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

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved 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.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the constituents of the great Kenora riding for this opportunity to speak on Bill S-6 and, in particular, one of our newest constituents, the very special Abigail Mae Rickford.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

Over a year ago the Prime Minister spoke at the Crown-First Nations Gathering about the approach our government is taking to enable first nations people to share fully with other Canadians the prosperity, security and promise of our great country. Specifically, the Prime Minister stated that our approach is to work as partners with the first nations to replace elements of the Indian Act that are outdated with modern tools—a constellation, so to speak, of options, like this bill, to provide opportunities for modern first nation political economic development.

The fact is that the Indian Act election system has some significant and serious flaws. To start, the Indian Act requires that first nation communities hold elections every two years. This requirement restricts first nations chiefs and councils from initiating long-term projects and working closely with investors, business owners, partners and other governments, and from taking full advantage of emerging opportunities to improve the lives of people in their communities.

Also, the Indian Act does not prevent any person from running and being elected chief and to a councillor position during the same election. The current system's loose nomination process also enables the names of candidates who are neither dedicated to running nor serious about serving to be placed on the ballot without their approval and, in some instances, without their knowledge. Because of this omission in the law, some first nations elections have had more than 100 candidates vie for as few as three positions.

The mail-in ballot system under the Indian Act is also open to abuse. In addition, the act does not provide for offences or related penalties when abuse is uncovered. As a result, it is virtually impossible for a legal entity to prosecute those involved in corruption. If illegal, corrupt or abusive practices are alleged to have taken place, department officials launch a lengthy appeals process, which has proven to be slow, inefficient and paternalistic.

Bill S-6 enables first nations people to shed a piece of the Indian Act by providing an alternative to its flawed election provisions. Bill S-6 presents an open, transparent and accountable election system that first nations people expect and deserve. We only have to consider some key provisions of the bill and what these provisions will set in motion to understand its value.

To that end, I would like to categorize the main provisions of the bill under four headings: term of office, election mechanics, candidates, and offences and penalties. Let me speak to those.

The bill provides for terms of office of four years. This is a much more reasonable timeframe for stable first nation governments to launch important initiatives and obtain concrete results before embarking on another election.

Furthermore, the first nations election act enables first nations communities to line up their terms of office and hold elections on the same day if they so choose.

Taking advantage of this provision makes perfect sense for communities in the same province or region. By aligning the terms of office of their elected leaders, they provide governance stability among first nations across a given region. As a result, these leaders can more easily collaborate on long-term projects, work closely with investors and seize opportunities whenever they emerge.

Bill S-6 also deals with important aspects of running elections.

It contains regulation-making mechanisms that will address a large number of concerns about candidate nominations and the mail-in ballot system that regularly arise during elections under the Indian Act. From this perspective, the First Nations Elections Act provides for a much more consistent, effective, reliable and legitimate electoral process.

In terms of candidates for election, the bill specifies that no individual can be a candidate for more than one office in the same election and requires that nominees consent to being a candidate prior to actually becoming one. This is a key point, as it means only the names of those persons who have agreed to be a candidate will appear on the ballot, which is not currently the case.

In terms of offences and penalties, Bill S-6 would fill a significant void. Just like the provincial and federal election laws, the new act would include several clearly defined offences and penalties surrounding questionable activities, such as vote buying, intimidation and obstructing the electoral process.

The new provisions will discourage these activities from taking place by making it possible for authorities to investigate and prosecute those who engage in such acts and they will empower our courts to adjudicate over fines and sentences of those found guilty.

Together, the provisions I have laid out remove the destabilizing effects of perpetual electioneering from first nation governments. They help eliminate potential abuses of power. They help communities elect governments that are be truly representative of the needs and interests of residents.

In stark contrast to the Indian Act election system, Bill S-6 offers an appeals process that does not involve the department, the minister or his successors. Appeals of elections held under Bill S-6 will be addressed in the courts, where election disputes in municipal, provincial and federal elections in our country are resolved.

I also want to speak briefly, but I think importantly, about ministerial authority.

Bill S-6 would not give the minister of Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development any more power than already found in the Indian Act. I am referring, specifically, to provision in the bill that will permit the minister to order a first nation to hold its elections under the proposed new law when there is a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of that first nation.

The minister already holds this power, under the Indian Act, where he or she may order a first nation hold elections under the act if it is deemed advisable for the good governance of the band.

Ministers have only used this power three times, as far as I can tell, for the purposes of solving an ongoing governance dispute in a given first nation and only did so after several attempts to support the community in reaching its own resolution had failed. More important, in instances where the power was exercised, the dispute had compromised the overall well-being of the community.

History has shown that this power under the Indian Act has not been exercised frivolously.

In fact, the power afforded the minister, under Bill S-6, would be much narrower. The condition that must be present before the minister could order an election under Bill S-6 is clearly defined, and it bears repeating. That condition is, “a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of that First Nation”. This stands in stark contrast to the vast discretion afforded the minister as it stands under the Indian Act.

Even though it is rarely used, it is vital that Bill S-6 provide this power as a measure of last resort. A long-standing dispute over leadership selection in elections paralyzes governance in a first nation. Eventually, the well-being of the whole community is compromised. The delivery of programs and services has to be placed, in many instances, in the control of third parties.

Without clear and legitimate leaders, strategic decisions are not made, partnerships with other first nations, other governments and private enterprises become virtually impossible to forge potential economic development opportunities, good governance can disappear.

I know that many first nation leaders in this country agree that Bill S-6 presents a better election system than that found under the Indian Act. After all, they played an indispensable role in creating Bill S-6. Two first nation organizations deserve our special recognition for bringing this bill to life.

The first is the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs under the leadership of former grand chief Ron Evans, who is the former chief of Norway House first nations, a community that I had an opportunity to spend some time in as a nurse in northern Manitoba. The second is the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. Both of these organizations recognize the deficiencies of the Indian Act election system and their destabilizing negative effect on first nations governance.

In their own parts of the country, they held several consultation sessions with first nations leaders, governance experts and community members. The consultation led to a list of potential electoral reforms, which included inter alia terms of offices of four years and the ability for first nations in a given region to line up their terms of office and hold their elections on the same day.

They called on the federal government to develop a new law, but the process did not end there. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress partnered to lead a national engagement effort to further discuss electoral reform with first nations leaders and members across the country. They communicated with leaders of the 241 first nations communities that hold elections currently under the Indian Act, inviting feedback on their recommendations.

These two organizations also set up websites to post important information and receive inputs and comments from first nations members. All who responded agreed that the proposed reforms would be a major improvement over the election system under the Indian Act. When we took the recommended election reforms and prepared a draft version of Bill S-6, the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs then wrote to every band council elected under the Indian Act to outline the new bill's contents. He encouraged the councils to share the draft with their community members and to provide comments on the draft bill directly to him.

The minister did not receive a single negative comment during this exercise. All the credit for this achievement goes to first nations members and leaders, especially the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, for their creative and collaborative consultative efforts. In particular, I would like to recognize the work, as I said earlier, of the former grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Ron Evans; Atlantic chiefs, Lawrence Paul, the late Noah Augustine and Candice Paul; as well as the Assembly of First Nations regional chief Morley Googoo, for their remarkable leadership and for the essential roles they played in helping create Bill S-6 as we have come to know it today.

These leaders saw the need to reform their election system and then took action to bring about practical changes. They all deserve our heartfelt thanks. They have brought to life the Prime Minister's words and found creative ways to move beyond the Indian Act. They did so because they know the value that stable, effective governments can bring to first nation communities.

They know that political stability makes it possible for first nations communities to attract investors and business owners and thereby create new jobs, rising incomes, higher standards of living and quality of life on reserve. They know that empowered elected officials and effective councils can access capital, plan and carry out long-term projects, and work productively with partners to unlock the economic promise of first nations lands and resources.

Perhaps most important is the empowerment gained by their people when they exercise their fundamental right to vote within an election system that is strong, open and transparent.

This is why I ask all of my colleagues to join us in support of Bill S-6 to support and encourage all members of first nations communities to realize their aspirations and good governance in their communities.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on the addition to his family. That is always a wonderful event for all of us. I am sure that the smile on his face may indicate the same.

His statement about the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs leaves me a little short. Here is a quote from Grand Chief Derek Nepinak:

This proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC. It appears to be an attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code. I am hopeful that Canada will engage in meaningful consultation with First Nations in Manitoba in order to fix some of the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of First Nations.

That is the Grand Chief who is in power today, not the one mentioned by the parliamentary secretary. I would ask him to clarify which particular grand chief he was talking about. Is it the one who is currently in power, who has said that he does not support this particular legislation?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, our friendship and the important work we do on the standing committee.

I would suggest, respectfully, that there is a process with legislation. I can only speak to the mandate and the participation of the Grand Chief as he was when we went through a consultative process. As I said, I know him to be an excellent individual, from a personal and professional frame of reference, having spent considerable time in Norway House first nation in northern Manitoba.

We are trying to create within the confines of first nations elections what could be described as a fourth option. We have what we have described under the Indian Act, and I listed some of the problems. We have options for community or custom election codes. There are self-governing first nations. This is a possible fourth option that has been consulted on thoroughly, in particular by these two organizations. The Atlantic Policy Congress is the other.

This process drew on the perspectives of leadership from across the country, with direct input to the minister. At that time, and we believe moving forward, in view of the options available, these were the kinds of things first nations were asking for in a bill that would deal with first nations governance, specifically around elections.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the bill. However, the court recently said that the Conservative Party has been accused of certain electoral irregularities. I am wondering if the government is in any position to be tabling any type of election act, especially for first nations. The question is pretty direct.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Yes, it is pretty direct, Mr. Speaker. His questions are a lot like the way he plays hockey. He is kind of rough.

There actually are no specific allegations against the Conservative Party in that regard.

What we are trying to do is bring a serious tone to this discussion. We are trying to improve the conditions in which elections take place in first nations communities. Importantly, it was born from a consultative and participative process that came organically, if I may, from major first nations organizations through thorough consultation with leadership and community members across the country, and, as I said before, with direct input to the Minister of Indian Affairs at the time.

We believe that this legislation would create another viable option that would help stabilize governance in first nations communities and would meet the expectations that we understand derive from those important consultative exercises.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been working closely with first nation organizations to bring about real improvements to the election process for first nations.

We know that a strong election system will help first nations create the political stability necessary for solid business investment, long-term planning and relationship-building that will lead to increased economic development and job creation for first nations communities.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please explain how this legislation is different from the archaic election system in the Indian Act?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's participation on the standing committee and in the important work that we do.

It is hard to believe it has been almost 20 years that I have been living and working in and with first nations communities in a variety of professional capacities, perhaps most recently until becoming elected, dealing with, in my legal practice, some of the issues and matters that arise out of election issues.

I am struck by four elements that I alluded to in my speech, but by way of review, they are as follows.

The first is a four-year mandate. The band council will have four years instead of two to give effect to longer term planning and relationship-building with other levels of government and private sector partners.

The second is a more stringent nomination process. We want to address those deficiencies.

The third is an election appeals process. The bill would remove the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development from the election appeals process.

The fourth is offences and penalties. It would provide offences and penalties surrounding corrupt activities and interference with the electoral process, similar to the Canada Elections Act that we operate under.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. He spoke at length about public consultations.

The first part of my question is to find out what type of consultations we are talking about. Were there any face-to-face meetings?

All summer long there was a huge movement called Idle No More. I was wondering whether the public consultations took advantage of this movement to meet face-to-face with the different leaders who were there, and whether anyone took advantage of this large gathering to hold public consultations. This was a golden opportunity to allow people to express themselves. I was wondering whether anyone took that opportunity.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with 42 first nations communities in my riding, I have had the opportunity, then and subsequently, to sit down with first nations people in particular who were involved in those.

It is fair to say that we found a lot of common ground. The Winnipeg Free Press said as much, that the government could and would find common ground with first nations that were perhaps frustrated in reality with all levels of government, including their own.

This first nations election act takes an important in that direction to deal with some of the issues that were mentioned during those protests and some of the debate that ensued around the difficulties they had with some of their own levels of government in their respective communities.

There are other issues, for sure. We are certainly working through those. In terms of the consultative process, as I said before, there were several consultation sessions with first nations leaders, governance experts in the first nations academic community and community members. In addition to that, as I said, the minister of aboriginal affairs, as he was then, received direct inputs from community members and stakeholders, including first nations leadership during that consultative process.

We appreciate that it was in fact led by first nations organizations. That is the hallmark of real leadership and success.

To that end, I am satisfied that the test or threshold has been met and this bill reflects their express views and wishes with respect to the kind of legislation that would support good governance of first nations.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity here, quite late on Tuesday night, to speak to this particular bill.

It has been my viewpoint over the past two years on the aboriginal affairs committee that the Conservatives really have not been consulting in the correct fashion with first nations across the country. They come in with the wrong attitude. What we really need is to have first nations design the legislation that they would like to see enacted for their governments, their people and their nations. We can then take that in Parliament and understand how we can amend it so that it works.

However, we have the opposite way and we saw that with the accountability act, an act that really was an unfortunate piece of goods that came from the government. It was universally condemned by first nations. They did have a couple of supporters there, but they were some very specific people who had problems in their own particular communities. Those who understood the nature of the first nations-Canada relationship rejected the accountability act.

We are now at Bill S-8, the safe drinking water act, which we would think that everyone could get behind and support. However, once again, we see that the method of consultation and delivery of these bills is simply not working. The Conservative government is not providing the first nations with the opportunities to design the legislation so that it works for them. In this case, with the Senate putting forward Bill S-8, we also have the additional problem that we cannot make requirements for resources to ensure that first nations can actually meet standards that they would all want to meet.

The history so far of the majority government has been of one that refuses amendments. I think of Bill C-47, when we put forward some 45 amendments on a bill that only affected Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Of those 40-some amendments, the Conservatives turned down all of them, even though the amendments were designed to make the bill work better. They were not coming from people who had great opposition to the bill. They were coming from people who were concerned that the bill should work right.

In other words, once again the Conservatives failed to provide a methodology of consultation that delivered a product that people could get behind. I see that this pattern is being repeated with Bill S-6. The Conservatives did go into some consultation. They did hold meetings with first nations. They got recommendations from first nations about how this bill should be set up. The problem is that when the bill showed up, those recommendations were not carried forward in the fashion that the first nations had assumed.

We can see that in the problem with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. The first Grand Chief, who was involved in the consultation side of it before the bill was put out, was pretty happy with what was going to happen. He said that, but then when the bill arrived in the Senate, the Manitoba Chief that I quoted in my question to the parliamentary secretary said, "no, that is not what we are after".

The consultation process is wrong. The consultation process does not deliver the goods for first nations. That is the problem here and the government has to change its direction in order to make legislation that truly represents first nations' points of view. The legislation is for the first nations. This legislation does not affect other people in Canada. The legislation is for the governments of the first nations. Therefore, it should really have those elements as the prime elements within the legislation.

That seems to be simple. We are not here to force our way upon other governments. We are here to provide guidance and accommodation and to make the system work.

Conservatives have a different view. They view it from that economic development lens. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that. Implicit within all the work that the Conservatives are doing is the idea that economic development for the first nations is the most important element. The most important element is not what the first nations want, not what the first nations deserve, but what will make economic development work. That is the Conservatives' point of view.

What we see in legislation over and over again is that message. What is important for economic development is the primary thing that we will see in legislation that comes from the Conservatives on first nations issues. If first nations go along with that, and the government can get some to go along with that, those will be the quotations that are used. Those will be the validations that Conservatives seek.

What really is needed? We really need to listen to the first nations. This legislation is for them, it is not for us. It is not telling us how we are getting elected. It is working with the first nations to come up with a system that they endorse, that they want for their very valid self-government efforts.

In the consultation process there was probably a little more give, a little more understanding, but when it came back to Ottawa, the changes were made to ensure that it worked for the government and it plans. That is the reality of what we are dealing with.

We have trouble with the bill. We also have trouble supporting it at second reading and taking it to committee. We have done this over and over again, but we are not getting any results. We are not getting the government to come onside for valid amendments to bills.

That is the process by which we all want to engage in here. This is what we want to do at committees. We want to have the opportunity to take what the people want, take what the government wants, come up with some compromises. We do not want this hard line attitude about the committees and about how amendments are dealt with at committees. That is not working for us. What we are saying is that will oppose this bill at second reading because it does not what the first nations want.

It is a tragedy that we cannot take the bill to committee with some kind of assurance that some of the important elements that need to be fixed in the bill will be fixed. However, when we beat our head against the wall and do not get results, then we should quit beating our head against the wall. That is sensible.

We can fight it here in Parliament. We can go to committee and hear the witnesses who will say that they want amendments and to make the bill work properly. That is what we have heard over and over again. With all the legislation that has come in front of us, it has always been the case that the first nations witnesses who testify want solutions. They do not want to go away empty handed.

It is a tragedy and it is wrong. That is not the way we should do government. Government is for the people. The people who are affected by legislation are the primary concern of the legislation. This is not for all of Canada. This is for first nations. They have the primary say here. If we go against that principle, we are really going against the principle of democracy if we are not allowing the people who are affected by the law to have the dominant say over how the law is put together.

If a law affects all Canadians, then we all have a say in it. The responsibility is different. However, in the case when we are making laws for first nations, first nations that have a constitutional right of self-government, that have been in this land for thousands of years, who signed treaties, they should have a say in it. We did not take the land away from them, we signed treaties with them. The Queen agreed about how these treaties were taken care of in 1763.

That is our history. Do we want to rewrite history? We should write it the way it has been done.

I really would like to get along with the government on legislation for first nations when it starts getting along with first nations and when it starts listening to first nations. This is what the legislation is for. These are the people who are affected by the legislation. It is not for businessmen, not for those who look upon reserves as potential new sources of land and resources. No, it is for those people. Let us remember that when we deal with legislation. If we do not, we are simply not doing the job that, as Canadians, we know we should be doing.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

I find it interesting that we have something to learn from the first nations with regard to governance and particularly with regard to consultation.

The first nations hold band councils and they meet together to discuss issues and reach a consensus. They have reached a number of consensuses over the years. We could learn from this dialogue. It would be worthwhile to use this approach as a model for the way we work together in politics.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, having grown up with, gone to school with and spent my life with first nations people, I find them to be some of the warmest and most accommodating people I have known. They are people who are there for each other.

It is interesting that in the Dene language there is no word for “thank you”. They had to invent a word for it because their culture says that taking care of each other is not a “thank you” issue, but an issue of responsibility.

It is a wonderful culture. It is a culture that all Canadians could learn from, and we should respect that culture in every way in the legislation that we pass in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That concludes the time we have for debate at this time. The hon. member for Western Arctic will have approximately eight minutes for finishing questions and comments.

Bill S-6—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad moment. This is the 44th time the government has invoked closure in the House of Commons. It is a record.

We have never had a government in such disgrace and a government so willing to trample on the rights of parliamentarians who have been elected across this country to represent their constituents and to represent Canadians here in the House of Commons.

We have never had a Prime Minister who has shown such profound disrespect in the midst of the greatest scandal we have had in recent memory: repeated scandals in the Senate and payments coming out of the Prime Minister's Office. In the midst of all of this, what the government is trying to do is shut down parliamentary debate. It has been 44 times. It is a sad record of the government's complete lack of respect for Canadians.

This is compounded by the fact that what the government is invoking closure on now are very contentious pieces of legislation on which it did not perform its duty to consult with first nations organizations and aboriginal peoples. This is another bill the government wants to ram through, because it is acutely aware of how embarrassing its record is in regard to first nations. It just wants to force the bill through without debate.

There have been two short speeches on this. That was on Wednesday night, at midnight, a few weeks ago. That is it in terms of any sort of input from members of Parliament on a bill that is this contentious. The government just wants to sweep it all under the carpet. It wants to shut down and put the locks on Parliament and forget about the democratic debate that so many Canadians hold dear.

After 44 times showing disrespect toward Canadians, why does it not start showing respect for Canadians and allow debate to take place in the House of Commons?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, again, we are moving this motion to expedite a matter that is of great importance and that will bring transformative changes to the way certain first nations choose to carry out their elections.

We all know that the work on this bill started back in 2008 at the request and insistence of first nations. The first nations of the country that conduct elections of their chiefs and councils under the Indian Act have all been engaged and consulted in a major way. As a result, the department and previous ministers have been provided with recommendations, from first nations, upon which this bill has been drafted.

But for this motion, the bill would not be passed, and first nations would suffer the negative consequences of the colonial, paternalistic Indian Act they are under right now.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague realizes how ridiculous and inconsistent the situation is.

The government says that Canada is doing well compared to other countries, but it moves 44 time allocation motions, or 44 gag orders. It thinks these bills are so urgent and the situation is so bad in the country that these 44 bills have to be passed right away. This makes no sense. It is totally inconsistent.

On one hand, the government tells us that Canada is doing well compared to other countries, and on the other hand it acts as though everything is urgent, as though there is some sort of catastrophe and everything must be passed right now. This makes absolutely no sense.

What is more, the government rises and moves a time allocation motion every time. This shows that it is incapable of governing. Normally, a government would have discussions and negotiate with the opposition to pass bills. The Conservative government is proving incapable of sitting down with the opposition to negotiate within our very own country.

What message does this send to the international community? If the Conservatives cannot even sit down with the opposition to negotiate, what does that mean when they negotiate with other countries? It must be utterly pathetic. They should reconsider their approach. They keep making fools of themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is strange to hear the hon. member compare Canada's parliamentary performance with that of other countries. I encourage the hon. member to think about how other majority governments throughout the world operate. I think she could learn something.

The fact that the government has had to move a 44th time allocation motion is not ridiculous. What is ridiculous is that this shows that, for the 44th time, the opposition party is unable to support a legislative measure proposed by the government. There is something wrong when we cannot rely on our parliamentary system or the discussions that take place in committee to improve bills.

Once the five hours of debate on the bill in question are complete, it will be sent to committee. There, MPs will have ample opportunity to propose amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what the minister just said.

He wants to send the bill to committee so that members can propose amendments. However, after second reading, members are more limited in the amendments they can propose.

The question that I would like to ask the minister deals with procedure. If what the minister just said is true, why did the government not choose to send the bill to committee before second reading?

A period of five extra hours is allotted for debate, as with the motion moved today. No vote is necessary; the bill is automatically sent to committee. The committee would therefore have all the latitude it needs, and the minister seems to want to give the committee that latitude.

In addition, we could have avoided this 44th time allocation motion, which imposes a time limit and a vote and undermines Parliament. We are going to waste another hour—a half-hour of debate and a half-hour to call in the members for the vote.

If the Conservatives were really serious, why did they not choose to send the bill to committee before second reading in order to make the committee's job easier?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill was introduced in the Senate over 18 months ago. Many witnesses appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and representatives from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs clearly indicated that they supported the bill in its current form.

The measure was not imposed on anyone. In fact, it is a concessive law that will empower first nations to choose a new election system, which would be developed by first nations.

If the Liberals and NDP want to oppose first nations' desire to update their election system, they are free to do so. However, we believe that it is time for action.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that it is MPs who are elected by the people, not senators.

What is done there does not count for most people. Canadians will not stand for people wallowing in their tax dollars.

Earlier members were talking about what was ridiculous, and I would like to continue along the same lines. What is truly ridiculous is that 44 gag orders mean 44 30-minute debates and 44 30-minute bells for votes. That is the equivalent of two days lost. The Conservatives tried to make us vote until midnight, until the end of the session, and they gave all kinds of absurd reasons to justify the gag orders, which is completely ridiculous. They spent weeks doing absolutely nothing this spring, while we on this side of the House did all the talking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that Bill S-6 is necessary so that Canada's first nations can have the option of conducting their elections within a legislated system, a system that is robust, modern and similar to electoral systems used by other levels of government in the country. That is what we will accomplish by passing this motion. A standing committee of the House will study the bill.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has and will continue to work closely with first nation organizations to bring about a real process and improvements that would make the election process work for first nations.

We know that a stronger electoral system would help first nations create the political stability necessary for solid business investments, long-term planning and relationship-building that would lead to increased economic development and prosperity and job creation for first nation communities.

Today, would the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please explain how this legislation is different from the antiquated, archaic election system in the Indian Act, which certainly has not been serving first nation communities?

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

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that the Indian Act is an antiquated, outdated, archaic, paternalistic piece of legislation that dates back to 1867, I believe. It must be replaced with modern legislation.

On this side of the House, we understand that it cannot be replaced overnight. That is why we are taking practical, incremental steps to do just that. Bill S-6, which we are dealing with today, would be just one of those practical solutions.

The bill would offer several key improvements over the current Indian Act election system, including four-year terms of office; the possibility that several first nations could hold their elections on a common day; defined offences and penalties that would allow questionable election activities to be prosecuted; and, finally, the removal of the role and decision-making power of the minister in election appeals.

I know that on that side of the House, the NDP and the Liberals would like to keep the minister intervening with this paternalistic approach to first nations, but we do not agree.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always regret that the government House leader comes in and tells us that we are going to have time allocation and then leaves whatever minister is responsible for the bill to account for the fact that we have, yet again, a consistent approach of limiting time for debate on bills. As far as I can see, it is the decision not of the hon. minister who is here to answer questions but of the government House leader who is not.

I would once again bemoan the fact that with time allocation having been brought 44 times into this Parliament, we are breaking all historical records. One of the inevitable results of time allocation is that members of Parliament who are not in recognized parties, such as me, as leader of the Green Party, will not have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill S-6 other than through questions and comments.

I ask the hon. minister if he would please prevail upon his colleagues in the Privy Council of this particular Prime Minister to change this anti-democratic trend, which is really going to be the legacy of this particular administration as the most repressive in the history of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my hon. colleague finds solace in the fact that this act, indeed, would be of benefit to first nations.

I understand that many members on the opposite side of the House like to talk. However, on this side of the House, we like to act, and this is about acting. This piece of legislation has been in the works for over eight years. First nation communities under the Indian Act have been fully engaged throughout the country. It is simply time that we passed this bill so that those first nations can get the benefit of the bill.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard the minister describe the Indian Act as being antiquated, outdated, et cetera, I thought he was talking about the Senate, where this bill originated a year and a half ago. It was debated in this House for a few minutes, at around midnight, last week. Now the minister says that if time allocation is not brought in, it will not be passed.

What is going on is that democracy is being turned on its head. The Senate had this bill a year and a half ago. The unelected Senate, which has no New Democrats and has only appointed people, has debated this bill. It called witnesses, and it heard all about it.

Now, for some reason, all of a sudden, it is urgent that we not have debate on this except for five hours. Is this now becoming routine that this House will effectively be only the rubber stamp for what goes on in the Senate? We are turning democracy on its head here. I hoped that the minister would not want to continue doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the experienced member likes to talk about the Senate and democracy being turned on its head, maybe he could explain to Canadians why his party opposes all efforts made by this government to put democracy back on its head by electing senators at the provincial level.

The member complains about the Senate. Yet, at every step of the way, New Democrats do everything they can to prevent this government from transforming the Senate to an institution with elected members that has the respect of Canadians.

If the member is really concerned about democracy, he should put pressure on his leader, his colleagues and his party to change their position and support Senate reform.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am laughing because the member brought up parliamentary procedure. I was thinking about the period from 1984 to 1993, when I sat in the House of Commons on the government side.

I watched federal politics closely for more than 20 years before I returned in 2011. My experience in Parliament has taught me one thing: when the opposition systematically prevents Canadians—and in this case, first nations—from benefiting from a bill, the government should do everything it can to get the bill passed as quickly as possible, which is what we are doing.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The vote is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #746

First Nations Elections Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 28 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.

Second Reading

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. When Bill S-6 was last before the House, the hon. member for Western Arctic had completed his speech. There are eight minutes remaining in questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question in response to his speech on Bill S-6, which we are debating today. This is another bill regarding first nations.

Every time we talk about first nations, we must remember that the government has a duty to consult when it is doing anything regarding rights, reserves or anything related to first nations.

I would like to ask my colleague whether consultations on Bill S-6 were done regarding elections on aboriginal reserves. If so, were the results of those consultations taken into account in the Bill S-6 we have before us today?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, of course, there were consultations that took place with two first nations groups in particular. However, the requirements that came out of those consultations were not met. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has withdrawn its support for the bill. There is still some support from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs.

I want to read an email that I was copied on, which was directed to the parliamentary secretary for aboriginal affairs. It is from a person from Band 23 in New Brunswick. She says:

I was watching second reading of the Bill on CPAC last night (Tuesday May 28, 2013) and it brought to mind some interesting concerns regarding the process by which this legislation and others, has unfolded. You specifically mentioned an organization that supposedly represents the interests of the people in Atlantic Canada—the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs—and praised their input in the process. And there was mention, I am not sure if it was by you, that Chiefs were asked to take this legislation back to their communities to solicit input from the people. Well, from a personal perspective there has been no consultation with the people in my community. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find someone who has any idea these changes....have been duly informed and have had an opportunity to question and comment. This has not been the case with Woodstock Band 23 in New Brunswick and if one community has been left out then I am sure there are others have been as well.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Western Arctic for his input on this piece of legislation and, of course, for the great work that he does on the aboriginal affairs committee.

There is one specific clause in the bill that I want to ask the member about, clause 41, which provides for governor-in-council to make regulations.

We just finished with Bill S-8 on safe drinking water, which was all about making regulations. The concern that was raised under Bill S-8, and I am sure it will be raised under Bill S-6, is the fact that there is no rigorous provision for first nations to be involved in making regulations. In fact, the NDP proposed an amendment to Bill S-8 that would see regulations come back before the House and tabled to the appropriate committee so that there would be parliamentary oversight.

Could the member comment on the fact that there is no provision in this piece of legislation for first nations to be involved in the development and implementation of regulations?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, certainly that is the nub of the issue with this bill and so many of the bills that the Conservatives have put forward regarding first nations governments. There has been lip service paid to the idea that first nations governments have a legitimate status, and they do under the Constitution and in so many ways, yet we leave them out of so much of this legislation that is going forward right now.

Regulation is where the rubber hits the road in this bill. Under section 3, the minister would just have to be satisfied that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of a first nation, whatever that means. The minister could then force that first nation into the Elections Act and put forward the regulations of how that would occur. Without any appeal, if the minister had a problem with a first nation, he or she would have the ability to shut it down and put in new elections regulations. This is really inappropriate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before I go to questions, I would ask all hon. members, if they are staying in the chamber, to take their seats and listen to the debate; it would be greatly appreciated.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at time allocation on this complex bill and less time to get at it. However, I can see from presentations from first nations, such as the one from B.C. Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould, that there is acknowledgement that the bill represents some progress. At the same time, there is deep concern that it is not the right way to move toward a transition to greater self-government.

Given time allocation, does my friend for Western Arctic think there is going to be any way that we can repair the things that are wrong with the bill and pass it in a form that would meet with the approval of first nations across Canada?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is simply not going to happen, whether time allocation occurs or not. The Conservative majority government has chosen not to deal with amendments in a good fashion on the aboriginal affairs committee for the last two years that I have sat on it.

A good example was Bill C-47, a bill that deals only with specific regions of the country. Representatives of those regions of the country put forward 50 amendments. New Democrats brought them forward and the Conservatives chose not only to vote against them but to not even speak to them. Once a bill is written, they do not seem to be interested at all in trying to work with the bill to make sure it is in a good fashion. The consultation is weak. Witnesses now would rather not come to the aboriginal affairs committee because they see it as a waste of their time.

The process is falling apart around the Conservative government, and it keeps pushing forward with these bills.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that the bill represents yet another of the bait-and-switch approaches of the government. In good faith, the first nations have suggested the need for legislation in a certain area. The government went forward and drafted a bill and then put in a poison pill that no first nation can live with.

This was to be an opt-in bill. That was the purpose of the bill, that first nations could decide whether to adopt the template for first nations elections as outlined in the bill. Then the government put in paragraphs (b) and (c) of one clause that give the minister unprecedented powers to impose it on a first nation.

Yet again, the Conservatives cannot help themselves. Why can they not listen? They pretend they do not know, but the bill actually came from the Senate and all of this was debated in the Senate. The Assembly of First Nations, the Atlantic Policy Congress and all of these people told the government that, and yet there is no concession that there needs to be an amendment and that these egregious paragraphs of the clause need to be removed.

The bill is to establish an alternative regime to the one in the Indian Act to govern the election of chiefs and councillors of certain first nations. Among other things, the regime would provide that chiefs and councillors hold office for four years. It would provide that the election of a chief or councillor might be contested before a competent court and sets out the offences and penalties in relation to the election of that chief or councillor. The enactment would also allow first nations to withdraw from the regime by adopting a written code that sets out the rules regarding the election of members of their council.

Although the Liberal Party is very supportive of what was the intent of the bill, we will be moving amendments that would remove the part that is so offensive to first nations in terms of, yet again, the paternalistic approach—father knows best—of the minister being able to impose this on what was intended to be a purely opt-in piece of legislation.

Although we will support the bill, and again we agree with the choice to adopt an improved election process over that contained within the Indian Act, we insist that Parliament must ensure that Bill S-6 does not give the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs new powers that go against the opt-in nature of this legislation.

For first nations that currently hold elections under the Indian Act, this opt-in legislation contains many improvements to the election process, including extending the term of office for chiefs and council from two to four years and removing the involvement of the minister and the department in the appeals process in setting out offences and penalties for corrupt and fraudulent activities.

However, given the opt-in nature of Bill S-6, it is unacceptable that the Conservatives have included a clause that introduces a new power for the minister to compel first nations currently under their own custom election code to go under the elections process established in the bill. The Assembly of First Nations calls this “inappropriate use of federal legislation”.

Further, rather than creating a new independent and impartial first nations elections appeals body, the government chose instead to refer the appeals process to the court system, which might prevent first nation citizens from bringing forward legitimate appeals, as the cost of going to court could be prohibitive.

While the bill is largely based on consultations with first nations, the Conservatives have included elements that were not supported during the consultations and have refused to remove or amend the offending sections. Yet again, the government has no idea what consultation means. Consultation means we go out and ask the questions and actually listen to the answers.

Consultation does not mean an information session, just dictating “take it or leave it” and then not coming back with the amendments or some evidence that we had heard what was said.

It is clear that no first nations, even the first nations who brought the idea of this bill to government, are in favour of these two paragraphs in clause 3 that give this unprecedented power to the minister.

As we said before, Bill S-6 is largely based on the outcome of a consultation process conducted by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, which resulted in the publication of the discussion paper, “Improving the System for First Nations Elections”, in October 2010.

The discussion paper identified problems with the election provisions under the Indian Act. There are 240 first nations in Canada that hold elections under the Indian Act electoral systems, 341 first nations that hold elections under their community or custom election code and 36 first nations that currently select their leaders under self-government agreements.

Bill S-6 would allow first nations under the Indian Act system or custom codes to opt in to the proposed legislation through a band council resolution.

The AMC-APC discussion paper identifies several reasons why there should be another option for first nations that wish to leave the outdated Indian Act system.

The term of office for elected chiefs and councils under the Indian Act is only two years, which places communities in a continual state of electioneering and undermines long-term planning.

The mail-in ballot is prone to abuse.

The appeals process to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is paternalistic and complicated and often takes too long to produce findings and a final ruling.

The absence of defined election offences and associated penalties, like those in the Canada Elections Act, allows alleged cheating and activities like selling and buying of votes to go unpunished.

The AMC-APC discussion paper made suggestions to remedy these concerns, which are included in Bill S-6: namely, the term of office is increased to four years; the mail-in ballot system is improved; the minister is removed from the appeals process; and new election offences and penalties are prescribed.

In addition to these concerns, the discussion paper as well as the May 2010 report by the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples, “First Nations Elections: The Choice Is Inherently Theirs”, suggested that a new and independent impartial elections appeal body be established to provide culturally appropriate and cost-effective appeals.

The government chose instead to refer the appeals process to the court system, which might prevent first nations citizens from bringing forward legitimate appeals, as the cost of going to court could be prohibitive. It appears that this is simply a transfer of costs related to appeals from the department to individual first nations citizens.

The Senate committee's observations on Bill S-6 also noted that, “...the proposed approach may not practically address the need for an expeditious and culturally appropriate appeals process”.

Bill S-6 is an optional piece of legislation and is clearly preferable for first nations that are dissatisfied with the current Indian Act system but have decided not to enter in a community or custom election code.

However, the bill as currently written, provides in paragraph 3(1)(b) the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with explicit powers to bring first nations currently under the Indian Act system or a custom code under Bill S-6 if:

the Minister is satisfied that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of that First Nation;

Paragraph 3(1)(b) is deeply problematic for two reasons. First, it would give the minister new powers to place first nations, which are currently under custom code, under the new first nations election act, despite the fact that under current legislation the minister has no power to intervene in custom code first nations without a formal request from the first nation or a court order. The minister does have similar powers under the Indian Act, but not related to custom code first nations.

Second, the terms “protracted leadership dispute” and “significantly compromised governance” are not defined in the legislation. Paragraph 3(1)(b) should be amended to define these terms and clarify that paragraph 3(1)(b) does not apply to custom code first nations, which should retain the ability to choose if and when they wish to enter into new legislation.

I would recommend to the government and to the minister to read what happened in the Senate. Here on this side we are blessed to have senators who do extraordinarily good work. I commend to the government the six reasons as stated by Senator Lillian Dyck in her speech in the Senate as to why this bill needs to be amended.

She gives six reasons. The first is that no one agreed with these measures, except for the Department of Indian Affairs. The second is that it is unconstitutional; third, the minister gains new powers; fourth, there are better ways to intervene; fifth, there is no guarantee that the minister would not use the clause inappropriately; and sixth, it is just not the right thing to do in the 21st century, when we are trying to have first nations communities build capacity to develop their own custom code elections.

In her speech, Senator Dyck went on to quote from the organizations that had provided the genesis for this bill and explained that both the regional first nations organizations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Conference, who were the instigators of this legislation, were asked only for opt-in provisions with regard to paragraph 3(1)(b). She quotes Chief Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who stated:

If I may, I would agree with a recommendation that 3(1)(b) and (c) be severed from the legislation. I agree with your characterization of these provisions to be reflective of a time that has come and gone, a paternalistic approach to management of the relationships within our communities.

She went on then to quote Mr. John Paul of the Atlantic Policy Conference, stating:

Imposing the will on a community externally has consequences. We have learned over the years that if anyone imposes their will upon communities, they are very negative about that kind of stuff.

Then she went on to quote Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould of the Assembly of First Nations, saying:

Unfortunately, the power set out in subclauses 3(1)(b) and (c) of this proposed bill . . . is actually an example of an inappropriate use of federal legislation, an inappropriate use of federal legislation I referred to at the First Nation-Crown gathering. These provisions essentially give the minister the ability to impose core governance rules on a First Nation, which, if ever used, would be resented by that First Nation, would not be seen as legitimate in the eyes of that nation, and would probably add fuel to an already burning fire.

Dr. Dyck then went on to quote the witness from the Canadian Bar Association, who stated that that clause should:

...explicitly exclude First Nations with self-government agreements and First Nations that are currently operating under customary systems of governance, unless their consent is obtained in accordance with either their customary practices or, in the absence thereof, by a double majority vote.

Witnesses from the Assembly of First Nations, she says, as well as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Chief Cook-Searson from Saskatchewan, all thought that paragraph 3(1)(b) should be deleted from the bill. The message was very clear: paragraph 3(1)(b) should be deleted because it is unacceptable practice in the 21st century and because without excluding the first nations operating under custom code elections, the bill goes beyond the scope of opt-in legislation for first nations under the Indian Act.

Dr. Dyck then went on to her second reason to delete the clause: its unconstitutionality.

She again quoted the witness from the Canadian Bar Association, who said that application of paragraph 3(1)(b) to first nations with customary systems of governance potentially infringes on constitutionally protected rights of self-governance. The witness stated:

Allowing the minister to prescribe a form of election for First Nations that currently operate in accordance with customary elections would represent a significant interference with protected rights of self-government.

She went on to quote the witness, who stated that:

The broad discretion afforded to the minister to include participating First Nations could then impact on constitutionally protected rights and international legal principles.

Dr. Dyck then went on:

In addition, while the government officials stated that the minister has ordered a new election only three times in First Nation elections in the last 10 years, and while they insisted that the minister would only do so in rare circumstances, such an action would be a continuation of archaic colonial practices and is completely contrary to the inherent right of First Nations to govern themselves.

She stated she felt that:

Granting such legislative power to the minister of AAND is particularly troublesome coming right after the Crown-First Nation accord in January, where National Chief Atleo urged the government to "re-invigorate the original relationships that were based on mutual recognition, sharing, and trust" and reset the agenda.

Dr. Dyck talked about the third reason to delete paragraph 3(1)(b), explaining again that new powers under the custom code first nations through this clause are unacceptable. She said:

There are 341 First Nations that operate under custom election codes. If Bill S-6 passes, the minister would be able to intervene in any protracted leadership disputes they may have, and such intervention would supersede the voluntary Custom Election Dispute Resolution Policy.

That is the policy that is now in practice.

Her fourth reason to delete paragraph 3(1)(b) was that:

...there are better ways to intervene in prolonged election disputes. AANDC witnesses stated it was necessary to order such First Nations to hold Bill S-6 type elections because in Indian Act elections there are no provisions defining election offences or setting penalties for such offences. However, this could be remedied simply by amending the Indian Act to contain the same provisions as in Bill S-6 that outline the offences and penalties. If the minister then orders an Indian Act election for a First Nation that operates under custom code, the Indian Act election would have the same offences and penalties as under Bill S-6.

The fifth reason Dr. Dyck cited was that:

...there is no guarantee that the minister will not use clause 3(1)(b) inappropriately. The department argues that First Nations can trust the minister not to use this clause inappropriately because the minister of AANDC has intervened only three times in the past 10 years; however, there is no guarantee that this will hold true in the future.

As we know, there is very little trust between first nations and the government at this time.

It is concerning to Dr. Dyck, as she has said:

For example, as pressure mounts to increase natural resource development on or near First Nation land, there is great potential for significant dissension, and as First Nation communities, provincial governments and private sector organizations try to negotiate agreements, there likely will be protracted leadership disputes in First Nation communities.

Her sixth reason was that it is simply not the right thing to do in the 21st century. I quote her closing. She said:

Honourable senators, please let us do the right thing, let us do the honourable thing: Let us pass an amendment to delete clause 3(1)(b). I outlined six reasons why we should do this. First Nations deserve our support in amending Bill S-6 to delete clause 3(1)(b). Please, honour their request.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the member for St. Paul's and I just want to clarify something that she said.

She said the bill is very specific as to the conditions under which a minister may bring a first nation under the act without its consent. It states that the minister may do so if satisfied that a “protracted leadership dispute” has “significantly compromised governance” of that first nation.

The power under the Indian Act has only been exercised three times, as she mentioned, for the purpose of addressing a governance dispute. In each case, the minister exercised his power after reasonable efforts to reach a community-based solution had been exhausted.

Does the member not feel that the minister makes every opportunity available to the first nation to ensure that it has exhausted every option to try to resolve it from within before the minister gets involved?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, but I think the point is not whether it has been abused in the past but that there is obviously concern and a lack of trust as to whether it could be abused in the future, particularly around natural resources.

The issue right now is that this was a good bill that came forth, bottom-up, from first nations as an opt-in piece of legislation. This clause would now actually be a poison pill to first nations. What could have been an excellent example of bottom-up development from first nations coming forward with an idea for a bill would now see this increased power of the minister imposed upon first nations.

It is wrong in the 21st century for us to be doing this in a top-down way. This could have been a good piece of legislation. We implore the member to implore the government to get rid of this clause that is causing so much trouble.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. Paul's for her speech on this bill, which was very enlightening and informative.

She must be just as frustrated as I am that the government has once again limited debate in the House. She raised some irrefutable arguments.

I would like to hear more about the government's recurrent paternalistic attitude and the bill that perpetuates it, and about the fact that the government is once again taking a piecemeal approach to reform.

Does my colleague not think the government should have had real consultations with first nations to develop a new rapport with them?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question.

If first nations wanted opt-in legislation, that would be a good idea.

However, when the government insists on adding a clause reflecting its paternalistic attitude, that is unacceptable. It is the 21st century, and we cannot abide this paternalistic attitude.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. About a year and a half ago, we examined the auditor general's report on a 10-year study of the quality of life in Canada's first nation communities.

The observations in that report were really hard to believe. The auditor general pointed out that, despite the investments and good intentions behind all the bills introduced in the House, we are just not seeing any results. Living conditions in aboriginal communities have not improved at all in the last 10 years.

Why? The auditor general mentioned some structural barriers that must be overcome:

We recognize that the federal government cannot put all of these structural changes in place by itself since they would fundamentally alter its relationship with First Nations.

The next sentence is very important:

For this reason, First Nations themselves would have to play an important role in bringing about the changes.

What does my colleague think of the role that first nations have played in developing the bill currently before us, Bill S-6? Did they play enough of a part? Was this bill created in a true spirit of co-operation? If not, what impact could this lack of real co-operation have?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her good question.

The government's approach does not take into account reality, or in other words, the connection between quality of life for first nations and their ability to manage their own affairs.

Research conducted by Chandler and Lalonde from the University of British Columbia concluded that first nations should have the authority to manage their own health care, education and elections. When a first nation has that authority, it has a higher quality of life.

This government's paternalistic approach is really bad for first nations' quality of life. I think that is the reason for the paternalistic little clause found in the bill. It is good for some first nations. However, once again, it is unfortunate that the government is taking a paternalistic approach.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague, once again, express how disappointed she is in the government's paternalistic approach to this bill.

Does she know exactly what role the first nations played in the drafting of this bill?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic and Manitoba first nations participated in the discussions that led to this bill. However, it is unacceptable for the government to insist on adding a paternalistic clause without consulting all the first nations.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the privilege of speaking in support of Bill S-6, the first nations elections act. Before I start, I would note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South.

The bill we have before us today is the result of a comprehensive process of engagement that stretches back more than four years. I think that raises a question as to how fast we are trying to ram something through the House, when its birthdate was four years ago.

First nations community leaders and members across Canada have all had input on the bill. The engagement that took place over these years, led by first nations organizations with the support of the government, has allowed Bill S-6 to be inspired and developed, in large part by the people it would affect most, first nations community members.

It is the participation of first nations individuals and organizations that I would like to highlight today. In particular, I would mention the determination of the two first nations organizations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, under the leadership of former Grand Chief Ron Evans, and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs.

Individually at first, and then together with the support of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic policy congress, this legislation evolved.

These organizations began their work in their home regions. Convinced of the need for electoral reform, they consulted at length with local leaders and communities. The quality and scope of regional consultations, and the similarity of their recommendations, encouraged the government to ask the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic policy congress to carry on the process and jointly lead a national engagement.

The aim of the Canada-wide effort was to share the recommendations of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic policy congress and to seek the input and support of other first nation leaders and organizations across the country. With the support of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs focused its efforts in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, while the Atlantic policy congress covered Ontario and Quebec.

If the opposition should question the extent of this engagement, l would suggest that they look no further than British Columbia. Former Grand Chief Ron Evans of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and his team, sat down first with the chief negotiators at the First Nations Summit in North Vancouver. The team then met with the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council on Vancouver Island. They appeared before the British Columbia First Nations Summit assembly, and the Chiefs' Council of the union of British Columbia chiefs.

I would also add that the consultations undertaken by both the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic policy congress included more than just chiefs and band council leaders. From the very beginning, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic policy congress reached out to individual band members across Canada. Their concern was not just with the steps in the engagement process that underpin the first nations elections act, but also the tools and mechanisms of engagement.

With dedicated modules on their respective websites, they outlined the recommendations and provided the reasoning behind each of them. With the addition of a simple feedback form, it was possible for individuals to express their ideas and thoughts about the initiative being proposed.

The government placed high value on this feedback during development of Bill S-6. The first nations elections act is not only informed by engagement, it is a stellar example of the benefits of engagement. It is an example of how collaborative efforts among first nations people, their leaders, their representative organizations and the federal government can devise solutions and achieve common objectives. It demonstrates the clarity that emerges from an open and authentic sharing of ideas.

Consider the consensus that flowed from this national effort. First nations people and their communities across Canada identified the same weaknesses in the Indian Act election system. Both groups of individuals found, first of all, that two-year terms of office were not satisfactory. A loose nomination system was not good. A mail-in ballot system was open to abuse and no defined offences and penalties were in place at that time.

The recommendations presented to the department, in 2010, by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic policy congress are astonishingly similar. As a result, there is widespread agreement on the path to an effective and meaningful electoral reform agreement, which is now before the chamber in the form of Bill S-6. It is reform that would provide first nations with a solid legislative alternative to the Indian Act. It would create a truly democratic, open and transparent electoral system that would benefit first nations communities.

I also want to draw attention to the concurrent and complementary work of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. The committee's report, entitled “First Nations Elections: The Choice is Inherently Theirs”, is based on testimony delivered at approximately 20 public hearings in British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario. These hearings ensured even greater opportunities for concerned citizens to weigh in on issues related to first nations electoral reform. In addition, these hearings and the committee's detailed report further legitimized the comprehensive process of enlightenment and engagement at the heart of the legislation.

Bill S-6 responds directly to a recommendation provided by the Senate committee and to several recommendations provided by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic policy congress. It is informed by the feedback obtained from national engagement efforts. One noteworthy recommendation was for longer terms of office. With this longer term, first nations governments will be much more stable and better positioned, to not only work on their long-term plans, but to solidify other aspects of their governments as well.

Once the whole package is examined, I am sure the House will agree they can effectively hear and decide upon first nations elections as well. Indeed, the first nations elections act would honour the process by which it was created. It is legislation that results from a progressive electoral reform initiated to address weaknesses in the Indian Act and to bring modern governance to first nations.

Our government has brought forward this legislation as a legislative alternative, particularly for those first nations currently operating under the Indian Act It would allow them to hold elections under a legislative system that is strong and modern, and comparable to municipal, provincial and federal election systems in Canada. I commend the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Atlantic policy congress for their efforts on behalf of all first nations communities, and for showing all Canadians how an open, collaborative and participatory process can help propel a matter as complex and fundamental to our democracy as electoral reform.

I am counting on all members of the House to show their support for the hard work of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic policy congress by the adoption of Bill S-6.

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

Mr. Speaker, why are the Conservatives not addressing real issues related to the governance of first nations by providing the Assembly of First Nations with what it has asked for, namely, a simple and effective mechanism whereby the basic governance of a first nation can be exempt from the Indian Act—that title should be changed, by the way—once the first nation in question is ready, willing and able to govern itself and once its members have legitimized the governance reform with a community referendum?

Personally, I think that this would be the decent thing to do in order to stop treating Canada's aboriginal peoples like second-class citizens.

I would like my Conservative colleague to answer my question.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we first have to understand that this act would give first nations an element of choice. There would be no gun to anyone's head to join. It would be totally up to first nation communities to decide whether they wanted to be part and parcel of the act.

Both the AMC and the APC have recommended the development of new and optional first nations elections. They want to provide a term of office of four years rather than two. They want to allow first nations to line up their terms of office and have a common election day. They want to provide more processes for the nomination of candidates. They want to provide a mail-in ballot system that is less susceptible to fraud and abuse. They want to remove the role of the minister in receiving, investigating and deciding election appeals, and they want to define and set out election offences and penalties that would reflect this interpretation of the act.

It is an act of choice; it is not one of dictatorial direction. Each community would have its own election to decide whether it wanted to belong to this new act.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Palliser for an excellent speech and for his wisdom on this very important issue.

He talked about how the government took this on and consulted with first nations, a process that he quite rightly said was four years long. It was about engaging first nations.

I think everybody realizes that this is an obsolete election process. As he said, it is fraught with fraud and abuse. It is about giving first nations a process that modernizes it and is respectful of the work of the Manitoba chiefs and other first nations who put so much time and effort into putting this piece of legislation forward.

A Liberal member recently spoke about how paternalistic this is, but this is about democracy and choice. I wonder if my colleague from Palliser could comment on why opposition members do not want democracy and equality for first nations. We are seeing a trend. We saw how they voted on matrimonial real property, which would give equality to first nations women. This is a trend.

I wonder if he could comment on the importance of moving forward with this legislation.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very insightful question. It is hard for me to know how to respond. As my colleague said, every act the government brings forward to assist first nations with their issues and concerns as bands and communities is voted down by the opposition. If it were not for strong government support, there would not be any of the improvements we now see in a lot of band councils that are moving forward with their issues, with help from this government. I do not know what the answer is to that.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill S-6. I thank my colleague from Palliser, who has done great work on behalf of first nations people throughout Canada over his years as a member of Parliament. He deserves to be commended for that.

When I was first elected in 2006, I was very fortunate to have been appointed parliamentary secretary to the department of Indian affairs, as it was known at that time. After receiving that appointment from the Prime Minister, and coming from Manitoba, I was tasked with many of the issues that face first nations people.

One of the first meetings I had in my office in Winnipeg was with Ron Evans, then first nations grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. One of the first things to come out of his mouth at that meeting was in relation to these very topics we are talking about today. He said that he had a dream of seeing Manitoba and the entire country changed such that first nations electors could directly elect and do so in a common way on a common day. I was struck by his fervour for seeing a new system of electing first nations councillors and chiefs.

When I heard his message, I absolutely embraced it and immediately advocated taking his position to Ottawa to communicate it to then minister of Indian affairs, the Hon. Jim Prentice, and anyone else who would listen. I must say that Ron Evans did a great job communicating that philosophy.

When we look at the issues facing first nations in Manitoba and throughout the country, one of the core challenges is that upon someone becoming an elected councillor or chief, he or she is immediately faced with a very short electoral cycle.

As many of us will recall, when we were first elected in 2006, it was a minority Parliament. To become fully acquainted with all of the opportunities, roles and powers that come with being a member of Parliament requires time to become apprised of the role we are in. One of the challenges I think many of us found in the minority era was the fact that our electoral cycles were quite short and did not allow members to fully deliver on the roles they were given, because electoral politics became such a significant part of their day-to-day activities. One never knew when the next electoral event would happen.

That is the situation first nations chiefs and councillors face. They have a two-year cycle, which is very short. When they are first elected as councillors or chiefs, it takes them significant time to appreciate the finances and the files before the band. As they always have an eye on the next electoral event, they quickly realize that instead of chasing every file with the fervour they would like, they need to engage in the real politics of the role. No one should be blamed for that. It is just part of becoming an elected official.

It is very difficult to maintain the cohesion of a vision and actual policies within a two-year context. After two years, if they and their councils see a major change because of electoral results, there is a huge new process for having the entire council come together again with a collective vision to move forward for the community.

When former grand chief Ron Evans first brought this idea to me, it was definitely something I viewed as a historic change that should happen.

I am so proud that our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the parliamentary secretary have taken the time to craft this legislation on the basis of many of the recommendations the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs first brought forward, not only in 2006-07, when it was more in the discussion phase, but at the 2008 grand assembly held just outside Grand Beach, Manitoba. I was fortunate enough to attend that meeting with a few other members of Parliament, including former Liberal member Tina Keeper, who is no longer in this House.

There was much support from all parties for those resolutions, which were passed unanimously by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, which again, as many in this House know, represents a significant body of first nations in Canada. As the Treaty 1 through Treaty 8 first nations in Manitoba, they have a historic relationship with Canada as some of the first signatories to the important treaties that really helped develop western Canada. To have this specific body of chiefs speak with such unanimity on this issue really, in my opinion, gives a lot of force to the philosophy of what is being suggested.

Another element that I think probably gets less attention but is very important, at least to the original drafters of the concept, Ron Evans and the other chiefs and councillors who first recommended it, is a common election day. It would have a significant effect on the body politic in the jurisdiction. In this case, it was Manitoba.

The dream of Ron Evans was to have a single election day, which would allow both first nation and non-first nation people to appreciate the governance and the politics and the electability of first nation people. By having it on one day, it would become a significant event in Manitoba. There would be considerable attention and considerable media coverage. It was his dream that this would bridge some gaps that exist between first nation communities and non-first nation communities. A celebrated electoral event would bring more transparency to the process and would allow all Canadians, all Manitobans, in this case, to see in full public view the people who were being elected. He felt that this degree of transparency would lead to a real culture of governance improvement. If elections were not held in the dark days of February but rather were held on a common day, it would bring a greater degree of transparency to the entire process. It would be a simple change that would lead to better governance for all first nations.

I think the common day is something that is perhaps not given as much attention in this bill, but it is a significant innovation. Upon being embraced by first nations, I think it would lead to a greater degree of transparency. It would lead to the larger society embracing it as an actual legitimate governance structure, akin to municipal levels of government and provincial levels of government, because they would view it as something much like the election events people in this House take part in.

I am very hopeful that this bill will be a great first step, for those first nations that want to opt in, in delivering the type of transparent governance they believe their electors deserve.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about the former grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who supported the bill, and I think he is absolutely correct. We, on this side of the House, support the move to a four-year term.

However, as is often the case, what the government has done is stick a poison pill into this bill, and paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) are good examples of that. We now have the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs' Grand Chief Derek Nepinak saying that they cannot support this bill, despite the fact that initially the assembly was in favour, because the bill, in its current form, does not reflect the recommendations that were made.

I wonder if the member would comment specifically on the insertion of paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) and the fact that it would allow the minister to ignore the opt-in provisions and would force a band into something it may not want to participate in.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that what the member is suggesting is an actual legislated power that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has currently under the existing Indian Act. It has been used very rarely in Canadian history, just a few times as far as I know. It is my opinion that this would simply reflect an existing power that the minister currently has. Therefore, I personally do not see it as the issue that others see. However, in this place we are allowed to disagree and it is valid for her to disagree with that point.

Personally, I think that if there were a first nations community, after many years of going through a rancorous process of elections that were quagmired and everyone was literally at their wits' end, where nothing was progressing, and this clause in a very rare case had to be used, I am quite certain there would be the opportunity for that first nation to likely challenge that if its members chose to. I am sure that could be the case. Our courts offer lots of powers to anyone who has a grievance.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank this member for the important work that he did as my predecessor, in the position of parliamentary secretary of Indian Affairs, as it was then and, with respect to this important piece of legislation, really brokering the relationships and putting all of us here in this place in a unique position and providing a unique opportunity with respect to this legislation.

In addition to the extensive consultation that was done, this really reflects the simple fact that it was actually authored by first nations leaders themselves, in particular Ron Evans, a gentleman for whom I have a great deal of respect in his former capacity as chief of Norway House, as I was then living in his community as a nurse. He did great work, and I appreciate that.

My question is with respect to this legislation and that it is really a fourth option. The member has described some of the problems with the Indian Act: the opportunities that communities have to tailor to their own needs and, of course, under self-governing agreements. However, this would give communities an important fourth option. Just beyond the governance piece, can the member talk about the new stability under this regime that communities could opt in to and could provide real economic stability in addition to the complementary governance piece?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that when they have a stable governance system, the benefits from the economy naturally follow suit. When there is stability, then the economy can grow. We have seen that in Canada with the most stable governance system in the world.

[An hon. member]

We have good government and a good economy.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

We have a great economy.

Mr. Speaker, I think first nations also would love to focus on their economies versus these biannual electoral events, which have been very challenging.

Therefore, that would be a natural progression; hopefully, the communities would embrace this. However, much like the parliamentary secretary said, it would be purely on an opt-in basis.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to 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.

Before I start, I would like to read from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In article 18, is says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

That particular section of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is particularly important because, of course, what we are talking about today is how first nations elect their chiefs and council members.

I will turn for a moment to the legislative summary. It indicates that, “First Nations may choose to opt in to the new elections regime proposed under the legislation, or they may be brought under the new elections regime by ministerial order in some circumstances.”

I would agree with previous speakers that moving to a four-year term on an opt-in basis absolutely makes sense, but there are other elements of this legislation that first nations have spoken out against. If the government would entertain some amendments to this piece of legislation, I am sure we could all agree on how to move forward.

I would like to go back to the legislative summary:

According to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 240 First Nations hold elections pursuant to the Indian Act, 341 First Nations conduct “custom” or community-based elections rather than elections under the Indian Act, and 36 First Nations select their leaders according to their self-government agreements.

This is an important point because of the fact that there are already a variety of ways by which first nations select their leadership.

The legislative summary notes that the Senate released a report entitled, “First Nations Elections: The Choice is Inherently Theirs” and says:

It indicated that the existing two-year term of office imposed on First Nations by the Indian Act is too short to provide political and economic stability, often creating deep divisions in communities. The report further noted that Indian Act election systems are often fraught with administrative difficulties and inconsistencies, resulting in frequent election appeals.

The legislative summary goes on to talk about the number of times attempts have been made to make reforms to the Indian Act around the elections process. It notes that:

Attempts to reform the Indian Act election system arise from growing First Nations dissatisfaction with the operation of the regime, including its administrative weaknesses, such as loose nomination procedures and a mail-in ballot system that is open to abuse.

Other substantive concerns with Indian Act elections relate to the degree of ministerial intervention, the lack of an adequate and autonomous appeals process and the absence of flexibility to set the terms of office and to determine the size of councils.

It is those points around the ministerial intervention and the autonomous appeals process that are sticking points in the current piece of legislation.

The summary goes on to talk about the fact that a number of recommendations arose as a result of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and some of these recommendations that are not included in this piece of legislation are as follows, and this is from 1996:

With respect to elections, a key proposal was to develop community leadership selection systems and remove the application of the Indian Act as a preliminary measure to re-establishing traditional forms of leadership....To accomplish this, the following steps were suggested: community-level development of custom codes; community development of local dispute resolution procedures; the establishment of regional First Nations capacity and advisory bodies;

And so on.

Again, some of the elements that were recommended back in 1996 are not present or appropriately resourced under the current legislation. I mentioned earlier that one of the sticking points was under clause 3(1), which states that the minister may, by order, add a first nation to this schedule of first nations participating in the new election system.

Once again, I know that the former parliamentary secretary pointed out the fact that this power has been in place, but here we are reinforcing and reiterating that power once again. This is one point where first nations are saying to butt out. They should be able to have an appeals process internally to look at this. I will speak to this point in a little more detail later.

The other problem with this legislation is the regulations in clause 41. The clause provides for the governor-in-council to have broad and general powers to make regulations with respect to elections. Again, I will touch on this point a little later.

With regard to the support, initially we had the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress that were engaged in consultation around the development of the legislation. However, this is a pattern that we continue to see with the government. There are reports and recommendations from first nations, and then the government disregards some or all of those recommendations and reports.

This is the case in point. According to the legislative summary:

Opinions on the ensuing legislation are divided among First Nations organizations involved in the engagement process: while some support the new legislation, others do not view it as reflective of the report and recommendations.

Some First Nations leaders expressed strong support for Bill S-6. At the December 2011 announcement of the new legislation...the Atlantic Policy Congress, echoed the government's view that the Act will support sound governance and increase economic development in First Nations communities.

The current Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak, however, has expressed strong opposition to Bill S-6. In a written statement, quoted in several media outlets on 7 December 2011, 37 Grand Chief Nepinak stated that the proposed legislation does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and represents an apparent “attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control of the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code.”

In particular, Grand Chief Nepinak has criticized the following features of Bill S-6: in certain circumstances, the Minister’s ability to bring First Nations under the legislation without their consent; the lack of a First Nations appeals process; and the conduct of draws to resolve tie votes in elections for band council chiefs and councillors.

There is not the kind of support that the government is touting. I want to turn to a legal opinion from December 29, 2011. This has been provided primarily to first nations using a customary election code or regulations, and this is the legal opinion, and this is why it is important for first nations that are currently under custom code:

Based on a preliminary review of the proposed legislation, Bill S-6 may offer an improvement over the existing Indian Act election provisions. However, for those First Nations that already operate under their own customary election codes or regulations, opting into the First Nations Elections Act would provide only marginal benefits and may in some instances be viewed as a step back in a First Nations pursuit of self-government.

While there may be specific provisions within Bill S-6 that a particular First Nation may find attractive (such as a four year election term), First Nations should consider amending their existing custom codes or regulations to incorporate any provisions of interest as opposed to opting into the First Nations Elections Act.

I mentioned earlier clause 41 and the concerns. What we saw with Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was that bill was enabling legislation that laid out a process and some content for regulations.

Of course, what happened is that there is no meaningful provision for first nations to be involved in the development of regulations and the subsequent implementation of regulations. That is the same case in this legislation.

The legal brief says:

The Regulations—the Devil is in the Details

At this time, all that the Government has shared with First Nations are the provisions within Bill S-6. Section 41 of the Bill provides for the regulatory making powers of the Governor in Council. The Regulations to be passed include those dealing with the appointment, powers and duties of Electoral Officers, the certification (decertification) of Electoral Officers, who are electors, who and how candidates may be nominated, how voting is to be conducted, and the removal of a Chief or Councillor by way of a petition and anything else in the Act that requires regulation.

Those are pretty broad scopes of power under the regulations, and nowhere in Bill S-6 does it talk about how first nations will be included in that process. People are right to raise flags around that.

The brief goes on to say:

Ultimately, how attractive this legislation will be to any First Nation will depend greatly on what is, or is not included or provided for within the Regulations. However, it should be kept in mind that Regulations are designed and intended to be amended easily and quickly. Therefore, while a First Nation may opt into the First Nations Elections Act on the basis of what it considers to be attractive Regulations, there is no guarantee that the Governor in Council will not change these Regulations to something that a First Nation may find less appealing.

That is why when we had Bill S-8 before committee, New Democrats proposed that a clause be inserted that required regulations to come back before the House and referred to the appropriate committee, so there would be some parliamentary oversight. Otherwise, there would be no parliamentary oversight.

There is a precedent for it because in 2003 or 2004, the Quarantine Act had a clause that had the regulations come back before the appropriate committee.

Under the clause opting into the first nations election act, pursuant to section 3(1)(b), the minister may order a first nation to use the first nations elections act in circumstances where the minister is satisfied that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised the governance of that first nation. What qualifies as leadership dispute in the first instance, let alone a protracted leadership dispute? There is no definition, no qualifiers around that.

Under what circumstances is there significantly compromised governance? This section is extremely subjective and at the sole discretion of the minister there is a potential that any first nation could be forced to use the first nations election act if chief and council cannot agree on issues such as budgets, funding, housing and so on, on what the minister may consider to be a timely basis.

On the opting out piece, opting out of the first nations election act, while it is simple for a first nation to be added to the first nations election act, being removed from its operation is a far more complex undertaking. To be removed from the act, a first nation must satisfy a number of specific requirements and the minister “may”, not “shall”, remove the first nation from the operations of the act.

The key requirement that must be satisfied includes establishing a new election code that is approved by a majority of the majority of the voters. The code must include amendment procedures and there can be no outstanding charges under the act against any member of the first nation. Even if these requirements are met, it still remains at the minister's discretion as to whether the transfer out of the act will be approved or not. Therefore, we again caution first nations already using a custom election code or regulation, their customary powers should be guarded and protected jealously since it may be difficult to regain these customary powers once a first nation opts into the first nations elections act.

I mentioned earlier the appeals procedure. When I quoted Article 18 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it indicated that representatives needed to choose their own procedures as well as maintain their own indigenous decision-making institutions. The appeal procedure is problematic in this act.

Under sections 30 to 35 of the proposed legislation, there is only one way to appeal an election: apply to either the Federal Court of the court of Queen's bench for a review of the election. The only ground available to overturn an election is to prove that a provision of the legislation or regulations was contravened and the contravention was likely to affect the outcome of the election. Internal appeal mechanisms are not provided for.

Using the courts is a costly and time-consuming process. The legislation does not provide for funding of these appeals to the court. Therefore, only applicants who can afford to hire a lawyer are likely to pursue an appeal. Further, appeals to the courts can be time-consuming and may take months for an appeal to be dealt with. On a side note, we only have to look to what is going on currently with various alleged misdemeanours, or perhaps outright fraud, under the current Canada Elections Act and the amount of time it takes for that process to unfold. We are going to see the same kind of process when it comes to forcing first nations to resort to the courts in order to sort some of this out.

On the other hand, if the regulations are to provide that the first nations will fund appeals or if courts make a practice that all or most appeals will be funded or paid for by the first nations, significant expenses may be incurred by first nations following every election. Many, if not most, custom election codes or regulations provide for some form of internal appeal process that will allow first nations members to file and have heard an appeal or grievance in regard to an election, usually without the need to hire a legal counsel. These processes will allow for most members with a grievance to participate in the appeal process if so inclined.

Further, if an appeal is unsuccessful, the aggrieved member may still choose to pursue the matter to court. That is, most of the existing custom election codes and regulations provide or allow for both an internal appeal process and a court-driven appeal. The proposed legislation only provides for the courts to be the final arbiter of election disputes. That is an enormous problem. It would seem perfectly reasonable, and again I go back to the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, that indicated dispute resolution mechanisms needed to be developed by the first nations themselves. It would seem a perfectly reasonable approach to take.

I referenced clause No. 41 earlier in my speech about the problem with having regulations developed essentially without input and without any oversight.

In addition, we proposed another amendment with regard to Bill S-8, which would be an appropriate amendment for this legislation with regard to looking at whether there would be unintended consequences with legislation.

With respect to Bill S-8, we proposed that within five years after the act came into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the act and of the regulations made under this act would have to be undertaken by such committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons as may be designated and so on.

The purpose of having some sort of five year review would be to look at what was happening with the regulations and also to look at whether the act was achieving its intended objective.

We heard from other members who spoke in the House about the fact that the legislation would provide stability in the communities and add to economic development opportunities.

I was first elected in 2004 and was in constant election mode. I understand the challenges for chiefs and councils when they are in two year election terms. It is not a reasonable period of time to develop and implement an agenda and to look at some of the results of it. If the government had just stuck to the four year term in the legislation, we would have had no problems supporting the bill, but it had to stick in other mechanisms.

I want to turn briefly to testimony that was heard in the Senate with regard to objections to the bill, and I want to refer to Derek Nepinak, the grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. I will read some of his testimony before the Senate. I have no idea how much time we will have when the bill gets to committee, because time allocation has become a way of doing business here. I do not even know if we will have time to have witnesses before committee. Chief Nepinak said:

Regarding clause 3(1)(a), we know already that the development of custom codes in our communities and the passages of them requires a double majority vote, meaning that we need to hold a referendum which includes a majority of the electors, as well as a majority passing the customary code. That double majority is reflective of the ability and willingness of our community members to participate in governance processes. I think that this bill undermines that somewhat in allowing a chief and council to move a resolution to opt into this new legislation. I think that is problematic because it excludes members of the community.

I have concern with respect to the phrase “protracted leadership dispute”. I am not quite sure what that means. I find the term overly ambiguous. It opens up a broader discretion for the minister to impose Bill S-6 on a community that might not otherwise wish to be part of the new legislation.

He goes on to outline a number of other clauses. Then he goes on to say:

Speaking broadly with respect to clauses 30 to 35 on contested elections, the chiefs in Manitoba supported the resolution to move forward in the discussion on the basis that we would discuss a process of tribunals or regional tribunals to engage the challenges resulting in our elections. I think it is fundamental to the self-determining efforts of communities to be able to engage their conflicts, be able to engage conflict, and to make difficult choices. I believe it is in the form of a tribunal...that...really come to the surface...the form of a decision-making body with authority—that our values and our systems of decision making...We can really show, and once again redevelop, those systems that were once there. I believe we need to be shown the respect and given the room to develop these tribunals so that we can adjudicate these matters within our systems. I believe that is a critical piece of the legislation that is missing.

I want to quote Ms. Cook-Searson, who also was before the Senate. She said:

I just wanted to comment on the question...One of my points was that we should have an independent First Nations electoral commission or a First Nations tribunal to settle any election disputes because it is afforded already for the federal government, the provincial governments. You have mechanisms in place where it is part of the regular part of democracy. If it is good for the federal government and the provincial governments, why is it not good for First Nations? Why not an option for a truly independent electoral commission? I do agree there will be disputes and you do need a mechanism to deal with them. However, rather than go through the minister or the cabinet or through the courts, we could have this independent First Nation electoral commission or First Nations tribunal to settle any election disputes.

Ms. Cook-Searson raises a really valid point. Elections Canada is doing its job currently about some allegations with respect to members of the House. Why do first nations not have access to the same kind of process?

I will end on that note. I hope the government will entertain some amendments to the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is suggesting that the minister's power to order a first nation under Bill S-6 should be removed. We all agree that the Indian Act contains many paternalistic provisions, but by doing what the opposition suggests, first nations would be left with only the paternalistic Indian Act to address the damaging governance disputes.

When governance has broken down in a community to a damaging extent or when there are repeated challenges on who the legitimate leaders are in a community, what would the member suggest should be done?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just finished reading into the record what I suggested should be done. Ms. Cook-Searson recommended that a process be put in place that would be selected by first nations, a tribunal or first nations electoral commission. That would seem to be a reasonable process. If a first nations electoral commission existed, there would be a non-partisan, arm's-length process that could oversee disputes and elections. We have that for our federal members of Parliament. Why not have it for first nations chiefs, councils and community members?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given the fraud in the last election, the robo scandals, the ongoing missing $3 billion that the federal government cannot seem to find and all the repetitive Senate scandals, there is no doubt that the government has real governance problems. It can certainly not be an example to anyone given the fraud, corruption, misplaced money and funding and trying to turn elections.

I want to ask the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan this. Does the government have any credibility at all when it comes to due process?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. We have rocked Canadian confidence in our electoral system, whether it is the court findings on robocalls, the in-and-out scandal, for those of us who have been around long enough, and the current allegations about campaign spending that undermine people's faith in democracy.

We also have a very interesting bill before the House of Commons with respect to certification for trade union members and that people who do not vote, would be counted as a vote no. Imagine if that had happened in our electoral system, where the current government only received 39.6% of the vote and all the people who did not vote, about 40% of the population, would have been considered a vote no against the Conservatives. We would have a whole different government.

When looking at democracy and a democratic process, I would encourage the government to take a hard look at some of the testimony around due process in first nations communities.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan will have seven minutes remaining for questions and comments when this matter returns to the House.

The House resumed 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.

First Nations Elections Act

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this night with the member for Peace River.

I am very happy to have the privilege of speaking in favour of Bill S-6 tonight. As with most of our legislation, some of the main criticisms of this bill have to do with myriad problems this bill neither solves nor addresses. The irony, of course, is that those bills that avoid this criticism are criticized for addressing too much and receive the despised label of omnibus bill. I will save the opposition a bit of time and point out what the bill would not do.

This bill would not ensure good government in the first nations that adopt it. It would not guarantee that tribal councils and chiefs elected under this system will be wise. It would not, on its own, solve poverty or racism or ensure that every person under the act would receive a good education. It would not guarantee the independence and prosperity of those first nations that adopt it. No single bill can do all of these things on its own.

This bill would, however, provide a necessary framework to allow for good government, the selection of wise leaders, the enactment of just laws and the increase in independence and prosperity for those first nations whose electoral systems are still governed by the Indian Act.

Today there are 617 first nations in Canada. Thirty-six are self-governing and hold elections according to their own self-government agreements. There are 343 first nations that select their leaders under their own community-based systems, most of which have a specific election code developed within and by the first nation itself. Unfortunately, the 238 first nations that still hold elections under the Indian Act have been held back from achieving their full potential because of the limitations of the Indian Act's election system.

This system was created at a time when the federal government had no intention of allowing first nations to have any real sense of self-governance and therefore did not need to provide conditions that ensured fairness, stability or legitimacy. Some of the weaknesses in this old election system have led to leadership with low credibility and high instability and such problems as having only two-year terms of office, a loose nomination system, a mail-in ballot system that is open to abuse and no defined offences or penalties relating to election fraud.

Virtually no first nations are satisfied with the current system, but this bill gives first nations three options to choose from.

The communities that hold their elections under the Indian Act have the following choices.

The first option is self-government, the ideal scenario, but that goes far beyond simply determining their own election system. The second choice is to develop a community election code. Unfortunately, due to varying capacity, not all first nations are in a position to take advantage of either of the first two options. That leaves them with the third option, which is to simply carry on operating under the Indian Act system, complete with its long list of problems. The third option is not really an option at all, and many first nations are frustrated.

That is why we need this bill, which gives these communities a third viable option if they cannot choose one of the first two options.

The first nations elections act would allow first nations currently operating under the Indian Act to hold elections under a legislated system that would be strong, modern and comparable to municipal, federal and provincial government election systems.

First nations have been calling for this solution for many years. They even made recommendations advocating such legislation. Those recommendations form the foundation of this bill.

Bill S-6 would provide a reliable, consistent, modern approach to elections in first nation communities that would increase the transparency, legitimacy and stability of their governments, which is a necessary precondition of independence and prosperity.

The first important aspect of this legislation is that first nations could opt in. They could choose to use the system.

It is not mandatory.

For those first nations that did opt in, the band council would now have four-year mandates instead of two. This would go a long way toward improving political stability in their communities and would foster a better climate for economic development and long-term investment.

The bill would also tighten up the nomination process. Right now, many tribal elections have literally hundreds of people running for a 12-member council, making the election results, in many cases, statistically arbitrary. This comes from the fact that one person can sign dozens of nominations. He or she does not have to be choosy when nominating candidates.

Furthermore, a single person can run for chief, tribal council and any other position available at the same time. This legislation would restrict the number of candidates any one person could nominate and would allow a given candidate to run in only one position in any given election.

Bill S-6 would also remove the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs from the elections appeals process. Just as in provincial and federal elections, the power to set aside elections and to appeal those decisions would rest with the courts, where it belongs. This is a judicial matter and should not be in the hands of a legislator or the executive branch.

Finally, believe it or not, under the current system, things such as electoral fraud, ballot-box stuffing, buying and selling of mail-in ballots, bribes, et cetera, are not expressly forbidden. The bill would finally prohibit specific offences and would attach definite penalties for corrupt activities that interfered with the electoral process.

Anyone who engages in those kinds of activities will no longer be able to get away with it. They will be forced to face the consequences of their actions.

The first nations elections act would enable first nations communities, if they chose, to put in place a more reliable, consistent and legitimate system of elections. This would make it possible for members of these first nations communities to add transparent, accountable and effective chiefs and councillors as part of a more stable, respectable and reliable government. This would lead to confidence in government and in the community itself. It would inspire community members and outside investors to invest in these communities and to even bring their businesses and their business operations to these communities, which would bring about real, measurable benefits to first nations people, such as jobs, high-paying jobs, overall prosperity and higher tax revenue. That, in turn, would help pay for infrastructure, which would increase jobs, high-paying jobs, overall prosperity and higher tax revenue, which in turn would help pay for infrastructure. The cycle would go on. It would also pay for education, the arts and our cherished social programs.

The key to realizing these benefits is political stability and predictability, but most important, political legitimacy. Bill S-6, by providing the necessary framework, would make it possible.

In addition to our federal and provincial electoral systems, most of us in the House live in communities in which the political conditions for economic prosperity are taken for granted. So imbedded are these characteristics in our local governments and the electoral systems of those jurisdictions that we do not even notice them. We do not appreciate the extent to which they are transparent, accountable and legitimate and therefore make us ready to seize economic opportunities.

Unfortunately, not all first nation communities enjoy similar political conditions and therefore cannot seize their economic opportunities and seize control of their own lives.

It is time that changes. It is time for first nation elections to be reformed, and it is time to provide the legislative framework that would allow their governments to truly foster the conditions necessary to chase away corruption and attract prosperity.

I urge all of my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of Bill S-6 and in favour of an open, transparent, and accountable government for all Canadians.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

One of the key recommendations from the AMC and the AFN was to establish an independent, impartial appeal mechanism. I wonder why the Conservatives ignored those recommendations.

I would like to know whether the Conservatives will commit to working with first nations to establish an independent first nations election tribunal.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, under the Indian Act, any appeals on elections go directly to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. This bill would change that so that appeals would go to the courts

I do not know what the member thinks, but I consider the court system in Canada an independent process of appeal.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about democracy. I think that is something everyone in this House can stand up and believe in. What the government is doing is trying to modernize. With the system in place right now, there is the possibility of fraud. It is ancient. It is outdated.

The first nations communities deserves democracy. They deserve representation. They deserve to be brought into the modern era. It seems that the opposition wants to delay this type of legislation.

I was wondering if the member could give his opinion as to why it is so important that we finally bring this piece of legislation forward for equality and democracy for first nations.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, because that is at the base of a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a right and a guarantee. As much as we would like to provide guarantees for everyone to have a Mercedes and a three-storey house, we cannot always do that. Rights are the pre-condition to acquiring whatever people want guaranteed.

As with the bill on matrimonial housing rights, a lot of the concerns were that the women involved did not have the money necessary to buy the house or go to court or whatever. That was a shortcoming of the bill. However, it provided the necessary framework so that they could start with those things.

We have to start by giving first nations the right to determine a legitimate self-government. Those are the pre-conditions for accomplishing the other things, the things some of our opponents find lacking in this bill. That is because that is not what this bill is about. The bill would set the framework and allow first nations to start solving those problems, as is necessary for anyone who wants to self-govern.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Lethbridge, and I welcome him back to the House. People who are watching may be happy to know that he is recovering well from a skiing accident. Just apropos of my friend's comment that everybody here can stand up, at least the hon. member for Lethbridge will be able to soon.

My concern, as with many pieces of legislation in this House, is that many of them come from the other place. They are taken apart, bit by bit, and chip away at what should be a transformation exercise relating to a new relationship and a change from the antiquated Indian Act, which has a lot of baggage. I will not get into all of it. I will not have time in this short question.

My concern, and I wonder if the hon. member from Lethbridge would agree with me, is that we would be far better off to have full consultation, nation to nation, Canada to all first nations, in a process that ensures that first nations are full partners in a holistic, comprehensive approach rather than this piecemeal, and I hate to say it, disrespectful approach, to changing legislation that directly affects the lives of first nations peoples.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would definitely like a holistic approach where every first nation in Canada would come together with Canada and with each other to find one big, holistic solution. Maybe someday that will come. It might be at the second coming. However, in the meantime, we have to get something done to allow each first nation to determine its own path while we are waiting for this great day.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand in this House today to speak to Bill S-6. I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for sharing his time with me tonight. I am glad he is back in the House. I congratulate him for his contribution to the discussions tonight.

I serve as the chair of the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, and over the last number of months we have been seized with a number of pieces of legislation that I believe are important to equip and empower first nations to move forward on a number of fronts.

Today, we have the opportunity in the House to continue a discussion on an important piece of legislation that will transform and modernize the elections of first nations, those first nations that choose to be empowered by this act. It is not an act that is being placed on first nations if they do not want it, but they have an opportunity to opt in if they want.

That is what is unique about our government. We are a government that recognizes that first nations are different. From one part of this country to another, first nations are as different from coast to coast to coast as communities are different from coast to coast to coast. It is important that we do not put a one-size-fits-all solution on folks from every part of this country and that we let first nations communities create their own environment to move forward in the way that best supports their priorities.

That is unlike the Indian Act. I think everybody in this House can agree that the Indian Act is an outdated piece of legislation that has lived out many parts of its usefulness. However, it obviously has a great amount of history and it would take some time to move us out of that.

I respect the fact that members are calling for an overhaul and a complete turning of the page. We can recognize as we look from one issue to the other with regard to the Indian Act that there are first nations that have different ideas as to how to move into the future. It is important that we give each community the ability to be empowered, so that they are able to articulate a vision for the future that would reflect the interest and the desires of first nations membership within their communities. That is different in every community.

The Indian Act does spell out issues surrounding elections in first nations communities. I just note that the last time this portion of the Act was updated was sometime in the 1950s.

A lot has changed between now and then. It is important to reflect on the thinking at that time. When they were revamping the Indian Act in the 1950s, it should be noted that the rules as they related to elections were really geared toward holding first nations governments accountable to the minister, rather than holding first nations leadership accountable to their electorate or to their members.

The bill goes a great distance in rectifying this. I think it is so important that we work together collaboratively to see this legislation move forward.

It has been articulated by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that we move forward with a complete overhaul of the Indian Act, but even in the discussions that led up to the change in this portion, just in the issue of elections, there are different visions and different ideas from one part of this country to the next. It is important that we bring forward legislation that provides options for first nations. That is exactly what this legislation does.

However, we do it in a pragmatic way, not in a way that may have a lofty goal without ever being implemented. We have a policy right now that will really create opportunities for those first nations that do want to move forward on this.

We have been undertaking a number of things that will give rights to first nations that they have been limited to receiving in the past as a result of the Indian Act.

Members will reflect on the fact that it was our government that in 2008 repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It finally gave first nations people living on reserve the right to recognition under the human rights act. First nations communities had been waiting decades for that. Unfortunately, the Indian Act had separated them from the right that most Canadians enjoy and take for granted. That was one of the things we did.

Just recently, we extended matrimonial real property rights to first nations women to protect families and those people who were vulnerable in first nations communities.

We are continuing to bring the rights that most Canadians take for granted to those people who live on reserve.

The legislation continues the process of giving rights to first nations people, the same type of rights that other Canadians have come to expect and take for granted. Unfortunately, those rights have not been there for first nations and this bill would go a great distance in providing first nations with additional rights.

I should note that approximately 240 first nations across the country undertake their elections according to sections 74 through 79 of the Indian Act. This regime is not satisfactory for a number of reasons, the least of which is it imposes two year term limits on the time which chiefs and councils can serve in office.

Those of us in elected positions know that two years is really not enogh time for us to become equipped to serve in the capacity of our roles and to take a mandate and try to get it completed, then to continue that and have any type of stable governance in any community. A two-year time limit gives enough time for MPs to learn the basics of our job and then immediately be thrust back into an election campaign. That is not a sustainable structure for governance. Anybody in the House, when reflecting upon it, would say that a two-year term limit is really unreasonable for any elected official, and first nations people should have the right to extend it if their community so desires.

It has been recommended by the Atlantic Policy Congress as well as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs that the term limits be extended to four years. This is now articulated within the legislation. When we consider the recommendations that came from these two organizations, it makes a lot of sense.

A two-year term limit barely gives enough time for MPs to get trained in their jobs before they are running for re-election, but there are other practical reasons as well.

A two-year term limit is difficult for a new council, especially those people who have run for election for the first time. A new council would find it very difficult to build the necessary relationships to move their communities forward within two years.

One of the most important things that a local council can do is build relationships with neighbouring jurisdictions, with other municipalities or neighbouring government organizations. There is a limited opportunity as well to build relationships with financial organizations and with those people who might want to invest within these communities. This two-year extension is very important.

We believe very strongly in allowing first nations to build an environment within their communities where they will be able to foster an opportunity for the private sector to invest in their communities. Extending the term to a four year limit will allow these first nations communities to have a stable council, a stable government that will be able to negotiate and build an environment so private investment is undertaken within their communities. This would lead to opportunity, prosperity and hope for people who live in these communities, leading to better education, better health care and better outcomes generally.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given all bills before the House that have to do with first nations, including this one, I have a simple question that is however worth asking.

When dealing with first nations issues, does my Conservative colleague think it is better to have a relationship of equals instead of the paternalistic approach that the Conservatives use on almost every bill?

It is truly a simple question and I would like an answer.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have as a hallmark of our government, as it relates to first nations, is we do not believe that a one-size-fits-all solution works for first nations across the country. That is why we have built framework legislation that allows for a different reality in one community than possibly in other communities.

In this case, with regard to the Elections Act, we had strong recommendations from the Atlantic first nations and from Manitoba chiefs. They are asking for this legislation to move forward. They believe the provisions in this act would ensure they could move forward in a way that would better equip their communities. This is being asked for.

It is not a requirement that first nations move into this act; it is actually opt-in legislation. Therefore, those first nations that would desire to be under this act could move into it. Those that choose not to could continue under the current regime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that one of the key recommendations from the AMC and the AFN, was to establish an independent, impartial appeal mechanism.

Could he tell us why the Conservatives ignored this recommendation in Bill S-6?

Will they commit to working with first nations on establishing an independent first nations election tribunal?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do envision an opportunity for independent and impartial appeals, and through the courts process that is exactly what is undertaken. That is what we as Canadians put our trust in, that those folks who serve in their capacity as judges and within the legal system can provide an impartial appeals process. We believe first nations should have the right to that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and he spoke of democracy, respect and so on a number of times.

In the bill, paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) allow the minister to subject a first nations community to this law against its will. Numerous groups have called for these provisions to be removed because they give immeasurable discretionary power to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Can my colleague share his thoughts on whether a clause that would allow a minister to force people to be subject to a system that they have not willingly accepted is democratic?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.

Obviously, the member has not read through the legislation because this provision within this legislation would allow for first nations to undertake a provision that they would have full control over. Under the circumstance that would be “a protracted leadership dispute [that] has significantly compromised [the] governance of [this] First Nation” then the minister could allow for the first nation to actually choose new leadership.

The minister would not make the choice. He would cede that responsibility to the first nation population. That is exactly what first nations folks are asking for. They are asking for the right to be empowered and the ability to make the choice for themselves as to whom they want to lead them forward. This is not a choice of the minister; it is a choice of the first nations people.

However, without this provision, all that is left is the requirement that we go back to the Indian Act, where it actually spells out a process for dispute resolution that is much more paternalistic. Therefore, it is important that we empower first nations to be the voice and to make the decision as it relates to their own future.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition, who is also the excellent member for Saint-Lambert.

This evening I am speaking to Bill S-6. I want to specify that the bill comes from the Senate and that is why it is assigned the letter S. It is 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.

The bill came out of a series of regional round table discussions that were held in Atlantic Canada and Manitoba. The objective was to improve the way elections are run in first nation communities.

I want to point out that although there was consultation, round tables were not held with every first nation community. Those communities are in every province, including Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta. These communities were not consulted during the round tables. There was indeed consultation, but not with every first nation.

We are talking about this bill because a number of concerns were raised about the provisions in the current Indian Act with regard to elections and the rules on elections organized by the communities.

The Indian Act has eroded first nations traditional political cultures and political systems. Before white people arrived in Canada, first nations had their own system for electing their chief. This was part of a custom that, most of the time, was traditional and not recorded in writing. Everyone knew the rules, but they were not necessarily written down. They were passed down from generation to generation. Aboriginal communities clearly had a more oral tradition than a written one. Everyone agrees on that. It explains why many aboriginal communities have different ways to write the exact same language. It is because they only ever spoke it. They never wrote it.

Another problem is the two year election cycle, which causes instability and prevents first nations governments from engaging in long-term planning and development.

Many of the MPs here tonight first won their seats in the 2011 election. However, a few of them have been here longer than that and have experienced the successive minority governments. I think that everyone will agree that, if an election is held every two years, it becomes difficult and complicated to establish a government, whether it be in a first nations community or elsewhere. Those involved try to determine the role that each person will play in the government in question, but once that has been established, it is practically time for another election, so yes, that is a problem with the legislation.

The current problem with the Indian Act is that it reverses the accountability structure and makes band councils accountable to the minister rather than to their communities. The election provisions set out in the Indian Act give the minister or the governor in council considerable power over first nations elections and governance structures, including the number of members that can sit on a council, the way in which the chief is elected and the way appeals are dealt with. The minister can also order first nations to be subject to the Indian Act.

There are therefore many opportunities for the government to interfere in elections, which is a problem. That is not a good foundation for a relationship of equals. It does not make sense to make band councils accountable to the minister rather than to their communities. Members of the House are first and foremost accountable to their constituents, and that is how it should be. Anyone who sits in a chamber, who is a member of a government, whether it is a first nations government or here in the House of Commons, must first be accountable to their constituents, because their constituents are the ones who elected them to that position.

I would also like to specify that, right now, under the act, the appeal process, which is, of course, carried out by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, is very long. It is also lacking in terms of thoroughness, transparency and procedural fairness. I would like to remind hon. members that election disputes sometimes occur and, since first nations are operating on a two year election cycle, a government can spend almost its entire mandate dealing with an election dispute, which does not help matters.

First nations communities are forced to choose their selection rules based on requirements set by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. These rules are limited to a rather restrictive governance model that does not take first nations traditions and customs into account. For example, having a written code requires resources and expertise. There are two problems with the written code. These communities sometimes have very small populations and few people with the education to be able to write rules in legal terms. Furthermore, this is being imposed on people who come from an oral culture. People with limited resources are being asked to develop written rules, even though written rules are not part of their traditions. The Indian Act therefore currently presents some problems.

This bill is designed to set out election rules that are different from what is currently in the Indian Act. This includes an election cycle longer than two years and the ability to have common election days, but it unfortunately grants the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs the power to order first nations to be subject to this new regime.

The minister will therefore have the power to interfere in the affairs of a first nation. Instead of developing a relationship of equals and offering advice, he is interfering. The government is saying that first nations must conform and that the government is sick of things not working. In short, it is telling them what to do. That is a paternalistic attitude. As long as they keep that up, they will never be able to develop a relationship of equals with these communities.

The bill also sets out an election appeal process through the courts, instead of through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. It may be shorter, but I am not sure this measure will speed things up.

There are sanctions if they do not comply with the election rules.

The NDP wants to improve the first nations electoral system, but this bill does not tackle the Indian Act head on. It does not address the problems in the act. It does not address the considerable powers the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has over a band's right to determine its own future. That makes no sense.

First nations supported the bill initially. There were round table discussions. However, when they read the final version, the changes they asked for had not been included. If the bill passes at committee stage, you can bet that the NDP will try to ensure that those changes are included in the bill.

Right now, first nations have three different ways of electing their leaders. First of all, 41% hold elections in accordance with the Indian Act. In addition, 54% hold community-based elections or “custom elections”. Of course, they have to develop written election codes, which have to be well known. Lastly, 5% choose their leaders pursuant to the provisions of self-government agreements.

The problem with this bill is that it does not amend the Indian Act. It does not really address the problem that exists in the Indian Act, while also giving new powers to the minister.

Of course, the legislation could grant more autonomy if it were voluntary, but the new provisions allow the minister to interfere with any band and, without consultation, force it to adhere to these principles.

The government had an opportunity to create legislation by consulting first nations and creating a relationship of equals, but unfortunately, once again, it did not do so and instead adopted a paternalistic attitude. The government has said that since first nations did not agree and an agreement could not be reached, the government will decide for them. It is imposing its view and first nations have to accept it.

As long as the government maintains this kind of attitude towards first nations, no real partnership can ever develop.

I have five aboriginal communities in my riding. Since being elected, I meet with them regularly. They have told me repeatedly that it had been forever since any federal government representative had bothered to go and see them.

Speaking with them is the least we can do.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to some of the government members' positions and many of the speeches we have heard tonight on different bills, Canadians might start asking what the government is trying to tell first nations about good governance. Currently it has two members in court trying to keep their seats in the House because they have improperly filed elections receipts. In other words, many of the issues we are debating tonight are about the trust that Canadians have, or do not have, in the government. I am wondering if my colleague would like to comment on the issue of public trust as it pertains to the bill.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond by talking about aboriginal communities in general.

Everyone in Canada has heard about the Idle No More movement. Aboriginal youth, and some older members of the community as well, took to the streets to say that they had had enough, that they could take charge of their own lives and do something. They want to be treated as equals.

That movement would not have existed if the Conservatives had been respectful of aboriginal communities and open in that relationship. Idle No More showed that aboriginal people do not trust the government anymore, that they are tired of hearing promises year after year and never seeing action. That is the message that needs to be repeated and understood.

We need to stop acting like children. In our country's history, the aboriginal people were here first, and they did not cede their lands or their rights. We come here and are constantly forcing bills on them. We do not listen to them. We do not try to include them. Then we ask them to trust us, despite the fact that they have never had access to everything they have been entitled to for years.

First nations communities live in poverty, and this government is asking them to trust it. It does not consult them, but it knows what is good for them, even though no Conservative has ever set foot in an aboriginal community, as far as I know.

It has been years since aboriginal people have seen a government representative, yet they are told that the government knows what is good for them. That is bullshit. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw that word.

The government needs to get out, go see them and talk to them. It is not complicated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend our colleague for her speech and the passion she brings to the debate on this bill.

As you pointed out, it is almost midnight and tempers are flaring a bit. All the passion and energy she invested in her speech seem to be reflected in her last words.

My question concerns the settlement of appeals by the courts. This is still a very long and cumbersome process, which forces first nations to grapple with a justice system that knows very little about aboriginal cultural and political traditions.

Some witnesses called for the creation of an independent court for first nations, similar to those in place at the federal and provincial levels in Canada.

What can our colleague tell us about that?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be worthwhile to listen to them. If they believe that this measure could help them, it would be wise to consider it.

In any case, it is obvious that the current appeal process does not work, especially with a two-year election cycle. By the time the appeal is settled, it is time for another election. Again, this is basic. They must be consulted. If this is the general will and it can be implemented, it is worthwhile to create something that really fits their needs. This is basic.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to point out to the House that this will be this government's 44th time allocation motion.

Since May 27, just over two weeks now, the Conservatives have moved 12 time allocation motions. Each time allocation motion costs us about one hour of debate on the bill in the House, when we ask questions to the minister and vote. This means we have lost 12 hours as a result of the stubborn approach taken by this government, which refuses to work with the opposition. We only got a few minutes, on a Wednesday night, around midnight, to talk about this bill. Only two people were able to speak.

How can the government justify imposing a time allocation motion on this bill? This is unfortunately yet another example of their undemocratic attitude.

I am pleased to speak to Bill S-6 regarding the election and terms of office for chiefs and councils of certain first nations, as well as the composition of their respective councils.

Aboriginal issues deserve special attention and concerted action. Parliamentarians in the House must work with everyone involved to develop long-term solutions for these communities. That was unfortunately not done with this bill.

In recent years, hundreds of aboriginal women have gone missing or have been murdered, yet no public inquiries have been conducted. The unemployment rate in many of these communities remains twice as high as in the general population, yet we have not seen any plans put forward. Many social problems and infrastructure deficiencies remain, but the government is not addressing the situation.

That is the reality for many aboriginal peoples, and the Conservatives will certainly not solve these problems by imposing their unilateral vision. They will also not achieve this by adopting a confrontational attitude or by forcing the communities to accept their vision. We must work with first nations to come to a consensus that will bring about sustainable solutions.

In a letter to Gerry St. Germain, the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, Chief Nepinak accused the government of acting in bad faith and ignoring the discussions it had with first nations and the promises it made to them and instead unilaterally imposing legislation containing many unacceptable provisions. He said that the government basically included only one of the first nations recommendations and rejected all the others.

If we want to find sustainable solutions for first nations, we must conduct consultations and, most importantly, we must take into account what was said when it comes time to implement policies. It is simply irresponsible to reject out of hand the suggestions made by the most important stakeholders in the process.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, could I ask you to call the members to order?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is getting noisy in here. We have only about five minutes to go. If members want to carry on conversations above a whisper, please take them outside the chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is simply irresponsible to reject out of hand the suggestions made by the most important stakeholders in the process.

Bill S-6 contains several measures related to the election process. First, the government plans to impose an election cycle of longer than two years on aboriginal communities. Then, the government could potentially establish a common election day.

What is more, the bill grants the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs new powers to compel first nations that are holding elections to comply with the new regime. The primary consequence of giving the minister this new power is to once again limit the autonomy of the first nations.

A new elections appeal process will be implemented that will be dealt with by the courts rather than by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. In this regard, we would like to point out that the time it will take for the courts to deal with these appeals could impede the activities of some communities.

Finally, Bill S-6 contains penalties for failing to comply with the election rules. Once again, the government has decided to penalize aboriginal communities rather than partnering with them.

The NDP believes that this piece of legislation does not address the real concerns of aboriginal communities and fails to tackle the various problems they struggle with.

Bill S-6 does not amend the Indian Act and does not directly address the various problems associated with this legislation. The resulting shortcomings will undermine the proposed solution and ensure it cannot mitigate existing problems.

Bill S-6 also provides for limited self-government for aboriginal communities by allowing the minister to determine the future of a band without consultation, without co-operation and without any actual long-term perspective. We believe that undermining the autonomy of first nations will do nothing to resolve the current situation or to help find solutions for the future.

According to Jody Wilson-Raybould, British Columbia regional chief:

These provisions essentially give the minister the ability to impose core governance rules on a First Nation, which...would be resented by that First Nation, would not be seen as legitimate in the eyes of that nation, and would probably add fuel to an already burning fire.

Ultimately, each nation must, and will, take responsibility for its own governance, including elections.

Jody Wilson-Raybould expressed one of our primary concerns regarding allowing aboriginal communities to maintain their autonomy.

Bill S-6 is the result of consultations. The real problem is that Canadian authorities did not take the recommendations into account. The first nations participated in the consultation process. They made suggestions and showed that they were open-minded. Unfortunately, yet again, the government did not listen to them and refused to amend the bill to address the demands of aboriginal peoples.

We are urging the government to stop ignoring these demands and to listen to what the first nations want.

Grand Chief Derek Nepinak, from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, said that this proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC and that it appears to be an attempt by the minster to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the first nations electoral processes that are set out in the Indian Act or custom code. He said he hopes that Canada will engage in meaningful consultation with first nations in Manitoba in order to fix some of the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of first nations.

In conclusion, aboriginal issues are far too important for not putting in place mechanisms to resolve disputes and problems effectively. Canada must engage in a real consultation process so it can work closely with first nations to address the problems affecting their communities. Imposing a solution selected by the minister will not achieve that goal and, on the contrary, could add fuel to the fire.

[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, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We are giving first nations communities the option of adopting Bill S-6 and getting out from under this old relic of the Indian Act. We are giving them accountability and transparency and we are providing them with the tools they need to create a modern community that will attract the investment and business that will create jobs within their communities.

We consulted widely on this bill. The Senate found that the Atlantic and Manitoba chiefs were fed up with the current Indian Act electoral system. That is why many residents on reserves are in favour of Bill S-6.

This is why I encourage all members in the House to not to keep the current paternalistic system, which is a relic and a dinosaur, and support Bill S-6 so we can give first nations the dignity they need to prosper in our great country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his incredible interest in this. This is obviously dear to him.

The Indian Act, when it was created, seemed to be an electoral anomaly. What it seems to do, instead of empowering first nations to hold their government to account, it places this responsibility in the hands of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This seems a bit backward.

Could the member describe what procedures would be the bill to help alleviate that issue?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to providing transparency and accountability, Bill S-6 would do something that would be more important. It would give first nations communities hope that they could take advantage of the great opportunity we have in our great country.

One of my favourite responsibilities as a member of Parliament, and I know this relates to a lot of members, is going to new citizenship swearing-in ceremonies and seeing new citizens who are coming to the country to escape persecution and despair. They are coming for the great opportunity the country offers, both for themselves and for their children. What we need to do is not only say that people from other countries who come to Canada can have hope and opportunity, but the people and first nations of our country can live here with great dignity, hope and opportunity.

Bill S-6 would do that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in opposition to Bill S-6, yet another bill that the Conservative government is putting forward about which first nations have a great deal of concern. Certainly he NDP believes it is a serious matter and that first nations voices, like on any issue that pertains to them directly or indirectly, must be heard.

I rise to speak to the bill on a very important week, a very important anniversary for first nations in Canada. Five years ago, the Prime Minister rose in the House of Commons and apologized to residential school survivors, their families and their communities and he committed to a new relationship. He committed to a new beginning in the Crown-first nations relationship. Fast forward five years later, and not only have we not seen a new relationship, we have seen the government continue to impose legislation after legislation that flies in the face of that commitment.

Bill S-6, like bills that have gone forward, misses out on the critical piece, and that is first nations consultation. What first nations raise in terms of concerns must be reflected in the bill.

We have a case now with Bill S-6 where the government is applying rhetoric regarding empowerment, the importance of fair elections and stability in first nations, concepts which are very worthwhile and sound great. However, when we scratch the surface and start looking at what was said in the Senate when the bill was being discussed and when we start hearing directly from first nations and first nations leadership, we realize the bill is not about empowerment and it does not provide the kind of stability that first nations need when they come to their electoral system.

The NDP believes strongly that as a result, the bill cannot be supported. The government must go back to the table with first nations and listen to the very concrete concerns they have raised directly with members of the government. As we know, this has been debated in the Senate and changes must be reflected in a bill that purports to deal with making first nations elections fairer to allow greater stability in the community.

The bill establishes rules for elections, apart from the Indian Act. These include an election cycle longer than two years, the ability to have a common election date, elements that have been raised by first nations and need to be addressed. We agree with the need to address these issues, but we share the serious concern that first nations have brought forward, and that is Bill S-6 gives the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the power to order a first nation with community designed elections to adhere to the new regime.

We want to see first nations' elections improve, but this is basically tinkering around the edges of the Indian Act and does not address the extensive powers of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development over the right of bands to determine their own future.

In making that statement, it is very much founded on a critical concept. We have a federal government that has committed to the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights, yet putting forward Bill S-6 very much disrespects that commitment. I quote from article 18 in the UN declaration which states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

Unfortunately, when we turn to the legislative summary of this bill, it indicates that:

First Nations may choose to opt in to the new elections regime proposed under the legislation, or they may be brought under the new elections regime by ministerial order in some circumstances.

We in the NDP stand with first nations in expressing our complete and utter opposition to this very point, a point that challenges the commitment that the government and our country made to the UN declaration of indigenous rights. It flies in the face of the promise the Prime Minister made of a new beginning and a new relationship.

According to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 240 first nations hold elections pursuant to the Indian Act, 341 first nations conduct custom or community-based elections rather than elections under the Indian Act, and 36 first nations select their leaders according to their self-government agreements.

We have heard real concern expressed from many first nations about the short term of office for first nations leadership positions, and I certainly know this from the first nations that I represent. We agree with first nations in saying that the two-year term of office imposed on first nations by the Indian Act is too short to provide political and economic stability, often creating deep divisions in communities.

I have had the chance to get to know many chiefs and councillors across northern Manitoba who have struggled when that has been the case in their communities. They have brought forward ideas, a visionary approach to governing their community that perhaps differs from the approach of leaders who have come before them, but two years is not enough time to make changes and get the community on the path that they would like it go down based on the support of their community members. We agree with first nations in saying that the two-year timeline must be removed.

I would like to note that we also agree with the substantive concerns with the Indian Act elections that relate to the degree of ministerial intervention, the lack of an adequate and autonomous appeals process and the absence of flexibility to set the terms of office and determine the size of councils.

We believe it is extremely problematic and, frankly, reeks of colonialism that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would be able to interfere through ministerial order, as is clearly stated in this bill, in elections on first nations.

I would like to refer back to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and some of the recommendations they made back in 1996. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples said:

With respect to elections, a key proposal was to develop community leadership selection systems and remove the application of the Indian Act as a preliminary measure to re-establishing traditional forms of leadership. To accomplish this, the following steps were suggested: community level development of custom codes; community development of local dispute resolution procedures; regional first nations capacity and advisory bodies.

Again, some of the elements that were recommended back in 1996 are not present or appropriately resourced under the current legislation.

We have referenced a sticking point under subclause 3(1), which states that “The Minister may, by order, add the name of a First Nation to the schedule...” of first nations participating in the new election system.

The other problem with this legislation is the regulations in clause 41. The clause provides for the Governor in Council to have broad and general powers to make regulations with respect to elections.

We have had the chance to hear from many leaders and people involved in aboriginal governance who have expressed their opposition to the current iteration of Bill S-6, and I would like to read into the record their voices.

Before I do that, I want to also acknowledge that we have seen a very problematic pattern by the government in bringing in closure on debate regarding first nations bills. We saw it with Bill S-2 and we saw it with bills that came forward prior to Bill S-2.

For us in the NDP, it is absolutely fundamental that first nations voices be heard in committee in order to best shape legislation or to give us the opportunity to challenge legislation on their behalf.

Unfortunately, my experience has been that the Conservative government has done everything in its power to muzzle the voices of first nations and to silence them when it comes to speaking out on bills that have everything to do with their communities. That is unacceptable, and it once again reflects the colonial approach that we have seen from the current government time and time again.

Having said that, I would like to read into the record some of the messages we have heard from first nations people when the bill was at the Senate committee.

I would like to start with a quote from the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak. He said:

This proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC. It appears to be an attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code. I am hopeful that Canada will engage in meaningful consultation with First Nations in Manitoba in order to fix some of the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of First Nations.

There are a number of key messages here, including the reference to the need for meaningful consultation. He acknowledges that there are problems, and that one of those problems is the unilateral imposition of this framework that would greatly affect first nations.

I would also like to quote Jody Wilson-Raybould, the B.C. Regional Chief from the Assembly of First Nations. She spoke to the problems with clause 3. She said:

These provisions essentially give the minister the ability to impose core governance rules on a First Nation, which, if ever used, would be resented by that First Nation, would not be seen as legitimate in the eyes of that nation, and would probably add fuel to an already burning fire.

Ultimately, each nation must, and will, take responsibility for its own governance, including elections.

Tammy Cook-Searson, Chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, noted:

My main objection to this bill is the lack of positive change from the old Indian Act. Neither the Indian Act nor Bill S-6 incorporate the constitutional principles of the inherent right to self-determination and governance. The authority in this bill remains with the cabinet and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada instead of moving towards a greater responsibility with First Nations for our governance.

Aimée E. Craft, chair of the national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, came to the Senate committee on February 29 and presented, saying:

[D]ealing with the level of ministerial discretion to include First Nations in the schedule of participating First Nations, this changes the opt-in nature of the legislation. It continues minister discretion to exercise control over First Nations governance and it would result in some First Nations being subjects of the act rather than participants. In addition, the bill lacks clarity as to the standard that the minister will apply in making determinations about what constitutes a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of a First Nation.

These are first nations leaders, and Aimée Craft is a specialist when it comes to the legal aspect of the bill. They all express serious concern about a number of points in Bill S-6.

It was also noted that:

Ultimately, how attractive this legislation will be to any First Nation will depend greatly on what is, or what is not included or provided for within the Regulations. However, it should be kept in mind that Regulations are designed and intended to be amended easily and quickly. Therefore, while a First Nation may opt into the First Nations Elections Act on the basis of what it considers to be attractive Regulations, there is no guarantee that the Governor in Council will not change those Regulations to something that a First Nation may find less appealing.

There are a number of concerns. What I find extremely problematic here is the Conservative government's continued approach in imposing legislation and refraining to hear from first nations on very serious matters that have everything to do with their capacity to be self-determining for their own people, yet the Conservatives turn around and use broad-sounding language that may sound great to a lot of Canadians but that certainly hides the true facts.

I think of the first nations that I have the honour of representing and the kinds of challenges that I have heard from people when it comes to their election systems and the barriers they face when it comes to the Indian Act.

I know that the Conservative government has also jumped on the bandwagon of critiquing the Indian Act, yet it is ironic that so many first nations point to the Indian Act as being a colonial tool that oppresses first nations further.

Is imposing legislation on first nations not a sign of further oppression? Is that not a sign of that spirit of the Indian Act that sets out to impose systems and attitudes from the outside upon first nations?

The imposition of legislation without proper consultation, without heeding the calls for changes to this legislation, speaks to the attitude that the federal government somehow knows better than first nations, that somehow it can intervene and fix what is happening.

If there is anything that we have learned from history, it is that such an attitude will not get us anywhere, that it will further marginalize and disempower first nations. That is something I hope would cause some real concern among government members and would cause them to think twice about what they are doing on bill after bill.

Many government members, as was evident in the debate around Bill S-2, represent first nations. What are they hearing from their members? There are repeated messages of repealing the Indian Act and putting an end to the kind of oppression that has been imposed by a history of federal governments, by the Crown, but this is not the answer.

First nations must be at the centre of the future that they carve out for their communities. First nations must be at the forefront. The issues of governance and elections are fundamental to first nations' capacity to determine their own future. Instead of imposing legislation, the Conservative government ought to sit down with first nations and make changes that reflect their needs and their voices.

Unfortunately, we have not seen that kind of attitude from the federal government. Instead we see a continued attack against first nations in bill after bill. These bills fly in the face of respecting first nations' treaty and aboriginal rights and they fly in the face of the UN declaration on indigenous peoples. They disregard the serious concerns that first nations are bringing forward as they demand that the federal government step up and take leadership.

On the issue of elections, I have heard a lot of concern from first nations that they simply do not have the capacity to put forward the kind of governance plan that they would like. That lack of capacity is fundamentally tied to the lack of funding and the cutbacks that we have seen by the federal government, building on cuts by previous Liberal governments when they froze funding to first nations at 2%. Now we are seeing cuts to advocacy organizations that also are involved with service delivery in education, training, housing and health.

First nations have always extended a hand out. They want to work with the government. They want to make change in their communities. We in the NDP are proud to stand with them in opposition to Bill S-6. We call on the government to change course and truly begin a new relationship with first nations people in this country.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Churchill for her comments. Churchill is certainly a beautiful part of the world. I have had good fortune to work in the mining industry in that riding along with many first nation individuals.

I am disappointed, though, in the tone of the remarks and the accusations made that are not based in fact. In fact, this government is comprised of many people of aboriginal background. They are helping in cabinet and in committees, all voting in favour of the improvement we are talking about today. There is a perception and reality that many first nations, not all but many, are male-dominated and that there is a problem with the election system. We are trying to at least improve that.

If we look at our bill on matrimonial rights to give moms and children the same rights as every other Canadian, the NDP voted against it and used the same kind of rhetoric on that bill. The NDP is ideologically opposed to any kind of change. It is for the status quo. We are trying to empower first nations.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for his compliments on the beauty of my constituency and northern Manitoba. It is indeed true.

However, I will respectfully disagree with the rest of his comments. I find that the status quo, if that is what we are talking about, is a colonial paternalistic approach that the government has taken on bill after bill. I had the chance to speak, along with first nations, against Bill S-2 on matrimonial property rights. We are hearing some of same themes here. First nations are not being heard and their concerns are not being taken into consideration, and the government continues to impose this bill. That is the status quo that first nations have seen from the Conservative government and the Liberal government before that, for far too long.

If anything, there is a chance now for the government to listen to first nations, to step up. There is a chance to take the leadership that is required to work with first nations and make real changes when it comes to repealing the oppressive nature of the Indian Act. They can truly work with first nations who want to make a difference for their communities and want to build a better future. That is what New Democrats are calling for.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill is bang on. Her comments certainly reflected all of the testimony that was given at the Senate level on this bill, and certainly reflect the input I am getting from Alberta first nations.

I spoke just a half an hour ago with representatives from the Treaty 8 First Nations, and they are 100% against this bill. They are particularly concerned with the provisions of paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c). All those provisions do is to repeat what is already in the Indian Act and make it clear where the minister of the Crown can interfere with the self-realization and determination by first nations.

The government says it consulted, but it does not seem to understand the constitutional obligation, which is to consult, consider and accommodate. Clearly in this situation it did reach out to Treaty 8 First Nations, but it has refused to listen to their views, which were simply to provide the capacity-building for the customary elections. They would like to have assistance in adding appeal procedures in their customary procedures. The majority of Treaty 8 first nations go by customary procedures. They would welcome some assistance in building capacity so they can have fair and open elections run by first nations.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the words from the member on behalf of the Treaty 8 First Nations and first nations from Alberta are critical to this debate.

We have a recurrent theme here. There are first nations from across the country that are opposing bills that the government is putting forward by raising specific concerns, and still the government is unwilling to listen to first nations. If the government wanted to make a difference, it would listen to first nations when it comes to the need to invest in capacity-building. It would respect first nations who see the customary band election system as appropriate for them, and it would respect the fundamental notion that first nations know best what they need for their own people.

The current government's approach has been to do what first nations have come to expect from federal governments. Unfortunately, in the last few months we have seen a great zeal from the government for imposing legislation on first nations, to silence their voices, to stop debate from happening so their voices could not be heard. We risk having legislation that would further marginalize first nations, further disempower them, and that would break down the kind of enthusiasm and interest that first nations have to make a difference for their communities, for their regions, and fundamentally for our country.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak, the proposal does not fulfill the recommendations of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. It appears to be an attempt by the minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control over first nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code.

Does the member for Churchill not agree that this bill sidesteps a true democratic process by imposing a statutory framework that will violate the rights of first nations?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for her question.

I absolutely agree with her point, which was raised by the grand chief of the Manitoba first nations. This approach really reflects a colonialist attitude in that it seeks to silence first nations, rather than listen to them. First nations came before the Senate to express their objections and the reasons for their opposition. Their representations involved key points in the bill. Despite this, the government decided to go ahead without listening to these first nations or making any amendments.

This kind of attitude and this bill, if passed, would further marginalize first nations across Canada who want to make changes and turn their communities around. Unfortunately, these efforts are being blocked by the federal government.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill is suggesting that the NDP is opposing this bill because of legislation that would provide a minister with the power to bring first nations into the first nations elections act in the event of a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of the first nation after reasonable efforts have been made to reach a community-based solution.

These are very rare and extenuating circumstances. In fact, it has only been used once since our government came into power in 2006, and two times before that under the previous Liberal government.

The fact is that the minister has the power to bring first nations under the Indian Act in such a protracted situation. However, this is exactly what we are trying to move away from. The legislation would provide the minister with the necessary power to order a new election under Bill S-6.

The NDP is saying, “No. Let's give them the option to be brought under the Indian Act”. To me this is paternalistic on the part of the NDP.

Why would the member not want first nations to have the same options in these serious and extenuating circumstances?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member across the way to read the submissions made by first nations leaders from across Canada, when this bill was before committee, and to consider the very serious concerns they brought forward with regard to the very issue the member raised.

We in the NDP believe that Bill S-6 does not, and must have, in any effort to work with first nations to make sure that their elections are more fair, provisions for internal appeal mechanisms. We are very concerned that first nations would be forced to go through the court system to be able to appeal any sort of irregularities or issues that may have come up in elections.

The Conservative government will know very well, as a result of many of its members' election woes, how long it takes to deal with election irregularities that have come up. In terms of expenses and practices, whether it is robocalls or election expenditures, the reality is we do not want first nations to have to go through those kinds of systems when inclusion for an internal appeal mechanism could be easily done.

First nations have raised this. The government, unfortunately, continues to ignore this very serious demand. We believe that the bill, which refuses to heed the concerns raised by first nations, will further marginalize and further oppress first nations people in Canada. We cannot stand for that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

When we come to this place as elected officials, we come with a background in whatever fields we have been working in throughout our careers. We come with the experience of the people we have worked with. When we arrive here, it really strikes us how great the depth of experience is in things that we have not been exposed to at certain levels in our previous life experiences.

The reason I am giving this preamble is that one of the things in which I have a keen interest is first nations relations in this country. It is something that a lot of Canadians should pay attention to and should look at, because first nations communities play a vital role in our country in so many ways. They have issues that we as legislators need to look at very carefully and with a great degree of cultural sensitivity.

For the last couple of months I have been serving on the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women with some of my colleagues who are here in the House today. I wanted to speak to this bill, and I will speak to its contents in a minute, because of something that we started looking at in testimony last night. Women leadership in first nations communities is something that is so vitally important to a wide variety of issues. The concept of leadership in first nations communities, as I am slowly learning, takes on so many different meanings and forms.

One of the things that has to be acknowledged is that, as legislators, we should be striving to do as much as we can to empower first nations women to seek elected office within their communities. Where there are barriers that we can seek to remove, we should be trying to do that. When we talk to members of various organizations, such as first nations advocacy groups and others, they will acknowledge that women play a special role in seeking healing and solutions to problems that may be issues to first nations communities, including violence.

What has really struck me is that during my journey as a woman who has sought elected office in the federal Parliament, when we try to encourage a woman to run for office, one of the first things she will say is that it seems that the rules are not clear, or that there is a different set of rules for some people, and that she just does not have time for that. Whenever there is a perception that the rules are not clear or the rules are not right, that actually discourages women from seeking office.

This is something I am personally very passionate about and it is within this particular context that I want to speak to this bill. I believe that this bill would substantially improve the current state of affairs for first nations elections in this country by clarifying the rules and making them more sensitive to the needs of first nations communities. From what I have seen in reviewing the Senate proceedings and the Senate committee testimony, there has been a great degree of consultation with first nations communities on this particular piece of legislation.

I believe that the last time these provisions were reviewed was in the 1950s. It is now 2013.

I am supportive of this bill because it would modernize first nations electoral systems. For those first nations that wish to opt in, it would bring them in line with every other electoral system in Canada at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.

The bill was developed in direct response to calls from first nations community leaders and grassroots members who were seeking for a more rigorous and accountable election system on reserves. These first nations individuals have been openly critical of the antiquated and paternalistic election system that currently exists under the Elections Act. They have asked for improved electoral systems that address the weaknesses of the one currently dictated by the Indian Act.

This issue was first brought to our collective attention by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. It was these two groups that took the lead in finding solutions to stabilize and improve first nations governance through a stronger and more modern election system.

With the support of our government in 2008, they began researching the issue of band council elections. After identifying flaws in the current system under the Indian Act, they discussed their findings with first nations leaders, governance technicians and community members in their respective regions.

Between January and March 2010, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs held information and engagement sessions with over 30 of the province's 37 first nations that hold their elections under the Indian Act election system. Over the same period, the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs solicited public input on election reforms through social media and articles in the Mi'kmaq-Maliseet Nations News, as well as through focus groups with subject matter experts.

The APC and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs then provided their recommendations to the department, and these recommendations were collated and consolidated into a discussion paper entitled “Improving the System for First Nations Elections”, which was jointly developed with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs.

At the request of the former minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the two organizations conducted a national engagement process on these recommendations. Every effort was made to seek the input of community members across Canada to ensure that the final recommendations would capture the concerns of first nations citizens.

Both groups posted the discussion paper and other background materials on their websites and invited people to submit their comments or any further ideas for improvement. In addition, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs wrote to the first nations councils that hold their elections under the Indian Act to provide them with the discussion paper and to encourage them to hold discussions in their communities and provide feedback.

Leaders of the two organizations also made their presentations about the recommendations to first nations organizations across the country. Based on the feedback obtained through these various processes, the list of possible reforms was affirmed and presented to the minister. At this point, after the consultation, the drafting of Bill S-6 began.

In addition to this, in 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples studied the limitations of the Indian Act election system. The committee held approximately 20 hearings in Ottawa, Manitoba and British Columbia. First nations leaders, including heads of national and provincial organizations, tribal council representatives, band managers and community members made representations and answered questions. From this testimony, the Senate committee concluded that election reform was needed. One of the recommendations in its final report was that the government work with first nations to guide legislative development in the area of elections.

First nations members have been clear. They want assurance that their leaders can be held to account through modern governance structures that reflect and respond to their needs and priorities. Bill S-6 is designed to address many of these long-standing electoral problems.

Our government is committed to ensuring that first nations have strong, accountable and transparent governments, because we all know that a strong election system that is open and transparent provides the foundation first nations require to attract investment, develop economic activities and set goals that will improve the quality of life for residents in these communities.

As a response to these recommendations provided by first nations leaders and the input of people at the local level, this proposed legislation would provide a new option for communities looking for an alternative to the Indian Act election system.

The bill would allow four-year terms. This change in term length would allow for stability within first nations communities to ensure economic growth, prosperity and stability within the election system into the future.

The bill would also create a more robust process for the nomination of candidates. It would also remove the possibility of the same individual being elected to the position of both chief and councillor.

The proposed legislation proposes penalties for offences such as obstructing the electoral process or engaging in corrupt or fraudulent actions in relation to an election, and it would give regulation-making powers with respect to mail-in ballots and advance polls.

With Bill S-6, first nation voters would have available to them an election system with the same standards and protections other Canadian voters have. The bill would also provide the option of a common election day, something some first nations have indicated they want. The proposed legislation would allow first nations governments, at their request, to hold office concurrently and have their elections on the same day. This could be very advantageous to joint undertakings involving first nations in a given region.

Particularly important, and in response to what many first nation members had to say during this process, the bill would remove the minister's role in elections. Elections appeals would be addressed by the courts, just as they are for federal, provincial and municipal elections in other jurisdictions. Having access to the court system is something that is actually positive. My colleague opposite argued that this is somehow disadvantageous to first nations communities.

While we want to make sure that any such matters are handled expeditiously, I would argue that perhaps removing this power from the minister and putting it into the court system is something that would be less paternalistic and would actually move first nations communities into alignment with other jurisdictions in this country, which have similar rights.

Bill S-6 is designed to empower first nations members, putting decision-making power into the hands of the people. It would uphold their democratic right to choose the political leadership they need and want.

I encourage my colleague opposite and colleagues in this House to review the testimony made to the Senate committee as well as some of the recommendations put forward in the documents I have referenced in my speech. There are several technical amendments this bill would provide that would make the election laws more clear, more accessible and more stable.

Going back to the start of my speech, this is positive not only for first nations communities in general. If we seek to empower first nations women to seek office, this clarity in the rules would also certainly help them in the future.

I hope everyone in the House will give this bill a good look and support it for its many merits, which are reflective of the consultation process our government undertook to develop it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. parliamentary secretary will have eight minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to add my voice in support of this very worthy legislation, which would see the federal government stop meddling in first nations' electoral affairs, which rightly rest with those communities.

As some of my hon. colleagues have explained, current provisions in the Indian Act have created a democratic anomaly within Canada. Instead of empowering first nations community members to exercise their democratic rights and hold their own governments to account, the Indian Act places the responsibility in the hands of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This is completely backwards. That is why our government has introduced the first nations elections act. It would provide an alternative to the paternalistic Indian Act and would put the accountability squarely back with first nations members where it belongs.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development plays a disproportionately large role in first nations elections, one that he would gladly give up.

Sections 74 and 79 of the Indian Act set out the rules and regulations governing the current electoral system. Under section 74, the minister may declare by order that a first nation hold elections under the act and the Indian Band Election Regulations. Since 1951, approximately 350 first nations in Canada have been ordered to hold their elections under this system. Over time, 100 first nations have been removed from the system and now hold their elections under the community elections system instead.

All first nations that hold their elections under the Indian Act are subject to the same rules and eligibility requirements. The Indian Act sets out the size of a band council based on a first nation's population, generally called “the one per 100 rule”. It stipulates that a band council shall be made up of a chief and one councillor for every 100 members a first nation has. Although the act allows a first nation to reduce this complement of councillors, any such change requires the approval of a minister.

A typical election under the Indian Act includes the appointment of an electoral officer charged with managing the overall election process and all related activities. This appointment must be approved by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada provides training support to electoral officers throughout the election to ensure compliance with the election rules under the Indian Act. Once elected, the chief and councillors hold office for two-year terms.

One of the most serious complaints about the Indian Act system arises when election results are disputed and a lengthy appeals process begins. At the moment, election appeals are received, reviewed, and, if necessary, investigated and decided upon by the department and the minister. The minister has the authority to remove elected officials and to recommend the setting aside of elections. Most appeals relate to election results. The minister can declare that a specific elected official was guilty of corrupt practices in connection with an election. Such a declaration causes the council position to become vacant. The minister may also declare any individuals removed from the office to be ineligible to be candidates for up to six years.

If it is determined that corrupt practices took place or that there was a violation of the Indian Act or the regulations that might have affected the results of the election, the minister reports to the Governor in Council. Only the Governor in Council has the power to set aside an election. If the election of a band council is set aside in its entirety, another election is held under the accelerated process.

It is no secret that first nations are critical of the electoral process under the Indian Act. They complain, with justification, that it sets out an electoral regime that is antiquated and paternalistic. That is not surprising when we consider that the minister even has the power to remove someone for missing band council meetings.

First nations members believe that the minister and his department are far too involved in elections on reserves, especially in handling appeals. The framework for an election appeal under the legislation is one of the most criticized components of the election system. In this day and age, approving changes to the number of councillor positions on a band council, approving a first nation's choices of electoral officer, investigating election appeals, removing elected officials for whatever reason and banning them from running in future elections, and setting aside elections in their entirety are simply roles the government and the minister should not be playing.

I cannot stress enough how paternalistic this is and how it goes completely against the view that first nations band councils are governments and should be treated as such.

Our government agrees entirely that first nations have good grounds for these criticisms. We understand that they want a better alternative. Members on both sides of the House believe that sticking with the status quo makes no sense and is just plain wrong. This simply will not wash with the growing number of first nations that are fed up and frustrated with the current system.

It is long past time for us to fix these structural flaws and it is time to implement the many recommendations brought forward by first nations, which form the foundation of this proposed legislation. They, and we, want to bring the system into line with the way other jurisdictions work.

This modernization is consistent with other first nations legislation, from first nations lands management and financial management to local by-laws. Doing so would strip away some of the electoral system powers that rest with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, a situation that is simply unacceptable in the 21st century.

First nations electors wishing to challenge the results of their election based on violations to the rules and alleged corruption practices would no longer appeal to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Neither would the minister be involved in removing a chief or councillors from office before the end of their term. Instead, election appeals would be addressed by the courts, just as they are in elections in all other jurisdictions.

The courts already offer an independent and transparent appeal mechanism open to public scrutiny. They already have the power to determine wrongdoing in federal, provincial and municipal elections, so they are well positioned to address issues in first nations elections.

As an added benefit, this approach would discourage frivolous complaints, which are prominent under the Indian Act election system. Such complaints create uncertainty over the band council's legitimacy, hurting the community's day-to-day business activities and discouraging economic development, often for a long period of time. An appeal can take anywhere from six to 18 months to be resolved, and in the end little may change.

About 30% of all band council elections under the Indian Act are appealed, which amounts to about 40 elections per year. Of these, usually no more than five appeals result in an election being overturned. Given that applications to the courts require that grounds be clearly presented and supported, it is likely that fewer frivolous appeals would be launched.

We would be hard pressed to find anyone who believes that the minister must continue to hold the powers he does vis-à-vis first nations elections. We certainly would not find first nation leaders saying this, and I doubt Canadians at large would take this position either.

Bill S-6 is what first nations have been asking for. It is what their members want and need. First nations recognize that a sound, open, transparent election process in an important part of a strong, stable and effective first nations governments, effective governments that respect their citizens' democratic right to be informed and to be heard, governments that respond to the priorities of their residents.

Equally essential is that with stable and legitimate first nations governments in place, first nations, businesses and municipal and provincial governments can pursue mutually beneficial projects. First nations would be able to use the income flowing from these investments to build their economies and improve the lives and livelihoods of their members. That is something that people living in first nations most definitely want.

It is now up to parliamentarians to unleash this tremendous potential by passing this worthy legislation. As we do, we will build a better future not only for first nations, but for all Canadians.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member's speech and it was interesting to hear him talk about sound, open and transparent election processes. Although this is not my question to the member, it would be interesting to see when the government is going to bring forward its changes to the Canada Elections Act, since there were such difficulties in the last federal election.

My question to the minister is with regard to the testimony of representatives of the national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association before the Senate. When they testified before the Senate, they indicated that it was unfortunate that clause 33 states that everything will go to the Federal Court. They said that there are many recommendations for either a first nations electoral commission or a first nations tribunal to settle any election disputes and that the federal government and all provinces already have this as a regular part of democracy. They questioned why, if it is good enough for the feds and the provinces, it is not good enough for first nations.

I wonder if the member could comment on why there was not a similar kind of process recommended in the bill, instead of only a court process.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, having lived and worked in first nations communities and witnessed first nations elections, what I have seen throughout the process, specifically under the outdated Indian Act, which goes back to 1876, is that there is a lot of corruption. I have seen first nations chiefs, past and present, campaign during their elections and provide funding or, if I could put it more bluntly, bribes of $50 to $100. There has to be some mechanism that looks at that problem.

That is why the framework for election appeals under the Indian Act is one of the most criticized components of that election system, particularly because it involves a paternalistic role for the minister in making decisions to remove elected officials and recommending the setting aside of elections.

One of the key criticisms of this process is simply that the minister should not play a role. In addressing appeals under Bill S-6, the creation of an independent first nations electoral appeals commission was reviewed, and there are a number of reasons that the commission was not deemed the appropriate strategy. One is that this option would require a significant amount of resources, which would be difficult to justify for an optional legislative framework. Second, the role such a commission would play in electoral appeals is questionable, particularly given that the offences and penalties provisions of Bill S-6 would be responded to and addressed by law enforcement, crown attorneys and the courts. That is what first nations are asking for: the same privileges that every other Canadian has provincially and municipally.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would the member please outline the more important aspects of the opt-in and opt-out provisions?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, under the Indian Act electoral system, election appeals are received and reviewed by departmental officials based on evidence gathered. If it is determined that there was a corrupt practice in connection with an election or that there was a violation of the rules that might have affected the results of the election, the minister may recommend that the Governor in Council set aside the election. In the event of a finding of a corrupt practice, the minister may also remove elected officials and prevent them from being candidates in future elections for a period of up to five years.

I have seen this countless times. I am hearing from my constituents on first nations reserves, and currently from Ahtahkakoop First Nation, that they are having problems under the old Indian Act in trying to address this current election process. That is why Bill S-6 is pivotal in trying to reform elections for first nations under the current Indian Act.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his previous answer to my question. What I heard him say was that it was too expensive to set up an electoral commission for first nations, but he said nothing about whether resources would be made available to first nations that then end up having to go to court to get this resolved. We all know that most first nations are cash-strapped.

I wonder if he could comment on the fact that this is going to be an expensive undertaking for first nations and that the Conservatives are downloading this on first nations once again.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, under the current system and the current Indian Act, we see how first nations have to appeal the process. There are numerous funding mechanisms being utilized to address those corrupt or misleading elections.

We have heard from the Manitoba first nations about how they want the system to be. They have gone across Manitoba. Chief Evans has been paramount in trying to address all elections that first nations face across Canada. For one thing, if a mechanism is in place, there would be fewer corrupt practices or fewer first nations appealing the current election system. That is where money will be saved, because under Bill S-6, for first nations to participate and opt in, there will be cost savings.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world, there would be no need for debate on this bill. The outdated and paternalistic elements of the Indian Act governing first nations elections would no longer have any effect, because first nations would be universally self-governing. That is the goal we are all working toward.

Unfortunately, however, this is not yet the case for the majority of first nations across the country. Some communities on their way to self-government have employed different strategies, such as adopting community election codes that help them get around holding their elections under the Indian Act, but not every community has the capacity to take that on either. Others have chosen to focus their energies and resources on the many other high-priority issues that they face.

We want to meet first nations like these halfway, by providing an alternative to the current Indian Act election system. It is an out-of-date system that has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s. It is riddled with weaknesses and problems that destabilize first nations governments. It is a system that is not only frustrating but also, in many cases, undemocratic.

It is little wonder that so many first nations have demanded another option in addition to the systems currently on offer. That is exactly what Bill S-6 would provide. It would provide another way for first nations to hold elections that is outside of the outdated election system set out in the Indian Act.

Before exploring the many benefits of this legislation, it would be helpful if I first explained a little bit about the various electoral systems currently available to first nations.

Different communities exercise different approaches to elections. At the moment, 238 first nations hold their elections under the Indian Act system. This represents about 40% of all communities. The many problems, and even abuses, under this system have been well documented in numerous reports and reinforced by various speakers during this debate.

The majority, 343 first nations, or 55% of the total across Canada, select their leadership under a community-based system. Most of these first nations develop their own community election codes to elect their leaders. For many, this system offers the essential elements of good governance: open and transparent elections and effective mechanisms for redress when necessary.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case. A small percentage of first nations with community election codes experience recurring disputes, some of which have led to breakdowns in governance, the imposition of third party management and lengthy and costly court actions between community members.

These disputes are usually based on a lack of community consensus on the actual election rules and procedures, exacerbated by the absence of a viable redress mechanism. There have been occasions when two separate election processes have been held in parallel in the same community, with those elected in each case claiming to be the legitimate and duly elected leaders. Needless to say, all of this negatively impacts community well-being and discourages economic development.

The remaining 36 first nations, or about 5%, have leadership election systems based on their community constitutions under self-government arrangements. As I mentioned earlier, this is the ultimate goal to which most first nations aspire.

As I also noted, many communities still caught with the Indian Act system may not be ready to take on self-government or even go so far as to develop community election codes. However, that does not diminish their desire to have an alternative: a fairer, more transparent and more accountable way of conducting elections on reserve.

I want to be clear that I am not talking about every first nation in the country. There is no question that there are some that seem satisfied with the status quo, while others may accept nothing less than self-government. I can assure the House that Bill S-6 would provide a robust election system for those who may choose it.

John Paul, executive director of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, testified on these issues before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

This legislation is precisely what many communities want. People in first nations communities all across the country have told us that they want change that leads to self-government, but they want it to be built on a solid foundation. They want certainty and stability, which they do not now have.

What many of these first nations are looking for is what Jody Wilson-Raybould of the Assembly of First Nations described in her appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples when it examined Bill S-6. She said, “...“stepping stone” legislation, such as Bill S-6...fits into and supports a vision of moving along the continuum of governance....” That is who this legislation is for. At their request, our government has been working in collaboration with first nations partners to develop an optional legislative framework for the election of band councils that covers this middle ground.

We have followed the lead of our first nations partners, the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. They have done the necessary research and conducted consultations in their own regions as well as across the country to come up with the viable new option outlined in Bill S-6. Bill S-6 would provide an optional electoral system that would ensure transparent and accountable governments, while providing first nations with the flexibility to choose the elections system that best suits them.

Our government simply wants to create the conditions for strong, stable and effective first nations governments that are transparent and accountable to their membership. A free and fair leadership selection process promotes accountability of leaders back to their band members rather than to the Government of Canada. It is a cornerstone of greater self-government and better outcomes. Bill S-6 is a concrete step forward in that direction. It is not meant to be a one-size-fits-all remedy for all that is wrong in the existing election system under the Indian Act.

The legislation would help those first nations that choose to opt in to overcome the numerous limitations of the Indian Act election system. It is designed to address the several weaknesses identified in the AFN study on election reform in 2008, the Senate committee's 2009 study and the thorough work of the APC and the AMC, problems that are holding back too many first nations communities at a great cost to their economies and to the well-being of their citizens.

Ideally, we would do away with the outdated Indian Act altogether. However, it cannot be replaced overnight. That would only create more problems than it solves. As the Prime Minister observed at the historic gathering, after 136 years that tree has deep roots. Blowing up the stump would just leave a big hole. We certainly do not want to do more harm than good.

The alternative is to modernize the most damaging provisions of the Indian Act. This could be achieved not by updating the Indian Act itself but by equipping first nations with new tools and mechanisms to manage their affairs. That is how we could creation conditions that enable sustainable and successful first nations. As they build capacity and create the certainty necessary for investments they can unlock the untapped wealth on their lands, creating employment and improving social services for their citizens.

That is exactly what our government has been doing. We are taking important incremental steps forward to achieve the results first nations desire and that our government is determined to deliver. For example, we support Bill C-428, the Indian Act amendment and replacement act. It proposes a series of modifications to the Indian Act, some of which eliminate paternalistic sections such as those dealing with residential schools and bylaws. Other parts of the bill propose amendments that help contribute to healthier, more self-sufficient first nations communities. They dovetail with aspects of Bill S-6, which reduce ministerial involvement in community businesses. Bill C-428 would provide greater accountability and responsibility of first nations governments to their members and improve their capacity to meet the needs of their communities. This would be achieved by diminishing the role played by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in the day-to-day lives of first nations.

The numerous proposed amendments to the Indian Act contained in Bill C-428 are our government's larger objective of providing first nations with the tools, resources and authorities they need to eventually transition completely out of the Indian Act.

This same objective and philosophy are at play in the First Nations Land Management Act. Prior to the enactment of the First Nations Land Management Act, first nations were hamstrung by the cumbersome land management provisions of the Indian Act. Instead of moving at the speed of business, the Indian Act slows the system to the pace of internal approval processes within the federal government. Needless to say, this often stands in the way of time-sensitive economic opportunities. Both first nations and their private sector partners complained loudly about the challenges of delayed decision-making.

The first nations land management regime enables first nations to opt out of the land resource and environmental management sections of the Indian Act. It removes many of the impediments of the outdated Indian Act, allowing for the creation of greater economic development opportunities and allowing communities to seize business development opportunities.

The legislation gives first nations that opt into the program the freedom to manage reserve lands under their own land codes. They can also negotiate contracts and enter into joint ventures with other communities, governments and with the private sector without ministerial approval.

Chief Ann Louie of the Williams Lake Indian Band in B.C., one of the first nations that opted in to the First Nations Land Management Act, is on record as saying, “It represents almost freedom, getting into self-governance away from the Indian Act so that we can manage our own lands so that our people can become prosperous and develop economically.” Her enthusiasm is backed by studies of the regime by KPMG. It has concluded that in addition to increased job creation on reserves in communities that utilize it, the First Nations Land Management Act option is proving to be a practical step toward self-government.

The First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act is another example of legislation that diminishes the minister's role for communities seeking greater control over their financial affairs. The legislation provides an alternative avenue to the Indian Act for first nations determined to achieve self-sufficiency. It allows first nations to develop a sophisticated, transparent and responsive property tax system on reserve. It also creates a securitized first nations bond regime that gives them access to municipal-style financing to invest in infrastructure on reserve. And it supports first nations' capacity in financial management, all of which support economic development.

Communities that choose to utilize its provisions can draw on the services and supports of the first nations institutions created under the act. As they do, outside investors can proceed with confidence and first nations can negotiate from positions of strength because the act provides the type of certainty that is lacking under the Indian Act.

The improvements contained in the acts I have talked about today have come about at the request of first nations that want greater control over their communities' day-to-day activities. We have been listening, and we are acting.

Bill S-6 is yet another piece to join the family of legislation to support first nations by offering a legislative alternative to first nations elections that would not involve the minister. It would provide the foundations for more stable and effective first nations governments through longer terms of office. With four years between elections, first nations governments would be able to work with potential partners for longer term development opportunities that would bring prosperity.

Bill S-6 fits with what other legislative initiatives have done, which is to provide alternatives to the Indian Act for willing first nations on important subject matters. These acts lay the groundwork and provide the frameworks for first nations to be successful, and successful first nations means a better quality of life for their members.

Bill S-6 is opt-in legislation. First nations could choose to adopt it or not to adopt it as they see fit.

From Bill S-6 to Bill C-428, these examples of modern legislation that empower first nations send a strong signal. We are focusing the federal role to that of an enabler rather than that of an impediment to progress. Our government is committed to putting an end to the historic isolation of first nation communities that has marginalized these members of our society for far too long.

Step-by-step, bill-by-bill, we are responding to first nations calls for greater decision-making powers and less ministerial involvement. In the process, we are creating the conditions for strong, effective and accountable governments for first nation communities. We are providing first nations with the tools they need to become more self-sufficient as they work their way toward self-government.

It is now up to us, as parliamentarians, to take the next step forward on this path of steady progress. We must support first nations, which are demanding change. We are calling for all-party support to unleash the tremendous potential of Bill S-6, the latest in a series of legislative reforms that remove the shackles of the Indian Act for those first nations that opt to take advantage of its new authorities.

I am asking all members to join us in our efforts to help first nation communities achieve their goals, for the benefit of their residents and our country as a whole.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, but I have some concerns. It was very clear from my discussions and my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan's interventions with first nations people that not every community acknowledges or buys into what the Conservatives are putting forward. There are legitimate concerns.

I am wondering if the member could advise the House as to what degree the government is willing to acknowledge those concerns and sit down with first nations to resolve issues that affect communities across this country.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has missed a very key component of this legislation, and that is the fact that this is an opt-in system. It is an opportunity for those first nations that choose to participate in this alternative method. As I outlined in my speech, there are a number of different ways.

Certainly there are about 40% of bands that participate under the current Indian Act process. There are a larger number of reserves which have community election codes. However, this is an opportunity for those first nations that wish to have another alternative. It removes the minister from the appeals process. It gives an opportunity for those willing first nations that want to opt into this type of a process with an opportunity to do just that.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across has spoken about the need to incrementally wean ourselves from the Indian Act. I am in favour of getting rid of the Indian Act now, biting the bullet and making all the necessary changes that we need to do. Why is there this incremental approach? Why is it going to be stretched over possibly decades, as opposed to attacking this situation which is unacceptable now and going much further than what is being proposed?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question, I should point to something I mentioned in my speech. It was a quote from the Prime Minister, who basically said that we cannot take the tree, remove it and blow up the stump because it would leave a big hole. We are moving in steps and creating opportunities and options for first nations governments that choose to do so. Whether it would be looking at new opportunities for economic development creation on reserves through changes to the land management reserves, or whether they would be able to opt into another alternative for elections processes, we would get to where we need to be in an orderly and coherent fashion. I believe that is the approach we need to take.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the methods that can be used to determine whether or not a band wants to opt in is a referendum.

Would the member please explain to this House what possible drawbacks there might be to that method?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, any time that citizens have an opportunity to make their own choices about their government, obviously that is always something we want to see. I believe that opportunity would be welcomed by first nations members all across this country.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although we certainly support the four-year election term under this legislation, there are a number of other parts of the legislation that are ill-defined. We have to look to other instances where people cannot trust what is in legislation. I look to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its ongoing dispute with the government over relevant documents.

In this piece of legislation, clause 41 sets out the regulation process. This regulation process is important because it covers the appointment, powers, duties and removal of electoral officers and deputy electoral officers, the manner of identifying electors of a participating first nations and so on. There are a number of very important clauses that regulations would define.

Nowhere in this piece of legislation is the process outlined by which first nations will be included in the development of regulations. At least in Bill S-8, the clean drinking water bill, in the preamble it said “working with first nations”. However, it does not say that anywhere in this act.

I wonder if the member could address specifically how first nations would be included in the development of regulations.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will once again remind the NDP member that this is an opt-in process for those bands which choose to do so.

I was glad to hear the hon. member mention in her comments that the NDP support the idea of the four-year terms. The instability created by short two-year terms of office can be problematic for first nations communities.

I wonder if the NDP also supports some of the other things that the bill would fix. With regard to the lack of rigour in the process to nominate candidates, often frivolous nominations are invited, making for excessively long slates of candidates. There have sometimes been over 100 candidates for positions. Does the NDP support the removal of the paternalistic elections appeals process that involves the department and affords decision-making powers to the minister?

The system now is vulnerable to abuse and to fraudulent activities because of the absence of defined offences and associated penalties that act as a deterrent. I would certainly hope that the NDP is supportive of those measures in the bill—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a few things that have come up that I think are key are the willingness to opt in and the incremental versus do-it-all-now approach.

I would ask my colleague about the power of the example that might be set by willing and progressive first nations to those who are not quite so enthusiastic or perhaps not so progressive. Such an example could speed up the process that may start as incremental. It might pick up speed if there were good examples presented by those who are willing and progressive enough to adopt this program.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question and it hits on a very key aspect. Certainly with regard to this incremental approach we are doing as far as working toward changes that would help improve conditions and create new opportunities for those in first nations communities, I would look at things like the changes to land management. There is a number of first nations communities which are very excited about the potential economic developments that could occur there. It would mean jobs for members in first nations communities, which would mean improvements. When we look at some of the more progressive first nations that have taken some of these opportunities and worked toward economic development initiatives, there are some great success stories.

The member is right in saying that those kinds of opportunities, when they are taken, and the examples of the success stories that are out there, would incite and encourage other first nations to follow in those footsteps. I believe that is where the opportunities would be for improvements of the lives of those in first nations communities.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the Conservatives feel about some of the alleged legal difficulties of one of their former candidates when they are talking about selection of candidates.

The former chief of Lac La Ronge Indian Band, Tammy Cook-Searson, raised some concerns with regard to the process of first nations being forced into courts whenever there is a dispute around the electoral process. I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that this act does not specifically allow for either an independent tribunal or an electoral commission, similar to what federal and provincial governments have in place.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what this in fact does is to take the paternalistic parts of an election appeal out of the process.

It takes those decision-making powers away from the minister and the Governor in Council. Those changes are a very key aspect of the bill. I would remind the member of that, and certainly hope there is support from that side on the issue as well.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West.

We are looking at the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain first nations, with emphasis on the word “certain”. I will be speaking to my own reality at the 52nd parallel and that of the five Innu and Naskapi communities in my riding.

A debate on the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain first nations is an appropriate time for sharing realities that Canadians still know nothing about. I should say that it was honourable of the government to include the notion of corrupt practice in connection with elections when drafting this bill. It gives us an opportunity to discuss the notions of influence peddling, lobbying, conflict of interest and financial wrongdoing. I will therefore be making reference to those notions.

Over the past two years of my current term, I have shared with Canadians some realities that are far too often ignored. The truth is that the national media and the media in general have an editorial policy that means that the public does not hear about certain first nations realities. One reason is that the issues are restricted to reserves, another is that there is an agenda dictating the kind of news that is reported about Indian reserves.

In my speech today, I will make Canadians aware of the financial and political wrongdoing that is found on certain reserves. More often than not, the key players involved are off the reserves and outside the clan dynamic. As always, I will speak to my own reality.

I have mentioned this many times before, but far too often, shysters lurk around Indian reserves, including all kinds of lawyers, professionals, anthropologists and all kinds of people claiming to be “first nation specialists”. This is seen most often on Indian reserves that are rich in natural resources, because resource extraction is a very lucrative business. In fact, keeping Indian reserves at a certain cultural, social and educational level allows the work to be done in obscurity and with impunity. That is why there is political interference during the election of the chief and councillors.

As a lawyer and a member of Parliament, my services have been requested many times over the past few years. People have told me about situations involving influence peddling and wrongdoing in connection with band council elections. My reputation as a whistleblower has probably reached certain isolated communities because I have had to deal with several dozen of these cases recently, including in my own community.

It seems there was some interference by mining companies during the last tribal election at home. Currently, at the 52nd parallel, "extractivist" measures are being introduced. In other words, natural resource extraction is perceived as the only driver of economic development. The mining companies and various lobbies are putting their pawns in place in the band councils. That is why some community members have gradually distanced themselves from democratic life on reserve and even nationally.

People in the communities are disillusioned, and voter turnout for democratic elections on reserves is very low. I proved that wrong when I was elected, since 4,000 Indians voted for me. Many of them had never voted before. I had to get out there. People likely felt I had integrity because of my reputation and my youth. That is why people voted for me, and I think I represent them well here.

Although the situations I have repeatedly denounced in my speeches are not generalized, I will focus on my own reality and talk about the reserves in my riding. Because I saw these issues come up in both my legal and political experience, I would like to talk about the harmful socio-political effect they can have on tribal life.

I said that first nations members have no interest in or choose not to participate in democratic measures. The Conservatives often say that they conducted a consultation and that only 15 people showed up. I have heard that a lot. Even before the Conservatives that was often the easy answer. They would say that very few Indians showed up, so why should they invest all that money to go meet 15 people?

That is the reality. Few people show up because they are disillusioned. Some people have gradually become disinterested as a result of repeated abuse over generations, wrongdoing and the lack of transparency in tribal politics. It exists in Canada too; we preach by example.

Although this bill contains some interesting measures, we also need an independent process to investigate, challenge and question the government's tribal measures. This will require investigative powers and the necessary personnel. Since reserves tend to be tough to penetrate, this will take some specialized individuals.

When I met with Indian Affairs officials to discuss this bill, they told me that, ultimately, it would be up to the RCMP to conduct investigations on the reserves and to track down those who commit abuses. Knowing full well that the RCMP is already overstretched and that this is a rather specialized field because of the closed nature of Indian reserves, it is my humble opinion that the RCMP will have to be granted supplementary funding and that some staff will have to be assigned exclusively to this matter, not only for elections on reserves, but also for economic abuses in the broader sense, because there are some.

The succession of statutory measures drafted and unilaterally introduced by this government during the current mandate shows how important it is for people to be involved in and contribute to the democratic process in this country. I am going to talk about the importance of that. In fact, citizen assertiveness, by Indians and Canadian citizens as a whole, is viewed as a barrier to economic expansion. That is why the Conservatives are currently taking every back-door measure possible to ensure that the public is ultimately not consulted. When you consult people, they have the opportunity to agree with a project or to oppose it. I am well aware that the Conservatives fear public opposition and mobilization more than anything else. That is why no effort has been put into the census to truly seek the public's opinion.

The same type of reasoning applies to aboriginal issues because aboriginal assertiveness is also perceived as a barrier to economic expansion. That is deplorable and utterly reprehensible. The true barrier to economic expansion is not citizen assertiveness, but rather a lack of transparency. If people were transparent, there would be no reluctance to consult the public.

Although the bill before us provides for the codification of offences and penalties under which charges may be laid and penalties imposed for any fraudulent activity related to elections, it is apparent from my discussions with the various stakeholders and legal experts in this matter—and there are a lot of them—that they are unclear about what entity will have investigative authority and about the actual scope of the coercive power that will then be exercised. I was briefly told that the courts could hear this matter at trial, but more user-friendly measures that are more tailored to first nations will be necessary. More user-friendly measures will be needed so that people can finally share their opinions and speak out against the abuses, particularly given the literacy problems as I understand them and see them on a daily basis in my community.

This is a major investigative task. At the risk of repeating myself, substantial funding will have to be allocated. Staff will have to be assigned exclusively to this case if we ultimately want the RCMP to investigate it.

Lastly, although the bill addresses certain aspects in a way that suggests an improvement in the first nations electoral system, it does not directly address the Indian Act. Under the proposed provisions, the minister would be able to determine the future of a band without consultation, for a change, which violates the principle of self-government.

I will now let the House absorb all that.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that speech. I know he was pointing to some challenges in first nation communities with elections. However, we know in Canada that in the last federal election there were a number of challenges for Canadians, with low voter turnout, robocalls and some MPs being under investigation for allegedly not following the Elections Canada spending rules.

With regard to first nations, this piece of legislation would only provide for courts as a remedy. There would be no provision in this piece of legislation to have an independent tribunal or a commission, like Elections Canada, for first nations.

I wonder if he would comment on the fact that for many first nations the cost would be prohibitive if they have to end up in courts to dispute elections rather than having that independent process.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I mentioned more user-friendly methods. Ultimately, our critic in this area obviously has a clearer idea than I of the form that will take.

We will really need a kind of parallel tribunal assigned exclusively to aboriginal matters, not simply election-related issues. Too often I mention the idea of puppet governments. I know perfectly well that pawns are put in power on reserves by lobbies, but also by the governments that have succeeded one another here and that always make sure they choose who they deal with. That is probably why, even though this bill addresses some essential concepts, it nevertheless transfers responsibility to the law courts.

That may be off-putting for some, particularly considering the burden of proof associated with it and all the subtleties of the legal system in this country. Some first nations members might view all this as an obstacle to the exercise of their most basic rights.

I submit all that to you.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed a pattern with the official opposition. That is that those members seem to oppose all the reforms we are trying to bring forward, from what we are talking about today to matrimonial rights for first nations women and children.

It just seems that the NDP is opposing for the sake of opposing and is not being very helpful in working with the government to come up with solutions. Perhaps the member can explain how his party's members could possibly have voted against the matrimonial rights bill, and it seems as if they are going to vote against this one too.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I gave the government credit at the outset when I mentioned that it had included fraudulent election-related activities. Coming from the government, I think that is a major step forward and I therefore congratulate it today.

The current situation is also as follows: we have to be consistent with the position expressed by many stakeholders in the field, many organizations that work with aboriginal communities. They say there is too much government interference under this particular bill. However, we have suggested potential solutions that can be introduced on third reading. There could be an amendment, and everyone would be happy; I would be pleased to support it, provided certain problems are identified and certain comments that have been made are taken into account.

The problem is that the concept of consultation is being disregarded and the government is not seeking the first nations' consent before unilaterally imposing legislation on them, which is highly reprehensible. However, the government has nevertheless made progress with this bill, and I give it credit for that; it is now on the right track. It should therefore continue on this path, and I will be here to support it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate about this issue. It is a very important one for our aboriginal and first nations peoples.

One of the first things I thought about is my good friend who passed away, Earl Scofield, who was a senator. He flew 17 missions in a turret during the Second World War and later on came back to Canada, where he contributed not only socially but politically. He was involved as a founding New Democrat and also contributed many volunteer hours across the community, as a veteran and also as a citizen in our community. I could not help but think about some of the lessons he taught me about inclusion, the importance of listening at times and at times making sure to take the advice of others. Sadly, the government has not done that.

I thought about my own community and its relationship with the aboriginal communities in actually founding this country. There was Chief Tecumseh, who assisted Sir Isaac Brock of the British forces in defeating General Hull in Michigan to ensure our country would be born. There was co-operation. At that time it led to quite a significant quote by Sir Isaac Brock. Talking about Chief Tecumseh, he said, “A more sagacious or a more gallant warrior does not, I believe, exist”. That showed the level of developed maturity and relationship of trust that was created there.

It is important to talk a bit about process and then get into the bill. It is interesting that we have the unelected, unaccountable Senate as the kick-start to the bill, none of whose members has the same type of accountability as those in the House do and as others who are elected in the country do. That is unfortunate because often when bills come through the House it allows the elected body to move the bill through the proper process and channels.

In the past in this Parliament, closure has been moved many times and committees have been moved shorter than would allow for what could be done in terms of analysis. Bill S-6 is now going through this process. That is rather unfortunate.

It was interesting as well that one of the members on the government side said the government has introduced Bill S-6 for this, and meanwhile other bills that have been passed in this chamber, such as Bill C-290, the sports betting bill, languish in the Senate. It was passed with unanimous consent in this House, as no members decided to rise during any of the process to oppose it, to force a vote. It went unanimously to the Senate and it still sits there today. It seems we have our processes backed up and backwards. It is important if the House ever wants to get back on track that we look at those issues and a more balanced approach to processing legislation.

Bill S-6 would create an election cycle longer than two years. That is something important. One of the things we heard was that, when there is a controversy or contestation of an election, a two-year turnaround time is not enough because it could take that amount of time to actually do a full-out investigation. As my colleague pointed out, with the limited resources of the RCMP and the technical nature of these types of investigations, they could take a long time and be very burdensome.

Therefore, moving to the four-year element is something we could support. It has also been something consistent with other types of democracies. For example, in recent years city councils in Ontario moved from a three-year cycle to a four-year cycle, giving extra time for governance. That is important because with the turnover that can take place and the types and intensities of campaigns, they can be quite a distraction from actually getting some of the work done that needs to be done.

I point south of the border, where some of the U.S. elections are held every two years. I know from congress and senate that some of those that are on a two-year cycle for governance are literally fundraising constantly for their campaigns. Therefore, moving to the four-year cycle is something that could provide some greater stability and some improvements, and it is something we do support.

There would also be the ability to have a common election date, giving the minister of aboriginal affairs the power to order the first nations with community-designed elections to adhere to new regimes. It would also provide for election appeals through courts rather than through the department of aboriginal affairs. There would also be penalties for breaking election rules, and penalties are important.

First nations initially supported the bill, but here is the catching point. They asked for some amendments related specifically to the opt-in and other amendments as well. They have decided they cannot universally support the bill now.

The bill is just the beginning of what needs to be changed in the Indian Act.

I want to touch on the three election methods. The first is an election according to the provisions of the Indian Act. I will get into the problems later. The second is a community-designed or custom election whereby a first nation is allowed to adopt its own rules for an election rather than follow the Indian Act provisions if it has always been recognized by the federal government as selecting leaders by custom or if it submits written codes, approved by the majority of band members, for the approval of the department. Last is according to the provisions of a self-government agreement. Therefore, three different styles of elections that can take place.

The first, which was enacted under the original Indian Act, has caused several problems over the years on a wide range of social and justice issues that I cannot even get into, given their degree. They have gone on for many years.

The Indian Act displaces first nations' traditional political cultures and political systems. It actually intervenes in some of the existing cultural systems that have been in place, thus undermining them.

The Indian Act created the two-year election cycle. As I noted, and I think it is important, a two-year election cycle is not a lot of time for members and their councils to work together to create good governing environments. Having four years would be a benefit to all.

As well, right now, the minister and the Governor in Council have a significant degree of power over a first nation's elections and governance structures, including being able to determine the size of the council. It is critical that band councils have more flexibility with regard to the size of the governance structure they want. This is done in other governing systems, whether it be the House of Commons or in municipalities in Ontario. Again, the size can be worked on by the government.

The appeals process is lengthy and lacks rigour. As well, there are a number of other issues for which the Indian Act has not been a proficient and effective way of having these types of relationships.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs is opposed to this and have asked for the opt-in process to be changed. Here I would quote Aimée Craft, chair of the national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association:

[D]ealing with the level of ministerial discretion to include First Nations in the schedule of participating First Nations, this changes the opt-in nature of the legislation. It continues minister discretion to exercise control over First Nations governance and it would result in some First Nations being subjects of the act rather than participants. In addition, the bill lacks clarity as to the standard that the minister will apply in making determinations about what constitutes a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of a First Nation.

To conclude, it is important to go back to the fact that the Conservative government has not done its due diligence on the inclusion of the aboriginal organizations and first nations that are affected by this act. We have heard from my colleague on the lack of outreach and the fact that it is very difficult to pull people out to meetings, because the trust is not there, the confidence that something will get done is not there, and the actions taken that would affect members of first nations and their families will not be in their best interests. We cannot blame that situation for the evolution that has taken place over a number of years and different circumstances.

I want to thank our critic on this issue for the very important work that has been done. The Indian Act needs extensive work. This type of half-effort is not sufficient for our partners out there who feel that they would like to have some changes. I hope the amendments called for can take place so that we can have more support and buy-in from those affected.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Windsor West for his comments. One of those comments was on the fact that the bill, like many of the other bills that impact on aboriginal issues, originated in the Senate. Of course, as the member pointed out, it is unelected and unaccountable.

One of the previous members talked about wanting this piece of legislation to ensure a sound, open and transparent process for elections in first nations communities. Of course, what we have recently seen on the Canadian electoral scene is that many Canadians feel that the last federal election, in particular, was not sound, not transparent and not accountable.

I wonder if the member could comment on the difference in accountability first nations would be held to, because they do not have access to an independent tribunal or electoral commission whereas Canadians in the federal and provincial systems do have an electoral commission. I wonder if he could talk about the difference he sees.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that with this piece of legislation, the minister and the Governor in Council would still have far too much power compared to us, who at least have the Chief Electoral Officer who can bring some public accountability to cases.

We have had a number of situations that have taken place that need to be pointed out. We had the robocalls in the last election. We had a member in the House who overspent prior to his election. He had to go back to the people, and he lost his seat. Now we have other Conservative members, in the same situation, who are in a fight with the Chief Electoral Officer.

At least there is that process we can appeal to, and at least there is that process Canadians have, under law, that will be taken up.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the NDP members seem to oppose for the sake of opposing.

There is a recognition that there are positive items in this bill. It is an opt-in situation. However, the NDP members oppose it. They oppose matrimonial rights, and if they had their druthers, they would deny rights to aboriginal women that every other woman in the country has. They always fall on the issue of process.

However, is not right right? Sometimes are things not just self-evident and we can move forward, such as having equal rights among all Canadians?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the difference is that we listened. We listened and we acted according to what we were being advised. That is the difference. There is nothing amazing about listening and then trying to find a common solution, at the end of the day. That is the difference. If we can actually find that common solution and work to get to that ground, we will have better legislation for all of us. We listened.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like him to comment on something. From what I understand, as a bill evolves, it usually improves. It should be better and enjoy increasingly broad support. Yet, it seems that even though first nations were at first quite supportive of this bill, this is no longer true of the latest version we have before us. Apparently they also suggested a number of amendments but struggled to be heard.

Are aboriginal communities now suffering the same fate as the parliamentary committees on the Hill, namely lack of attention, no consultation, and the total dismissal of any proposed amendments to improve the bill?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from my friend and colleague.

The reality is that if we look at the omnibus budget bills that have had legislation in them, they have not had proper study. I would point to the Investment Canada Act, which for the third time is being changed in a budget bill, because it has been botched so many times because it has not gone to the committee properly. It has not gone through the due diligence process.

There is common ground we could work on. That is the whole point of bringing in experts and bringing in people to help work on legislation. Even on my own private member's bills I have done that. When we brought in people on my right to repair bill, it made it better.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate and recognize the hon. member for Brampton West, I will just let him know that there are about six minutes remaining in the time allocated for debate on the motion before the House. He will be able to judge his time accordingly.

The hon. member for Brampton West.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have a full 20 minutes to talk about this exceptional piece of legislation, but I will accept the six minutes we have left here today.

This is another great bill. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, is another great piece of legislation on an issue that concerns first nations Canadians. It is another great bill, much like the bill for safe drinking water we recently passed in the House. It goes back to things such as Yale, which was recently passed by the House, and the northern jobs and growth act. We have brought forward a suite of legislation designed to assist first nations in moving forward on many fronts.

When we talk about this particular piece of legislation, the first nations elections act, it is very important to note that this is, by definition, truly a grassroots bill. Why would I say that? It is because it was actually initiated and brought forward by two groups in this country: the AMC and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. They were looking at ways to reform the election process as it exists under the Indian Act.

What does that mean? They decided that they wanted to have a broad-based and significant consultation on how we could design some electoral reforms that would assist first nations in their governance. What did they do? I can tell the House that they had extensive consultations with first nations. For example, between January and March 2010, then-grand chief Ron Evans travelled to almost every first nation in Manitoba that holds elections under the Indian Act. At the time, there were 37. He held engagement sessions with these communities to find out the kinds of things they would like to see in this legislation.

A similar format was followed by the Atlantic Policy Congress. They had the same kinds of discussions in their own region. They went from community to community and spoke to chiefs. They asked what they would like to see to reform elections for first nations that have their elections governed by the Indian Act. That is the critical thing we have to look at when we look at this particular piece of legislation. This has been driven by first nations communities themselves. By far, the vast majority of the things in this piece of legislation are things brought forward and asked for by first nations communities.

When the first set of recommendations came forward, the AMC and the APC were asked to partner on a national engagement effort to present their recommendations to first nations across the country. Then-grand chief Ron Evans met with first nations organizations in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. He also wrote to every chief and council in Canada elected under the Indian Act. When we talk about the kind of input and consultation that took place with respect to this particular piece of legislation, we can see that this is an enormous amount of consultation.

The other thing that is important when we talk about this particular piece of legislation is that it is opt-in legislation. The difference between that and another piece of legislation is that first nations communities can choose if they want to opt in to this particular piece of legislation. When we combine the fact that it is opt-in legislation with the fact that there was extensive consultation with first nations communities, I can say that this is an exceptional piece of legislation that is going to do a lot of good for first nations communities.

Of course, one of the things they looked at in the legislation was moving the election from every two years to every four years. That just makes sense. Here in the House of Commons, when there is a majority government, there is an election around every four years. For first nations communities that have their elections operate under the Indian Act, it is every two years. We can think about the kinds of things that become difficult when we look at a two-year horizon versus a four-year horizon. It is much more difficult for them to make some of those longer-term plans that are so necessary for good governance, because they end up in a cycle of having another election so soon after the previous one and they need to start thinking about re-election.

This will be a significant step forward for first nations communities. It will also allow a new, modern and transparent electoral regime for first nations. Why is that important? One has to look at the things one needs, which are good governance and good elections. That will lead to stronger communities. First nations will have a better sense of how their communities will be governed and they will know when elections will take place. It will, in my view, increase accountability and transparency.

I wish I had more time and look forward to perhaps speaking to this legislation in the future.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:19 p.m., pursuant to an order made Tuesday, June 11 it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)