Bill S-6 (Historical)

First Nations Elections Act

An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations

This enactment establishes a regime, alternative to the one under the Indian Act, to govern the election of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations. Among other things, the regime
(a) provides that chiefs and councillors hold office for four years;
(b) provides that the election of a chief or councillor may be contested before a competent court; and
(c) sets out offences and penalties in relation to the election of a chief or councillor.
This enactment also allows First Nations to withdraw from the regime by adopting a written code that sets out the rules regarding the election of the members of their council.

Bill S-6—Time Allocation Motion

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try this again. Earlier, I asked the minister a question, but he did not answer it.

If the government had chosen to send the bill to committee before second reading, we could have used the same number of hours of debate but avoided this confrontation and this situation, which is undermining the role of Parliament. Those are the rules of the House. That would have been far more respectful of the parliamentary process.

Why did the government choose to impose time allocation instead of sending the bill to committee before second reading?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the member, he is talking about following the rules. Those rules allow the government to move a motion such as the one moved earlier by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

If, despite its openness towards the opposition parties in trying to pass a bill, the government simply faces opposition, it is set out in the rules that the government may, at a given time, act in the best interests of Canadians and first nations. That is the goal of the motion currently before the House.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleagues and the rest of the House, abhor this constant closure of debate.

I have a follow-up question for the hon. minister. He was talking about electing a Senate. I heard the Prime Minister, in response to a question in question period the other day, utter about his party perhaps waffling between their lame reforms, I would say, for the Senate, and abolition.

The Prime Minister himself said abolition, so I wonder if the minister could answer as to whether or not that is now in the plans.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, with the exception of the question from my friend from Ottawa—Vanier, the questions coming from the official opposition have been focused on the abolition of the Senate.

The minister has some important things to say about the piece of legislation that we are supposed to be debating.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully ask you to refocus the debate, for the benefit, I am sure, of the members across the way.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In fact, the questions have been relevant to the motion before us with regard to the Senate, since it is a Senate bill.

The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this important piece of legislation will have serious and significant benefits for first nations whose election system is currently under the Indian Act.

Because of the work that has taken place since 2008, and the full engagement of first nations who have made all of the recommendations that have led to the drafting of the bill, we believe on this side of the House that it is time that first nations received the benefits of their bill.

That is why the motion is before the House, so we can finally pass this piece of legislation and make it law.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for taking the time to be explicit about what the bill is about.

It is only the opposition members who would think that having something started in 2008 and having it resolved in 2013 is pushing it through.

However, I want to get back to what we are here to speak about. It is my understanding that the election of chiefs and councillors can be held in three ways. One of the ways is outlined in the Indian Act, and it falls under the Indian band election regulations. The other way falls under the first nation's own leadership selection process, under what is called “custom election code”. To my understanding, the third way is also pursuant to the community's constitution contained in a self-government agreement.

Some of the background I have is that of the 617 first nations in Canada, 239 hold elections under the Indian Act and the Indian band election regulations, 342 will select their leadership according to their own community or custom election code, and 36 of those are self-government.

Could the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs explain why Bill S-6 is necessary as an additional option by which first nations could hold their elections?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is absolutely right in terms of the current situation.

The Indian Act election system contains several weaknesses that contribute significantly to unstable first nations governments. Among these weaknesses is the two-year term of office. Therefore, a good chief with a good council have a mandate of two years. We know, as legislators, that we cannot engage and execute a program or an initiative within two years; we need more time to execute a plan. However, chiefs and council have difficulties because of that two-year term of office.

There is currently a very loose nomination system. Sometimes there can be as many as a hundred candidates for a post of councillor. The mail-in ballot system is open to abuse. I have received numerous complaints as the minister of the department on this. Additionally, the current Indian Act contains no defined offences and penalties to enforce a rigorous, fair and transparent system, which this bill would achieve.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Conservative minister. Why is his government so incompetent in comparison to all other governments in the history of Canada?

True, the government's toolbox does include the discretion to use time allocation motions, but never in the history of Canada and all the parliaments has a government used a time allocation motion 44 times to silence the opposition. The Conservative member complained and moaned that NDP members opposed his bill and that is why he moved this motion.

However, why were previous Canadian governments, the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals, more competent in terms of getting their bills passed? The current government is apparently too incompetent to get its bills passed, ostensibly for the good of Canadians.

Why did the other governments in Canada's history not need as many time allocation motions as this government?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned competence.

In this regard, I would remind him, along with all my colleagues in the House and all Canadians, that this government's legislative agenda and the actions it took helped the country come out of the recession that took such a devastating toll across the world.

Just last month, about 95,000 new jobs were created in the country. This is the result of the Conservative government's policies. In addition to successfully creating so many jobs for Canadians over this short term, the government has also lowered taxes to a level where a typical small Canadian family consisting of a father, a mother and two children is saving $3,200 per year.

Perhaps $3,200 a year does not seem like much to an opposition member, but to an individual or a small family...

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord on a point of order.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier when my Conservative colleague rose on a point of order to ensure that the debate, both the questions and the answers, was on the time allocation motion, I thought he made a good point. I would therefore remind the minister that he should do the same thing and not talk—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That is not a point of order.

The hon. minister.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, he opens the door, but he does not want us to come in. He should just reword his questions.

The fact remains that it is important to pass Bill S-6 in order to give first nations living under the Indian Act the means to have transparent and open elections. These elections will in turn create a better climate in first nations for the economic, cultural and social development of their communities.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question.

My colleague must be sick of getting up in the morning to be told by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that he is moving a time allocation motion on a bill that relates to his portfolio. This is the fourth or fifth time this month, at least, that the minister has had to answer our questions. He should talk to his leader if he is starting to grow tired of it because he seems to be sick of answering these questions.

Based on the answers he has been giving today, we see that the minister knows very little about parliamentary procedure. He seems to find that funny. I see him laughing. That is just fine.

Does he think that a bill can be passed without a time allocation motion and, if so, would inordinate delays slow down the process to the point where it would be impossible to make progress?