OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 059 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, March 7, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 7, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 059 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 059 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 059 (Version officielle) 147 059 07 03 2014 2014/03/07 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Government Orders Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-25,

An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-25. Second reading Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would first indicate that I am splitting my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton , so the House will only have the privilege of hearing me speak for about 10 minutes. Then I will leave the floor for questions and comments. The bill has been spoken to already. There have been many persuasive arguments to support this important piece of legislation.

First and foremost, Bill C-25 would enable the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation to finalize its membership list. That process began with the 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, signed by the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, but it has yet to be completed. For reasons other speakers have already explained, and as others will hereafter, the full implementation of that agreement has been delayed. As the House may know or may have already heard during this debate, the very first stage of that enrolment process ended on November 30, 2009.

The first stage resulted in the issuance of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order on September 22, 2011. As a result, 23,877 individuals were enrolled as the band's founding members. With that they gained Indian status under the Indian Act, giving them access to certain federal programs and services, as they should have. However, issues with the enrolment process became apparent during the second stage of the enrolment process, which ended on November 30, 2012.

Just to remind the House, an additional 36 months were provided under that original 2008 agreement to guarantee that everyone who might be eligible to become a member of Qalipu Mi'kmaq band had ample time to apply. Much to the surprise of both parties, more than 75,000 additional people took the opportunity to apply for membership, bringing the total number of applications to over 101,000. To put that into perspective, that figure represents about 11% of all registered Indians in Canada, so it is a very significant number.

It is also worth noting that over 46,000 applications were sent in during the last three months, the last quarter before that November 30, 2012 deadline. Concerns were raised by both parties to the agreement that these numbers were possibly not credible and that the integrity of the enrolment process had been undermined. Consequently, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Government of Canada agreed to the need for a supplemental agreement, which was announced in July 2013. The parties were able to use those provisions in the 2008 agreement to amend the original agreement.

The supplemental agreement provides greater clarity surrounding the criteria for band membership. It provides the necessary detail to ensure that the original intent of the 2008 agreement is respected and that the integrity of the process is protected. This is of great concern to the leaders of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and to our government, as it should be to all members of the House. To be clear, the enrolment criteria set out in the 2008 agreement remain the same. Nothing has changed with respect to that.

The supplemental agreement clarifies how to assess that criteria and which documents may be considered. Anyone wishing to join the first nation needs to prove his or her eligibility for membership. That is the responsible and appropriate thing to do, from the point of view of the Newfoundland first nation and the Government of Canada and all citizens across this great country. Applicants must provide documentary evidence that they self-identified as being members of a Newfoundland Mi'kmaq group prior to 2008.

They also have to demonstrate that they were accepted by the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq Group of Indians through their active involvement in Mi'kmaq culture before the first nation was officially formed. The supplemental agreement also allows more time for the enrolment committee to process the tens of thousands of unexpected applications. That is essential to ensure that everyone who submitted an application is treated fairly and equitably and that there is due consideration given to each application in the process.

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

schedule will be required to add the names of those who are found to be entitled to be members and also to remove the names of those on the list who are determined to be ineligible for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, according to the criteria. It is possible that some of those initially deemed to be founding members will no longer be entitled to Indian status, should the current review reveal that they do not meet the enrolment criteria. However, I want to underline that there will be no changes to the

schedule until the review process is over. All those currently registered as Indians under the Indian act will continue to have access to designated programs and services until that time. Despite the steps our government is taking to come to a conclusion on this matter to ensure clarity and fairness for applicants, the members of the Liberal Party thus far have suggested that the agreement with the FNI establishing clear criteria for enrolment in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation stands for nothing, that it is of no account and is not important at all. We believe that it is.

It is crucial, and I think that any complacency or lack of regard for integrity is an example of what the Liberal members are doing on this. It is really a matter of putting their own personal interests before the interests of those they claim to represent. I am sure that all other members of the House can understand that clarity is essential. I think fair-minded people would admit that. It is essential for everyone involved but especially for the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland. They want this kind of clarity and integrity.

Yesterday, on the floor of the House of Commons, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , the House leader for the NDP, mistakenly referred to this legislation as a treaty. Maybe it was misspoken on his part or a slip, but I want to make it very clear to the members in this House that this is not about a treaty. When the member does his homework, he will know that this is about an agreement entered into between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. It is the only way to ensure that the original intent of the 2008 agreement is respected and that the supplemental agreement can be implemented.

It is vital for ensuring the integrity of the process. Parliamentarians need to recognize that this can only be accomplished by enacting the piece of legislation before us. It would enable the Governor in Council to make the required amendments to the recognition order. Passage of Bill C-25 is necessary to finalize the membership list of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation. It is the final step in fully implementing these agreements and going on from there. It is incumbent on members on both sides of this House to ensure that this can take place and that we move on it.

I urge all parties to join our government in ensuring the swift passage of Bill C-25 to complete the process for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation and its eligible members.

(1010) Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the government has invoked time allocation on the bill, given the fact that it has only been debated one Friday in the House, and today is the second Friday. Essentially we will have only a couple of hours of debate. As the member for St. John's East ably outlined, we are providing equivocal support for the bill, so it is not clear why the Conservatives had to shut down debate on it.

With regard to clause 4 in the bill, which deals with an indemnity clause, I wonder if the member could outline what he expects this indemnity clause in the bill to cover. Mr. Maurice Vellacott : Mr. Speaker, clause 4 would support the overall integrity and credibility of the membership. I think it is crucial in the enrolment process of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. It would ensure that the applicants who are found not to be entitled to registration would not obtain compensation for benefits intended only for registered Indians.

They are on the list presently until found otherwise, according to some very clear criteria. Those benefits would not be clawed back. I think we would all agree that individuals who are rightfully a part of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation will continue to be, but there may be some on that list who are not eligible, according to clear criteria. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, first, I would echo some of my NDP colleague's comments regarding the issue of time allocation.

We are also concerned about the way the government is using time allocation almost as a normal procedure in the passage of legislation. In fact, it is not appropriate. Having said that, I wonder if the member could provide some comment regarding the appeal mechanism, if he is familiar with it. Individual applicants who might be going through the process may feel that they would like to challenge a decision. Could the member provide comment as to what an individual would be able to do in terms of appealing a decision? Mr. Maurice Vellacott : Mr.

Speaker, the legislation would not prevent individuals from appealing the enrolment committee determination, pursuant to the agreement. They would have recourse to the courts and other legal processes. They could challenge through the courts their exclusion from the

schedule of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation order. They would be deprived of none of that. They would have full access to any and all of that in terms of appeals they may feel they need to undertake as a result of being excluded from the order. Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there was some confusion between two members of the NDP the last time we debated this issue. The member for St. John's East was very clear that he expected the criteria to apply to all 101,000 applicants,

whereas the member for Western Arctic made it clear that he thought the 23,877 members who had already received Indian status should be protected and should not be subject to the same criteria as the others who applied later. Does the hon. member believe that there should be equality and fairness for all applicants, or does he believe that there should be special status for those who were approved early on in the process?

(1015) Mr. Maurice Vellacott : Mr. Speaker, there is no grandfathering. The very clear and careful criteria that have been agreed to and the

interpretation of the criteria would apply to all of them. To maintain the integrity of the process, everyone would get the same due process and the same thorough scrutiny. In terms of procedural fairness, most of us would agree to have the same criteria. Nobody should sneak in under the wire. The criteria should not be applied differently to some who were already on the list. As I said before, there would be no clawing back for people deemed to have been on that list inappropriately. None of the benefits they might have received in the meantime would be taken back from them.

They are currently still on the band list. All of these together would be considered under the same consistent criteria that would be applied to all of them. None would be excluded. Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for this legislation. I want to use this occasion to underscore that our government and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians are united in the desire to achieve our mutual goal: to enable the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians in the province to build a strong foundation for Mi’kmaq cultural growth and development.

This is something we have jointly worked to achieve for a number of years and are determined to bring to fruition. However, it can only be accomplished with the passage of Bill C-25 . This is why we hope that all members of the House will stand up for the integrity and credibility of the band, to the exclusion of personal motives, and vote favourably for the expedited passage of the bill.

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

The 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation established a process to create a landless band and legally recognize its members as registered Indians under the Indian Act, providing them access to important federal programs and services previously unavailable to them. The order in council creating the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation was signed in September 2011. Both parties in the 2008 agreement intended that founding membership in the band would be granted primarily to individuals living in or around the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities named in the 2008 agreement.

Of course, it was always understood that some people living outside these communities might become members of the first nation. However, it was also agreed by the signatories of the 2008 agreement that non-residents would be required to have maintained a strong cultural connection with the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community. This means a sustained and active involvement in the community, despite not having a physical presence. In the 2008 agreement, the parties agreed to a two-stage enrolment process for founding membership in the new first nation.

The first stage, which ended in November 2009, was intended to identify founding members of the band. The second stage provided an additional 36 months to ensure that anyone who might be eligible to join the first nation could still apply and be assessed for membership. This was something both Mi'kmaq leaders and our government felt was fair and reasonable. What was unreasonable, and unexpected, was the approximately 46,000 applications that arrived in the final months of the second stage of the enrolment process.

Only 23,450 people self-identified as aboriginal residents of Newfoundland and Labrador in the 2006 census; however, more than 101,000 people had submitted applications to join the band by the time the application process closed on November 30, 2012—which, if accepted, would represent 11% of all registered Indians in Canada. Not surprisingly, this raised a lot of eyebrows on the part of both the government and the FNI, and questions regarding the integrity and credibility of the enrolment process. A much lower number of applications was expected. No one ever imagined the number would be in excess of 101,000.

Clearly, there was a need for greater clarity about who actually qualifies for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. This was essential to ensure there could be no misunderstanding about what is required to be eligible to become a member of the band. Only in this way could everyone submitting an application be treated fairly and equitably. Especially important, such clarity is vital to the integrity of the enrolment process. That is why the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the government jointly agreed to explore improvements to the process.

Both parties wanted to be sure that applicants would provide sufficient detail to establish their eligibility for band membership.

(1020) They wanted to ensure that the enrolment process reflected the original intention of the parties and provided adequate time for all applications to be carefully reviewed. To accomplish this, the federal government signed a supplementary agreement with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians in June 2013 to resolve issues that emerged in the implementation of the 2008 agreement. This has led to a comprehensive review, currently under way, of all of the applications received from the very start of this process, except those already rejected.

The supplemental agreement signed last July does not in any way change the rules of the game. It maintains the original criteria for band membership contained in the 2008 agreement. Potential applicants must still satisfy four key criteria, which, I want to underline, were negotiated with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. These criteria were and remain as follows. First, the individual must be of Canadian Indian ancestry. Second, the individual must be descended from a member of a Newfoundland pre-Confederation Mi'kmaq community.

Third, the individual must also have self-identified, prior to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's creation, as a member of the Mi'kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland. Fourth, and equally important, the individual must be accepted by the Mi'kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland, based on a substantial cultural connection. Acceptance is based on residency in one of the communities listed in the 2008 agreement or through frequent visits or communications with residents and by maintaining the Mi'kmaq way of life.

Both the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the government believe that this is a fair and reasonable way to assess who is ultimately eligible to be a member of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. There was also full agreement that enough time must be provided for this process to unfold, to give all those with valid applications a fair chance to provide the information required during the review. Only when this comprehensive process is complete can the parties be sure that the names of those who qualify go onto the band's membership list. It is at that stage that Bill C-25 would be required.

The legislation is crucial to the implementation of the supplemental agreement. The legislation before us today is the last step required to resolve this long-standing issue, something both the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and members of the government are anxious to do. Ultimately, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation act would provide the Governor in Council with the authority to amend the recognition order once the enrolment process resulting from the supplemental agreement is complete. This would allow the Governor in Council to add or remove names from the band membership list.

As others have noted, it is possible that after closer examination, someone previously named as a founding member of the band might fail to satisfy the criteria I outlined earlier. Anyone who no longer qualifies for membership would subsequently lose his or her entitlement to Indian status, while those added would gain status under the act. This is only fair. The House can rest assured that until all of this is sorted out, nothing will change. However, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation is looking to us, as parliamentarians, to help provide certainty for the future of the band.

Let us make sure that the band's membership list is able to be finalized by quickly passing this legislation before us today.

(1025) Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is a question that has arisen with respect to resources for membership. We know from Bill C-3 , called the McIvor bill, which reinstated membership for a number of people who had been denied membership because of some gender discrimination, that there is a lengthy list of people waiting to get their status cards. This current legislation would increase that list of people waiting for their status card, which also impacts the ability of people to access benefits.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether the government is prepared to put additional resources into processing applications for status. Mrs. Patricia Davidson : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has spent countless hours working on behalf of first nations and we certainly appreciate what she has done in that regard. Her heart is definitely behind her work and what she has been doing. This agreement is supported on both sides, by the FNI and by the government. That is extremely important.

We must remember that each application for membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq is being assessed on its own merits, and that is the way it should be. There is no quota for a maximum number of members who will be registered at the end of the enrolment process, but we need to ensure that all applicants are treated fairly and equitably. All applications, except those that have been previously rejected, will be reviewed. Bill C-25 addresses technical requirements and provides the Governor in Council with the authority necessary to amend the

schedule to the first nation band order. These are things that need to be done and certainty is required. We look forward to moving the bill forward. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments when she said, “Let us pass this bill quickly”. It brings to light a criticism of the government, that is quite legitimate, as to why that is. The government has been very familiar with the issue for months—not weeks, but months—and some might even suggest well over a year. The Conservatives brought it in for second reading and allocated a couple of hours of debate.

I think there is a very good chance it might have passed within that couple of hours without any time allocation, but then they try to give the impression that if we do not pass the bill within their time constraints, the world will come to an end; that it has to happen. They pushed the panic button, they brought in time allocation, and yet if anyone is negligent regarding the timing, one could say it was the government. Why did it take the government so long to bring the legislation before the House and which now it is declaring is an absolutely urgent piece that requires time allocation.

What took the government so long to bring it in? Mrs. Patricia Davidson : Mr. Speaker, certainly we need to move forward with the bill, and swiftly. We have had years of discussions with the FNI regarding its aspirations for the recognition of the Mi'kmaq of the island of Newfoundland.

The parties to the agreements want to move as quickly as possible to, once and for, all complete the membership enrolment for the Qalipu Mi'kmaq, and the bill, being the last piece required to resolve this issue of the recognition, is something that both the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the Government of Canada are anxious to do and to see it move forward. We have to remember that Bill C-25 reflects the original intent of the parties as it was outlined in the 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq Band, and it supports the implementation of the 2013 supplemental agreement.

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

(1030) Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-25,

an act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order . This legislation is a technical piece of legislation. It is comprised of a lengthy

preamble, but the bill consists of only four clauses, and only clauses 3 and 4 are at the heart of the matter. As has been indicated in the House, the NDP is prepared to support this bill going to committee for further review and study, so it is troubling that we once again saw time allocation on a matter that did not appear to require it. It would seem, from what members in the House have said, that all members are anxious to get this bill to committee for study. Therefore, we question what the government's motives were in arbitrarily shutting down debate for no good reason.

With regard to the bill, I want to touch on clauses 3 and 4. Clause 4 is the clause that allows the Governor in Council the power to amend the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order. This is important because this is the founding list of the band. While the minister has the power to recognize a group of people as a band under

section 2 of the Indian Act, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada felt that it needed legislation to amend the founding list. It is not explicit in the Indian Act that the minister can add or remove people from a band once it is recognized, and I will come back to this point a little further in my speech. The bill that is before the House does not alter the membership criteria. I know there are some concerns being expressed with regard to the membership criteria, but that is outside the scope of this legislation before the House.

If people have concerns about the membership criteria, they need to work with the enrolment committee, the government, and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians in order to examine the membership criteria. That is absolutely outside the scope of this bill. Clause 4 of the bill takes away the right to seek compensation from either the government or the band council, if one's name or date of birth is omitted or removed from the founding members list.

People can still sue the government, but cannot make a claim for services or benefits not received because their names were not on the membership list at a certain time. People currently receiving benefits because they were enrolled before they were advised of the agreement in July 2013 will continue to receive benefits. If at some time their memberships are revoked, they will not have to pay back the benefits they have received to that point. That is New Democrats' understanding of the legislation, and that is why we want it to go to committee, so we can hear from independent witnesses about whether that

interpretation of the legislation is the correct one. I want to provide a little background. It is not a normal course of events to have a landless band being established. According to the department's briefing documents, in 1949, when Newfoundland joined Confederation, its first nations were not recognized as Indians under the Indian Act. In 1989, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians brought a lawsuit against Canada seeking Indian Act recognition.

Finally, in 2007, the government settled this court action, and this led to the 2008 agreement for the recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band of Newfoundland as a landless band under the Indian Act. In this case, we are not talking about a treaty or self-government; it is a landless band. This provides for an enrolment process to assess applications for membership in the new band. As other members have pointed out, based on the membership criteria as outlined in the agreement, there was an expectation of how many people would be applying for membership.

Because there was some ambiguity around the process, it resulted in far more applications than anticipated. These applications are assessed by an arm's-length enrolment committee, comprised of two representatives from Canada, two from the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, and an independent chair who is chosen by the parties. As I mentioned, because of the very unexpected spike in applications, some questions emerged with regard to the integrity of the enrolment process. Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians entered into discussions to examine this issue in the autumn of 2012.

In July 2013, the Government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians announced the supplemental agreement that treats all applicants fairly and equitably and ensures the integrity of the enrolment process.

(1035) I want to touch on a couple of matters with regard to membership. Again, this is at the heart of some of the dissatisfaction with how this process has unrolled. I want to come back to some essential facts around self-determination and membership. I want to turn to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. In

article 3, it says: Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Then, in

article 33, it says: Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live. I think that is an important point. The membership criteria was originally negotiated with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and had a very high acceptance rate for that original agreement in 2008 and the subsequent criteria that was outlined.

I want to touch a bit on the larger issue around self-determination and membership because I am sure it informed the process here. The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs put together an

article called “Who are the indigenous peoples?” There are two pieces in this that are relevant. One is self-determination: Today, many indigenous peoples are still excluded from society and deprived of their rights as equal citizens of a state. Nevertheless they are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity, insisting on their right to self-determination.

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

article to talk about the approach of the International Labour Organization, ILO, Convention no. 169. The ILO Convention no. 169 states that a people are considered indigenous either: because they are descendants of those who lived in the area before colonization; or because they have maintained their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions since colonization and the establishment of new states. Furthermore, the ILO Convention 169 says that self-identification is crucial for indigenous peoples. This criterion has for example been applied in a land-claims agreement between the Canadian government and the Inuit of the Northwest Territories.

When we come to the supplemental agreement, which leads us to clause 3 in this bill, it is the agreement that arose in 2013 because of some questions around the integrity of the enrolment process. This supplemental agreement comes back to what I was just speaking about in terms of self-determination and self-identification. Some have argued that simple self-identification is sufficient to say that one is a member of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq.

However, the supplemental agreement clarified and gave some background as to how the Federation of Newfoundland Indians negotiated the terms of membership, which relates to clause 3 about whether, as part of the Governor in Council, they are considered part of the foundation band members or are removed from the list. Under

section 8 in the supplemental agreement, it says the following: Self-identification as a Member of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland. In making the Agreement, the Parties were guided by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Powley where the Court recognized that belonging to an Aboriginal group requires at least three elements: Aboriginal ancestry, self-identification and acceptance by the group. The Supreme Court stressed that self-identification and acceptance could not be of recent vintage. This formed the basis for the criteria set out in paragraph 4.1(d)(

i) of the Agreement. That is the original agreement. The Parties intended that the Enrolment Committee assess whether applicants had previously self-identified as Members of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland. In annex A to the supplemental agreement, it lays out some additional context, which I think is important.

(1040) It says: The words “current and substantial" must be given their due importance in the context of the Agreement. The core of community acceptance is past and ongoing participation in a shared culture, in the customs and traditions that constitute a community's identity and distinguish it from other groups. The connection that an applicant must show with a Newfoundland community of the Mi'kmaq Group has to be significant in quality and quantity; it must be true, profound and not of recent vintage.

An applicant must demonstrate strong ties with the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland that pre-date or were contemporaneous with the signing of the Agreement and continued up to the date of the Recognition Order. The frequent references to the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland in the Agreement show an intention by the Parties to the Agreement that acceptance by the Group must mean more than keeping a connection with one’s own family members.

Section 25 of the Guidelines mandates that there be evidence of activities that are directly related to the traditions and culture of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland with an emphasis on belonging to a Mi’kmaq community represented by a band or organization in Newfoundland, or in the alternative, a wider participation with the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland in its activities and ceremonies so as to infer acceptance by the Group. These are important matters, and the annex of the supplemental agreement outlines very specific tests that shore up the integrity of the enrolment process. For example, under “Subsection 25(

b) Non-Residents”, it states: In accordance with subsection 25(b), applicants who, on the date of the Recognition Order, were not residing in one of the locations of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland must demonstrate that, on a regular basis over a reasonably extended period of time, they frequently visited and/or communicated with Members of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland and participated in religious, ceremonial, traditional or cultural activities of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland. As I mentioned, there is substantial detail about how that test could be met.

In the regular course of affairs there is an appeal process, so that for members who feel they have met the test but the enrolment committee determines it has not been satisfied there is an avenue for appeal. Further in the supplemental agreement, it talks about determinations. It says: The Enrolment Committee will determine whether each applicant is eligible to be enrolled under the Agreement. Every applicant will be advised of the Enrolment Committee's determination of his or her eligibility only after the assessments or reassessments of all applications have been completed.

On the founding members list, it says: Upon the completion of the assessments and reassessments of all applications by the Enrolment Committee and the determination of all appeals by the Appeal Master, the Enrolment Committee will provide to the Parties a single Founding Members List for the purposes of the Agreement, and the Minister will recommend to the Governor-in-Council that this Founding Members List be substituted for the current

schedule to the Recognition Order. On that particular point, it is clause 3 of Bill C-25 , which says: The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band Order , in particular to add the name of a person to, or remove the name of a person from, the

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

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

It is an unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred throughout Canada, and it is referred to as a “sixties scoop”. What happened throughout Canada is that first nations children were removed from their homes and they were adopted.

(1045) In many cases, these children did not learn of their ancestry until they were adults. Therefore, there was never an opportunity for these children, who were forcibly removed from their homes and adopted out to non-native families, to maintain those cultural connections with their community and maintain their linguistic connections. We have heard stories from the Qalipu Mi'kmaq about children who were raised in other parts of Canada and were not able to maintain those cultural and linguistic ties and have now discovered that they have those roots.

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

It is certainly outside the scope of this particular piece of legislation to deal with it because, again, it is simply a technical document. It would not amend any of the enrolment criteria that were originally outlined. It would not amend the membership criteria regarding the cultural and linguistic ties that are outlined in the supplemental area. That is a problem for the overall enrolment process. I will conclude by indicating that, once again, the NDP as the official opposition is supporting this bill getting to committee.

We look forward to hearing from witnesses to clarify the intent and the scope of clauses 3 and 4 in the legislation. I expect it will be something that can be dealt with fairly expeditiously at committee. Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her speech. This is the first time in the House that I have been able to express my regret that she will not be seeking re-election after the next election.

I have always appreciated her reasonable approach, which we saw again in her speech. I would like some clarification, and I hope it is taken in the spirit in which it is asked. There were a couple of varying opinions from the opposition when we last debated this, on the eligibility criteria and how they should be applied, either across all applicants or simply across the second phase applicants who applied after the 23,877 original charter members were accepted.

The lead speaker said that the rules should apply to all applicants, then the member for Western Arctic made it clear that he preferred a case where those 23,877 were exempted from the re-examination. I wonder if she, as the chief critic for aboriginal affairs for her party, could clarify what her position and the position of the NDP is on that important question. Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary first of all for his kinds words with regard to my not running again in 2015. I also appreciate the work he has done on committee.

With regard to bill C-25 , it was tabled in the House and very rapidly called for debate. At that point in time, we had not had the opportunity to review it. The departmental briefing took place on the Thursday night before it was called for debate, so there was a limited opportunity for us to review the bill in its entirety and take a look at the implications. What is clear from my speech is that the New Democrats firmly believe that the right to self-determination and self-identification has to rest with the first nation. The Federation of Newfoundland Indians has negotiated the enrolment criteria.

If, at some point, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians wants to have those enrolment criteria reconsidered, that is a matter for the federation and the government to negotiate. At this point in time, the enrolment criteria are outside of the scope of the bill, and I would encourage people who have some concerns with the enrolment criteria to work with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the government to examine them. I specifically mentioned the issue around the sixties scoop in my speech. That is something that requires some consideration. (1050) [ Translation ] Mr.

Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there has been such abuse of time allocation motions and closure in the House that I hope I will have enough time to ask my question. I am joking, of course. I find it very frustrating that Bill C-25 is subject to a time allocation motion. For once, and this is all too rare, our exchanges actually seem more like a discussion than an acrimonious debate. I think that is a great message, one that we should be sending more often to the public and all those who vote to elect MPs. I would like to take this opportunity to ask my distinguished colleague a question.

She has a great deal of expertise on aboriginal peoples. I read that according to

article 33 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, first nations have the right to determine their own membership. Having read the bill, does she think that Bill C-25 adheres to that rule and that Canada will therefore live up to its responsibilities as a signatory to the UN treaty? [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, at the outset the member for Trois-Rivières indicated his puzzlement with why time allocation was moved on this legislation when there seems to be agreement to get it to committee. I would echo that puzzlement. I am truly puzzled about why we would do that.

We have an opportunity to study the bill at committee and review. It is a short technical bill. I am not clear why the government did what it did with that. There are a couple of important pieces in

article 33, which states, “...to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions”. My understanding is that the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the government used the Powley decision, which talked about the linguistic and cultural connection to community, in order to determine membership. When the Federation of Newfoundland Indians negotiated the original 2008 agreement, it had a high rate of acceptance for the terms and conditions of the enrolment criteria. It would seem that the first nations were self-determining in terms of who would become a member.

I did point out some concerns with people who are left out of the enrolment criteria. I do not think there was any ill intention on that with regard to the children from the sixties scoop, but it is something I would encourage all parties to examine. Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the wonderful work that my colleague has done with first nations files and how well she has prepared and documented her information. Earlier in her statement, she said it took almost 20 years to get that settlement.

It seems it is always the same with the Liberals and the Conservatives. When there is something to settle with first nations, it takes a lot of time and hard work, but there is no action. Could my colleague tell me why it would take so much time? [ Translation ] Why does it always take so much time? The government does not demonstrate much of a desire to resolve conflicts with first nations. [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, it is a very puzzling point. In the case of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq, they had to go to court. In 1989 they brought forward a lawsuit against Canada seeking Indian Act recognition.

Unfortunately, this is too often the case: in order for first nations to get their rights recognized, they are forced into court situations to have that determination. The government loses the case and then appeals the case, and eventually it will end up in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will side with first nations. First nations have taken 187 cases to court to have their inherent rights, their constitutional rights, recognized. The other question that has not been resolved in debate around Bill C-25 is whether or not the government would put in adequate resources to move forward on recognizing status.

Status cards need to be issued, and the department has been incredibly slow in issuing them, and that impacts on people's access to benefits and other things that are guaranteed with regard to the status card. I posed a question to the government earlier with regard to whether the government would invest the required resources to make sure the backlog around membership applications is cleared up. I did not get a substantive answer. A backlog has already been generated as a result of Bill C-3 , the McIvor decision, and this would only add to that workload.

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

(1055) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : We will resume debate. I will let the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London know that we only have a few minutes left before members' statements. We will started and, of course, he will have the remaining time when we resume business on the question after question period. The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that I will be splitting my time with the fantastic member for Calgary—Nose Hill . Members can stay tuned for her speech, which will be after mine.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-25 , Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act. I have listened to the debate here today, and I want to take this opportunity to reinforce the government's commitment to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation and to the official recognition of its members as status Indians. I would like to expand on some of the points other speakers have raised. I especially want to focus on our approach for resolving this long-standing matter; an approach designed to treat everyone fairly and equitably. To do so, a brief historical overview of the complex issue is required.

As members know, this story dates back decades. It began in 1949 when Newfoundland first joined Confederation. At the time, there was no agreement between the province and Canada about if, how, or when the Indian Act would apply to the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland. In the absence of such an agreement, the Indian Act was never applied. By the 1970s and 1980s, the Mi'kmaq groups in Newfoundland began calling for recognition. Various groups were led by the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, also known as the FNI, who commenced legal action against Canada in 1989.

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

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

(1100) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London will have seven minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next returns to debate on this question. Statement by members.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ Translation ] International Women's Day Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would like to pay tribute to the women who have built Quebec and continue to build it every day. This year especially, my thoughts turn to our former colleague, Francine Lalonde, who was always ready to fight the good fight. March 8 is an opportunity to look at what has been achieved, to call for change, and to celebrate the courageous actions of women determined to change things.

It is a day to reiterate that equality must remain one of our goals. Every year, the Collectif 8 mars, a coalition of women's groups, chooses a theme. This year, it chose “Keys within everyone's reach” to represent doors opened by women in our society and the importance of using all of the keys available to make strides toward a fairer and more egalitarian society. The Bloc Québécois is strongly reasserting its commitment to stand up for Quebec women's interests in the federal political arena.

[ English ] Farm Family of the Year Award Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, March is nutrition month in Canada, so it is fitting that I rise today and talk about apples. We know the old saying about an apple a day. What brings this to mind are the award-winning apples that have been grown for 103 years by generations of the Bennett family on Garner Road in Ancaster. The Bennetts were recognized at a banquet last Saturday, receiving the Osborne L. Sager Farm Family of the Year award from the Hamilton-Wentworth Federation of Agriculture.

My congratulations to Todd, Carrie, Richard, and Andrea Bennett, the current partners in the popular local apple store and farm. Not only are the Bennetts innovative farmers and entrepreneurs, they are also big contributors to the community, their church, and the history of the village of Ancaster. My congratulations to everyone involved in carrying forward the very best of this Ancaster institution and doing the legacy of their forefathers so very proud.

[ Translation ] Pink Tie Event Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended a “pink tie” event put on by the Montreal regional conference of elected officials. The evening's theme was “the added value of equality”. At the event, I met women entrepreneurs, presidents of chambers of commerce and boards of directors, and women elected as officials of the City of Montreal. Women are becoming increasingly active in a wide range of sectors and are assuming their rightful place in decision-making positions. They are demonstrating courage, creativity and leadership.

In LaSalle—Émard, I wish to commend the achievements of groups dedicated to women's advocacy: Mamies immigrantes pour le développement et l'intégration; the Centre communautaire des femmes actives; and the Association Messinese de Montréal. As chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I tip my hat—and my pink tie—to all women who really help make our society better.

[ English ] State Visit to India Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on February 21, I had the honour to accompany Their Excellencies Governor General David Johnston and Mrs. Johnston on the second state visit to India. I also had the honour and privilege to accompany the then Governor General Roméo LeBlanc on the first state visit in 1998. This state visit followed the Prime Minister's two visits to India, which I was also part of. In 2006 the Conservative government stated in the throne speech that building relations with India was one of its priorities.

As Their Excellencies stated, with 1.2 million Indo-Canadians it is but natural that Canada and India have a strong, vibrant relationship. The theme of the state visit was education, innovation, and entrepreneurship. We were accompanied by a very strong delegation of Canadians. Their Excellencies and Rideau Hall staff maintained a very robust program to achieve the objectives of the visit. To all of them we owe a big hand of applause.

Violence Against Women Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is International Women's Day. It is a day dedicated to celebrating the successes of women and girls and to renewing our resolve to fight for gender equality around the world. [ Translation ] It is also an opportunity to think about how we can do better.

I hope that all Canadians will remember a tragedy that is close to their hearts, namely our government's ongoing failure to protect the most vulnerable in Canada: aboriginal women and girls. (1105) [ English ] Wednesday, at a memorial just outside, family and friends of Loretta Saunders demanded justice, a justice that is only possible when meaningful action is taken to prevent the loss of any more mothers, daughters, sisters, or friends. Today, the special committee on violence against aboriginal women and girls will table its report.

I am once again adding my voice to the friends and family of Loretta Saunders, the premiers, and thousands of others demanding that the government call a national public inquiry to address this critical issue. The time for action has long since passed.

Henry Taschuk Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to a dedicated educator and family man who touched the lives of many, leaving an indelible mark of excellence in his community. Henry Taschuk was a teacher, a math consultant, a principal for Edmonton public schools, and a hockey and softball coach in the community. He was profoundly admired, respected, loved, and appreciated by the thousands of students he taught and mentored during his 35-year career.

A loving husband for 46 years to Jean, a devoted father to daughters Stephanie, Jennifer, and son-in-law Martin, and adoring granddad to Cassidy and Jude, Henry was a true family man, always taking great pride in his Ukrainian heritage and rural upbringing and delighting in traditional gatherings with extended family and friends. We have many fond memories of Henry's brilliant sense of humour and his genuine love of family and children. I am proud to have called him not only my brother-in-law but my friend. On February 28, Henry Taschuk passed away. Henry, rest in peace. You are greatly missed.

[ Translation ] Winter Paralympic Games Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, the 11th Paralympic Winter Games open in Sochi. Great athletes from across Canada will be taking

part in the games. Medallists Benoît St-Amand and Ina Forrest will be competing in sledge hockey and wheelchair curling respectively. A special mention goes out to Yves Bourque, who, at age 46, is participating in the Paralympic Winter Games for the first time in the para-Nordic cross-country skiing event. These Canadians are true role models. In addition to keeping up with the demanding lifestyle of a high performance athlete, they have to deal with the challenges of their disability. We think this shows extraordinary tenacity and determination.

However, following the recent events in Ukraine, I sincerely hope that the games will remain safe and unfold harmoniously in the spirit of sportsmanship In closing, on behalf of the NDP and myself, I wish the best of luck to our athletes who are representing Canada's colours on the world stage.

[ English ] Nuclear Energy Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Canadian Nuclear Association and the wider nuclear industry in Canada on their successful annual conference here in Ottawa last week. Many Canadians may not realize that the nuclear industry across the nation represents almost $7 billion of economic activity and employs 71,000 Canadians across the country. Canada has long been a leader in the nuclear sciences and industries.

We were the second nation to have controlled nuclear fission, and in the decade since then, our technology and expertise have been sought after around the world. In my riding of Durham, people are very proud of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. In 2003, the Institute of Nuclear Operators gave it an award as one of the top plants in the world based on an assessment of safety, operations, and management. I salute the thousands of people who work at Darlington. It is part of the nuclear system that generates 50% of the electricity in Ontario, all of it GHG emission-free.

Journey of Recovery Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a journey of recovery. On May 17, 2012, 13-year-old Lydia Herrle was struck by a garbage truck near her home in Wilmot township. The next month, I spoke in this house, asking all Canadians to pray for her recovery. Our prayers were answered. Lydia's recovery is a miracle. A few months later, Lydia said, “I will be able to tie my shoes all by myself when I am fourteen. My hand will be steadier when I am fourteen. I'll be able to feed myself—even soup!” Lydia is so grateful for the support she has received.

She would like, foremost, to thank God for his steadfast presence with her, as well as her therapists and teachers for their compassion and expertise; her family, friends, and community for their love; and all Canadians who have prayed for her or encouraged her in her journey of recovery. Tomorrow Lydia turns 15. We can only imagine the things she will be able to do when she is 15. We wish Lydia a happy birthday.

(1110) [ Translation ] La Francophonie Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in this country that is enriched by its cultural diversity, March is the month when we celebrate the Francophonie here and abroad. When we celebrate linguistic diversity, we also celebrate the place and the vitality of one of Canada's founding nations. By celebrating the Canadian Francophonie, we ensure a greater understanding and sharing of this heritage by everyone. Canada has chosen to be a bilingual country, which is not an easy task.

It requires everyone's support, respect for the other experience and a desire to express our Canadian identity in both official languages. However, la Francophonie is also 77 states and governments on five continents, including 32 that have French as their official language. It accounts for 13% of the world's population and 20% of international trade. La Francophonie has a very bright future because 60% of francophones today are under the age of 30.

Consequently, at a time when many communities throughout the world are in turmoil, I hope that we, francophones and francophiles, will celebrate and work together in order for Canada to become a model of growth and development for the peoples and cultures that share the same space.

Canadian Film Industry Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to offer my sincere congratulations to the seven talented Canadians who were recognized last weekend at the 86th Academy Awards. The critically-acclaimed film Dallas Buyers Club , directed by Canadian Jean-Marc Vallée, won three Oscars this year. Six deserving Canadians won scientific and technical awards.

Yves Boudreault, André Gauthier, Benoit Sévigny and Robert Lanciault won an Oscar for the design and implementation of a software called FiLMBOX, and Tibor Madjar and Colin Doncaster each won a scientific and technical award for their scientific and technical achievements in the film industry. Our government is very proud that Canadians continue to shine on the international stage through their meaningful contributions to the film and entertainment industries and the arts. We will continue to support and promote film and television production in Canada.

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Mr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, March 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The UN encouraged the international community to eliminate all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination by declaring this international day in 1966, to commemorate the day in 1960 when police in Sharpeville, South Africa, opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful protest against the pass laws imposed under apartheid.

In a world in which people are increasingly interconnected, tolerance, intercultural dialogue and respect for diversity have become essential. This international day is an opportunity for us to rally around the fundamental principle of the United Nations charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the equality of all human beings. Let us give this day the recognition it deserves.

[ English ] International Women's Day Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 8, Canadians will come together to celebrate International Women's Day. This year's theme is “Strong Women, Strong Canada: Canadian Women — Creating Jobs One Business at a Time!”. This year's theme reflects the priorities announced in economic action plan 2014, including plans to support women entrepreneurs by increasing mentorship opportunities.

Today the London Abused Women's Centre is hosting their annual International Women's Day breakfast, bringing together Londoners from all backgrounds to celebrate and recognize the many women and girls across London. Our government is working to support women-led businesses through the economic action plan for this reason. When women-led businesses succeed, communities benefit and Canada prospers.

William MacRae Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at the RCMP's Depot Division training academy in Regina, hundreds of people will gather to pay their final respects to the late William MacRae. Retired Superintendent MacRae was an icon of Canada's national police force. He passed away last week at the age of 87. Born in Manor, Saskatchewan, Bill served in the Royal Canadian Navy in World War II. He joined the RCMP in 1948, trained in Regina, and was assigned to J Division in New Brunswick before coming home to Depot in 1960. He was a superlative trainer. He commanded respect.

He inspired excellence. He was an innovator and helped bring police training into its modern era. After his retirement in 1979, Bill remained active in public service and was involved in everything from working with disabled children to serving as aide-de-camp to the Lieutenant Governor. I got to know him working on the RCMP Heritage Centre. Thank you, Bill MacRae. Our thoughts and prayers are with Muriel and the family.

(1115) Festival of Nowruz Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as spring arrives in Canada we look forward to celebrating the Nowruz, the Persian new year across our country. In 2009 the House of Commons unanimously proclaimed Nowruz officially to acknowledge its importance. As the government liaison to the Persian and Iranian community in Canada, I am pleased that our government has put great emphasis on building relations with Canadian people of Iranian background.

In addition to regular informal discussions, our Prime Minister and several cabinet ministers have, on many occasions, held formal round tables with people in the Canadian Iranian community, responding to their needs and taking

part in their efforts to introduce the highlights of Persian culture to Canadians. While our government takes issue with the Iranian regime on matters of human rights, nuclear proliferation, and its destabilizing of the Persian Gulf region, wherever possible we make sure these criticisms are consistent with our support of the interests of Canadian Iranians. As we approach Nowruz, our thoughts are with the people of the Persian Gulf region and with people of Iranian background in Canada.

We are thankful to those who share the legacies of Cyrus the Great for their support for freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Happy Nowruz. [ Member spoke in Persian as follows: ] Nowruz mobarak. Nowruz pirooz.

[ Translation ] Democratic Reform Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, completely debunked the myths that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has been trying to spread for weeks. He could not have been more clear. The Conservatives will deny tens of thousands of voters of their right to vote and will treat every honest Canadian as a potential cheat. He explicitly spoke out against the measure that excludes fundraising from the spending limit. He spoke at length about the bill's many other flaws.

However, the Conservatives want us to ignore this expert on our democratic system and would prefer that we listen to the opinions of a few “normcore” MPs who, to make themselves more interesting, are inventing all sorts of stories about potential fraud. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform himself has been accused of making things up by none other than Harry Neufeld, the very person the minister keeps using to defend his botched reform. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that takes the integrity of our electoral system seriously.

They deserve a government that does not use every trick in the book to try to keep experts from testifying. They deserve an NDP government.

[ English ] Winter Paralympic Games Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today marks the official opening of the Sochi 2014 Paralympic Winter Games. The Canadian Paralympic Team, made up of 49 athletes and five guides, will be led into the opening ceremony by Canada's flag-bearer, B.C.'s own two-time medallist and wheelchair curling member, Sonja Gaudet. Our team will join the more than 575 athletes representing 45 countries in six sports at these Paralympic Games.

Our Canadian athletes have been training and preparing for this incredible milestone in their sports careers for years, and I know they are ready to compete against the world's best in their pursuit of excellence in Sochi. Our government is proud to support the Canadian Paralympic Committee with annual funding of more than $5 million in direct funding, along with funding to our Paralympians through our amateur athletes assistance program. I, along with Canadians across the country, will be watching, cheering, and believing as our athletes compete for Canada while proudly wearing the Maple Leaf.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Democratic Reform Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer refuted every argument made by the minister on the unfair elections bill. Today, we learned that Harry Neufeld, the author of the other report used by the Conservatives to disenfranchise voters, also disagrees with the minister. Will the government agree to bring Mr. Neufeld to the committee? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course we will. I disagree with Mr.

Neufeld's conclusions, but I do not disagree with his facts. His facts remain the same, and I will cite them in exactly the same way as I have. They are the following, in his own report: Errors that involve a failure to properly administer these procedures are serious. The courts refer to such serious errors as “irregularities” which can result in votes being declared invalid. The Neufeld report also said that courts may overturn elections as a result of the errors, the kind of which we saw related to vouching. We think that is very serious. We are going to solve that problem. (1120) [ Translation ] Ms.

Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Harry Neufeld clearly contradicted the Conservatives and the Minister of State for Democratic Reform . He says there is not a shred of evidence that voter identification card problems alleged by the government actually happened. He says that the minister has been using that statement, the one he just quoted, out of context and inaccurately. Why does the government not ask Harry Neufeld to appear in order to shed light on what he really thinks? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I hope that Mr. Neufeld will testify.

I disagree with his opinion, and I will continue to talk about the facts. The facts indicate that when voters voted without identification, there were over 50,000 irregularities, serious mistakes that could contribute to a court overturning an election or declaring a person's vote invalid. We are looking at these facts, and our policy is the right one. Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Mr. Neufeld said, “I never said there was voter fraud”.

This expert is very concerned about the fact that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform 's bill will disenfranchise people, such as students, seniors and members of aboriginal groups, who have a harder time producing proof of address. Why is the minister refusing to take these concerns seriously? [ English ] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I have quotes from the Neufeld report in which he says, on page 14, in reference to procedures like vouching: Too frequently, the errors are so serious that the courts would judge them to be “irregularities” that violate the legal provisions that establish an elector’s entitlement to vote. On page 10, he said: ...the Supreme Court made it clear that such errors in other circumstances could contribute to a court overturning an election. That is very serious. Those are the facts he has stated. I will continue to accurately cite those facts.

[ Translation ] Agriculture and Agri-Food Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, western Canada has been having a grain crisis for months now. The Minister of Transport has been aware of the situation. On Wednesday, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that a solution would be introduced at the right time and place. However, the right time was several months ago. Why did the Conservatives allow rail companies to take farmers hostage for so many months before taking action? [ English ] Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as the member knows, there have been a number of complicating factors affecting grain logistics, one of them being cold temperatures and the other a record harvest, an additional 20 to 25 million tonnes in grain harvested. Our farmers need a safe, reliable, and efficient logistics systems. As we have said previously, our government is taking action to help our farmers move their grain to port. I would ask my opposition colleagues to put aside the rhetoric and instead follow the announcement that is going to be made this morning, showing that our government is taking action. Ms.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a government of inaction. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport have known about this grain crisis for months, and they did nothing. Millions of tonnes of grain lie unmoved. Farmers are unpaid. Western communities are losing millions. Conservatives have let farmers lose millions on undelivered grain, waiting for the government to act. Why has the government waited so long to finally take action? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, just to show how disconnected the NDP is from western grain farmers, the NDP has been advocating a monopoly by the Canadian Wheat Board as the only solution. I would like to read a quote about just how ridiculous a solution that is. Levi Wood, the president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, states: It’s preposterous to suggest that the move to marketing freedom is the cause of this year’s shipping problems. In the first year of an open market, our wheat and barley moved to market without a hitch.

The problems being experienced in this second year are instead related to the failure of the railways to provide adequate shipping capacity to move this year’s crop. We agree. I ask the NDP to get current on this file.

(1125) Foreign Affairs Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in February, the government announced that it was implementing personal sanctions against former President Yanukovych and his close associates. I am not referring to travel bans, but to the freezing of personal assets. These assets could be in the tens of billions of dollars. We heard subsequently that this had not actually happened and was awaiting Ukrainian government concurrence. Can the government inform the House as to whether these sanctions are now actually in place? Hon.

Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada is working very closely with its allies, including the G7 and NATO members, on this matter. I point out that Canada has already frozen the assets and applied travel bans to members of the Yanukovych regime. The Prime Minister has announced, at the request of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, that we have frozen the assets of members of the Yanukovych regime.

[ Translation ] Infrastructure Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's labour market suffered another net loss in February. There are still 250,000 more Canadians without a job than before the recession. If the government increased its investments in infrastructure, that would create jobs in the construction, transportation and manufacturing sectors. Why is the government cutting the building Canada fund and making practically no effort to implement it in time for the spring construction season? [ English ] Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: job creation and economic growth. We sympathize with those Canadians who lost their jobs in February. While monthly employment numbers can be volatile, Canada's overall job growth since the depths of the global recession remains the best among all G7 countries, with over 1 million net new jobs created. As we have always said, Canada is not immune to the global economic challenges beyond its borders.

That is why our Conservative government is working hard to help create jobs and economic growth in economic action plan 2014. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we are three weeks from the new fiscal year and the report on plans and priorities tabled by the infrastructure minister just yesterday does not even include money for the new building Canada fund. We are told that negotiations are under way with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities about getting the program up and running by April 1.

The fund was announced 12 months ago, so why are municipalities not able to apply for funding right now? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there the Liberals go again with their funny math. The fact of the matter is that we are making record investments in infrastructure. These investments are far more significant than the previous Liberal government made. We have invested over $53 billion in infrastructure for municipal, provincial, and territorial project priorities. That includes the gas tax fund, which, in and of itself, is $2 billion a year.

Democratic Reform Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Harry Neufeld, who literally wrote the report on the last election, has said that the minister's claims about voter fraud are wrong. He said that the minister has no evidence to support his wild claims. He said that the Supreme Court did not find any evidence of voter fraud. We want to hear from Mr. Neufeld. Will the government allow Mr. Neufeld to come to committee, without any parliamentary tricks and without interference in the committee's work? Can we get an ironclad guarantee that Mr. Neufeld will be able to come to committee? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine why he would not be called to committee. I have already said that three or four times. We are going to keep quoting Mr. Neufeld's report, because it contains the facts that obviously support our position that people should have ID when they show up to vote. I disagree with his opinion, but I will continue to accurately cite his facts, like I will right now. Relating to errors on vouching, he said: Errors that involve a failure to properly administer these procedures are serious.

The courts refer to such serious errors as “irregularities” which can result in votes being declared invalid. That is serious. Our ID laws should be, too. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The top priority of the government is about voter fraud that it does not know about and actually has no evidence of. This is quite astonishing. Conservatives are clearly reluctant to accept Mr. Neufeld's evidence. Perhaps that is because the government's arguments are not actually based on fact. It is more about the minister's gut feeling and prejudice.

The question is this: will the Conservative government actually listen to Mr. Neufeld's evidence and be guided not by this citing of “could”, “maybe”, or “should” but by actual evidence of voter fraud? Mr. Neufeld said there was not any, and the Supreme Court said there was not any. Are we actually to believe just the minister?

(1130) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have not stopped quoting Mr. Neufeld. In fact, right here, on page 64, it says that there were 50,000 irregularities related to vouching in the last election alone. Now, the NDP members are losing this debate, so they are playing partisan procedural tricks in committee. We know their next step will be to push out some phony poll to manipulate perceptions of public opinion.

The reality is that Canadians believe there should be good voter identification rules to ensure that people vote only once and only in the ridings where they live. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Chief Electoral Officer told us in no uncertain terms that thousands of voters will lose their right to vote as a result of the Conservative electoral “deform”. He presented amendments in an attempt to prevent this ludicrous situation. Did the minister hear Marc Mayrand's proposals and will he accept his recommendations concerning the voter identification card?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Yes, unfortunately, I did hear his comments. [ English ] I will cite it. He said the Supreme Court found that these irregularities could not even compromise an election. In fact, the Supreme Court said precisely the opposite of what Mr. Mayrand reported. I will quote right out of Mr. Neufeld's report: “The courts refer to such serious errors as 'irregularities' which can result in votes being declared invalid”. The same report went on to say that the irregularities linked to vouching could ultimately overturn an election result.

Those are the facts, and I would advise Mr. Mayrand to read them. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it has taken them two years to bring forward this reform bill and they did not even bother to do it right. Yesterday, the minister stated that Canada will be the only democracy in the world to limit the freedom of expression of election officials if his electoral “deform” bill is passed with no amendments. Will the minister listen to Marc Mayrand and take out this measure from his bill? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer will be able to continue speaking to the media after the fair elections act is passed. That is not an issue. [ English ] But the NDP wants to ignore the hard facts around the irregularities related to vouching. The reality is, regardless of what push poll they will send out in the next couple of days, Canadians believe there should be a form of identification so that we know who is voting and that they live in the riding in which they are casting a ballot. That is a bare minimum. It is common sense. That is the fair elections act. [ Translation ] Mr.

François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer indicated that the voter identification requirements set out in the unfair elections bill will make voting harder for certain groups, such as seniors. This will have a harmful effect in areas with a high concentration of seniors. In Chaudière-Appalaches, the percentage of people aged 65 and over is nearly 3% higher than elsewhere in the country, and in Montmagny, it is 8% higher. Voters in Chaudière-Appalaches will be particularly affected by the unfair elections bill.

Why are the Conservative ministers from Chaudière-Appalaches refusing to allow us to consult with our constituents and stand up for their rights? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, seniors will have plenty of ways to identify themselves at the polling stations. There are 39 forms of identification allowed, including the health card. [ English ] There are the hospital bracelets worn by residents in long-term care facilities, Veterans Affairs health care cards, old age security cards, public transportation cards, library cards, and I could go on. There are 39.

I do not have time to list them all. Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, top election experts were crystal clear yesterday that the minister's bill is based on make-believe and fearmongering. His plan to unilaterally end all use of the voter information card is not based on any evidence of voter fraud whatsoever. In 2011, 73% of the electors who voted in seniors residences and long-term care facilities cast their votes using their voter information cards. Now, that is as many as 800,000 seniors. Why is the minister so hell-bent on disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of seniors?

(1135) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I just listed a whole host of different forms of identification that are specifically available to seniors. In addition to the ones I have already listed, there is also one of the following, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, a soup kitchen, a student or seniors residence, a long-term care facility: an attestation of residence, a letter of stay, an admission form, a statement of benefits.

That is in addition to the old age security cards they can use, the health cards they can use, or a hospital bracelet they can use. There are plenty of opportunities to identify oneself, and the fair elections act will make sure that people know about them.

[ Translation ] Ethics Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is rather amazing. This government continually surrounds itself with fraudsters and untrustworthy people, and then when, surprise, surprise, they break the law, they suddenly become private citizens. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister realizes, but the Prime Minister's senior advisor is not a private citizen. At what point did the Prime Minister find out that Bruce Carson was engaged in illegal lobbying? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday. These are allegations with respect to a private citizen who did not receive any government contracts. As soon as we heard about these allegations, we immediately informed the RCMP. [ English ] Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the RCMP started investigating Bruce Carson back in 2012 about whether he was using his insider influence with the Conservatives to land lucrative deals with impoverished first nations who had dirty water.

Bruce Carson was the ultimate insider. The Conservatives even called the scheme the “secret sauce”, but it was the Prime Minister who approved the sauce when he hired this convicted fraud artist. What was the Prime Minister thinking when he allowed a convicted criminal to slip through the security checks and work in his inner office? What was he thinking? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the hon. member. I know he won an Ontario Speaker's Book Award last night for a book he wrote.

I congratulate him on that. At the same time, again, these are allegations with respect to a private citizen who did not receive any government contracts. As soon as the government found out, we immediately informed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. At the same time, any individual found in contravention of the very tough laws this government has put in place should face the full force of these laws. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his very kind and professional words. I agree with him that these are very serious issues.

Issues of influence pedaling are serious crimes, and yet the Prime Minister 's chief of staff knew about this, the Clerk of the Privy Council knew about this, major Conservative cabinet ministers knew, even Senator Doug Black knew that they were applying the secret sauce. Yet we are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister is always conveniently out of the loop whenever something illegal is happening in his office. When are they going to get to the bottom of this? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again, it was this government that brought in the accountability act. It was this government that brought in strong rules with respect to lobbying, the Ethics Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Lobbying. All of these measures help ensure the highest standard of ethics. At the same time, any individual found in contravention of the very tough laws we have brought in, I agree, should face the full impact of these laws.

[ Translation ] Employment Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in my riding, Bourassa, is particularly high. Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Finance began its study on youth employment in Canada. I asked senior officials what programs exist to help youth, newcomers, persons with disabilities and members of cultural groups find a job. I did not get a response. Instead of spending millions of dollars on partisan ads, what is the Conservative government doing to help those people find work? [ English ] Mr.

Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no government has done more for young people, people with disabilities, and aboriginals than this Conservative government under the leadership of the Prime Minister and under the leadership of this Minister of Finance . Our government will strongly continue to support youth employment. In fact, this summer, literally thousands and thousands of young people will get jobs and employment due to the financial support. In the budget there is $100,000 to support youth internships in this country.

(1140) Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, all week the Minister of Justice has demonstrated that he does not understand that first nations actually are seeking meaningful action to stop the ongoing tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women. They are demanding the elimination of rampant sexism and racism in policing, better support, and inclusion of the families of victims, but most of all, they want to see action to actually prevent this happening to others. Will the minister stop the intransigence and finally call a national public inquiry? Hon.

Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I do not want to stop the action and the forward-looking policies of this government to stop and have an inquiry. I want to say that we will keep doing what we have been doing. We will continue with policies like ending house arrest for sexual assault, strengthening sentences for child sex offences, toughening the penalties for those who import, produce, and traffic in date rape drugs, and the list goes on.

We have tabled some 30 bills in the House of Commons and have taken numerous initiatives across the country to directly invest in programs that help women and girls, especially those on reserve. What we do not need now is to stop and talk and study. We need more action, and I think the hon. member would agree with that. Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women tabled its report.

I ask the chair of the committee, the member for Mississauga South , whether she believes the report actually reflects the testimony of witnesses, or does she believe it was improperly influenced by the six Conservative parliamentary secretaries on the committee, taking orders from the PMO? The trust between the government and first nations has long been broken. Does the chair of the committee agree that today's report will break the trust of indigenous people in Parliament? Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it was an honour for me to chair this Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women. This was formed by an all-party unanimous decision in the House of Commons. I believe that this report will go further to take action. This government has taken action with tougher crimes that the Minister of Justice was talking about, but more important, this report will outline, as members will find shortly, all of the actions that have been taken and all of the actions that can be taken. I want to thank all members of the special committee for their work, including the member for St. Paul's .

[ Translation ] Finance Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada does not have the resources it needs to monitor money laundering. The Conservatives have plenty of money to go after the unemployed and charities they do not approve of. However, when it comes time to go after the real bandits—white collar criminals who cheat on their taxes and launder millions of dollars—the Conservatives never seem to have the money.

Will the minister give the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, FINTRAC,the money it needs to crack down on money laundering? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government believes in keeping taxes low, but we also believe in ensuring that all corporations and Canadians pay their fair share of tax. That is why, since 2006, we have moved aggressively to close over 75 tax loopholes, and the loopholes we are closing amount to billions of dollars annually. That means lower taxes for all Canadians, not just a select few.

Shamefully, New Democrats have voted against every single attempt by our government to close tax loopholes since 2006. Why are New Democrats working so hard to protect tax loopholes? Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the question is not about loopholes. It is about the resources necessary to actually fight money laundering. FINTRAC is clear. Conservatives are not providing the resources necessary to do the job. We are talking about money laundering and billions in lost revenues.

FINTRAC must now review a massive amount of data from online casinos and bitcoin transactions, so why has the government failed to give it the resources it needs to go after 21st century money launderers and tax cheats? Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the resources are in place. There are nearly 400 more tax auditors today than there were in the past and when we formed government.

If the member would look at economic action plan 2013, we committed to crack down on those who avoid paying their fair share of taxes and to ensure tax fairness for all Canadians. In order to implement that, we put nearly 400 more tax auditors in place. That is the government doing the job it was elected to do.

(1145) [ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim that cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada will not affect the quality of services provided. We have a report that states the opposite. On page 11, the Report on Plans and Priorities states that: ...there is a risk that quality service delivery could be affected due to VAC’s increasing reliance on partners and service providers in the federal, provincial and municipal governments as well as private sector. Why is the minister making decisions that are bad for our veterans? [ English ] Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, veterans have said they want faster services with less paperwork and red tape, which led to the veterans affairs transformation initiative in 2010. As the report clearly indicates, any risks associated with such a wholesale change are being addressed by listening to veterans and experts. By streamlining our business practices with National Defence Canada and our partners, veterans affairs modernization will meet the needs of Canadian veterans. Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the report goes on to say that there is a risk that the modernization of VAC programs will not be achieved and will not meet the needs of Canadian veterans and their families. That is the government's own report. The Prime Minister said on January 28 in the House, “What is happening here is a significant increase in service”. The Prime Minister is saying one thing and the Minister of Veterans Affairs own report is saying something completely different. This is one reason why veterans in this country do not trust the Conservative government.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell me when the government is going to reverse these draconian cuts and give our veterans the services they so rightfully deserve? Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the modernization of Veterans Affairs’ 50-year-old process is important and, so far, has eliminated dozens of forms and countless hours of headaches for Canadian veterans.

More work must be done to ensure a seamless delivery of benefits and services available for veterans transitioning from the military, none of which is consistent with how Veterans Affairs Canada operated even a decade ago. The only thing the NDP is interested in is more federal public servants to process more forms and red tape.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, while western Canadian grain producers had a record harvest this past year, farmers are depending on the railways to move their crops efficiently to market. For far too long, the railways have over-promised and under-delivered. Poor rail service is costing farmers money, and this needs to change. Could the parliamentary secretary please tell the House how our government is taking action to put hard-working Canadian farmers first, including those in my riding of Medicine Hat? Mr.

Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today in Winnipeg, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport announced concrete measures to get grain moving in western Canada. Our government will require the railways to move more than double the amount of grain currently being moved, or face penalties up to $100,000. In addition, we will be introducing get-to-work legislation to further address this situation. We are sending the message that the way the railways have performed with respect to grain movement is unacceptable.

Farmers knew we would act, and we are acting.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first nations education should be a priority for the federal government today, but the Conservatives are making first nations children wait until 2015 to end the spending cap that has kept their schools chronically underfunded. To make matters worse, we now learn that the government did not even spend the money that it promised; $33 million was “re-profiled”. When the need is so great, why is the government failing to invest money that it promised? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I thought the member was going to congratulate the government for not allowing these funds to lapse so they would be lost. Being re-profiled means that the funds will be spent and invested on the construction of schools on first nations territory. The government's commitment to education can be no clearer than in the budget, where an incremental $1.9 billion is going to be invested. If the member really cares about education, she should have supported the budget.

(1150) Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister claimed an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls was unnecessary. When asked to explain himself, the minister insultingly replied that you're not Canadian if you don't understand the problem. An inquiry would investigate the root causes of violence against indigenous women. It would bring closure and some measure of justice to the families. When will the minister listen to all Canadians and call a national inquiry? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I said no such thing, nothing even remotely resembling what she has put forward in her question. What I have said is that we have some 40 reports already tabled. In fact, what we have now, as referenced by the member for St. Paul's , is a 41st report dealing with these issues, all of which direct and call upon all levels of government to do more about violence and to do more in programming, which is exactly what our government is doing. Rather than having more talks and studies and inquiries, we need action. That is what the government is doing.

That is what her party is opposing. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the appalling comments made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development are inexcusable, because they are recurrent. Furthermore, they clearly demonstrate that the minister is not taking this situation seriously. Over 800 aboriginal women have been murdered or have gone missing since 1990. Their families, friends and communities want justice. The measures the Conservatives have brought forward are not working. Women continue to disappear.

Instead of making inappropriate comments, will the minister finally take this matter seriously and launch a public inquiry? [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there has been no government more firmly committed to taking action on violence against women and girls, against women on reserve, against those who have suffered violence, including young women like Loretta Saunders. What we do not need is any pause in the ongoing efforts of the government to attack violence at its core. That means tougher laws and sanctions for those who commit offences.

It means more programming, more education, more opportunities on reserve. It does not necessitate more study. We have had over 40 now, including the one just completed by Parliament. So I say to the hon. member, while talk and advocating for more studies is one thing, taking action, what this government is doing— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Manicouagan. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, their measures are not working, because no one has a proper understanding of the problem, since there has been no public inquiry.

Staying on the topic of the incompetence of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development , over $33 million has not been invested in first nations education, despite the crisis that exists in that regard. Can the minister tell us exactly when that $33 million will be allocated to education infrastructure, as initially planned? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will simply repeat to the member what I said yesterday in committee.

Because of circumstances beyond our control, $33 million set aside to build schools on reserves could not be invested. Those funds have been carried forward to the 2014-15 budget and will be invested for the original purpose, that is, building schools for first nations.

[ English ] Agriculture and Agri-Food Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the so-called emergency action announced today on grain is little more than what the railways had already projected to do themselves in the weeks ahead. Second, the government needs to fix the useless railway service legislation, Bill C-52 , designed by the government, which fails to define service, fails to measure performance, and fails to impose damages payable to farmers. Third is compensation. The system designed by the government has imposed costs and losses of $5 billion over the last five months.

Will farmers get any of that money back? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for western farmers in Canada. Up until two days ago, the opposition's solution was to bring back the mandatory Wheat Board monopoly. That is exactly what western grain farmers do not want. Today the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture have announced action on behalf of the government, to help our grain farmers move their grain to port.

I would ask the opposition, particularly the Liberals, to stop sniping from the sidelines and, instead, get on board and help our western Canadian grain farmers.

(1155) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the farmers— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, let me give a message to the Prime Minister , the Minister of Agriculture , and the Minister of Transport : It is just not good enough. Quite frankly, farmers and prairie farmers have been in need for months and the government has sat back and done nothing. We are challenging the government to stand up and listen to the needs of our prairie farmers.

Will the government be prepared to expand interest-free cash advances and meet with the banks today? Will the government make that commitment? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said, today is indeed a great day for western Canadian grain farmers, as this government takes action to support them in moving their grain to port. The Liberal Party is mired in its Wheat Board theories and about how that would fix the problem, and that is absolute nonsense.

Today, the ministers announced that we are going to require the railways to more than double the amount of grain currently being moved or face penalties of up to $100,000. Also, we will be introducing get-to-work legislation to further address the situation. I ask the Liberals to get on board and to help western Canadian grain farmers.

[ Translation ] Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the CRTC does not have a commissioner for the Quebec region. We just found out that the position has been vacant for almost nine months. The CRTC is conducting a major study on the future of television without Quebec at the table. That is unbelievable. The same thing is happening at the Supreme Court. Major cases are being heard without adequate representation from Quebec. Why do the Conservatives keep making the same mistakes? It is unacceptable.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage please tell us why it is taking her so long to get to work and appoint a competent commissioner to represent Quebec at the CRTC? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will let him know that the CRTC is doing its work and fulfilling its mandate.

When it comes to the filling of positions, whether they be in Quebec or anywhere else in our country, we ensure that they are done properly, that there is full research, and interviews have taken place to produce the person who is going to do the best job for both the CRTC and this country. That is exactly what we intend to do, and we are going to do it. We are going to get it done right.

[ Translation ] Rail Transportation Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Transportation Safety Board revealed that the oil that exploded in downtown Lac-Mégantic was much more volatile than MMA had declared. Forty-seven innocent people were killed. Does the Minister of Transport still believe that the companies should regulate themselves, or will she take responsibility and impose strict rules on rail companies that put the lives of Canadians at risk? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense.

The industry is regulated and the minister has taken action with respect to a protective direction with the full force of law on properly classifying. That is because the health and safety of Canadians is a priority for this government. This directive will ensure that all crude that is being transported be properly tested, classified, and the results sent to Transport Canada. This is an additional means of monitoring industry compliance and it will bring great security benefit to all Canadians.

Aboriginal Affairs Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, over the past year, the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women has heard from over 60 witnesses, including members of families of victims of violence. The testimonies from these families were especially moving. They told us that they are tired of reports and that they want real, tangible action. They want tougher sentences for perpetrators and real protection for victims of violence. As chair of the committee, I look forward to tabling the committee's report today after question period.

In the meantime, could the Minister of Justice please inform the House what actions our government is taking to combat violence against indigenous women? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga South for her leadership, and all members of the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, for the work they have done and the effort they have put forward on this important issue.

I have no doubt that this report will, in fact, better inform the action our government has already taken, and will continue to take, to address the violence, tragic disappearances, and brutal murder of indigenous women in Canada. The fact is, this government is taking action. We have a comprehensive justice agenda, which is focused on preventing these crimes while ensuring that offenders receive the tough sentences that they deserve. The time for talk is over. The time for action is now. It is time for the opposition to start supporting important criminal justice initiatives.

(1200) Rail Transportation Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, why do railroads provide such bad service to grain farmers? Some people in the government blame the revenue cap in the Transportation Act, but getting rid of the revenue cap is a sure guarantee of only one thing: farmers' freight rates would double and service would be lousy. To investigate who benefits from the revenue that comes from moving grain, will the government launch a full railway costing review? It is time. The last one was done in 1992. Mr.

Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, given the current problem with moving grain to port, we are making an announcement today to benefit our farmers in that regard. The railways have performed poorly in this regard, which is why the announcement will be asking them to double the transport of grain from the western Prairies to port. Otherwise, they will face fines of up to $100,000. We will also be introducing legislation here in the House, get to work legislation for the railways.

[ Translation ] Status of Women Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, women with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty than men with disabilities. According to Statistics Canada, these women are also almost twice as likely as other women to be the victims of domestic violence. In addition to physical violence, almost all women with disabilities experience psychological, verbal or emotional abuse. One of the major obstacles to breaking this cycle of abuse is that these women may be afraid to speak out because of isolation and dependence issues.

What programs are in place to break this cycle of poverty and abuse? [ English ] Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls here in Canada. Since 2007, we have invested over $63 million in funding over 300 projects to end violence against women and girls. It is the highest level of funding ever. We also launched a call for proposals that will support local projects to help prevent cyber and sexual violence against women and girls.

We introduced legislation that would give police and prosecutors new tools to address cyberbullying. If the members opposite are serious about making Canada safer for women and girls, they should support our initiatives.

International Development Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, people in my riding are concerned with the health of newborns and their mothers around the world, especially in developing countries. Since 2010 with the signing of the Muskoka initiative, Canada has been instrumental in helping drive global efforts to help mothers and children, pledging $2.85 billion to an initiative that will save the lives of 1.3 million children and 64,000 mothers.

Can the parliamentary secretary please update the House on the announcement that was made yesterday furthering our country's support for women and children? Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our commitment continues. Canada is well on its way to achieving our goals under the Muskoka initiative. Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that Canada will hold a maternal, newborn and child health, MNCH, summit in May. This summit will provide the opportunity to build consensus on where to focus our efforts to maximize future results.

Canadians agree that children everywhere deserve a healthy, productive life and that no woman should lose her life bringing another into the world. Our commitment is clear.

[ Translation ] Natural Resources Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, it was disappointing to see the National Energy Board authorize Enbridge's line 9B reversal project, even though the company is not abiding by all the conditions set by the Quebec National Assembly. Quebec only wants to ensure that Enbridge—which is responsible for the worst-ever oil spill on American soil—fully complies with all of the security regulations.

When will the Minister of Natural Resources intervene and ensure that security measures will be taken before this project gets under way, in particular by creating an intergovernmental oversight committee, conducting a review of oil transportation legislation and requiring a sufficient financial guarantee to ensure that Enbridge can pay for any and all damage in the case of a disaster? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this decision is good news for Quebec and for Canada. (1205) [ English ] The National Energy Board made this decision. A number of people were involved in the hearings. I think over 170 people participated in this. This is great news, not only for the people of Quebec but for all of eastern Canada, which will have a greater supply of western Canadian oil, thereby allowing us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is also extraordinarily good news for Montreal and Lévis, Quebec. We will have refineries. It is good news for the people in the Maritimes.

All around, it is a very good news day for Canada. It is good news for eastern Canada.

Air Transportation Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Cons. Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, recently in the House, I brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport that a proposed wind turbine project named Sumac Ridge threatened the future of the Peterborough regional airport, and I requested that she investigate the matter and intervene.

Given the substantial investment and significant growth that has occurred at Peterborough airport since the Prime Minister himself cut the ribbon at the new facility, it is shocking that the Ontario government would permit any new build to interfere with this incredible regional success story. Can the minister confirm that she is seized with the situation, and can she update the house in this regard? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peterborough for the question.

As was said in the House earlier on this matter, the Ontario government is responsible for approving land use plans when it comes to wind turbines. The federal government does not approve wind turbine projects. The role of the federal government and Nav Canada is to ensure that wind turbines do not cause concerns with respect to aviation safety. As I reported earlier, because of the importance of this issue to the member, the minister said she would have her officials look into the matter. I can confirm for the House that officials are in fact looking at the matter presently. Mr.

Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Cons. Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that response, and the government for demonstrating its commitment to the future and success of the Peterborough airport. This situation at Peterborough airport highlights a very serious problem with Ontario's Green Energy Act, in that consultations with airports are not required on the siting of wind turbines.

The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association is one of several groups joining with the City of Peterborough calling for a new and more robust review system, involving consultations with Nav Canada prior to any consent being granted for the construction of wind turbines within any aerodrome in Canada. Will the government direct Nav Canada to immediately undertake to discuss any and all wind turbine applications with airport owners so they can better understand the future growth of these airports? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I will simply remind the member that wind farm proponents are the ones who are responsible for engaging interested parties, including Nav Canada. Nav Canada is a private company and, as such, it provides its input insofar as impacts on aviation safety are concerned.

Points of Order

Oral Questions Points of Order

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture made a substantive error in his answers. He claimed that the doubling of car movement would be such a wonderful thing. However, the doubling of car movement only gets to the normal movement of rail cars and does nothing to deal with the backlog. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanto