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.

Second Reading

[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.

[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 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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

Bill S-6—Time Allocation Motion

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House to speak on behalf of so many of my constituents and first nations people across Canada who have vehemently opposed Bill S-2.

I stand here on a day, as was noted earlier, five years after the anniversary of the current government's apology to residential school survivors, five years after the government made the most serious commitment to the first peoples of our country in committing to a new relationship, a new way of doing things and a new tomorrow. Unfortunately, all first nations people in Canada have seen since that day five years ago are more colonialist policies, more paternalistic attitudes, more impoverishment and more marginalization.

Bill S-2 is one step along that way. Not only is it not part of a new beginning or a new relationship, but Bill S-2 is part of a pattern of colonial legislation put forward by the government toward first nations. There was C-47 and Bill C-8. Now we have Bill S-6. All of these bills first nations people, their organizations and their leaders have opposed. It was clear during the Idle no More movement. First nations people rose up against the omnibus legislation that would impact their treaty and aboriginal rights, but they also very explicitly indicated that they were opposed to the series of bills, including Bill S-2, the government is putting forward.

I will remind members of the government that the Idle No More movement was started by four women from Saskatoon, who, with many indigenous women across Canada, rose up and said, “enough”. They said enough to the colonial attitudes that have overrun their communities for far too long. They said enough to a government that has sought to impose their assimilationist views on their communities. They said enough to the status quo.

We have heard many references, in government members' feigned indignation, to the 25 years first nations women have waited. Colonialism has gone on for far more than 25 years, and first nations have had to put up with government after government, and the current government is no different, with the kind of attitude that is so unacceptable, so much against what Canadians want from their government, yet it continues on the same path.

The concerns around Bill S-2 are not philosophical. They are very real and very much based on extremely problematic elements of this legislation. First and foremost, there was the lack of nation-to-nation consultation. This is not a choice. According to our Constitution, there must be consultation with first nations.

Let us go further. The government signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Bill S-2 breaks the commitment the government made to the UN declaration. Bill S-2 serves to attack treaty and aboriginal rights. Despite the fact that there are obtuse references to respecting first nations governance, we have not seen the government act on that notion in legislation after legislation. It is pretty rich to hear government members apply impassioned rhetoric when it comes to first nations people when, in fact, it fails to hear from the first nations people who are most directly impacted.

Let me get to some of the other major problems with this piece of legislation, and there are many. Just so we are clear, the NDP put forward reasoned amendments to this bill that involved a series of points, but I will list only a few. We noted that if these points were not recognized, in addition to our concern about the lack of consultation, we could not support Bill S-2. Again, it is not a philosophical discussion. Members will understand from the points I will raise that it is very real, based on factual points the government has absolutely ignored in its process of developing this bill.

Bill S-2 fails to implement the ministerial representative recommendations for a collaborative approach to developing and implementing legislation. The bill does not recognize first nations jurisdiction or provide the resources necessary to implement this law. The bill fails to provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms at the community level. The bill does not provide access to justice, especially in remote communities. The bill does not deal with the need for non-legislative measures to reduce violence against aboriginal women. The bill would make provincial court judges responsible for adjudicating land codes for which they have no training or in which they have no experience. The bill does not address issues such as access to housing and economic security that underlie the problems on reserve in dividing matrimonial property rights.

It is clear that these points are not recognized in Bill S-2. There is no response to the serious concerns that first nations people raised both in our committee and in prior consultations regarding the bill. Also, it is not to say that this is the first iteration of the bill. The Conservative government has tried this on numerous occasions, and every time it has been clear that first nations people are opposed to the Conservatives' imposition of a paternalistic approach to matrimonial real property rights.

Certainly we heard tonight that, all of a sudden, the Conservative government has real concern regarding violence against aboriginal women, which are great words, but let us look at the actions.

It is no secret, and now we are entering a phase in our history where we are being shamed internationally for our lack of action in putting an end to the epidemic of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Over 600 aboriginal women in Canada have gone missing or have been found murdered in Canada, but the current government has done nothing but deflect the issue.

The Conservatives make these connections between missing and murdered aboriginal women in Bill S-2. Well, aboriginal people know that the current government is trying desperately to change the channel, and no one is buying it.

When we are talking about the issue of violence against aboriginal women, it is serious and it demands far more than a slap-in-the-face piece of paternalistic legislation. It requires real action. It requires sitting down with first nations and working with them. It requires making investments in non-legislative measures. It involves getting to the root causes of the violence that aboriginal women face.

We have heard that if the current government actually wanted to do something, it would respond to the calls for a national inquiry that have been going on for years in our country. Yet, it has not. If the government really cared, it would have responded to the calls for a national action plan to end violence against aboriginal women. But it has not. If the government really truly cared, it would do something about the excruciating levels of poverty that aboriginal women face in Canada. But it has done nothing.

Not only would I argue that the Conservative government has not done anything when it comes to the poverty facing first nations women, it has made it worse. The government has made it worse by the cuts it is imposing in terms of the services that first nations people need. The Conservatives are making it worse by continuing to apply the 2% cap that the Liberal government in the past imposed on first nations. They are doing it now by going after the advocacy organizations, including the tribal councils, that are involved in delivering direct services to first nations, and that make a real difference when it comes to housing and education.

Not only is there a ton of hypocrisy coming from the Conservative government, in that all of a sudden it cares about violence against aboriginal women, it is shameful that the Conservatives would stand in this House and turn to the NDP or whomever else and accuse us, instead of looking to their own business.

This is a perfect case of changing the channel. Aboriginal people have seen this before and they are seeing it in spades with the Conservative government. They saw it when the Minister for Status of Women was quoted in the media as blaming the chiefs and leaders for why the bill was not going forward.

I had the chance to raise that exact point with leaders who came to our committee and some of them were women leaders as well. I read to them the kind of messages that the government was putting forward. I felt so ashamed that a federal government and its ministers, ministers of the Crown, would treat first nation leaders with such disrespect when they were doing nothing more on a bill like this than speaking out on behalf of their people, when leaders, women and men, were speaking out on the very real needs they had to put an end to the violence that first nation women face.

Let us talk a bit about some of those challenges. I reference the extreme levels of poverty.

One of the most recurring themes that came up in our committee was the lack of housing on first nations. Now some members, actually, on the government side in our committee asked what the connection was between housing and violence.

I do not think a lot of the members on the government side have spent time on reserve. I invite them to come to northern Manitoba. I invite them to come to communities like Pukatawagan, Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Gods River, Shamattawa, St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Berens River Bloodvein. I invite them to visit the houses where there are 15 people living inside a house, no, maybe even 21 people living inside a house, mould-infested homes.

I invite them to see what is like, to hear about the social tensions that have developed because people simply do not have a place to live. Why do they not have a place to live? Because they live on reserve and because they are under a federal system and successive federal governments, I would note. Currently the Conservative government has sought nothing more than to further impoverish people, than to further fill inadequate housing up with more people, than to limit the kind of opportunities these first nation people have to access the outside world and opportunities that may exist outside their community. Then it turns around and tells us that a document, Bill S-2, would end the social conflict and social tension that they face.

This is beyond insulting. It is beyond reproach. This is the face of colonialism. It is the face of a colonial government that has sought nothing more, time after time, than to further marginalize the first peoples of our country.

The NDP takes great encouragement from the first nation leaders, from the women and the men and the grassroots leaders, I will note particularly, who have stood up and who have stood up through their Idle No More movement. They said that they had enough of the government's attitude toward them. They have had enough of great sounding commitments, like the commitment of five years ago, the new relationship that came directly from the current Prime Minister, only to be followed by legislation after legislation, rhetoric messages that seek to divide Canadians, that seek to pit Canadians of various backgrounds against aboriginal Canadians, that seek to divide aboriginal communities among themselves, that seek to change the channel, instead of actually having a government that would step up, work with first nations, consult on a nation-to-nation basis, work in partnership and make the investments necessary.

These challenges are not going away any time soon. The violence against aboriginal women is certainly not going to go away as a result of Bill S-2.

I think of Joan Jack, the counsellor from Berens River, who so passionately spoke in our committee. She said that the bill would not save one life in Berens River.

I would encourage members of the government to look at the Hansard to hear the messages that we heard in committee, to hear the kind of opposition that exists against Bill S-2.

While we are talking about committee, we have heard government members tonight make various references to consultation and how they have heard from people and all of these things. If they wanted to hear from people so badly, why did they bring closure in on this debate? Why did they cut off debate, not only in the House but also at committee?

We had two weeks to look at this fundamental piece of legislation. I will put on the record that in those two weeks the government made sure we got to hear from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples more than any other national aboriginal organization. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples clearly expressed in its presentation that it does not represent on-reserve aboriginal people. Therefore, the question is this. Why would an organization that does not represent on-reserve first nations people be seen as the ultimate authority on this very piece of legislation?

I will not leave the surprise any longer. It is because it read exactly the kind of messages that the government wanted to hear. However, when it came to organizations like the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and various band chiefs, various people with legal expertise, grassroots leaders who had real concerns with Bill S-2, who opposed Bill S-2, none of them got as much time to speak to it as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The Native Women's Association of Canada got eight minutes to speak to this bill with no questions and answers. It is truly shocking. The Assembly of First Nations got 10 minutes to present, and I am stretching it by saying it had maybe 12 minutes of questions and answers.

The government turns around and uses the word “consultation” and uses the sentiment of indignation. Those of us who are standing in solidarity with first nations who did not have their voices heard or who had their messages cut off because the government was so eager to shut down the debate, we are the ones who are shocked and angered by the government's colonialist approach to first nations.

First nations deserve far better than the current government, which has sought nothing more than to further impoverish, further marginalize and further assimilate them. They deserve justice and respect. They certainly do not deserve a bill like Bill S-2. They deserve real leadership. I end off on that point.

We have heard the government members call on us, hoping we might change course. I would ask them to listen to the many people who they have blocked from the House and committee, the voices of first nations who would be most impacted by this bill. I would ask them to change course and free themselves of the colonialist approach they have taken to heart and start a new beginning, like the new beginning their boss talked about five years ago. It is time.

Bill S-6—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) or through some other arrangement, as we just witnessed, with respect to 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I rise in this House to give notice of a motion under Standing Order 78(3), I have to advise that an agreement could not be otherwise reached. These are not empty words. This reflects the state of discussions among the parties on a given bill.

At least twice in recent days, there have general agreements among the parties about proceeding with a piece of legislation in a particular way. When we have tried to convert those agreements into a form the House could endorse so that the House may govern itself accordingly, the NDP balks. It says we should simply trust the NDP.

I know that many members across the way are former union negotiators or union leaders. I would never imagine that they would go back to their membership and recommend approval of a deal when all management says is “trust us”.

With that in mind, and in the interest of securing agreement, I put forward the following motion before the House. There have been consultations with the parties, so it is my hope that there would be unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 11, the House shall, during government orders, consider the third reading stage of Bill S-2, an act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, followed by 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, and followed, in turn, by the second reading stage of Bill S-10, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions; (b) during the consideration at the third reading stage of Bill S-2 when no member rises to speak or at the expiry of the time provided for debate pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 4, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith; and successively without further debate or amendment during the consideration at the second reading stage of Bill S-6 when no member rises to speak or at 5:30 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (d) during consideration of the second reading stage of Bill S-10 when no member rises to speak or at 10 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (e) when a recorded division is demanded it shall be deemed deferred in accordance with the manner provided in paragraph (b) of the special order adopted Wednesday, May 22; (f) upon the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development or a member of the committee acting for the chair indicating on a point of order that the committee has ready a report respecting Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the House shall immediately revert to presenting reports from committees for the purpose of receiving the said report; and (g) upon the conclusion of proceedings on Bill S-10, the House shall take up adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.