to show they have been active participants in the community and the community accepts them, those things become very subjective, difficult to determine, and very likely to be the cause of some dispute, which may lead to liability. 
Those are things that the government ought to realize going forward. It has put itself in a position where many people are going to be disappointed with the results of this work that is going ahead right now. It has made choices, and those choices are going to come back and haunt it. What it should do, very clearly, is to reduce its liability for its mistakes and ensure it can make any choice it wants with the 23,800 people who have already been registered and the 70,000 people who have put their names forward for registration. This is a very difficult issue.
New Democrats want to take this issue to committee because we want to come to some kind of understanding of what has happened. That may be part of what can be done. I am not holding my breath over this because I saw the action on Bill C-15. The government made some changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the Northwest Territories which took away constitutionally protected parts of land claims agreements. That process is now going to court. The lesson that the government is learning is that it should take away the opportunity for first nations people to go to court over things that are inherently their right to do.
Land ownership is something that people have a right to in this country, and first nations, through their processes, have a right to land and resources. What is being said is that the government is going to arbitrarily determine who has a right to that land and resources through this membership process. If we told private citizens in Canada that we were arbitrarily going to determine whether they have a right to the land and resources that they think they do, I suspect that would not sell very well to Canadians. 
Canadians understand that with heritage and the ownership of land through that process of one's ancestry, if it has not been legally taken away from them, they have some rights to it. This is something the government has to operate with carefully. It is taking a very strong step toward this limited liability, which is something it would never think of doing to multinational corporations that exist outside the country but is quite willing to do to the citizens of Canada. 
This is an interesting proposition. We will take it to committee. We will have a chance to give it a good, thorough airing, I hope. With the Conservative majorities we have had, the committee has had a tendency to slow down accepting witnesses, The committees have been abysmal in their ability to open up to have the type of examination many of these issues take. I will once again give the instance of Bill C-15, where one day was given to the people of the Northwest Territories in Yellowknife to give their evidence in front of the committee.
[Interjection]
Mark Strahl: Nine and a half hours.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Nine and a half hours. That was it. That speaks for itself in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, hopefully some better heads will come together over this in committee and the bill will be given a very thorough examination.
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech. I am a little unclear, so I will ask this carefully. Does he think it is reasonable that 101,000 people would be members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation? Does he think it is reasonable that 46,000 of them would be received in the last two months and that this should not raise alarm bells? Does he really think the people who submitted their applications during phase one should be subjected to a different criteria of evaluation than those whose applications were received during the second stage?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, my reading of it is that certain people have been given membership in this Mi'kmaq first nation, and those 23,800, as indicated by the minister earlier in his conversation, will now be under some scrutiny to see whether that registration is appropriate. Those people will be judged.
I am very concerned about any change to any of the processes that go forward for the 23,800 who have already been registered, and of course for the other 45,000 people who have come forward or the 70,000. I am not sure of that final figure. I would like to see them judged in a fashion similar to the one for the first 23,800. That would be fair.
 Quite clearly the process was not well thought out in the beginning, and because of that, we have ended up in this situation here today. What we have to take into account are the rights of the individuals involved. That is the primary order.
 I reference my experience in the Northwest Territories with the membership lists and viewing the process they go through. I think of the time it took for bands with 500 members to ensure that their membership lists were correct and followed a correct order. This is a very large task in front of everyone to determine that with 100,000 people. There is no question about it. I just want to make sure that the rights of those 100,000 are respected and that the rights of the 23,800, which they entered into with the government when they applied and were accepted and who have made choices based on their acceptance, are also protected.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to share his experience dealing with important first nations issues at committee and perhaps about the lack of time and focus important issues receive from the Conservative government.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, in many cases, for things that come forward to us in committee, there is a process whereby the time is limited and the choices people have to invite people to speak in front of the committee are constrained. Opposition parties are only given as many committee members as the government chooses, in relation to their seats in the House of Commons. Right there, simply through that process, the government holds an ability to limit the choices of witnesses that will be in front of the committee. Since the current majority government has come into place, we have seen that happen.
It is a game that is played at committee now. It is difficult. The government wants to move legislation through as quickly as possible, in many cases. Witnesses are assigned, as I say, per capita, according to the number of seats in the House. That is a very limiting factor.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to clarify whether his understanding is that there are really two issues at stake here. One is that a fair number of people actually disagree with the eligibility criteria, because they are not included in it for one reason or another. A criterion relates to people who have a direct and ongoing association with these particular communities. That is one question that is out there politically.
The second question is about the fairness of the process. Would the member agree that what is really necessary is to ensure that we have a fair and equitable process for all those who have applied, including those who were already previously accepted?
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, that is true. I completely agree with the member. There is one other issue, and that is if people's expectations, through the original process, were raised, and they actually changed their lives in any fashion or did something that would have put them at some degree of risk, or they relied on this for some part of their future activities and planned accordingly. That implies some degree of responsibility on the part of the government.
 Courts are very good at deciding responsibility. That is our system. I do not like seeing that opportunity being taken away from people to make those choices.
[Interjection]
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, although I do not know if the hon. member heard it, I was clear in my speech that those 23,877 members who received status in the initial enrolment will continue to receive Indian status benefits until this process is completed and the appeals process has been exhausted. We are looking at late 2015.
These people have been receiving benefits. They will continue to receive benefits during this phase, even as a result of this bill. However, everyone is aware now and has been put on notice that there is a new process and that everyone will be evaluated again. That will give some time to those individuals. There is no cutting-off of benefits right now, which might be a concern of the member.
Also, clause 4, the legal clause in the bill about protecting the government, which the member talked about, would not prevent individuals from appealing the enrolment committee's determination, nor would this clause prevent court challenges to the agreement or to the exclusion from the schedule of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order. This is a very limited clause that has been enacted in other pieces of legislation.
 It was also part of Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. It says that if people are determined not to be members of the Qalipu band, they do not have the right to seek compensation for that decision. They still have the right to the court process on the actual enrolment order. I want the member to be aware of that.
[Interjection]
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary repeated what he said. I did not really have a problem with anything he said.
 I am talking about people who over the past five years have received notification that they have membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. They may have moved to a different community. They may have reasserted their lifestyle as first nations. They may have bought houses or set up businesses. Those are the types of choices that have been made by these 23,800, and they will still be making these choices right up until the time somebody tells them they are no longer members. Until that time, they have to live their lives based on the fact that they have now been taken on as members of a first nation.
 Those are the types of liabilities. I do not think the government has a right to take away from individuals the right to sue government for making mistakes that they suffer for directly.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-25, an act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.
We in the NDP are concerned about the indemnification provisions in the bill and whether or not they will deny anyone the right to further action in being recognized as a member of the Qalipu first nation. I would like to refer to the work my colleagues the MPs for St. John's East and St. John's South—Mount Pearl have already undertaken on this important issue. They have raised problems with the original agreement in principle creating a landless Qalipu first nation where children removed from Mi'kmaq families and adopted out would seem to lose all rights to membership under the agreement.
 We recognize that the agreement before us is a negotiated agreement with the first nation, but we are concerned that the Conservatives have once again rushed a process and, instead of providing certainty, they have created anxiety and concern among all people applying to be part of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. 
Since the Indian Act separated first nations into status Indians and those without status, determining the citizenship rights of any person to be part of a first nation has been a highly charged process. We in the NDP are only offering equivocal support to the bill because we have questions about its provisions, and as we know, we will only get those answers from witnesses at committee. We have made it very clear that we are concerned when it comes to two areas in particular. One is the membership criteria and the second is the fairness of the process. 
Speaking to those points, I want to refer to some of the coverage that Bill C-25 has received from Mi'kmaq people in Newfoundland itself. I refer specifically to Mr. Hector Pearce of the Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland, which has real concerns about Bill C-25. He stated:
 We are not shocked but we are very disappointed with the legislation. This government has put up so many roadblocks to this Qalipu registration process that nothing surprises us anymore. 
Mr. Pearce goes on not just to express concern but to refer to possible actions that he and the Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland will be taking.
What we in the NDP have been saying on Bill C-25, and also on other bills that relate to first nations people, is that it is time for the government to learn from the wrongs of the past and recognize that in negotiating with first nations directly, which is a very important step, we must respect the importance of a fair membership process and a clear understanding that status membership has been an issue that has been very problematic for indigenous people in our country. I know from my constituency, many first nations people are proud of their status in their first nation and of their treaty rights, but they are very concerned about the continued existence of their nation, particularly with respect to how their children and their grandchildren will be considered under the Indian Act. We know that Bill C-31 created significant change. It allowed for fairness by recognizing the children of first nations women who had children with non-indigenous men. However, we know that, as people intermarry and as families grow across the country, there needs to be a continued understanding of Indian status and respect for Indian status of indigenous people coming down the line. This is something that has been raised by first nations leaders across the country. 
I recognize that Newfoundland has a very different experience, in terms of its entry into Confederation later on and the recognition of first nations people, and has had a different trajectory from other parts of the country. However, that is no excuse not to learn that first nations must be partners at the table in making sure that something as important as membership, as status in their community, must be front and centre. 
I also share the concern around the process. I realize that the Mi'kmaq first nation and its advocates have worked a long time with the federal government to seek recognition. I want to acknowledge that work, because I realize from first nations leaders in my part of the country how important and how tireless that work can be.
There is nothing more frustrating for first nation members, for first nation leaders and advocates, than a process that seems rushed and that seems not to have taken into consideration the kinds of key factors that should have been considered all along. I think of first nations in northern Manitoba that have struggled to ensure that their land claims are recognized and that their children and grandchildren down the line will be recognized as members of that first nation, as I mentioned.
Even though some first nations in my area had great success in having band membership recognized amongst future generations, the federal government has been slow in equipping those members with their treaty cards. I think of the Peguis first nation, the largest first nation in Manitoba. About 1,300 members of the Peguis band are still waiting for their treaty cards from the federal government.
The process matters to all Canadians. For first nations people who have worked far too long on an issue as important as this, it is of the utmost importance.
We have great hopes that this issue will be dealt with fairly in committee and that we will receive the kinds of answers we need, so we can make a decision accordingly. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has a pretty dark history when it comes to shepherding legislation on indigenous issues through committee. We only hope that the Conservatives will take this issue seriously when it gets to committee. We will certainly be doing the very same every step of the way. 
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Churchill will have 10 minutes when the debate resumes for questions and comments.
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
Supreme Court ActYvon Godin:  moved that Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise for the third time in the House to speak to Bill C-208, which would require Supreme Court justices to be bilingual so that they can respond to Canadian citizens.
Thirteen years ago, on February 28, two hours before I made a speech in the House of Commons about taxes on mechanics' tools, I was thinking that my grandson Jonathan, who was born two days later, might one day use these tools if he decided to become a mechanic. 
Today, as I wish Jonathan a happy birthday, I hope that my other grandson and my granddaughter will be able to be heard in the official language of their choice, which is French, if they ever need to go to the Supreme Court.
Today, my New Democrat colleagues and I are back with my Bill C-208, which would make being bilingual in French and English a new condition for appointing justices to the Supreme Court of Canada.
This is my third attempt to get this initiative passed. In 2010, this bill, known at the time as Bill C-232, was passed by the House of Commons. To my great disappointment, the Conservative senators used their majority in the Senate to block the bill. The bill then died on the order paper when the 2011 election was called. 
The Conservatives have repeatedly shown their contempt for official languages by appointing two unilingual anglophone justices to the Supreme Court and by appointing a unilingual auditor general.
The NDP thinks that there is another way to do things. The NDP is the only party that is proposing concrete measures to promote and protect our official languages. Thanks to the NDP, the House recently passed Bill C-419, which corrects the Conservatives' mistake by ensuring that officers of Parliament will now have to be bilingual when they are appointed. It is time for us to make understanding both official languages an essential condition of being appointed to the Supreme Court.
I would like to speak to the importance of this bill. This is a question of access to justice. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, and it is very important that the justices be able to understand both official languages without the help of an interpreter. I have the utmost respect for the work of interpreters, but we know that interpretation has its limits. Numerous lawyers have noticed errors and omissions in the interpretation of their arguments before the Supreme Court. 
I am thinking, in particular, about Michel Doucet, a law professor at the Université de Moncton, the former dean of the law faculty at the university and a language rights expert. He spoke to the issue when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages:
 In the week after I had argued a case before the Supreme Court, I had an opportunity to hear the English version of my arguments on CPAC, and I understood why I had lost the case five to four. The translation did not allow me to understand my own words. I wonder how justices can fully understand the matter at hand when they have to go through translation in which significant aspects of a submission are missing. When you win 9:0, there is no problem, but when you lose 5 to 4, you automatically wonder whether you should not have argued in English. 
There are many examples of questionable interpretation at the Supreme Court. A lawyer arguing his case before the court mentioned a Monsieur Saint-Coeur and the interpreter rendered it as “Mr. Five O'clock”. Even the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has weighed in on the importance of understanding the arguments presented without the help of an intermediary.
In June 2009, he told members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: 
 Given the complexity and the extreme importance of the cases heard by this court, judges should be able to hear arguments presented to them without using an interpreter to understand nuanced and complex legal arguments. 
 According to Sébastien Grammond, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, interpretation may lead to “loss of precision which, in some cases, can even involve the omission of certain sentences”.
This loss of precision can also be found in the documents submitted by the parties to the proceedings. These documents are not translated by the court. Unilingual judges must rely on the briefs prepared by court clerks, who are often young lawyers with little legal experience.
The presence of unilingual judges on the bench of the Supreme Court also poses a problem during closed-door deliberations without an interpreter. Francophone judges must always express their opinions, ideas and knowledge in their second language. Therefore, there is a risk that they will be much less precise.
If the justices can function in both official languages, everyone can work in the language of their choice. The bilingualism of judges is therefore a question of the equality of francophones and anglophones in terms of access to justice.
The bilingualism of Supreme Court justices ensures the equality of both official languages.
We have to remember that the Supreme Court has recognized the equality of French and English.
Laws are drafted in both official languages. Both versions have the same weight and neither one takes precedence over the other. 
Our language duality is part of our Canadian identity. We have to embrace it. 
Is there substantive equality when a francophone appears before the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court is not there to reward ambitious lawyers or judges. It is there to dispense justice for all Canadians.
Serving on the Supreme Court is not a right, but having fair access to justice is a right. Remember that the court is there to serve Canadians, not the interests of the judge.
The issue of requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual has been debated for several years.
I think it is wrong for francophones to have to make themselves understood by unilingual judges through the filter of interpretation, especially before the highest court in the land.
If Canada's two official languages are to be truly equal, it is important that bilingualism be an essential requirement when judges are appointed to the Supreme Court.
Lastly, my bill would ensure that the Supreme Court can serve all Canadians equally, whether their mother tongue is English or French.
The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, who is highly respected by all Canadians, has said several times that he supports requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual.
The Barreau du Québec has supported this bill for years now:
 The Barreau has always believed that functional bilingualism should be among a Supreme Court judge's required skills in order to ensure equal access to justice, and it deplores that even today federal legislation has no provisions requiring that the nine Supreme Court judges be proficient in both official languages. 
Many stakeholders in the official languages community support my bill, particularly the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and its members:
 The FCFA believes that all citizens have a right to be heard and understood before the highest court of Canada in their official language of choice, without the assistance of an interpreter. 
Lastly, various linguistic rights experts have spoken out in favour of my bill, including Sébastien Grammond, Dean of Civil Law at the University of Ottawa, Gérard Lévesque, a very well-known lawyer for language rights, and Serge Rousselle and Michel Doucet, both law professors at the Université de Moncton.
Let me remind members that the NDP is the only party that proposes concrete measures to advance Canada's linguistic duality.
Bill C-419 on the mandatory bilingualism of officers of Parliament, introduced by my colleague, was passed by the House of Commons in 2013.
Let us not forget that the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre remained open thanks to the pressure that my NDP colleagues and I put on the Conservative government, which intended to close this centre, the only French-language marine rescue centre in Canada.
The Conservative government has not shown any respect toward our official languages. I want to remind the House that it is the Prime Minister who appointed two unilingual judges to the Supreme Court. It is also the Conservative government that appointed a unilingual Auditor General to Parliament. Even the minister responsible for official languages is not in favour of my bill. Her riding of Saint Boniface, in Manitoba, includes thousands of francophones. What an insult to that community.
I also want to remind the members opposite that this former bill, Bill C-232, was passed by the House of Commons in 2010.
All the Conservative members voted against that bill, even the members from Quebec and those who have francophone communities in their ridings, such as the members for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and Madawaska—Restigouche. Despite the opposition of the Conservative members, Bill C-232 was passed by the House of Commons; however, the unelected Conservative senators, including a number of francophones, held up the bill until the 2011 election was called.
The majority of the members in the House of Commons, who were elected by Canadians, voted in favour of this bill, but the unelected senators defeated the bill. Do not try to tell me that the Senate stands up for linguistic minorities.
In closing, I ask the members of all the parties to support this bill so that it can move along and be considered at the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights. We must protect the equality of our two official languages and equal access to justice.
In particular, I am calling on the Conservative members from Quebec and the members who have francophone communities in their ridings, such as the members for Madawaska—Restigouche, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, and Saint Boniface, to pressure their colleagues to support my bill, which seeks to ensure that the Supreme Court judges are bilingual.
If the Conservatives thought that bilingualism was necessary for becoming an officer of Parliament, then there is no reason why they should not do the same for the judges who sit on the benches of the highest court in the land.
The bill is a matter of justice and equality.
It is a matter of justice and equality.
Canadians have the right—it is more than just a privilege—to appear before a judge at the Federal Court of Canada and be heard and understood in the language of their choice. The same applies to the Federal Court of Appeal. It should also apply to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country.
I was at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this week, and I asked officials from the Department of Justice whether there are enough bilingual judges in each province. If Canadians were to read the committee minutes, they would see that the response was yes. I then asked whether there are a lot of judges, and they said that there are enough.
I am waiting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice tell us that the pool is not big enough, even though officials from his own department clearly told us in committee that it is a big pool. They told us that there are enough bilingual judges in every province.
I hope that the Conservatives will support my bill and bilingualism in Canada.
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the hon. member's speech.
He said he heard in committee that there are plenty of bilingual judges in every Canadian province. We know that Supreme Court justices are selected on the basis of merit and legal excellence. The criteria used to assess them are knowledge of the law, judgment, work habits, ability to write and communicate, honesty, fairness, concern for fairness and social conscience. 
I would like to know whether my hon. colleague has counted the number of bilingual judges in each province and whether he has assessed them against these criteria.
Simply being a bilingual judge does not necessarily mean that one meets all of the criteria and can sit on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada.
[Interjection]
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe for his question.
Studies have been done, and the Commissioner of Official Languages, whom all Canadians respect, also ordered his own office to conduct a study. The pool of bilingual judges is large. That is why I asked a question during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during which the most senior Department of Justice officials confirmed that there were plenty. Anyone who wants to be a Federal Court judge has to fulfill the same criteria. There are criteria to be met. My Conservative colleague just talked about those criteria.
The pool of judges for the Supreme Court includes judges who are already in superior courts, which means they meet all of the criteria. It would never occur to me that the government, which appoints Supreme Court justices, does not abide by those criteria. Moreover, the Department of Justice says there are plenty. I asked the witness to repeat that two or three times because I could not believe my ears. This contradicts the Conservatives' argument. My colleague was at that meeting, so he knows the answers given by the Department of Justice.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Acadie—Bathurst. 
In spite of his spirited account of the role of the NDP in defending the rights of bilingualism in this country, I expect that he need not be reminded that this bill in its first instance had its genesis in the Liberal Party with the Hon. Denis Coderre.
My question is about process. Personally, I believe that the Supreme Court of Canada is important enough that the amendments proposed by this bill should be in a government bill and not a private member's bill.
It is not the member's fault that the government has not taken the initiative, but I would like to hear his opinion on that. Something as important as the Supreme Court of Canada should be handled by the government and not a member. 
[Interjection]
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I really would not be jealous if the government introduced a bill requiring Supreme Court justices to be bilingual.
I agree with the member that it should be a government initiative, but I would like to repeat one thing. According to the bill introduced by Denis Coderre, who is now the mayor of Montreal, a francophone could be heard in French at the Supreme Court. The problem with Mr. Coderre's bill was that francophones would have been able to address only seven Supreme Court justices, whereas anglophones would have been able to address nine judges. That is why Denis Coderre withdrew his bill in favour of mine. With my bill, all Supreme Court justices must be bilingual.
My bill is clear. I am not asking that the current Supreme Court justices be shown the door. They were appointed to this position and can remain until they reach 75 or retire. The bill applies to future appointments.
I want Canadians to clearly understand that the bill is about future appointments of Supreme Court justices. It would solve a problem that should have been solved 25 years ago, when the Judges Act was passed.
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the second reading of Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), put forward by the member for Acadie—Bathurst.
The bill would amend the Supreme Court Act. It would introduce a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter. 
The English and French languages have shaped Canadian society. Both linguistic communities are at the heart of our national identity.
The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of supporting the development of its official languages minority communities. To that end, in June 2008 the government announced the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013, a government-wide commitment with a budget of $1.1 billion, based on two pillars: the participation of all in linguistic duality and the support of official languages minority communities in the priority sectors of justice, health, immigration, economic development, and arts and culture. 
This initiative has been followed by the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018: Education, Immigration, Communities, which provides a renewed investment of $1.1 billion over five years, with clear priorities to protect, celebrate, and strengthen our official languages across Canada. One of the road map initiatives under the education component is an investment in training, networks, and access to justice.
I first want to say that our government is strongly committed to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minorities in Canada and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society
I also want to assure the House that our government is committed to maintaining the tradition of excellence that is the hallmark of the judicial appointment process, so that Canadians continue to trust and respect our judicial system.
Canadians take pride in the judicial system and in the steps taken to ensure citizens have access to justice in either official language. The Supreme Court of Canada is a model of institutional bilingualism, which reflects the intent of Parliament that our national institutions be bilingual.
The government remains committed to preserving a fair, unbiased legal system. To that end, we intend to continue to be guided by the principles of merit and legal excellence in the selection and appointment of judges to the superior courts of the provinces, the federal courts and the Supreme Court.
To date, our government has appointed 400 judges to various Canadian courts. We are proud of having appointed these highly competent judges and lawyers. Our appointments embody the principles of merit and legal excellence that will continue to guide our decisions in the appointment of judges.
Merit and legal excellence are the foundation of the judge appointment process. The other criteria are knowledge of the law, judgment, work habits, ability to write and communicate, honesty, integrity, a concern for fairness and a social conscience.
Bilingualism is another factor we consider. Our government can take candidates' linguistic abilities into account to ensure that Canadians have access to justice in both official languages. We are determined to create a federal legal system that provides equal access to justice in both official languages.
I would also like to point out that, before each appointment, we consult the chief justice of the court in question to find out the court's needs, including its need for specific language skills. The chief justice is in an ideal position to understand the needs of the communities the court serves and to identify specific needs when positions become available. Our government also listens to the advice of various expert groups and individuals about factors to consider when filling vacancies.
To ensure that we have an ample and balanced pool of bilingual candidates for the bench, our government asks associations of lawyers and francophone communities to identify and encourage people with the necessary skills to apply. We also ask them to inform the minister about these people.
We are not denying the importance of language skills, particularly when a specific need is identified. However, merit remains the primary and most important factor that must be taken into account in appointing judges. 
First and foremost, our government is determined to appoint the best-qualified individuals. We will continue to appoint competent and dedicated people, and adhere to the principle of gender equality, cultural diversity and bilingualism.
The Supreme Court of Canada plays a fundamental role in our democratic society, in particular as the ultimate guardian of the values entrenched in the Constitution.
It is therefore essential for its members to be selected from among the most distinguished and most competent of jurists. That is why when filling vacancies in the court, we take great care to select the best candidates, both in terms of knowledge and experience and of social conscience.
The judges appointed to the Supreme Court for the past 130 years have been among the best justices the court could have had. The qualities we look for in a candidate include outstanding intellectual capacity, superior ability in judgment writing, the capacity for innovative thinking on emerging legal issues, and a demonstrated sensitivity to the diverse values enshrined in the Constitution. All these qualities go hand in hand with regional representation. It is important that the Supreme Court represent all Canadians. That is why we must take this important factor into consideration. 
This is how Peter Hogg, a renowned constitutional scholar, described the professional and personal qualities that a Supreme Court of Canada justice must have:
 A judge has to be able to resolve difficult legal issues, not just by virtue of technical legal skills, but also with wisdom, fairness, and compassion. 
 A judge must have the energy and discipline to diligently study the materials that are filed in every appeal. 
 A judge must be able to maintain an open mind on every appeal until he or she has read all of the pertinent material and heard from counsel on both sides. 
 A judge must always treat the counsel and the litigants who appear before him or her with patience and courtesy. 
 A judge must be able to write opinions that are well written and well reasoned. 
 ...a judge must be able to work cooperatively with eight colleagues to help produce agreement on unanimous or majority decisions and to do his or her share of the writing. 
Whereas the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in Canada, it is essential for our government to be able to select qualified jurists from all regions of the country when appointing justices to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Passing BIll C-208 would mean giving greater importance to linguistic considerations than to merit, by reducing the pool of otherwise highly qualified candidates, particularly from parts of the country where there may be fewer judges who are capable of handling cases in both official languages.
Indeed, the Supreme Court already respects the right of all Canadians to be heard and understood in the language of their choice. All Supreme Court services are provided in English and French, and all communication already takes place in both official languages.
In addition, anyone who has to make written submissions to the Supreme Court may do so in either English or French. A large majority of the judges currently sitting on the Supreme Court are proficient in both official languages and are perfectly capable of handling cases in either language without the use of simultaneous interpretation. 
Supreme Court judges also have the option of taking language training; indeed, they are encouraged to do so. High-level and very high-quality translation and interpretation services are provided for Supreme Court hearings. Furthermore, all judges are supported by at least one bilingual law clerk.
The current composition requirements of the Supreme Court Act, together with the historical practice of regional representation, allow us to preserve our firm commitment to bilingualism.
The extraordinary expertise and commitment of the current Supreme Court judges clearly demonstrate just how seriously our government takes these appointments, as did previous governments.
Bilingualism is an important factor to consider in the selection of Supreme Court judges. However, this factor must not overshadow the merit and excellence of judges from a legal standpoint, or the importance of regional representation.
For all of those reasons I just mentioned, we cannot support Bill C-208 in its current form.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to speak to an important issue for Canada, namely its two official languages.
I believe that French is important. When I was elected for the first time, in 2011, I made a commitment to learn French for a number of reasons, the most compelling being that I felt it was important to be able to communicate with voters in their first language.
Charlottetown's Acadian community is flourishing, and the Carrefour de l'Isle-Saint-Jean is its cultural and educational heart. To be honest, I am quite eager to go back there for the annual Club Richelieu fundraiser tomorrow night.
Each week, when I am in Ottawa, I take an hour or two to learn French and practise. I do the same when I am at home, in Charlottetown. Learning the other official language has been very gratifying for me personally.
Prince Edward Island has a rich history in terms of French and Acadian language and culture, and we embrace it, knowing that Canada's linguistic duality is very important. It is not just a legal or constitutional matter. Promoting and understanding French can be a unifying force for us all.
Today we are talking about the role that the French language plays in the legal system. The bill introduced in the House is a legislative measure that, I can only assume, is driven by the member for Acadie—Bathurst's great sense of pride.
The hon. member is part of a different caucus, and that is not a criticism. I must say that I admire his passion and strong commitment to Canada's official languages as well as his dedication to ensuring institutional bilingualism in the courts. I hope he knows just how much respect members from both sides of the House have for him.
Let us move on to the bill. It would amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act and introduce a new requirement for judges appointed to the Supreme Court to understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter. Some members will recall that the idea of amending the Supreme Court of Canada Act has been proposed in the House of Commons a number of times in previous parliaments. That includes a similar bill that was introduced by our former colleague, the hon. Denis Coderre, who is now the mayor of Montreal. 
I am in favour of second reading of this bill, despite some minor reservations that I will come back to in a moment. I also believe that my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville is in favour of this, which convinces me a little bit more that this bill deserves to be studied and to be given second reading.
I invite our Conservative colleagues to support this bill so that it can go to committee, where it will certainly have a full hearing. In this way we will be able to evaluate the merits and the flaws of the bill and give the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the opportunity to hear from experts.
I would like to say that I am very reluctant to use a private member's bill to amend such an important law. I would like to explain.
The Criminal Code of Canada is a vitally important piece of legislation that plays a major role in the day-to-day lives of Canadians. I believe that it should not be tinkered with by a frustrated member who would like to score some political points in his riding and, even worse, against his leader. However, the Criminal Code, which is so important, has unfortunately been deformed by a series of private members' bills introduced by Conservative backbenchers. 
The purpose of these bills is mainly to fundraise by making it seem as though the Conservatives are fighting crime, while deliberately ignoring the evidence and the hard facts.
For the Conservatives, the Criminal Code is just a tool for garnering donations from people who do not understand the evidence and the facts and are convinced that vengeance is the only form of justice. The frequent use of private members' bills to amend criminal law has made the Criminal Code somewhat incoherent.
It is wrong to tinker with the Criminal Code, unless of course the goal is to slowly and surreptitiously amend it, with the support of the Minister of Justice, who perhaps prefers to resort to private members' bills because, unlike other bills, they are not subject to the usual process for ensuring compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
I say that because the Supreme Court of Canada Act is also a piece of legislation that should be considered of the utmost importance given how the Supreme Court influences all our institutions.
This is a concern I have in general with the use of a private member's bill for what should be in the bailiwick of a government acting in consultation and in agreement on matters of such great national importance.
 These statutes should only be amended in circumstances that are of national significance and for which the implications are particularly meaningful to the whole of the country. Ideally, these types of changes should be driven by government, acting in a coordinated manner and in the national interest.
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst would surely agree with me that the constant tinkering with the Criminal Code, as an example, for purely partisan reasons is not the ideal. 
I have similar concerns with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada Act. We should not, in normal circumstances, change such an important piece of legislation by means of a private member's bill. I say this knowing that one of my former colleagues, now the Mayor of Montreal, was one of the first to suggest changes to the Supreme Court of Canada Act that are now before the House. 
We do not, however, operate in normal circumstances.
I do not believe that we have a government that acts consistently in the national interest, and I do not think that have a properly functioning democracy. We see this every day in the House, where Conservative members read scripts attacking others, heckle and shout at other members when they speak, and generally operate on the principle of division and negativity.
My assertion is merely confirmed with the their new unfair elections act, which is a transparent attempt by Conservatives to game the system for political advantage. We have, as Bob Rae rightly suggested, elected a motorcycle gang in Ottawa, a group that will do and say anything to win.
In normal times, when matters regarding the appointment of a Supreme Court justice arise, we would be assured that the process would unfold in a manner that was inclusive and meaningful. Canadians also expect matters related to the Supreme Court to be treated in a non-political way, and we expect appointments to be made to ensure a proper linguistic, gender, and regional balance as part of the process. 
Again, these are not normal times.
We are reminded of the actions of the current Minister of Justice, who botched the appointment of Justice Nadon, an individual who was well respected and a capable jurist and who served on the Federal Court with honour. Justice Nadon endured public scrutiny and no doubt unwelcome attention simply because the current government mishandled the Supreme Court process.
Moreover, in order to fix the mishandling of the appointment of Justice Nadon, the Conservatives treated the Supreme Court of Canada Act with disdain, tacking on an amendment to the Supreme Court of Canada Act as part of a large budget omnibus bill. Such is the extent of the government's lack of respect for the court and for process.
This approach to the Supreme Court of Canada Act is completely at odds with how we should treat legislation of such significance. We should change the court's enabling legislation only when absolutely necessary, and not at the demand of a backbench MP, whether that person is from an opposition party or the government. That is my primary concern with the bill. 
It relates not to the substance necessarily, but rather that we find ourselves with a government uninterested in dealing with the issue itself and to do so knowing that the issues around French language and linguistic duality are important and meaningful.
Let me close by again complimenting the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his effort. I hope that the hon. member will be open to answering some questions that I have on the substance of the bill when, hopefully, it makes its way to committee. That will require the Conservatives to do the right thing in the current context and allow the bill to go to a proper hearing.
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, it is a huge privilege to co-sponsor the bill introduced by my colleague and, I would even say, my friend, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, and to speak to it today.
This bill would require that all Supreme Court justices be bilingual, which goes to the very heart of our democracy. Equal access to justice for all is a fundamental aspect of democracy. To ensure that everyone, without exception, has equal access to justice, justices of the Supreme Court—the highest court in this country and the court of last resort—must be able to hear arguments and read documents associated with a case or the evidence without the help of interpreters or translators.
Let us be clear. I have the utmost admiration for interpreters. Listening to something and interpreting it has to be one of the hardest jobs in the world. I have a particular fondness for translators, since I used to work in translation.
That said, even a translator would say that translation is the art of fudging. It is not an exact science. I have some real examples. Michel Doucet, a law professor at the Université de Moncton and an expert in language rights, argued a case before the Supreme Court. A few weeks later, by chance, he heard the arguments he had made in French being played in English on CPAC. Here is what he had to say about it:
 The translation did not allow me to understand my own words. I wonder how justices can fully understand the matter at hand when they have to go through translation in which significant aspects of a submission are missing. When you win 9:0, there is no problem, but when you lose 5 to 4, you automatically wonder whether you should not have argued in English. 
It is essentially a matter of principle. Canada's laws are not written in one language and then translated into the other. They are drafted at the same time in both official languages, and neither version takes precedence over the other. I think it is important for Supreme Court justices to be able to hear francophones in their own language, to read the law in that language and also to understand the tradition of civil law in Quebec.
We in the NDP are not the only ones saying so. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has said several times that he believes that Supreme Court judges should be bilingual. When he released his 2012-13 report, he stated:
 There have also been a few outcomes during my tenure that I would characterize as conspicuous failures. For example, the government failed to see the importance of having bilingual Supreme Court judges. I have given my support to Bill C-232, which sought to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act, as I firmly believe that any litigant appearing before the Supreme Court should have the right to be heard and understood by all the judges in either official language without the aid of an interpreter. 
The Barreau du Québec has also repeatedly reiterated its support for the bill on bilingual judges:
 Bilingualism...should be among a Supreme Court judge's required skills in order to ensure equal access to justice, and the Barreau du Québec’s position in this regard is categorical. 
I mentioned Bill C-232 and said that the Barreau du Québec has repeatedly reiterated its support for the bill on bilingual Supreme Court judges because this is not the first time this subject has been discussed.
Indeed, in 2008, my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst introduced a similar bill, Bill C-232, which I mentioned a few moments ago, also calling for a bilingualism requirement for Supreme Court judges. This has been quite a battle. I did not have the honour of representing Laurier—Sainte-Marie at the time, when the Conservatives had a minority government. Finally, in 2010, despite the obstruction and opposition of Conservative members, including those from Quebec or ridings with large francophone populations, the bill passed. However, when it was sent to the Senate, the senators quashed it. I would like to make a very important point in passing in that regard.
Every time I hear that story or a similar one, it breaks my heart. It breaks my heart when democratically elected members vote in favour of a bill, then the Senate, whose members are appointed rather than democratically elected, has the gall to defeat the bill on purely partisan grounds, even though it deals with an issue as crucial as access to justice for all. This is fundamentally wrong and should not be allowed. It is yet another reason to abolish the Senate. The Senate is supposed to represent the regions, but how well did it represent Quebec and other regions where there are many francophones when it made that decision?
Finally, I would like to point out that this bill espouses the same logic as the bill on bilingualism for officers of Parliament put forward by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. I must say, in fact, that I take some pride in being a member of the only party that goes beyond empty rhetoric and takes concrete steps to better protect and promote our country's official languages.
Promoting and protecting official languages goes beyond the appointment of Supreme Court judges. If we send the message that people do not have to be bilingual to hold a senior position in the federal system, that being unilingual is perfectly all right, how does that encourage young Canadians to learn the other official language? Such a message would discourage, rather than encourage them.
What fate awaits that bill now, I do not know. The comments I have heard from the other side of the House have me very concerned. There have been other attempts to push for the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges. As my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst pointed out, if it does not work this time, we will make it work in 2015 when we form the government. 
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-208, which was introduced by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. I know how important official languages are to him and to the vast majority of francophones from one end of this country to the other, myself included.
To begin, I would like to congratulate him for bringing back this bill. I would also like to thank him for how passionately he defends our shared mother tongue and our country's official language minority communities.
This bill would amend the Supreme Court Act and introduce a new requirement for judges appointed to the country's highest court to understand both official languages without the assistance of an interpreter.
For the NDP, this bill is primarily about equality—equal access to justice and the equality of our country's two official languages.
As my colleagues have said, the NDP is the only party that is proposing meaningful action to promote and protect the equality of Canada's two official languages. It is also the only party that is proposing initiatives to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities.
Not only is this the member for Acadie—Bathurst's third attempt to get Parliament to ratify this principle, but this initiative is also closely aligned with Bill C-419 on bilingualism requirements for officers of Parliament, which was introduced by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and received royal assent last June. 
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent on this unprecedented victory and all of his hard work on this file.
I hope the Conservative members have finally understood the importance of protecting language rights, and I hope they will support this important bill despite what we have heard today.
This is the third time that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has introduced this bill since 2008. The last time we debated it in the House, members passed it on March 31, 2010.
Why are we debating it again today? The answer is simple but distressing. Unelected, unaccountable senators in the Conservative caucus who do not represent Canadians blocked this bill for a full year until the March 2011 election. As a result, Bill C-232 died on the order paper. 
That is another good reason to abolish that archaic and completely undemocratic institution. To all those who argue that the Senate and senators serve the interests of Canada's linguistic minorities, well, we can forget about that.
One important fact is that when Bill C-232 was passed in the House of Commons in May 2010, the Conservatives had a minority government. All the Conservative members, including the francophone Conservative members, voted against the bill. That is shameful. However, since the opposition voted to support the bill, it managed to pass in the House.
I do not need to paint a picture to explain to people that, considering that outcome, someone must have received a call from the Prime Minister's Office instructing the government's friends in the upper chamber to do everything in their power to throw a monkey wrench into the plans and obstruct the democratic will of this House, which is filled with the elected representatives of the Canadian people. Accordingly, we are trying again.
Many groups and individuals have expressed their support for the amendment to the Supreme Court Act that is proposed in Bill C-208.
Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, is one of them. When he released his annual report on November 7, 2013, he stated:
 There have also been a few outcomes during my tenure that I would characterize as conspicuous failures. For example, the government failed to see the importance of having bilingual Supreme Court judges. I have given my support to Bill C-232, which sought to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act, as I firmly believe that any litigant appearing before the Supreme Court should have the right to be heard and understood by all the judges in either official language without the aid of an interpreter. 
Other stakeholders, such as the Barreau du Québec, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick, and Sébastien Grammond, dean of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa, have said they support my colleague's bill.
They all agree that this is a matter of equal access to justice, and they acknowledge the importance of being understood in the official language of our choice by the highest court in the land, without a third party interpreting our words, which can lead to interpretations that are inconsistent with what was really said.
As a Quebecker, I would like to add that it is particularly important to my constituents that the highest court in the land understand both our national language and our civil law tradition.
I am troubled by the comments made by those who oppose this bill. Some believe that the condition of understanding both official languages without the aid of an interpreter would be an obstacle to appointing the best people to fill this role, those who merit the position the most. That argument would suggest that there are not enough qualified bilingual judges to serve as Supreme Court judges. That argument is simply wrong.
A study conducted in 2011 by professors Mark Power and Sébastien Grammond showed that, even if Quebec is excluded, 25% of the 124 judges who serve on provincial appeals courts and the Federal Court of Appeal can hear a case in French without the aid of an interpreter. Are we not capable of finding a judge in that group worthy of serving on the Supreme Court?
The NDP believes that to become a Supreme Court judge, one must have all the necessary skills, including the ability to understand Canada's two official languages.
Not only did the members opposite vote against Bill C-232, but the Conservative government appointed two unilingual judges, Justices Moldaver and Rothstein, to the Supreme Court. I do not know if that was out of partisanship or contempt for francophones, but it is clearly unacceptable, not just to us, but to all francophones in Canada, whether they are Quebeckers or members of a francophone minority community. 
Even the new Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has said that the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada is not essential. 
As Chantal Hébert rightly said in an article entitled “Bilingualism at the Supreme Court for dummies” published in the April 2010 issue of L'actualité: 
 The fact is that refusing to make the ability to function in both official languages a selection criterion for Supreme Court justices makes English the main language of an institution...at the heart of public life in Canada... 
If the Prime Minister had not been able to address Canadians in both official languages and had not rectified the situation in a timely manner, he never would have been elected Prime Minister. That might have been better for the country, but we will talk about that again during the election campaign.
The same is true for the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Employment and Social Development, since they are both in the running to replace the current Prime Minister after he loses the election in 2015.
I am already hearing grumbling from my colleagues opposite, who will probably try to claim that under the current system, a unilingual francophone judge could also be appointed to the Supreme Court. My response to that is simple. In more than 145 years, not once has a judge who speaks and understands only French been appointed to the highest court in the country. Never.
Never in Canada's history have we nominated a French unilingual judge to the Supreme Court of Canada. Never.
 At this point, Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to address my colleagues who need an interpretation to understand what I have been saying in my mother tongue.
 First, the laws of this country are not written in English and then translated. They are written simultaneously and independently in both languages.
Second, the Supreme Court of Canada is the very last legal recourse that a person has.
Third, as highly qualified as interpreters are, and here I would like to salute the House of Commons interpreters for their difficult and professional work, every language has its subtleties, particularly legalese.
Let me give an example. At a recent event, someone used the phrase “invités de marque”, which I would translate as important visitors or VIPs. It was translated as “Mark's guests”. That type of mistake, which completely changes the meaning of the sentence, could be costly in a court of law, particularly when it is one's last recourse.
I hope that my Conservative colleagues from Quebec will listen to reason this time and will remember where they come from. With the bill on bilingualism of officers of Parliament, they have already shown that it is possible to work together to promote Canada's official languages.
It is possible to do the same with the bill to require that Supreme Court justices be bilingual.
The Deputy Speaker: 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. 
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)