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.

First Nations Elections Act

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for her comments, although I am a little confused about some of the things she said.

I am going to ask a couple of simple questions, and hopefully she can give me some simple answers.

First and foremost, the member talked about the importance of providing aboriginal people with some opportunities.

The opportunity that this act provides for aboriginal people is the opportunity for economic development, because when we are talking about economic development, ensuring that aboriginal people can come together and produce ideas that lead to job creation, which leads to economic growth for them, is important.

Only through elections that allow for them to work together for longer periods of time is that possible. That is why Manitoba chiefs came together and asked that there be a change.

The member went on and on about Manitoba, and how Manitoba chiefs did not want this measure. I would like the member to name at least three chiefs she has consulted with in Manitoba. I was the aboriginal affairs parliamentary secretary when this all started with the Manitoba chiefs, and I have met with dozens of them who agree that this is in fact a step forward that they would like to see.

I would like the member to name just three Manitoba chiefs she has consulted with.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course it is important to talk about economic development. However, with respect to aboriginal people, economic development cannot be achieved through tyranny, and especially not without real consultation.

In my speech, I mentioned the importance of conducting real consultations that take into account the solutions put forward by aboriginal people. Bill S-6 does the opposite.

That is why, in 2013, the government is still telling aboriginal people how they should see the world and everything around them. However, it is not up to the government to do so. It is up to aboriginal people to determine their own vision when it comes to economic development.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in their speeches on this bill, government members made references to freedom, respect and democracy for aboriginal people.

However, many groups representing aboriginal people have called for the government to remove paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c), which give immeasurable discretionary power to the minister to subject certain aboriginal communities to the legislation. Instead of giving them the power to appoint a new chief, the government wants to subject these communities to rules governing that process. The parliamentary secretary must understand that there is a difference between the two.

I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that this measure, this discretionary power, is undemocratic and does not honour the intent of the law.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her very relevant question.

We once again have to deal with this government's undemocratic measures and solutions. We cannot stress this enough. It goes without saying that this is not the first time that we have seen a minister give himself discretionary power. There have been other examples of this. This minister is no exception.

He is not giving aboriginal people any freedom to make their own decisions. He is not letting them take charge of their own realities and their own future. The government is not consulting first nations, and when it does, it does not take into account the solutions they propose.

We are faced with a government that wants to control everything and that wants to advance its political agenda without taking into account aboriginal peoples or MPs. That is the direction that things are going in, and we are truly dealing with undemocratic positions and decisions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That brings an end to the debate at this time.

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion that Bill S-6, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-6 would make a positive difference in the lives of first nation citizens. As the government has articulated clearly, this bill would enable first nations to build stronger, more accountable governments that would lead to better futures for themselves, their families and their communities.

Before I go on, I would like to advise the House that I plan to share my time with the most distinguished and most effective member in the history of York Centre.

Bill S-6, which henceforth shall be known as the First Nations Elections Act, will give individual band members an electoral system they can trust.

When they exercise their democratic rights, they will have the confidence that they are doing so within a strong system that is available to Canadians at elections held at all other levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal.

Bill S-6 is about empowering first nation people with the tools they need to hold their own governments to account and make informed decisions about their leadership.

It is about ensuring that chiefs and councillors have the legitimacy and political stability they need to make the best decisions on behalf of their communities.

In essence, you could say it is about building trust, respect and confidence in the local leadership and the system used to elected them.

However, the proposed legislation does not just empower first nation citizens. It offers a viable alternative to some of the most objectionable parts of the Indian Act related to elections, which hinder the ability of a first nation's leadership to improve the well-being of its community, or attract and create economic and investment opportunities, for that matter. Let me explain some of those shortcomings and how this has impacted first nation governments and communities.

The first serious failing of the Indian Act is that it limits the term of office for elected officials to just two years. In contrast, federal, provincial and most municipal governments generally have terms of four years.

Two-year election terms place first nation chiefs and councillors in a state of constant electioneering, like having constant minority governments.

This prevents first nation leaderships from focusing on the long term and does not provide enough time to plan for and implement long-term initiatives. Almost as soon as they are elected, band councils turn their minds to the next election.

As a result of this short-sightedness, first nations governments often fail to build a proper foundation for community development. This concern has been expressed by both first nations governments and residents, who lament that this failing has created conditions of instability and missed opportunity.

All of this has a direct bearing on economic development and job creation. Private sector interests hesitate to invest in such uncertain conditions. At the end of day, it is first nation communities—and first nations men, women and children—that pay the greatest price for this instability in the way of missed business development and employment opportunities.

The first nations' next bone of contention with the electoral system under the Indian Act is the process for nominating candidates, or should I say, the lack thereof. Provisions in the Indian Act allow elections to go ahead, even if the nominated person has no interest in running for office or, as sometimes happens, is unaware that his or her name is on the ballot.

By the way, we used to have this problem in Ontario. Ninety years ago, my grandfather was elected reeve of a local township. He had to cancel his election the next day, because he did not seek the office.

Once people are nominated, their names automatically appear on the ballot, unless they withdraw in writing. If the ballots are already printed, a name stays on the ballot even if the candidate has withdrawn.

Therefore, people with no intention of serving on council can find themselves in this position, and may even be elected, but not wanting to serve. This happened to my grandfather 90 years ago.

That is not the only issue. The Indian Act and the Indian Band Election Regulations also permit the same person to be nominated for both chief and the councillor positions.

Furthermore, there is no limit on the number of candidates that any one person can nominate. It is not unheard of to have up to 100 people vying for a handful of positions on council. All of these issues would be resolved with the passage of Bill S-6.

Another concern that came up over and over relates to the mail-in ballot system under the Indian Act.

We have all heard stories of people whose names were on the band voter list who sold their ballots to others. Unfortunately, these are not just rare occasions. Research suggests that in some parts of the country, the alleged buying and selling of mail-in ballots has been widespread. Since the band council provides electoral officers with a list of addresses for mail-in ballots that may or may not be accurate or up to date, situations like this can easily take place.

First nations electors and leaders have made it clear that they want a more rigorous process, one that assures them that ballots will only be mailed out to, and cast by, eligible voters.

These concerns are compounded by the fact that the Indian Act does not include any offences and penalties for fraudulent activity connected to the electoral process in first nation communities. At the moment, anyone wishing to cheat the system is free to do so. If these same activities were to take place in the context of a federal, provincial or municipal election, the individual would be subject to criminal prosecution.

Why do first nations people expect less? They do not.

Finally, under the Indian Act, the power to investigate and make decisions about the validity of election results rests with the minister. This takes us back to a time when it was believed that the minister was the best person to oversee matters of band governance. This government does not agree. We believe that first nations communities, not the minister, are best placed to make informed decisions about their own leadership and that first nations governments are best placed to make decisions about their own affairs. That is why we want to empower them with the tools they need to hold their own governments to account.

In addition, the existing appeal system under the Indian Act is deeply flawed. It is incredibly complicated and lacks sufficient rigour and transparency to be effective.

In addition, the existing appeals system under the Indian Act is deeply flawed. It is incredibly complicated and lacks sufficient rigour and transparency to be effective.

That is why Bill S-6 introduces several improvements, as an alternative to the Indian Act, that will better respond to the request of first nations for a more rigorous and reliable elections system.

This bill, and Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act, which received royal assent earlier this year, help to create the conditions that will encourage stronger, more stable and effective first nations governments, based on principles of accountability and transparency. Let me briefly highlight the main advantages of this bill for first nations that choose to opt in to these provisions.

First, the proposed legislation provides for longer terms of office.

Second, Bill S-6 would offer a more robust process to nominate candidates. First nations would be free to bring in a fee for candidacy. An anomaly, such as one person being elected to both positions of chief and councillor, would be eliminated.

Third, it outlines penalties for defined offences, such as obstructing the electoral process or engaging in corrupt or fraudulent actions, similar to those found in other election laws.

Fourth, it removes the minister’s role in the election process. The minister would no longer be involved in election appeals or the removal of elected officials. Those decisions would be made by the courts. I urge all members of this House to support the swift passage of this important legislation.

In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that next Friday, June 21st, will mark National Aboriginal Day in Canada.

This date was chosen because it coincides with the summer solstice, a time when many aboriginal peoples celebrate their culture and rich heritage.

That morning, at seven o’clock, we will meet next door at the Château Laurier for the first National Aboriginal Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast.

That evening, at 10:45, there will be a wreath-laying ceremony at the Aboriginal Veterans National Monument in Confederation Park, on Elgin Street.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are trying to put together a positive approach to their relations with first nations, but they will not change course and refuse to engage in nation-to-nation dialogue.

Earlier in the House, during the debate on Bill S-2, we saw that this Senate bill could have been a real opportunity for this government to do something positive for aboriginal women.

Unfortunately, the government did not listen to the concerns of these groups of women and the bill does not have the support of the people it is trying to help. It is absolutely ridiculous that this government is attempting to appeal to women.

I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. We know that the Conservatives do not always address the real governance problems by choosing to ignore the flaws of the Indian Act.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to listen to the legitimate concerns of first nations groups?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I found it a little difficult to understand the member opposite, I must say that Bill S-6, which we are currently debating, clearly responds to the concerns raised by band chiefs, councillors and residents of reserves.

It is a way to make band elections democratic and to give responsibility to first nations peoples, rather than having the minister remain in charge. The people living on first nations reserves, not the minister, will make the decisions.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, the Indian Act election system contains several weaknesses that contribute significantly to unstable first nations governments. Among these principal weaknesses is the two-year term of office. The short period of time simply does not allow first nations to plan and implement important long-term projects for the benefit of their members. In many cases, when an election is held and the leadership changes, progress can be set back. This instability does not make first nations attractive for long-term investment.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why it is so necessary for Bill S-6 to go through right now.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many members of the House have sat here through three minority governments, where admittedly we were in a constant state of electioneering. That is not the proper way to do long-term planning. Some of us have had municipal experience. We do better long-term planning on longer cycles. Here we have a four-year cycle. The provinces have four-year cycles. Most municipalities in the country have four-year cycles, certainly Ontario and Quebec do. Better work is done that way. This is a tool that would allow band councils to do the very same.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard the member correctly. He said that this legislation would effectively take the minister out of the picture. From what I understand from paragraphs 3 (1)(a) and (1)(b) the minister would be still in the picture. It still has the paternalistic and colonial role for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

I am not sure if I understood it correctly. Is the member supporting what the Assembly of First Nations asked the Senate to do, and that is to take paragraphs 3(1)(a) and (b) out of the bill? Is that what the member was getting at?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is probably paragraph (c).

We have two choices here: the paternalistic Indian Act, or Bill S-2 that includes more transparency, more accountability and a better chance for Indian band councils to do long-term planning on their own terms. That is what we are doing here.

If those members want to go to the bad old ways of the Indian Act, good for them. That is why the people of Canada, in their own wisdom, have chosen members on this side to be government.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to make my remarks following the member for Ottawa—Orléans, a very distinguished member of the House and the finest member Ottawa—Orléans has seen in the history of our great country.

It is a great pleasure for me to speak today in support of Bill S-6, the first nations elections act. Everyone agrees that the Indian Act is an outdated paternalistic piece of legislation that is holding back first nation communities from achieving their full potential.

By way of history, the Indian Act was first introduced in 1876, some 137 years ago. While it has undergone several amendments and reforms, the act, including the provisions related to elections, has remained largely untouched since 1951. More than just being restrictive and paternalistic, the Indian Act undermines the ability of first nations to manage their own affairs, whether we talk about elections or pursuing economic development opportunities. This outdated act puts up roadblocks at almost every turn as first nations strive to achieve greater self-sufficiency.

Yet, still today, in the year 2013, the vast majority of Canada's 633 first nations communities continue to be governed by this colonial act. As a result, it continues to pervade almost every aspect of life for first nations communities, from Indian status, land resources, wills and education, to band administration and so on.

That is why legislative initiatives over the years have focused on addressing the many shortcomings of the outdated Indian Act. Our government is determined to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of the success of first nations. Rather than trying to manage their lives through the antiquated Indian Act, our government believes we need to provide first nations with the modern tools they need to get out from under this act in order to shape a better future for themselves and their children.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the area of governance. As my House colleagues will agree, good governance is the foundation of any stable self-sufficient community, whether a first nation or any other jurisdiction.

Bill S-6 would provide first nations with the option to circumvent the limitations of the Indian Act that govern elections on reserve. It would provide first nations looking for an alternative to the current election system with a new option that would create a consistent, reliable framework that communities can use to elect strong, stable and effective governments. The bill makes it possible for first nation communities that opt in to take advantage of its provisions to hold fair elections that would lead to transparent and accountable governments.

There are currently 238 first nations that hold their elections under the Indian Act. The other first nations have either established a custom community code or govern themselves under a self-government agreement that sets out their own leadership selection system.

Unfortunately, due to varying capacity, not all of these options are currently available to all first nations. What is more, sometimes none of these options suit the needs of a particular first nation community. In fact, that point was made in the course of testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. It is further reinforced by the fact that about two first nations a year convert from the Indian Act election system to a community election code. In the Atlantic region, not a single first nation has converted from the Indian Act electoral system in over 10 years.

Even more telling, frustrated first nations in several regions took it upon themselves to force change. There are two organizations that deserve special recognition and praise for making Bill S-6 a reality, and they are the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs.

This legislation before us today reflects the ideas and improvements brought forward by the two regional first nations organizations that worked together on this important initiative. In fact, before developing this legislation, first nations all across the country had a chance to have their say about what is wrong with the current system and what is required to make it right.

Now I would like to explain how governance will improve in communities that choose to adopt the first nations election act. I want to stress the word “choose”, as this legislation would be entirely optional.

However, before I list its many advantages, it is essential to review the major complaints regarding the current Indian Act electoral regime and what first nations leaders and residents have told us needs to be fixed.

At the top of the list is the current requirement to have elections every two years. This hinders first nations chiefs and councillors from carrying out long-term projects. It also gives them very little time to work with partners and investors who take advantage of job-creation possibilities to improve the lives of their residents. Instead of pursuing such promising opportunities, most chiefs and councillors must start planning for the next election almost as soon as they have won at the ballot box.

That is not the only problem. The existing mail-in ballot system is also open to abuse and the current system's questionable nomination process enables candidates who are neither dedicated to running nor serious about serving to put their names on the ballot.

The challenges do not end there. Without defined offences and penalties, it is nearly impossible to prosecute corrupt practices and, if corrupt, illegal or abusive acts are alleged, federal officials must oversee a lengthy appeals process. No wonder the Atlantic and Manitoba chiefs are fed up.

Those first nations that adopt Bill S-6 will no longer need to tolerate such situations. This legislation would offer them a much better alternative. It would provide first nations with a choice of new tools to use if their communities decided they wanted to adopt them as a more responsive to their needs.

This is a modern law, more in step with the times. It is legislation for the 21st century, not the 1950s.

To address one of the most frequent complaints raised in first nations communities all across the country, the proposed first nations elections act will permit chiefs and councillors to be elected to office for four years. Band councils will be able to get beyond electoral gridlock and undertake multi-year planning to improve the lives of their citizens. A longer term will empower first nations leaders to lay the groundwork for the community to become opportunity ready, with stable, efficient and predictable investment climates that are attractive to businesses and investors.

Another big improvement in Bill S-6 provides that it will encourage more serious and dedicated leaders because of a more stringent nomination process. First nations can impose a fee of up to $250 to eliminate frivolous and uninterested candidates and they can require written acceptances from candidates to remove people with no desire to run for office from the ballot. It will also ensure that no individual will be a candidate for more than one office at the same election. What this means is that there will be much less chance of corrupt election practices in communities that adopt Bill S-6.

Some of the most important provisions of this bill relate to new offences and penalties, something which does not exist under the Indian Act election regime. This legislation outlines specific offences and ties penalties to each. Under the provisions contained within Bill S-6, first nations authorities could lay charges for illegal activity in connection with first nations elections. Moreover, they would have the backing of the courts to impose fines and jail sentences of those convicted.

Bill S-6 reflects our government's commitment to work with first nations to develop an alternative to the outdated Indian Act elections system to strengthen band elections. If first nations are convinced this is the right way to go, parliamentarians should follow their lead.

I therefore encourage all parliamentarians to support Bill S-6 so first nations can look forward to the 21st century with greater confidence.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the same question that I asked the colleague from Ottawa—Orléans because I did not really get a clear answer from that member.

Is his government considering taking the Assembly of First Nations' advice to remove clause 3, paragraphs (b) and (c), from the current law in order to take the role that is given to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and remove it and stop the colonial and paternalistic elements that have existed since the foundation of our country and the beginning of the Indian Act? Will the government consider taking out clause 3, paragraphs (b) and (c), yes or no?