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.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

I understand Minister Hajdu has already started a consultation in that regard, and I think that will be very instructive for us as we move forward. I was part of Bill S-6 a number of years ago, when we expanded it. I heard from a range of people. The final message for us was that they need to control their membership and to be able to define who their citizens and their members are. It's not up to the federal government to dictate that, especially given the history.

I think the consultations will be very instructive in terms of how we move forward.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Bow River.

One thing is certain: the hon. member for Hamilton Centre is a great speaker and therefore a tough act to follow. I must say that I share his respect and admiration for Canada's territories, namely, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon. I have admired that region ever since I was a little boy. In my childhood and teenage years, I had a specific dream, one that I have not totally given up on but is fading as time goes by. We will see what happens in the future. I used to dream that I would live out my old age on Great Bear Lake. I would build a house and live there from about the age of 75 or 80 until the end of my days.

When I was 14, I took a flight from Toronto to Osaka, Japan. Just like the member for Hamilton Centre described it, I flew over the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Alaska. It is true that it is hard to believe just how huge our country is. There are millions and millions of lakes. It sometimes seems that there is more water than land in the north. It is almost frightening. That is when I really understood why winters are so important there for travel, because the ice creates roads everywhere, and so people do not have to go around the many lakes.

Simply put, those territories are incredible, and I want to say right off the bat that I speak here today with utmost humility. As the member for Hamilton Centre was saying, we are talking about Yukon, and it is rare for the people of Yukon to have the opportunity to be heard in the House. I hope my comments convey how much respect I have for the people of Yukon. I will try to raise a few points that the opposition sees as essential to our discussion in the House.

I want to address some of the comments that were made, including one by the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. She said that the opposition should be ashamed of the way it treated indigenous peoples when it was in power. I find it rather hypocritical for a Liberal member to say that because one of the first things the Liberals did when they came to power was abolish the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

I can say that as soon as that happened, our indigenous affairs critic got a lot of mail. We heard from a lot of indigenous people. That decision affects indigenous women and it affects indigenous peoples. We developed that legislation to ensure that leadership and the indigenous elite, the first nations chiefs, were accountable not only to the departments, but also to the people living on their reserves. I think that was very respectful toward indigenous peoples to do that. It was something that they wanted. One of the first things that the Liberals did was abolish that legislation. When I go door to door, people often tell me that they think that was an awful decision. My colleague from Yellowhead was talking about it and I completely agree with what he had to say.

I would also like to say that, despite how humbling it is for me to participate in this debate, we must not forget that the Yukon is a territory that belongs to all Canadians. Make no mistake: a territory does not have the same status as a province. For centuries, Canada's north has played an important role in the country's economic development and in weaving the fabric of our country and economy. Yukon has a role to play. It is only natural that the federal government decides when to intervene in the affairs of the Yukon because it is indeed a territory. If we want to make the Yukon a province, then that is another debate.

The member for Yukon said that everyone in his territory, in his riding, which is huge, supports his bill. I understand that. However, I think that there were some good things about Bill S-6, which we introduced in 2015, even if the government does not agree. I also think that there are some negative things about the bill that is currently before us, even if the government thinks that there is nothing wrong with it.

I would like to talk a little bit about those negative aspects. One of the problems I see with Bill C-17 is that it follows the Liberal government's tendency toward centralization.

Why am I talking about a pattern of centralization? The government did away with the regional development ministers and gave all the responsibility to one minister of economic development for Canada, who lives in Toronto. That is an obvious example of centralization. The government also did away with the position of political lieutenant for Quebec, since the Prime Minister claims to be the province's general—

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand in the House to speak to a bill that is extremely important to the people who sent me to Parliament, first nations and indigenous people in northern Manitoba, and of course, first nations people across our country.

I want to begin by speaking about the reality that first nations youth face in communities in our part of the country. Some weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Little Grand Rapids. Little Grand Rapids is a small first nation on the southeast side of Lake Winnipeg. It is isolated. There are no roads that go there; it is in the middle of the forest, or the bush, as we call it. People work hard at what they do, hunting, trapping, fishing, and they hope for the best for the future of their kids, as anybody does.

What I hear from them when I visit from house to house is their concern for their kids, the concern that their kids are not going to have the same opportunities as other kids. It is not because of where Little Grand Rapids is, how far it is from the city or where it is positioned geographically. It is because it is a first nation, and they know their kids face some of the most unequal opportunities in terms of education in this country. Because they are first nations, going to school on reserve, they are guaranteed to be going to a school that is funded to a lesser extent than other schools.

What does that mean? It means that their kids go to a school that some people describe as a fire trap. It is a school where the doors do not lock properly. In order to lock them in -40° weather, so the cold does not come in, they have to a use a chain and a lock. It means the fire alarm system does not work. In fact, when Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development built the school, it hooked up those little fire alarm contraptions that we see everywhere else. It put them on the walls throughout the school and never hooked up the wiring to a fire alarm system. Guess what? There is no fire alarm system. Not only is there no fire alarm system, but as a result there is no sprinkler system, and due to the underfunding, there are no fire extinguishers.

My question in the House for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is whether he would be okay with his kids going to a school like that. Why should the youth of Little Grand Rapids and first nations across this country go to schools that are dangerous, underfunded, falling apart, and full of mould, that do not have enough books, do not have enough teachers, and do not have enough resources, and that are setting them up to fail?

When we talk about the history of colonialism and paternalism that first nations have faced in this country, we cannot just talk about history, because it is happening today. It is happening in the way first nations people face unequal standards across the board, whether it be education, health, employment, housing, or infrastructure. The list goes on.

To see what is most fundamentally clear in the response to the needs of first nations youth and the kind of paternalism we see, one has to go no further than the approach the government has taken on Bill C-33, the first nations education act. The reason I say that is that a fundamental obligation of the federal government to consult with first nations people has not been adhered to in the development of this critical bill.

First nations across the country, certainly those in Manitoba, have been clear that, without consultation, the bill cannot be supported. It is not because they have not made clear the importance of consultation. They have made it clear and have been consistent over the last number of years.

In December 2012, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada began consultations on an education act. In July 2013 the department released a document called “Developing a First Nation Education Act: A Blueprint for Legislation”. With few amendments, that blueprint became a draft legislative proposal for a first nations education act in October 2013. I am sure all too many members of the government will remember that the draft proposal was condemned by first nations educators, leaders, and activists overwhelmingly.

On the very issue we are discussing today, on the critical issue of education for first nations, first nations have told us the direction they want to take and their priorities.

In 2013 a special assembly the Assembly of First Nations highlighted five priorities: first, respect and recognition of inherent rights and title, treaty rights, and first nations control of first nations education jurisdiction; second, statutory guarantee of funding; third, funding to support first nations education systems that are grounded in indigenous languages and cultures; fourth, mechanisms to ensure reciprocal accountability and no unilateral federal oversight or authority; and fifth, ongoing dialogue and co-development of options. Those five priorities were laid out clearly in a very public manner by first nations themselves, and sadly, the federal government failed to adhere to those priorities.

What we hear from the federal government is rhetoric that is at first premised on having spoken with first nations and of having heard real concerns. Then when I and my colleagues raise the concern that first nations across the country have not been consulted on this legislation, when they need to be consulted, we hear threats, intimidation, and the same old colonial attitudes that first nations have put up with for centuries.

It is clear that first nations across this country are saying no to the first nations education act. I and my colleagues in the NDP are proud to stand with them. I am proud to stand with first nations educators who are speaking out against the first nations education act.

I would like to share the words of Janice Mokokis, an educator and lawyer from Alberta, who has been involved with the Idle No More movement. She has been clear in her opposition to the first nations education act. Janice tells us:

There have been rallies and teach-in's held across the country to inform the Canadian public and First Nations about the implications of this Bill. People who have attended the rallies include children, mothers, fathers, teachers, professionals, leaders and those that would be directly affected by this...[government's actions]. There has been consistent opposition about the Conservative's agenda what they deem to be good for First Nations on Education. The Conservative's idea of 'consultation' needs to be closely questioned and critically examined. For example: In the Saskatoon consultation, people were...pushed out of the 'education consultation'.

It was made clear that they were not welcome to have their voices heard.

I also stand in solidarity with people in the blue dot campaign, who made clear their opposition to the government's desire for them not to be welcome at the announcement on the Kainai first nation in Alberta. Members of that nation and first nations people from across the country were there to hear an announcement of legislation that has everything to do with their future, and yet they were not even welcome to stay in the room.

It is clear that there is opposition from coast to coast to coast. First nations people are saying that their inherent rights are not being respected, that their treaty right to education is not being respected, and that the right to consultation that they have under the Canadian Constitution and that is recognized in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not being respected. The necessity of consultation is not being respected.

The reality is that first nations youth sit by and suffer as a result of the way the Conservative government is approaching a fundamental part of their development and future. We know the statistics are grim. Secondary school data over the last number of years identify the rate of first nations graduation at approximately 36%, compared to the Canadian graduation rate of 72%. Some 61% of first nations young adults have not completed high school, compared with 13% of non-aboriginal people in Canada.

In 2010, there were more than 515 first nations elementary and secondary schools available to approximately 109,000 first nations students resident on reserve. Over 64% of these students attended 515 on-reserve schools operated by first nations. The majority, 75%, were enrolled in either kindergarten or elementary school.

First nations youth is the largest young population in our country. I am so privileged to have had a chance to visit first nations across our region and look into the bright faces of these little kids, who want to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, and carpenters and who want to do great things. All I can think of is the way I come to work every day to look at a government, a Prime Minister, and a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that do everything in their power to ignore the voices of their communities, educators, and leaders. They say they are doing the right thing and they say they are going to do the right thing, but after the next election, maybe in a few years, or maybe if they get re-elected. Maybe. All the while, these young people are left in limbo.

I am also fortunate to have learned from elders. They are elders who fought as part of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, fought against the white paper, and fought against the control that the federal government had on their education. They fought back, and they fought for first nations control of first nations education. Many of these elders are not with us today, owing to the challenging life situations in our communities and the shorter life spans that first nations people have. However, in my conversations with them and in my journey to Parliament, they taught me a very clear lesson, that first nations control over first nations education is fundamental to the success of the education system. It is fundamental to the success of first nations youth as they go forward. This is because first nations know what their nations need.

We know about education in first nations language; youth who learn their first nations language succeed at great rates. We know that when they have the resources in their schools to learn their mother tongue, the historic language of their people, they will have opportunities that other youth do not have. We know that when first nations have control over the kind of curriculum, priorities, and lessons that are shared with their youth, their students succeed.

I think of first nations like Roseau River, Peguis, Fisher River, and others that have had very successful models when it comes to education. It is not because the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development told them how to do it. In fact, it is the absolute opposite. It is these first nations that have stood up and sometimes, with the few resources they have, pulled together extraordinary people. They have supported the education of their youth, who have gone on to become experts and specialists in education and have come back to their communities and invested in the resource that is most important to them: their youth.

One would think that, in seeing the successes and knowing the way graduation rates in first nations increase when there is proper funding and proper support, when there is a focus on first nations language, the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs would celebrate, that it would say that first nations control over first nations education is critical.

Consulting with first nations on further steps, on a first nations education program, is not only critical but first nations need to be leading that direction. Instead, what we have is a slap in the face from the federal government, which has a fiduciary obligation to first nations that makes it very clear that it does not matter what success these students have, it does not matter what success these leaders have had in fighting for education in their communities, with its response to promise action and change and to do that with a father-knows-best mentality, that what it knows best is what is going to go.

Some years ago I had the honour of sitting with leaders and grassroots people in Thompson at the office of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, where we saw live the apology the Prime Minister made to first nations people about the tragedy of the residential school system. I remember it moved all of us. I am proud that our leader Jack Layton was integral in that important historic day. There were tears. There was sobbing. There were people who were very emotional about that apology, people who had been very clear about the abuse, the oppression, and the racism they had faced. However, there was also an overwhelming sense of hope, hope that things can change, that a new spirit of reconciliation was guiding our country.

Over the last six or seven years, I cannot say how many people I have met across northern Manitoba, how many first nations people, who have said obviously that apology meant nothing to the Prime Minister. People took the time to believe and to enter into that spirit of reconciliation. Unfortunately, through the actions of Prime Minister, not just in looking at Bill C-33 but also Bills S-2, S-6 and S-8, as well as omnibus bills like Bills C-45 and C-38, we can look at the long list of legislative actions that the government has taken that fly in the face of that apology, of that spirit of reconciliation, of that commitment that the relationship with first nations would be different.

At the end of the day, is there anything more important than investing in the future of our young people? In the one area of education, the federal government had the chance to change course and maybe remember the statement that the Prime Minister had made in terms of that apology and act in the spirit of that apology. Instead, he and his government have chosen to take a very different approach, an approach that is clearly not only supported by first nations but is extremely deeply problematic in terms of the future of first nations education in our country.

In closing, I am proud to stand with first nations in Manitoba who oppose the first nations education act and who are very clear in demanding far better from the government, from Canada, and from the Crown when it comes to the future of education for first nations.

First Nations Elections Act

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is quite an important question. The government may hold consultations without ever implementing any of the recommendations that were made during those consultations.

I know that with Bill S-6, which originated in the Senate, the first nations were initially receptive to the bill. The bill was then changed. There are now a number of serious issues with the final wording of the bill that the first nations are opposed to. Their opposition was made clear in committee and also in the public arena.

The definition of paternalistic legislation is when the government is aware of the problems caused by a bill that should be prepared in consultation and in co-operation with the first nations and still tries to pass it without the agreement of the first nations.

I hope that the government will respect the meaning of real consultation and take into account the various issues raised by the first nations. The future legislation could then respect their wishes and their ways of doing things, which in many cases are traditional. If any problems arise, they could then be resolved by the community.

In a previous speech, one of our colleagues mentioned that any problems that arose during an election could be referred to a first nations community, like an appeal process, for instance. Why must the minister assume the authority to deal with these matters, rather than letting the community deal with them itself?

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your earlier explanation as to why it is that the amendments are coming forward at report stage. I appreciate your consideration of the fact that due to a clerical error at committee, we did not receive notice to bring amendments forward at committee.

I must say that I am pleased. I have found that the so-called invitations to committees circumvent rights. I am able, at this point, to speak at report stage to what is a very significant flaw in this bill.

As everyone in the House knows, Bill C-9 initially came to us through the Senate as Bill S-6. It is a first nations elections act. Except for everything I am attempting to amend this morning, it is a good bill. It provides more precision in first nations elections. The bulk of the bill is a result of recommendations that came from first nations themselves, specifically from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, which represents the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy first nations of Atlantic Canada.

Before I move to my amendments, the intent of the good parts of the bill was to provide greater precision, to create set terms, and to provide for those first nations that had already opted in to elections under the terms of the Indian Act. That is worth underlining. The recommendations that came from the first nations themselves were to apply only to those first nations that had themselves already opted in to elections under the Canada Elections Act and not to those many first nations that elect their councils through traditional customs and methods other than under the Indian Act.

In any case, I will set aside the parts of the bill that are acceptable and will focus only on the amendments you have just read before the House of Commons. They both go to correct the mistakes that are found in clause 3 of the bill.

Parenthetically, I want to note that today is international Human Rights Day. Today is the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Vienna Declaration, which brought respect for human rights to the entire community of nations. Why is it relevant that we are looking at a first nations elections act? What about that is relevant to the fact that ironically, today is Human Rights Day?

The problem with this bill and the sections I hope to correct is also found in other bills that have come forward from this administration, such as the bill, not yet tabled, on first nations education. It is also found in bills that have been tabled, such as the NWT devolution in Bill C-15 and this bill, Bill C-9. What they all have in common is a failure to respect the constitutionally enshrined right of first nations to be consulted about changes that impact them directly.

In Bill C-15, in addition to the NWT devolution, which everyone supports, there are substantial changes to the Mackenzie Valley regulatory systems that are part of first nations agreements and treaties, without consultation with or the consent of first nations. This brings to mind that these changes are actually questionable constitutionally under section 35 of the Constitution, as interpreted in many Supreme Court decisions. From the Haida case and the Delgamuukw case to the Marshall case, it is clear that first nations in this country are protected under section 35 of the Constitution. Further, the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility, a constitutionally enshrined obligation, to consult with first nations.

In this case, we have something that is, in my view, outrageous. Under paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c), there are two ways in which the minister may impose upon first nations, based on his or her own discretion, a different system for elections within the first nation. What could be more critical in touching on the rights of first nations than changing the way a first nation conducts its own internal elections?

These two paragraphs that are objectionable state that the minister may add the name of the first nations to the schedule of first nations that must conduct their elections as under the act. In other words, the bulk of the act is for first nations themselves to opt in and request to be seen under these sections of a new Indian Act procedure found in Bill C-9.

These are the two exceptions that are outrageous. Paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c) state that the minister may add the name of a first nation to the schedule if:

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

(c) the Governor in Council has set aside an election of the Chief and councillors of that First Nation under section 79 of the Indian Act on a report of the Minister that there was corrupt practice in connection with that election.

As the Canadian Bar Association aboriginal law subsection has pointed out, the bill does not provide any guidance as to what the corrupt practice might be or what threshold the minister has for making this change.

It is offensive in a couple of ways. One is that it appears to apply to not only those nations that have already opted in to the current version of the Indian Act in their internal elections. It would apply to those first nations that have explicitly not wanted to operate under the Indian Act and that operate under their tradition and custom. Again, what could be more directly a denial of rights?

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says very clearly, in article 3:

Indigenous people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4 states:

Indigenous people, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal or local affairs...

These changes in paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c) strike directly at the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and further offend the Canadian Constitution section 35.

I would have wished that these sections had been corrected inside the committee, but I hope that today we may give them fair consideration.

What is being proposed in amendment 2, line 9, on page 3 is a proviso to protect those first nations that have been operating under their own customs. The amendment states:

For greater certainty, the Minister may not add to the schedule the name of a First Nation that governs its elections according to the custom of the band, unless such an addition has been approved in accordance with prevailing customary practices.

In other words, self-determination is protected within those first nations that have already decided that they will not opt in under the Indian Act. They will preserve that ability, which is enshrined in our Constitution and enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is therefore further protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which today has its 20th anniversary.

I appeal to my colleagues in the House to assess this amendment. It would preserve the right of first nations that are operating their elections under traditional custom to maintain those rights.

The second amendment would deal with this quite discretionary notion of protracted leadership disputes. We have seen instances when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, or DIAND, as it was in the past, decides that, for instance, the ministry does not like the way things are going, to use an example, in the first nations of the Algonquin of Barriere Lake. The dispute is real, and the minister ends up taking sides. That is hardly respect for a first nations' right to self-determination and self-government.

In this amendment, I propose that the minister may not take that step unless, having obtained the opinion of a representative sample of electors of that first nation, those within the first nation are satisfied that they need to have the minister take this step. Otherwise, we have made a mockery in Bill C-9 of first nations rights under our constitution.

We will again do so if we fail to change Bill C-15 for the first nations within the Northwest Territories and some that are affected in neighbouring areas of the Yukon, where the first nations in that area have competing land claims issues. The leadership of the Tlicho as well as the Dene and other nations are appealing to have the bill split apart so that we can proceed with NWT devolution without offending first nations rights.

There is a pattern here with this administration of, bit by bit, chipping away at some fundamental rights in this country that are constitutionally enshrined and further protected by international law.

With the amendments I am proposing, we could pass Bill C-9 in good conscience. We would know that we had contributed to good governance, fairer elections, and clearer terms. However, to pass it as it is would be an insult to first nations, and this House would be violating our own constitution.

First Nations Elections Act

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-9, 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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill S-6 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Motion No. 2

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London is the hard-working chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, and I know he is respected by all members in the House.

The NDP and Liberals, whom I have stated oppose every measure we take to work with first nations and improve conditions for first nations living on reserve, apparently do not want to see progress. With Bill S-6, again they are showing with their questions and delaying tactics that they do not want to provide an option for first nations who have been demanding more options for their election process. They have been demanding clarity, clearer regulations and extended terms of office when they opt in under this plan. This is something that first nations have been calling for. This is not something that was cooked up in the backrooms of the department somewhere. This is first nations led and first nations driven, and it is time that we deliver this for first nations.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know our government, as stated by the parliamentary secretary, has been working very hard at improving governance on reserves and allowing Canada's first nations to have alternatives to an archaic and outdated Indian Act.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to inform the House, particularly our colleagues across the way, why we must have the opportunity to bring back Bill S-6 and the first nations elections act as part of this bill?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really see him talk a lot about the legislation. He talked about Bill S-6. He knows very well that a lot of the legislation that was going to the Senate was not being supported by a lot of the first nations. For example, with respect to the throne speech, I could tell members that today, Chief Shining Turtle sent a letter to the Governor General, to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and to Buckingham Palace. In it, he says, “I am going through the text of the Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor General”.

In particular, he seeks clarification on the following statement:

They forged an independent country where none would have otherwise existed.

He asks, “Are we to believe that the indigenous peoples with complex societies throughout North America simply did not exist prior to the arrival of the pioneers?”

Then he goes on to say, “In our view, this is a gross misrepresentation of the true history of North America. Can you provide your historical facts that fully support this claim? There surely must be some misunderstanding on your facts”.

That is not the end of the letter. However, what I am trying to tell members is that the government attempted to press the reset button, and now it is just bringing back everything that did not need to be reset, as far as they are concerned. How is that democratic?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member giving me two sentences to launch into my speech before interrupting with a point of order. We are talking about the government motion, which includes the ability to bring the legislation that was before the House last June and that was referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. That is what I will be addressing in my remarks today. I am going to speak briefly, to allow for some questions.

There are currently 240 first nations that are under the Indian Act when it comes to their election processes. There are currently three options available to them. The first is to carry on operating under the outdated and paternalist Indian Act election system, complete with a long list of identifiable problems. The second choice is to develop a community election code. The third option is self-governance, which is the ideal scenario, in which first nations decide on their own electoral system linked to their own community constitutions and traditions.

What we are talking about here is an option for first nations to operate under the Indian Act. There is no compulsory buy-in for this program. It is strictly those first nations that wish to be part of this new election regime. I want to talk briefly about the support we have received for this idea.

The Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs has been unwavering in its support of this initiative since it asked our government to come to the table to work on first nations electoral reform over five years ago. Back in the spring of this year, they wrote every Atlantic member of Parliament, including the member for St. John's East, urging them to take the necessary steps to pass the bill as soon as possible.

Just recently, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development received a letter from the congress asking that we reintroduce Bill S-6 as soon as possible. In that letter, John Paul, executive director of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, described the current failings of the Indian Act. He stated:

As you are aware, for years, many First Nations members have been critical of the Indian Act election system, which they believe sets out an electoral regime that is antiquated and paternalistic. Terms of office that are much shorter than municipal, provincial and federal counterparts, a loose nominations process and an absence of penalties for offences related to the electoral process are just some of the key concerns we seek to have addressed through this legislation.

We also received a letter from the former Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Ron Evans, urging the minister to bring back Bill S-6, in its current form, at the earliest opportunity. In his letter, he stated:

When enacted, Bill S-6 will change the way First Nations are governed, create stability and credibility, strengthen self-governance and allow First Nations to move forward. The current Indian Act election system is not working; it is proven to be weak and creates instability for our communities and their economies.

These communities have been working hard to come up with a system. This has been first nations led. It was developed with first nations. It is something they have been calling for.

I think we need to get this bill back to committee as soon as possible so that we can move forward with giving first nations the tools they have been asking for to give them an option for a new elections regime. That is what I am asking all members of this House to join with me in doing.

MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the greatest way to respect democracy is to respect the democratic decisions made in the House, including the decision made on the first nations elections act to deliver democracy to first nations and give them greater democratic rights.

In fact that bill, one of the bills we are discussing and one that passed at second reading on division, would establish an alternative modern-day legislative framework apart from the Indian Act system. It would provide for a more robust election system that individual first nations can choose. It would be up to them to choose whether they wish to opt in, but they can choose to do so. It is actually based on recommendations provided by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the first nations Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

We have a bill to provide greater democracy for first nations, a bill that they have proposed, that is optional, and that advanced in the House. The New Democrats would now have us believe that although it passed on division, they now wish it to go back to the beginning. That would not be a step forward for democracy, but a step backward. That is why a bill like this is a positive one.

At the same time, the motion that we have in front of us is one that would also restore the mandate for the committee looking into murdered and missing aboriginal women. It is balanced in that we are dealing with everybody's mandates, mandates that everyone put forward. The issue the member mentioned is very important to her; that would again be a reason to support government Motion No. 2.

Our approach throughout in preparing this motion has been to go beyond the traditional approach of focusing only on government bills and to take into consideration everybody's interests so that nobody is prejudiced by the fact that we had a new throne speech. That is what government business Motion No. 2 proposes, and that is why I hope it will be welcomed by all members of the House. It is designed to be fair to all members of the House.

Business of the House and its Committees

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, for the purposes of facilitating and organizing the business of the House and its committees in the autumn of 2013,

(a) during the thirty sitting days following the adoption of this Order, whenever a Minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill, states that the said bill is in the same form as a bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown in the previous Session, or that it is in the same form as a bill which had originated in the Senate and stood in the name of a Minister of the Crown in this House in the previous Session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current Session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the previous Session;

(b) in order to bring full transparency and accountability to House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (i) conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body, (ii) invite the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons to participate fully in these hearings, (iii) study the practices of provincial and territorial legislatures, as well as other jurisdictions and Westminster-style Parliaments in order to compare and contrast their administrative oversight, (iv) propose modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts as deemed necessary, (v) propose any necessary modifications to the administrative policies and practices of the House of Commons, (vi) examine the subject-matter of the motions, which had stood in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper for the previous Session on June 10, 2013, and (vii) report its findings to the House no later than Monday, December 2, 2013, in order to have any proposed changes to expense disclosure and reporting in place for the beginning of the next fiscal year;

(c) when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meets pursuant to the order of reference set out in paragraph (b) of this Order, one Member who is not a member of a recognized party be allowed to participate in the hearings as a temporary, non-voting member of that Committee;

(d) the Clerk be authorized, if necessary, to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs within 24 hours of the adoption of this Order;

(e) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its committees, including the proceedings on the debate held on Friday, February 17, 2012, pursuant to Standing Order 51;

(f) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee designated for the purposes of section 533.1 of the Criminal Code;

(g) the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be the committee designated for the purposes of section 67 of the Conflict of Interest Act;

(h) the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, adopted in the previous Session as Private Member’s Motion M-315, shall be renewed, provided that the Committee shall report its findings to the House no later than Wednesday, December 11, 2013;

(i) a special committee be appointed, with the mandate to conduct hearings on the critical matter of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada, and to propose solutions to address the root causes of violence against Indigenous women across the country, and that, with respect to the committee, (i) it consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, (ii) the Chair and the Vice-Chairs shall be the same Chair and Vice-Chairs elected by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, (iii) the routine motions respecting committee business adopted on March 26 and April 18, 2013, by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women shall be deemed adopted, provided that it may, by motion, vary or rescind their provisions at a later date, (iv) it have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada, subject to the usual authorization from the House, (v) the members serving on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party’s members of the committee within ten sitting days of the adoption of this Order, (vi) the quorum be seven members for any proceedings, provided that at least a member of the opposition and of the government party be present, (vii) membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), and (viii) it report its recommendations to the House no later than February 14, 2014;

(j) with respect to any order of reference created as a consequence of this Order, any evidence adduced by a committee in the previous Session shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table in the present Session and referred to the appropriate committee;

(k) the reference to “September 30” in Standing Order 28(2)(b) shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “November 8”;

(l) the reference to “the tenth sitting day before the last normal sitting day in December” in Standing Order 83.1 shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “Wednesday, December 11, 2013”; and

(m) on Thursday, October 31, 2013, the hours of sitting and order of business of the House shall be that of a Friday, provided that (i) the time for filing of any notice be no later than 6:00 p.m., (ii) when the House adjourns it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 4, 2013, and (iii) any recorded division in respect of a debatable motion requested on, or deferred to, October 31, 2013, shall be deemed to be deferred or further deferred, as the case may be, to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on November 4, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of government Motion No. 2, and I look forward to the continuation of what has proven to be a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament.

This year alone, from the end of January until the end of June, Parliament passed 37 new laws, matching our government's most productive year in office. This, of course, included a budget that will help fuel job creation, grow our economy, and increase Canada's long-term prosperity. Since the last election and the 2011 throne speech, we have witnessed 61 government bills become law. On top of that, an unprecedented 19 private members' bills received royal assent, heralding a renewed empowerment of individual members of Parliament to bring forward initiatives important to them and their constituents. It is a long way from the days when a Prime Minister derisively described backbenchers as “nobodies”, 50 yards off the Hill.

Yesterday's Speech from the Throne has outlined the government's objectives as being those that matter to Canadians. As a new parliamentary session begins, we remain squarely focused on jobs, the economy, and protecting families, while taking pride in the history and institutions that make Canada the best country in the world. Here in the House, these policy objectives will be given legislative expression in the form of bills that will be introduced over the coming weeks, months, and years. As we look forward to implementing the new initiatives outlined yesterday, we also want to ensure that important, unfinished work from the previous session, whether it be bills or committee business, is not forgotten.

Government Motion No. 2 would seek to facilitate and organize House and committee business for the autumn in view of our calendar and circumstances. Government Motion No. 2 proposes that June's unfinished work, in which all parties have an interest, carry on where we left off. I stand here today asking that all opposition parties join me in taking a balanced, principles-based approached to getting Parliament back to work. The bills and committee work I am today proposing be reinstated are those that have received support and praise from members opposite. It is also work that matters to Canadians.

We are not asking that only items proposed originally by the government be reinstated; we are proposing on behalf of all parties that everybody's proposals and initiatives be restored. It is a fair approach. It is a non-partisan approach. In respect of government legislation, paragraph (a) of the motion sets out a procedure for the reintroduction of government bills that advanced in the House in the previous session. In total, up to seven bills from the first session could fall into that category.

What sorts of bills are we talking about here? They are the type of legislation the New Democrats say they are keen to debate all over again. What are they? Let us consider some examples.

As pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, we are deeply committed to standing up for victims of crime and making our streets safer for Canadians. The former Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, was designed to make sure that public safety comes first in the decision-making process regarding persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It would provide additional security for victims and would enhance their involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

During the previous session, the NDP and the Bloc agreed with the government and supported the bill. We hope that they will continue to support this important initiative.

In order to protect families and communities, we must also eradicate contraband tobacco from our streets to ensure that children are not exposed to the dangers of smoking through access to cheap packs of illegal cigarettes. That was the goal of the former Bill S-16, Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, through the creation of mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders in the trafficking of contraband tobacco. The bill will not only protect children against the dangers of tobacco, but it will also address the more general issue of contraband tobacco trafficking driven by organized crime groups.

A look at the debates at second reading in the Hansard shows that members of the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc spoke in favour of sending the bill to committee. We are counting on their continued support of this initiative and we will adopt a non-partisan approach as Parliament resumes its work.

Former Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, would implement our government's commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a significant achievement. Over time, the enactment of this convention will save the lives of many thousands of people around the world and will help put an end to the use of a weapon that has shattered the lives of too many innocent civilians.

In the previous session, support for this bill came from the Bloc and the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward to renewed support from them on this bill as part of our balanced, principle-based approach.

Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, former Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, offers an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians. The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

This bill received support from the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward again to their continued support.

Our commitment to improving the lives of Canadians from coast to coast continues. In the case of aboriginals, former Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, would provide a robust election system that individual first nations can opt into. The act will help to create a framework that fosters healthier, more prosperous, and self-sufficient aboriginal communities through stronger and more stable and effective first nations governments.

The bill is the product of recommendations developed by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and a lengthy national engagement campaign with first nations leaders across the country. As we see from Hansard, that bill passed second reading without the opposition even asking for a recorded vote.

The new parliamentary session will see our government stand up for Canadian families and consumers. This includes ensuring they do not fall victim to counterfeit goods. Counterfeit goods hurt our economy, undermine innovation, and undermine the integrity of Canadian brands, and they threaten the health and safety of Canadians on occasion. This is why I am asking that the NDP and Liberal MPs who stood in the House and spoke in favour of former Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, going to committee will agree to allow that to happen again.

By allowing these bills that received varying degrees of support from across the aisle an opportunity to be reinstated, our intention is to finish where we left off on key pieces of legislation important to Canadians—not to enter into partisan gridlock, not to re-debate legislation that has already received support from parliamentarians, but to reinstate and pass bills so that we can move on to new initiatives and deliver results for Canadians.

As I made clear, government Motion No. 2 is about restoring everyone's business. That includes bills and motions that are important to everyone here and, more importantly, to Canadians.

Many of the Canadians I speak with want their elected politicians to work, make decisions, and get on with the important work we were sent to Ottawa to do. I can only imagine the reaction I would get if I told them we had to spend over a dozen days to have the exact same debates we had already had, to make the same decisions we had already taken, to have the same votes we had already voted on, in many of these cases on bills that we all supported.

It would be a remarkable waste. It would seem absurd to anyone in the real world, where efficiency and productivity count for something, but believe it or not, that is what the official opposition wants to do: play partisan games, hold debates that we have already had, and enter into the kind of unproductive and unsavoury political deadlock just witnessed south of the border.

A news article on Tuesday noted that “the NDP is fundamentally opposed” to the legislative component of our balanced approach to restoring the work of all members of Parliament, yet just a few short paragraphs later in the same article, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is reported to have said he is “not opposed to bringing back some of the legislation”. Which is it? Are New Democrats fundamentally opposed, or are they actually in favour? Is this a matter of principle, or is it really just a matter of partisan gamesmanship? Is it just that some people like to stand and grab attention? I think the answer is obvious.

Our approach to restoring the work of all members also includes the important work that is being done in our committees. This means continuing our commitment to ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent efficiently and in a transparent manner.

That is why we are taking action to reinstate the mandate for the procedure and House affairs committee's study on members' expenses, including a special provision for independent members to participate at the meetings of the committee on this issue. We ask all members of the House to support this mandate so that we can increase accountability and transparency in MP disclosures.

Our balanced, principle-based approach to making Parliament work this session will also mean the reappointment of the special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There is no question that the deaths and abductions of these women are a tragedy that has caused deep pain for many families. By reinstating this committee's work, we are ensuring that this tragedy receives the careful attention it deserves.

Other uncompleted committee mandates flowing from House orders include a private member's motion that would also be revived.

Finally, some scheduling adjustments are proposed. They include items to reconcile some deadlines to our calendar as well as the usual indulgence granted by the House to allow members from a recognized party to attend their party's national convention.

What I have just outlined to you, Mr. Speaker, is a fair and balanced proposal to get Parliament back in the swing of hard work. Government Motion No. 2 is balanced. It is based on a principle, a principle that we will be back where we were in June and that nobody is prejudiced by our prorogation. It is a non-partisan approach, one that would restore everyone's business regardless of their partisan affiliation and regardless of which side of the House they sit on.

First Nations Elections Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have a full 20 minutes to talk about this exceptional piece of legislation, but I will accept the six minutes we have left here today.

This is another great bill. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, is another great piece of legislation on an issue that concerns first nations Canadians. It is another great bill, much like the bill for safe drinking water we recently passed in the House. It goes back to things such as Yale, which was recently passed by the House, and the northern jobs and growth act. We have brought forward a suite of legislation designed to assist first nations in moving forward on many fronts.

When we talk about this particular piece of legislation, the first nations elections act, it is very important to note that this is, by definition, truly a grassroots bill. Why would I say that? It is because it was actually initiated and brought forward by two groups in this country: the AMC and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. They were looking at ways to reform the election process as it exists under the Indian Act.

What does that mean? They decided that they wanted to have a broad-based and significant consultation on how we could design some electoral reforms that would assist first nations in their governance. What did they do? I can tell the House that they had extensive consultations with first nations. For example, between January and March 2010, then-grand chief Ron Evans travelled to almost every first nation in Manitoba that holds elections under the Indian Act. At the time, there were 37. He held engagement sessions with these communities to find out the kinds of things they would like to see in this legislation.

A similar format was followed by the Atlantic Policy Congress. They had the same kinds of discussions in their own region. They went from community to community and spoke to chiefs. They asked what they would like to see to reform elections for first nations that have their elections governed by the Indian Act. That is the critical thing we have to look at when we look at this particular piece of legislation. This has been driven by first nations communities themselves. By far, the vast majority of the things in this piece of legislation are things brought forward and asked for by first nations communities.

When the first set of recommendations came forward, the AMC and the APC were asked to partner on a national engagement effort to present their recommendations to first nations across the country. Then-grand chief Ron Evans met with first nations organizations in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. He also wrote to every chief and council in Canada elected under the Indian Act. When we talk about the kind of input and consultation that took place with respect to this particular piece of legislation, we can see that this is an enormous amount of consultation.

The other thing that is important when we talk about this particular piece of legislation is that it is opt-in legislation. The difference between that and another piece of legislation is that first nations communities can choose if they want to opt in to this particular piece of legislation. When we combine the fact that it is opt-in legislation with the fact that there was extensive consultation with first nations communities, I can say that this is an exceptional piece of legislation that is going to do a lot of good for first nations communities.

Of course, one of the things they looked at in the legislation was moving the election from every two years to every four years. That just makes sense. Here in the House of Commons, when there is a majority government, there is an election around every four years. For first nations communities that have their elections operate under the Indian Act, it is every two years. We can think about the kinds of things that become difficult when we look at a two-year horizon versus a four-year horizon. It is much more difficult for them to make some of those longer-term plans that are so necessary for good governance, because they end up in a cycle of having another election so soon after the previous one and they need to start thinking about re-election.

This will be a significant step forward for first nations communities. It will also allow a new, modern and transparent electoral regime for first nations. Why is that important? One has to look at the things one needs, which are good governance and good elections. That will lead to stronger communities. First nations will have a better sense of how their communities will be governed and they will know when elections will take place. It will, in my view, increase accountability and transparency.

I wish I had more time and look forward to perhaps speaking to this legislation in the future.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate about this issue. It is a very important one for our aboriginal and first nations peoples.

One of the first things I thought about is my good friend who passed away, Earl Scofield, who was a senator. He flew 17 missions in a turret during the Second World War and later on came back to Canada, where he contributed not only socially but politically. He was involved as a founding New Democrat and also contributed many volunteer hours across the community, as a veteran and also as a citizen in our community. I could not help but think about some of the lessons he taught me about inclusion, the importance of listening at times and at times making sure to take the advice of others. Sadly, the government has not done that.

I thought about my own community and its relationship with the aboriginal communities in actually founding this country. There was Chief Tecumseh, who assisted Sir Isaac Brock of the British forces in defeating General Hull in Michigan to ensure our country would be born. There was co-operation. At that time it led to quite a significant quote by Sir Isaac Brock. Talking about Chief Tecumseh, he said, “A more sagacious or a more gallant warrior does not, I believe, exist”. That showed the level of developed maturity and relationship of trust that was created there.

It is important to talk a bit about process and then get into the bill. It is interesting that we have the unelected, unaccountable Senate as the kick-start to the bill, none of whose members has the same type of accountability as those in the House do and as others who are elected in the country do. That is unfortunate because often when bills come through the House it allows the elected body to move the bill through the proper process and channels.

In the past in this Parliament, closure has been moved many times and committees have been moved shorter than would allow for what could be done in terms of analysis. Bill S-6 is now going through this process. That is rather unfortunate.

It was interesting as well that one of the members on the government side said the government has introduced Bill S-6 for this, and meanwhile other bills that have been passed in this chamber, such as Bill C-290, the sports betting bill, languish in the Senate. It was passed with unanimous consent in this House, as no members decided to rise during any of the process to oppose it, to force a vote. It went unanimously to the Senate and it still sits there today. It seems we have our processes backed up and backwards. It is important if the House ever wants to get back on track that we look at those issues and a more balanced approach to processing legislation.

Bill S-6 would create an election cycle longer than two years. That is something important. One of the things we heard was that, when there is a controversy or contestation of an election, a two-year turnaround time is not enough because it could take that amount of time to actually do a full-out investigation. As my colleague pointed out, with the limited resources of the RCMP and the technical nature of these types of investigations, they could take a long time and be very burdensome.

Therefore, moving to the four-year element is something we could support. It has also been something consistent with other types of democracies. For example, in recent years city councils in Ontario moved from a three-year cycle to a four-year cycle, giving extra time for governance. That is important because with the turnover that can take place and the types and intensities of campaigns, they can be quite a distraction from actually getting some of the work done that needs to be done.

I point south of the border, where some of the U.S. elections are held every two years. I know from congress and senate that some of those that are on a two-year cycle for governance are literally fundraising constantly for their campaigns. Therefore, moving to the four-year cycle is something that could provide some greater stability and some improvements, and it is something we do support.

There would also be the ability to have a common election date, giving the minister of aboriginal affairs the power to order the first nations with community-designed elections to adhere to new regimes. It would also provide for election appeals through courts rather than through the department of aboriginal affairs. There would also be penalties for breaking election rules, and penalties are important.

First nations initially supported the bill, but here is the catching point. They asked for some amendments related specifically to the opt-in and other amendments as well. They have decided they cannot universally support the bill now.

The bill is just the beginning of what needs to be changed in the Indian Act.

I want to touch on the three election methods. The first is an election according to the provisions of the Indian Act. I will get into the problems later. The second is a community-designed or custom election whereby a first nation is allowed to adopt its own rules for an election rather than follow the Indian Act provisions if it has always been recognized by the federal government as selecting leaders by custom or if it submits written codes, approved by the majority of band members, for the approval of the department. Last is according to the provisions of a self-government agreement. Therefore, three different styles of elections that can take place.

The first, which was enacted under the original Indian Act, has caused several problems over the years on a wide range of social and justice issues that I cannot even get into, given their degree. They have gone on for many years.

The Indian Act displaces first nations' traditional political cultures and political systems. It actually intervenes in some of the existing cultural systems that have been in place, thus undermining them.

The Indian Act created the two-year election cycle. As I noted, and I think it is important, a two-year election cycle is not a lot of time for members and their councils to work together to create good governing environments. Having four years would be a benefit to all.

As well, right now, the minister and the Governor in Council have a significant degree of power over a first nation's elections and governance structures, including being able to determine the size of the council. It is critical that band councils have more flexibility with regard to the size of the governance structure they want. This is done in other governing systems, whether it be the House of Commons or in municipalities in Ontario. Again, the size can be worked on by the government.

The appeals process is lengthy and lacks rigour. As well, there are a number of other issues for which the Indian Act has not been a proficient and effective way of having these types of relationships.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs is opposed to this and have asked for the opt-in process to be changed. Here I would quote Aimée Craft, chair of the national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association:

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

To conclude, it is important to go back to the fact that the Conservative government has not done its due diligence on the inclusion of the aboriginal organizations and first nations that are affected by this act. We have heard from my colleague on the lack of outreach and the fact that it is very difficult to pull people out to meetings, because the trust is not there, the confidence that something will get done is not there, and the actions taken that would affect members of first nations and their families will not be in their best interests. We cannot blame that situation for the evolution that has taken place over a number of years and different circumstances.

I want to thank our critic on this issue for the very important work that has been done. The Indian Act needs extensive work. This type of half-effort is not sufficient for our partners out there who feel that they would like to have some changes. I hope the amendments called for can take place so that we can have more support and buy-in from those affected.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The House resumed at 12 noon)

The House resumed from June 14 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was also noted that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

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

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

Bill S-6 would do that.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

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

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

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

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

First Nations Elections Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved that Bill S-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Indian Affairs and Northern Development—Main Estimates, 2013–14

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's main estimates for 2013-14. Before I begin, I would like to indicate that I will use the first 10 minutes of my time to speak and the last 5 minutes to pose questions.

These main estimates reflect the Government of Canada's continued commitment to improving the quality of life for aboriginal people and northerners. Through targeted investments, this government is helping build the strong foundations of governance, human capital and infrastructure, which are the basis for healthy and prosperous communities.

Bill C-27, First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which received royal assent this past March, is one such example of our government's efforts to promote greater transparency and accountability. This, in turn, will create the conditions that encourage investment, economic development and growth, building a foundation for long-term prosperity in first nation communities across the country.

The passage of this legislation into law represents a milestone for those first nation communities, members and leaders who have been calling for this change. As I have said before, all Canadians, including first nations, want and deserve transparency and accountability from their governments. I am proud of our work with grassroots first nation members to have this legislation passed into law.

Until this legislation was passed, first nation governments were the only level of government in Canada that did not have some form of legislation to enhance or ensure accountability and transparency. Now the roughly 580 first nations operating under the Indian Act can benefit from more accountable, transparent governments.

Phyllis Sutherland, member of the Peguis First Nation and president of the Peguis Accountability Coalition, has said:

Bill C-27 will lead to big changes in accountability and transparency in First Nation communities...People at the grassroots level will be able to access information about their community without fear of intimidation or reprisal.

Colin Craig, prairie director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said:

We pushed for this new law for over three years so we're ecstatic it has passed. We commend the government for acting on concerns raised by taxpayers and whistleblowers living on reserves...Plain and simple, this new law will improve accountability and especially help the grassroots hold their elected officials accountable.

The First Nations Financial Transparency Act ensures first nation citizens have the same democratic rights and protections as all other Canadians. First nations are already required as a condition of funding agreements to provide government officials with audited financial statements and a schedule of salary, honoraria and travel expenses for chiefs and councillors.

That is not always shared with local residents, even when they ask for the information. In fact, during committee hearings for Bill C-27, we heard stories of people being intimidated in their home community, just for asking for that information.

This act ensures these statements will now be made available to first nation members, as well as to the public through posting on a website. This change will not lead to an increased reporting burden. These documents are already being prepared in accordance with the same accounting principles that apply to all levels of government right across the country, using a consistent format that was put in place in 2012-13.

Our ultimate goal is one recipient, one agreement and one report. Work toward this goal has already begun through a pilot project in which several first nations across Canada are taking part. The participating first nations prepare an annual report to their community and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada will now draw the performance information it needs from these reports to satisfy its own requirements to report to the Treasury Board and Parliament.

The results of this pilot project have been encouraging and as an added benefit, the participating first nations are in an excellent position to meet the requirements under the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

In parallel with financial transparency created by the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, our government is reducing the reporting burden on first nations created by funding agreements. The year-end reporting handbook has been streamlined by 60% from previous years. This means that we are reducing the number of reports recipients must submit, including eliminating those that duplicate information we can now get from the audited financial statements that will be online.

All first nations will now be completing fewer reports each year, beginning this year. We intend to go even further to weed out unnecessary reporting, while ensuring Parliament, Canadians and first nations community members can evaluate the results achieved with taxpayer dollars.

Consistency and transparency will help voters in first nations make decisions at election time. They will be able to make comparisons from year to year and from community to community. They can ask questions about spending and about revenues. Some first nations governments already post financial information on their communities' websites. Some already table comprehensive annual reports to their communities. We commend them for this. The First Nations Financial Transparency Act will encourage this kind of progress right across the country. Legislation like Bill C-27 is an essential step forward on that path.

We have worked with first nations partners to develop legislation that would replace the defective election provisions of the Indian Act with a clear, consistent, reliable framework that communities can use to elect strong, stable, effective governments. I am pleased to report that our creative and collaborative work has borne fruit and the result of that creative collaboration is Bill S-6, the first nations election act.

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

There is more. The Indian Act does not prevent any person from running and being elected chief and to a councillor position at the same time. The current system's loose nomination process also enables the names of candidates who are neither dedicated to running nor serious about serving to be placed on the ballot without their approval and, in some instances, without their knowledge. Because of this omission in the law, some first nations elections have had more than 100 candidates vie for as few as 13 positions.

Finally, the Indian Act elections system does not contain offence and penalty provisions, leaving it open to abuse and questionable activities.

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

Significantly, Bill S-6 would provide for terms of office of four years. With this time horizon, band councils are well positioned to advance important initiatives for the well-being of their communities. As well, Bill S-6 would provide: more rigour to the nomination of candidates; offence and penalty provisions that would allow courts to impose penalties for activities such as vote buying and obstructing the electoral process; and remove the paternalistic role of the minister in reviewing and deciding upon election appeals.

It is important that we all understand that the proposed act would not be mandatory. A first nation could simply remain under its current election system, whether that is the Indian Act or its own community-based system. To opt into the new law, a band council must adopt a resolution asking the minister to add its name to the schedule of first nations to which the new election system would apply. At a later time, a first nation could remove itself from the first nations election act by developing its own community election code, submitting that code to a community vote and receiving a favourable outcome. More than that, the fact that Bill S-6 is the product of collaborative efforts among government and first nations organizations is testament to its validity as an important step forward for first nations.

As members can see from our work on the First Nations Financial Transparency Act and on Bill S-6, the first nations election act, our government is committed to helping deliver more effective, more transparent and accountable governments.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills which have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including: Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

Opposition Motion—Aboriginal Canadians

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion brought forward by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River.

Our government has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to self-government and land claim settlements. We know they are the keys to increasing opportunities, jobs and prosperity for first nations. Enabling first nations to participate more fully in the economic improvements, both for their financial and social well-being, contributes to healthier, more sustainable communities. Equally important, self-government gives greater control to first nations leaders and residents over the decisions that affect their daily lives.

Our government is committed to working with willing first nations to make changes to elements of the Indian Act that are barriers to first nations governance and economic growth. This past month, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development announced that eight more first nations have joined the First Nations Land Management Act and chosen freedom from 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act. They now have power over their own reserve lands and resources, so they are able to take advantage of the economic activities without wading through bureaucratic red tape.

The First Nations Land Management Act is an important stepping stone to achieving self-government because it builds community capacity. Since first nations opted into this act and are no longer required to adhere to these land-related sections of the Indian Act, they have developed experience with land management. This experience, as well as developing a strong governance structure, sets the stage for greater self-government responsibilities down the road and improving accountability to members of first nation communities.

When a first nation opts into the First Nations Land Management Act regime, it opts out of the 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act. This frees the community from the outdated land management provisions of the Indian Act, which have not kept pace with first nations' desire for increased participation in the Canadian economy. There have been 69 first nations that have already made the decision to use this tool. We look forward to welcoming many more of them.

Communities deserve to be responsible for land-related issues that were previously administered by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. This shift gives back the responsibility to the first nations to take greater ownership of economic development on reserve and encourages partnership with the private sector. This is a key component of our government's shared goal with first nations people to increase autonomy and self-sufficient communities. Our government believes that incremental amendments to the Indian Act to bring our concrete, practical changes will lead to real results for grassroots first nations people and enable them to achieve greater self-sufficiency and prosperity.

Another example is Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act. Canadians understand the importance of transparency and accountability to promote confidence in their leaders. They know that first nations members deserve the same from their leadership, and they need access to adequate information to ensure their elected leaders are acting in their best interest. Bill C-27 puts in place the same types of rules for first nations on financial transparency that already apply to other levels of government in Canada. Let me remind my hon. colleagues that chiefs belonging to the Assembly of First Nations passed a resolution at their special chiefs assembly in December 2010 regarding financial disclosure. They affirm the need to publicly release information regarding salaries and expenses to their members. They have also agreed to make financial information available via the Internet where applicable.

Sadly, implementation of this resolution is far from complete. Even the AFN knows that financial disclosure is needed for first nation communities. The bill will provide an important new tool that will enable first nation leaders to be more accountable to their members. Transparency is at the foundation of a healthy democracy. To this end, Bill C-27 is designed to empower first nation community members to hold their leaders to account. Further, this initiative is part of a wider government effort to create greater accountability to enhance economic growth for first nations and all Canadians.

This legislation is something first nation residents are demanding. The real genesis of this legislation rests at the grassroots level. Individual members of first nations and, in some cases, community coalition groups formed across the country have repeatedly complained about questionable financial practices by their band councils. Too many first nation members say that they do not have access to the information they need to hold their officials to account. Bill C-27 will require the salaries and expenses of chiefs and councillors and the audited consolidated financial statements of the first nation as a whole to be publicly disclosed. It will put in place rules regarding financial transparency that are comparable to those that apply to governments across Canada.

Most important, the public availability of this data will result in greater and more consistent transparency practices that will increase investor confidence in first nation communities. The proposed legislation has benefited from the input of first nation leaders, such as Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation in Saskatchewan. Chief Bear stated during his appearance before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that transparency and accountability were among the principle factors that turned the Whitecap Dakota First Nation from near bankruptcy to the model vibrant community it is today.

Bill C-27 complements Bill S-6, the first nations elections act. These are both important pieces of legislation that support democratic practices and will empower first nations in the future. If passed, Bill S-6 will help ensure that first nations have a modern legislative framework to better support democracy, accountability and transparent governments, allowing first nation community members to make informed decisions about their leadership and create a better environment for private sector investment. This could in turn lead to greater economic development opportunities and improve the quality of life for first nation communities.

Our government is committed to working with willing first nations to strengthen financial and government transparency and accountability on reserve. The Indian Act cannot be replaced overnight, but our government has committed to working together to create the conditions to enable sustainable and economic success for first nations.

Furthermore, our government is investing in programs such as the aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, and the skills partnership fund. A set $1.68 billion has been committed from 2010 to 2015 to increase first nation participation in the Canadian labour force. I believe this is a great move forward, and I look forward, as a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, to working further with first nations to ensure that they move forward as all Canadians should.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in supporting us as members of Parliament in Tuesday’s voting. Despite all of the amendments at committee and in the House, the balance of the government’s 2012 economic action plan will become law shortly.

This afternoon, the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Once that has concluded, we will turn to report stage of Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

Monday shall be the seventh allotted day, which goes to the New Democrats. This gives the official opposition one last opportunity before the new year to lay out its plans and schemes for a $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax that will raise the price of everything.

For the rest of the week, I hope to advance a lot of legislation that continues to sit on the order paper. In addition to the bills I mentioned already, we will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-17, the Air Canada and its associates act; and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, once that bill has been reported back from committee next week, which I anticipate.

[Clarence Paupanekis, Councillor, Norway House Cree Nation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members, thank you on behalf of Norway House Cree Nation for this opportunity to present on the proposed legislation, Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.

My name is Councillor Clarence Paupanekis. I'm the finance portfolio holder for Norway House Cree Nation. Chief Ron Evans was unable to take part in today's proceedings; however, he thanks the committee for the invitation and sends his regards to each of you.

As one of many progressive and forward-moving first nations, Norway House Cree Nation, through its chief and council, has worked diligently over the past year and a half to develop an accountability framework, establishing sound financial management and administrative practices and providing good governance, accountability, and transparency. In doing so, Norway House Cree Nation has undertaken strategic planning, internal reorganization, centralization of finances—including the implementation of financial processes to ensure accountability—human resources and capacity building, and social and economic development analysis as well as assessments.

These exercises have been extremely critical in ensuring that we have the human and financial resources necessary to accomplish the many tasks and goals set out by our leadership as part of our strategic planning process and in response to the mandate for Norway House Cree Nation that our membership has given us.

That being said, we have secured the necessary professional capacity, with the necessary skills and experience in the areas of finance, strategic planning, policy, and external relations, to move our community forward.

It is imperative to note, however, that we did this on our own. We have brought in our own team and developed our own financial and strategic plans and have already made great strides, both in social and economic development and in putting our financial house in order.

Chief Darcy Bear, in his presentation to the standing committee last week, reiterated these same sentiments, stating that it is absolutely necessary that first nations obtain their own human resources and professional capacity. The accomplishments of his community speak to the importance of doing so.

These measures ensure that first nations establish sound financial and administrative management so that we can move forward in implementing social and economic development initiatives, including business ventures and partnerships as well as capital projects, that will allow us to generate own-source revenues and meet the needs of our community.

Furthermore, they allow us as first nations to move forward in establishing our own financial management laws, in enabling us to enter into the First Nations Land Management Act under which we have our own certified land managers, to develop land codes, and to negotiate self-government agreements, among other important initiatives.

In order to do any of the latter, a first nation must have both financial and political stability as well as credibility.

It has been recognized that one of the major setbacks for first nations is the constant turnover in leadership, which not only causes instability in our communities, but also causes setbacks in both social and economic development opportunities because of the constant need to re-establish relationships and partnerships, which are critical to providing strong leadership and governance and to accomplishing the tasks before our leaders as well as to establishing opportunities for our membership.

We are hopeful that Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, which is a community, grassroots-led initiative that first nations across the country were engaged in and were consulted on, will be passed by the House of Commons this session so that we can begin to remedy these ongoing issues.

The elements of this bill will establish the necessary foundations to assist us in developing strong accountability frameworks pertaining to elections held for those first nations who are governed by section 74 of the Indian Act—one step further in moving away from the Indian Act—as well as in implementing the mechanisms needed to address issues surrounding election processes and concerns among the membership about ineffective leadership. Further to this, Bill S-6 will remove the authority from the minister of AANDC to oversee first nations elections and appeals.

With respect to Bill C-27, although the intent of the bill with respect to enhancing accountability and transparency for first nations is good, we cannot support the bill in its current form. Like others who have come before the standing committee, we agree that several amendments are required before the legislation can proceed in the House of Commons.

Furthermore, consultation with first nations on the development of this bill has not occurred. However, this is our opportunity to provide input and address our concerns regarding the current reading of the bill. It is imperative to note that first nations members across the country have been asking for greater accountability measures from their governments, and this bill is seen as a response by the Government of Canada for those who have not yet implemented and demonstrated accountability and transparency to their membership.

We agree that accountability and transparency, both of which are pillars of good governance, are important. We as first nations government, as any government, should be required to have mechanisms in place to ensure financial accountability. However, we should be responsible for constructing our own accountability frameworks.

Bill C-27 has received much criticism from first nations as it currently reads, not because of its accountability and transparency implications, but rather due to certain elements of the bill, which would see first nations reporting much more information above and beyond the expectations of public sector accounting principles and standards.

Yes, the reality is that first nations communities receive federal funding, and as such, we have an obligation to be accountable for such funding. However, the reporting mechanisms currently in place continue to overburden our communities, as was articulated by the Auditor General in her 2006 report. This could potentially risk delivery of programs and services our communities are responsible for.

We as first nations should retain the right to choose our priorities and define our financial accountability mechanisms. Our focus should be on ensuring that the funding is in fact used in the most effective way to deliver the programs and services for our people and not spent on the numerous reports that are required to justify the funds we receive, which barely meet the needs of our community.

Furthermore, we should not be held more accountable than federal, provincial, and municipal governments are, and we certainly should not be forced to publicly disclose our audited financial statements on the Internet. It should be left to the individual communities to decide how their audited financial statements should be disseminated and to which of its stakeholders, and not for the government to dictate.

Our practice in Norway House Cree Nation is to hold a community meeting to share our audited financial statements and explain in simple terms what the financial statements read. This information is put in a format that is easily understood by our committee members. Furthermore, our membership can request a copy of the audited financial statements from the band office and members of our council and our CFO. They are all accessible to answer any questions and address any concerns regarding the statements.

Furthermore, we have implemented stringent internal financial approval and reporting processes that ensure that all directors, program managers, and administrators are accountable to our management team and CFO, who in turn report to chief and council on all financial matters. These reports are made on a regular basis to the chief and council at our monthly council meetings, and in turn are reported at our community meetings.

With respect to the disclosure of salaries for chief and council, we agree this information should be disclosed to our members. Like Whitecap Dakota First Nation, we have also done a review of all salaries across our organization and have implemented a competitive and equitable salary grid to keep our people employed within our community.

The expectation to provide a separate annual schedule of remuneration that includes the details of salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, fees, honoraria, dividends, and expenses paid by the first nation, and any entity controlled by the first nation, to the chief and/or council in their professional and personal capacity should remain internal information. Internal financial accountability with respect to prohibiting double-dipping with respect to travel and honorarium regarding committees, boards, and businesses should be at the discretion of the community. Thus, remuneration should remain consistent with the definition as outlined in the Income Tax Act.

It should also be noted that travel, and expenses related to travel, should not be associated with one salary, or wages, as it is a separate matter. Travel, especially for those who live in remote and isolated communities, continues to be costly, especially to urban centres where business meetings are most often held. Where possible, our community finds every opportunity to hold meetings within the community to reduce travel-related expenditures.

With respect to the public disclosure of private enterprises or band-owned business entities, we also agree that the public disclosure of this information could jeopardize potential partnerships and business ventures by inadvertently scoping in entities. Again, generally accepted accounting principles should be followed here, and first nations should not have to publicly disclose any more information than is the public standard.

Lastly, with regard to alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution, as well as enforcement, this should also be left to each individual community to determine and implement. Our funding agreements in their current form already contain provisions to deal with these matters. What this bill should do is support community-driven processes and provide the tools and mechanisms to support capacity development. This is what our communities and leaders should continue to seek: fairness, equity, and respect through government-to-government relationships.

We all need to be reminded that if our first nations communities prosper, we all prosper. If we work together, we can achieve great things for our communities, provinces, territories, and for our country as a whole.

Thank you again for this opportunity to address Bill C-27.

Ekosani.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's been one of those days, so I do apologize for the ten minutes that I kept you waiting.

I'm pleased to be joined by Karl Jacques, who is from our justice department; Brenda Kustra, the DG for governance with my department; and Andrew Francis, who is CFO in corporate accounting for the department.

I'm happy to speak to Bill C-27 and to respond to your committee's questions. As I indicated when Bill C-27 was first introduced last fall, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act is one of a series of initiatives that will help to build stronger, more self-sufficient first nations communities. It complements Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act. Both are important pieces of legislation that will strengthen transparency and accountability in first nations governments and will help to empower first nations people.

The first nations residents want and expect transparency from their elected representatives. Like all Canadians, they want assurances that funds are being used to improve their communities' quality of life and economic opportunity. We believe that first nations citizens should have access to the financial statements of their governments and information on the salaries of their elected officials, as do other Canadians.

Democracy depends on citizens being able to call their elected leaders to account to ensure they represent the community's best interests. Under current Indian Act policy, first nations community members may ask for financial information relating to their band. However, the first nation is currently not legally required to release this information. As a result, each year my department receives requests from first nations individuals looking for this basic information, which we believe they should be able to access directly from their band. I would much prefer not to be the middleman in responding to these requests.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-27 would directly address this issue by requiring first nations governments to publish annual audited financial statements and a schedule of the salaries and expenses of their chiefs and councillors. This would ensure that first nations community members have the necessary information to make informed decisions about their governments. It is important to note that this bill would not set salary levels for chief and councillors, rather it will remain the responsibility of the first nation to set the appropriate level of remuneration for elected officials. Bill C-27 will simply provide for the public disclosure of financial information that would allow the membership to decide if levels of compensation are appropriate.

A real or perceived lack of transparency and accountability from first nations leaders can also erode investor confidence and impede a community's ability to take full advantage of economic development opportunities. Ultimately, this delays or destroys job opportunities and economic progress for the first nation community and its members. On the other hand, we know that increased transparency and improved financial reporting leads to increased investor confidence and ultimately a stronger economy. That is why it is essential that such information be easily accessible, not only to first nations residents, but also to the broader Canadian public.

The publication of financial information will make it easier for analysis and comparisons to be done by a wider group of people, including academics, the media, economists, investors, and the general public, as is the case with information provided by other governments in Canada.

A question that came up during second reading of this bill was whether the public disclosure of financial statements of band-owned businesses would undermine their competitiveness. The simple answer to this is no. Bill C-27 would not require each individual business owned by the band to publish its detailed financial statements. Instead, Bill C-27 would require the publication of the audited consolidated financial statements of the first nation as a whole, which would include any entities controlled by the first nation, including band-owned businesses. I emphasize that this is in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and rules that already apply to government-owned businesses across Canada. These statements are highly aggregated and should not reveal any proprietary information that would undermine their competitiveness.

We are reviewing the language of the bill and are receptive to clarification, consistent with matching the spirit and intent of the bill.

I also want to take this opportunity to be absolutely clear on the fact that this proposed legislation would not create any additional paperwork for first nations governments. They already produce audited consolidated financial statements each year, which are audited by independent, accredited professional auditors, as a requirement of their funding agreements with my department. This bill is not requiring anything new.

Similarly, what we are asking of chiefs and councillors is no different from what we ask of ourselves as parliamentarians. For example, the Government of Canada posts its financial statements on the Internet, and all of us, as members of Parliament, now fully disclose our salaries and special allowances to the public, as required under the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act. Canadians can easily access this information and more, since the Federal Accountability Act has increased the public's access to information about government activities.

Provincial and territorial governments have adopted similar practices, and the vast majority of them have legislation that requires municipal governments to make these documents public as well.

In short, first nations governments are the only governments in Canada that do not currently have a legislated requirement to make basic financial information public. This bill proposes to address this gap.

Now, many first nations are already posting their financial statements. I'm familiar with a number of first nations that are practising financial transparency and accountability. However, not all first nations communities have taken these steps. This bill will ensure that all first nations citizens can expect the same access to financial information in their communities.

As an example, since the private member's bill on this issue, Bill C-575, in the last Parliament, my department has been monitoring how many first nations post their financial information on the Internet. In March 2011, for example, 291 first nations had community websites, and only 13 of these disclosed salary and/or honoraria information. In September 2012, there were 403 first nations with websites, and 19 of those disclosed salary information. This demonstrates that a growing number of first nations see the benefits of being open about this information.

We expect that once this bill becomes law, and posting financial information becomes the norm for first nations, as it is for all other governments in Canada, many first nations will not only meet the expectations of the legislation but will surpass them. These are the communities that will benefit most from this legislation.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-27 fully addresses the point that not all first nations have websites. A first nation will not be required to have its own website as a result of this bill. If a first nation were not able to publish the information electronically itself, it could ask another organization to post it on the community's behalf. Alternatively, the first nation could ask my department to post the information on its behalf. However, we should be clear that having these documents published on a website does not fulfill a first nation government's obligation to make copies of financial information available to its members. Although we continue to make progress on increasing Internet connectivity in first nations, many first nation members still do not have easy access to the Internet. As a result, first nations will need to find ways to make this information available to their members who do not have Internet access. Many already do this either by distributing printed copies to households or by making the information available in readily accessible locations in the community, including band offices.

As I mentioned at the outset, my department receives many requests each year from first nations members seeking assistance in obtaining basic financial information from their own government. First nations citizens should not have to go to the minister for this information. It would be more appropriate for first nations citizens to obtain this information directly from their band councils. This bill would provide first nations with the tools they need to access this information and ultimately lessen my role as the minister, which is consistent with my desire to lessen ministerial intervention in what should be community-based decision-making.

Mr. Chair, this bill does not propose radical measures. They are the minimum that citizens should expect in a democracy. First nations residents have the same expectations in this regard as other citizens, other Canadians.

Bill C-27 will result in increased public trust, both from community members and Canadians at large. This will translate into increased business opportunity. This bill will help to assure potential investors that they can safely enter into joint financial agreements and business undertakings with first nations. This will contribute to social and economic improvements in the lives and livelihoods of first nations members.

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to have had this opportunity to speak to the committee. Bill C-27 is a landmark bill that is long overdue. It will bring many benefits to first nations communities and encourage self-sufficiency.

I would be pleased to answer questions at this time.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, commencing on Monday, June 11, 2012, and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2012, but not including Friday, June 15, 2012.

Today I rise to make the case for the government's motion to extend the working hours of this House until midnight for the next two weeks. This is of course a motion made in the context of the Standing Orders, which expressly provide for such a motion to be made on this particular day once a year.

Over the past year, our government's top priority has remained creating jobs and economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth have remained important priorities for our government.

Under the government's economic action plan, Canada's deficits and taxes are going down; investments in education, skills training, and research and innovation are going up; and excessive red tape and regulations are being eliminated.

As the global economic recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe, Canadians want their government to focus on what matters most: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is what our Conservative government has been doing.

On March 29, the Minister of Finance delivered economic action plan 2012, a comprehensive budget that coupled our low-tax policy with new actions to promote jobs and economic growth.

The 2012 budget proposed measures aimed at putting our finances in order, increasing innovation and creating suitable and applicable legislation in the area of resource development in order to promote a good, stable investment climate.

The budget was debated for four days and was adopted by the House on April 4. The Minister of Finance then introduced Bill C-38, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the 2012 budget implementation bill. The debate at second reading of Bill C-38 was the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least two decades, and probably the longest ever.

On May 14, after seven days of debate, Bill C-38 was passed at second reading.

The bill has also undergone extensive study in committee. The Standing Committee on Finance held in-depth hearings on the bill. The committee also created a special subcommittee for detailed examination of the bill's responsible resource development provisions. All told, this was the longest committee study of any budget implementation bill for at least the last two decades, and probably ever.

We need to pass Bill C-38 to implement the urgent provisions of economic action plan 2012. In addition to our economic measures, our government has brought forward and passed bills that keep the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election.

In a productive, hard-working and orderly way, we fulfilled long-standing commitments to give marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers, to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and to improve our democracy by moving every province closer to the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons.

However, in the past year our efforts to focus on the priorities of Canadians have been met with nothing but delay and obstruction tactics by the opposition. In some cases, opposition stalling and delaying tactics have meant that important bills are still not yet law. That is indeed regrettable.

In the case of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, a bill that will help to create good, high-paying jobs in Canada's creative and high-tech sectors, this House has debated the bill on 10 days. We heard 79 speeches on it before it was even sent to committee. This is, of course, on top of similar debate that occurred in previous Parliaments on similar bills.

It is important for us to get on with it and pass this bill for the sake of those sectors of our economy, to ensure that Canada remains competitive in a very dynamic, changing high-tech sector in the world, so that we can have Canadian jobs and Canadian leadership in that sector.

Bill C-24 is the bill to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It has also been the subject of numerous days of debate, in fact dozens and dozens of speeches in the House, and it has not even made it to committee yet.

Bill C-23 is the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act. It also implements another important job-creating free trade agreement.

All three of these bills have actually been before this place longer than for just the last year. As I indicated, they were originally introduced in previous Parliaments. Even then, they were supported by a majority of members of this House and were adopted and sent to committee. However, they are still not law.

We are here to work hard for Canadians. Adopting today's motion would give the House sufficient time to make progress on each of these bills prior to the summer recess. Adopting today's motion would also give us time to pass Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. It is a much-needed piece of legislation that would give Canadians in small businesses and self-employed workers yet another option to help support them in saving for their retirement. Our government is committed to giving Canadians as many options as possible to secure their retirement and to have that income security our seniors need. This is another example of how we can work to give them those options.

In addition to these bills that have been obstructed, opposed or delayed one way or another by the opposition, there are numerous bills that potentially have support from the opposition side but still have not yet come to a vote. By adding hours to each working day in the House over the next two weeks, we would allow time for these bills to come before members of Parliament for a vote. These include: Bill C-12, safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; and Bill C-15, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I might add, that bill is long overdue as our military justice system is in need of these proposed changes. It has been looking for them for some time. It is a fairly small and discrete bill and taking so long to pass this House is not a testament to our productivity and efficiency. I hope we will be able to proceed with that.

Bill C-27 is the first nations financial transparency act, another step forward in accountability. Bill C-28 is the financial literacy leader act. At a time when we are concerned about people's financial circumstances, not just countries' but individuals', this is a positive step forward to help people improve their financial literacy so all Canadians can face a more secure financial future. Bill C-36 is the protecting Canada's seniors act which aims to prevent elder abuse. Does it not make sense that we move forward on that to provide Canadian seniors the protection they need from those very heinous crimes and offences which have become increasingly common in news reports in recent years?

Bill C-37 is the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. This is another major step forward for readjusting our justice system which has been seen by most Canadians as being for too long concerned only about the rights and privileges of the criminals who are appearing in it, with insufficient consideration for the needs of victims and the impact of those criminal acts on them. We want to see a rebalancing of the system and that is why Bill C-37 is so important.

Of course, we have bills that have already been through the Senate, and are waiting on us to deal with them. Bill S-2, which deals with matrimonial real property, which would give fairness and equality to women on reserve, long overdue in this country. Let us get on with it and give first nations women the real property rights they deserve. Then there is Bill S-6, first nations electoral reform, a provision we want to see in place to advance democracy. Bill S-8 is the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill S-7 is the combatting terrorism act.

As members can see, there is plenty more work for this House to do. As members of Parliament, the least we can do is put in a bit of overtime and get these important measures passed.

In conclusion, Canada's economic strength, our advantage in these uncertain times, and our stability also depend on political stability and strong leadership. Across the world, political gridlock and indecision have led to economic uncertainty and they continue to threaten the world economy. That is not what Canadians want for their government. Our government is taking action to manage the country's business in a productive, hard-working and orderly fashion. That is why all members need to work together in a time of global economic uncertainty to advance the important bills I have identified, before we adjourn for the summer.

I call on all members to support today's motion to extend the working hours of this House by a few hours for the next two weeks. For the members opposite, not only do I hope for their support in this motion, I also hope I can count on them to put the interests of Canadians first and work with this government to pass the important bills that remain before us.

First Nations Elections Act

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

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate, I must inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed 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, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much, Chairman.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss supplementary estimates (C) for fiscal year 2011-12 and the main estimates for fiscal year 2012-13 for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. This committee has an important role in reviewing the department's expenditures.

The amounts listed in both sets of estimates represent investments that support this government's larger approach to improving the quality of life of aboriginal peoples and northerners.

I will touch on other aspects of our government's approach in a moment, but I'd like to begin by addressing a few items in supplementary estimates (C) for 2011-12. These estimates include initiatives totalling slightly more than $70 million.

The largest single amount, $47.4 million, involves the emergency management assistance program. These funds are needed to reimburse costs incurred on reserve by provincial, territorial, and emergency management organizations. These organizations provided response and recovery services on reserves following floods in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Alberta, and wildfires in Ontario and Alberta.

The second-largest item included in supplementary estimates (C) is $5.1 million for acquisition of fisheries licences by Maa-nulth First Nations and commercial crab licences by Tsawwassen First Nation. This investment honours commitments by Canada during the negotiations that led to the Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen final agreements. Those are British Columbia treaties.

The main estimates for fiscal year 2012-13 forecast department expenditures of approximately $7.8 billion. This is a net increase of $429 million, or 5.8%, over the main estimates for 2011-12.

This is partly accounted for by an increase of $286 million in the cashflow for the negotiation, settlement, and implementation of specific and comprehensive claims, primarily for the settlement of the Coldwater-Narrows specific claim. As you are aware, our government has prioritized addressing the backlog of such grievances, some having been unresolved for decades. We've made excellent progress in this regard.

The details of forecasted expenditures for the main estimates are available to you. I can also assure you that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada will continue to make strategic and targeted investments that respond to the needs of aboriginal people and northerners, while at the same time ensuring that resources are aligned with priorities. We will continue to actively monitor resource pressures and demographic growth pressures.

Mr. Chair, the investments listed in both sets of estimates represent only one of the means this government has to support northerners and aboriginal peoples in improving their quality of life and achieving their significant potential within a strong Canada. Legislation is another important tool, as the members of this committee understand very well.

This government has a number of legislative initiatives under way, both in the House of Commons and the other place, and I look to the members of this committee to advocate for passage of these important proposals.

For instance, last November we introduced Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. This proposed legislation supports democratic, transparent, and accountable first nation governments by requiring that chiefs and councillors publish their salaries and expenses.

On December 6, Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, was introduced in the Senate. This legislation addresses long-standing issues with the current election system under the Indian Act and is nearing the end of a thorough review by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, has passed through the Senate and is now awaiting second reading in the House.

Just last week we introduced Bill S-8, legislation proposing a mechanism to safeguard the quality of drinking water in first nation communities, and committing in the bill to work with first nations on the development of the regulations.

Also as part of our legislative agenda, we are continuing to move forward with legislative and regulatory changes to modernize the federal regulatory system for project reviews through the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

Partnership, whether legislative, policy, or program, is another key component of this government's approach. The shared goals prioritize supporting northerners and aboriginal peoples to participate more fully in Canada's prosperity.

I'm pleased to report significant progress. Through ongoing devolution and self-government negotiations, Canada continues to work with partners to create practical, innovative, and efficient governance models. For example, negotiations continue between the Government of Canada and Government of the Northwest Territories towards a final devolution agreement. This will be an important step in the political and economic development of the Northwest Territories.

International Polar Year is another example of a successful initiative that has created important partnerships for Canada with an emphasis on our north. The strength of these relationships will be demonstrated when, between April 22 and 27, the Government of Canada will welcome the world to Montreal for the International Polar Year closing conference. Over 2,500 participants will attend, including leading polar scientists, aboriginal leaders, Arctic community members, industry representatives, and policy- and decision-makers in order to review the work that has been undertaken and to discuss the way forward for advancing Arctic science.

Partnership, of course, takes many forms. We are also continuing to work alongside the Assembly of First Nations through the Canada and first nations joint action plan. A growing spirit of collaboration was evident during the crown and first nations gathering held earlier this year, in which all participants declared their intention to go beyond the joint action plan and set the context for change. This spirit is also reflected in a series of practical agreements that address specific issues, such as on-reserve education and child and family services.

Seven tripartite education agreements are now in place across the country. The most recent agreement was concluded in British Columbia earlier this year, and builds on existing partnerships in that province. It will provide first nations students in British Columbia with access to quality education programs, whether they attend school on or off reserve.

To inspire further progress, on June 21 last year the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations launched an independent national panel on first nation elementary and secondary education. The panel's role was to lead an engagement process and provide recommendations on how to improve first nations elementary and secondary education. On February 8, the national panel released its final report. We are reviewing the recommendations in the report carefully and are considering the next steps on education reform.

Mr. Chair, there can be no doubt that our government recognizes the importance of a sound education for all Canadians. We recently demonstrated our commitment to progress on education through our support of the honourable member for Manicouagan's opposition day motion on first nation education.

Improving education outcomes is crucial to making progress on a critical issue: economic and social development. The reality is that barriers continue to hinder the full participation of aboriginal people in Canada's economy, so we are also continuing to turn to willing partners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, in both the public and private sectors, to find workable solutions to these obstacles to economic development.

The federal framework for aboriginal economic development introduced in 2009 is a case in point. Developed in partnership with stakeholders, the framework is a business-oriented opportunity and results-driven policy approach.

By means of the framework, we are working toward a more systematic identification of economic opportunities for aboriginal people, a greater leveraging of partnerships, and a modernization of land management regimes. As this committee is aware through its ongoing work, that is why, in budget 2011, our government took action to reallocate $20 million over two years to respond to the growing interest from first nation leaders in participating in the first nations land management regime.

As a result of this investment, we recently announced that 18 additional first nations will be participating in the regime. New signatory first nations will be able to opt out of the land-related sections of the Indian Act and consequently manage their land, resources, and environment according to their own land codes, laws, and policies. They will now be able to take advantage of greater economic development opportunities at the speed of business.

Ultimately, this government aims to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they live—north or south, on or off reserve—can share in and contribute to Canada's prosperity. Both estimates support existing programs, partnerships, and legislative projects. I am confident that the items under review will lead to further progress for aboriginal peoples, northerners, and all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best to answer any questions that members of the committee may have pertaining to supplementary estimates (C) and the mains.