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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have that level of civility. I congratulate my friend across the way.

Before asking the usual Thursday question and before the government House leader across the way starts to talk about how he has been able to abuse Parliament over the past week, I would like to make a small observation for all those listening.

Of all the bills I am sure he is about to mention that are important, not a single bill passed through this legislative process in anything resembling a normal fashion. Bills S-8, S-15, S-17, S-2, S-6, S-10, S-16, C-56 and C-60, every single bill we have debated in the past week, operated under time allocation. I might parenthetically add that seven of them came from the Senate. It seems like a strange place for the government to get its agenda: a bunch of unelected, under-investigation senators, but so be it. It is the government's choice.

We tried to work with the government to find ways to allow the House to debate bills and to do so expediently. A good example is the Sable Island as a national park bill. For example, we offered up about five or six speakers who wanted to address the merits of the bill, which would have allowed the passage of that bill after they had spoken. The reaction from the leader from the other side was to move time allocation, which in fact ended up taking up more time in the House than the offer the NDP had made would have taken.

The Conservatives' strategy is sometimes bizarre. In fact, it is hard to figure out whether it is a strategy or not. I would like the Conservative member to enlighten me on this, even though the Conservatives' responses have no merit.

We have spent more than 14 hours debating and voting on time allocation motions in the past two weeks alone. I find it ironic that the government allots only five hours of debate to the content of the bill under time allocation, when the vast majority of our time is spent debating and voting on the time allocation motions and not on the bills. That is the Conservatives' way of doing business.

When will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons learn that a hammer is not the only tool available for getting the work done?

Could the leader of the government tell us what his plans are for this week and the week following?

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we are attempting to manage the affairs of the House by consulting with all parties and members to see if there are ways we can accommodate everybody's desire to participate in the debate. Based on those consultations, I would like to propose the following motion for unanimous consent.

I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Thursday, June 13, 2013, (a) during government orders, the House shall consider the second reading stage of 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, followed by the second reading stage of Bill S-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco); (b) when the House resumes debate of the second reading stage of Bill S-16, no more than two members of the Conservative Party, ten members from the New Democratic Party, two members from the Liberal Party and the member for Richmond—Arthabaska may speak, after which every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment, and if a recorded division is demanded, the vote shall be deemed deferred to Monday, June 17, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions; (c) if the proceedings of the second reading stage of Bill S-16 are not completed before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the House shall continue to sit for the purpose of completing the proceedings; (d) after 6:30 p.m., no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the Speaker; and (e) upon the conclusion of proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill S-16, the House shall take up adjournment proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order 38.

First Nations Elections Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

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.

Second Reading

[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 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.

[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.