Bill C-9 (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.

Motions in amendment

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

moved that 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, be read the third time and passed.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to support Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act.

As with everything we do as a government, this bill is about delivering results for Canadians and addressing the priorities of Canadians. That most certainly includes the priorities of first nations citizens of this country, who are currently living under the outdated and discriminatory Indian Act.

As the matters this bill addresses are a priority for first nations, this bill is about empowering first nations across Canada to take charge of their own destinies. In fact, it may easily be said that this is not a government bill, but a first nations bill. The government did not go to first nations with a proposal; first nations came to the government with one. They said, “Here is a serious problem and here is how the government can help us solve it.” Bill C-9 before us today is not the result of the government consulting with first nations; it is the result of first nations consulting with first nations.

I should add that our government was proud to provide the support and coordination that helped first nations engage with each other on a national basis. As the hon. member for St. Paul's stated at a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:

We think this is an excellent example of bottom-up legislation.

I could not agree more with the Liberal member.

In that regard, I must recognize the initiative and determination of two first nations organizations that have played a pivotal role in bringing us to this day and giving us the opportunity to provide a legislative framework that is indisputably better than what first nations have been saddled with for decades. This is not simply duplicate legislation to the Indian Act, but an effective, accountable, and responsible option for first nations communities.

It was over five years ago that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, led by then Grand Chief Ron Evans, and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, with the support of our government, began the efforts that ultimately resulted in the bill that is before us today. They saw the need for electoral reform. They had good ideas for improvement. They consulted with the leaders of their local communities and with the people who live in those communities.

Half a country apart, they found a remarkable similarity of opinion emerging from these consultations. The quality and scope of these consultations and the close parallels to be drawn between their recommendations encouraged the government to ask the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs to lead a national consultation process. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs covered the west and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs handled the east.

The consultations included not only chiefs and band councils; from the beginning, they recognized the importance of including individual grassroots band members across Canada. Both organizations gave the consultations a prominent place on their websites. They published their recommendations and explained what they meant and what they intended to achieve. A simple feedback form enabled and encouraged individuals to provide their thoughts and opinions on the initiatives being proposed. I would point out that this feedback carried considerable weight with the government in developing this bill.

As a result, in supporting Bill C-9, we have the opportunity to endorse not only its contents, but the truly inclusive and collaborative process that led to its creation, an example of how first nations people, their leaders, their representative organizations, and the federal government can work collaboratively to find solutions and achieve a common goal.

It is difficult to imagine a more laudable goal than ensuring that all first nations citizens have the opportunity to participate in free and fair elections. However, the fact is that for many first nations governed by the outdated and archaic Indian Act, the most basic premise of democratic government does not exist. The failures of the Indian Act with respect to elections are well known and long-standing, dating back to the early 1950s. Even before the development of the bill before us today, more than 75 first nations communities decided to take matters into their own hands and move out of the Indian Act to design and implement their own community election codes.

Adoption of the proposed electoral system described in the bill is voluntary. The bill is intended to provide an option for first nations that may not have the capacity to develop their own community election code or that simply want a turnkey and accountable election code that they can opt into.

Let us consider some of the shortcomings the bill would address.

The Indian Act, for example, specifies the chief and band councillors are elected on a two-year term. This is hardly conducive to the design and execution of the long-term strategies needed to achieve key priorities. It also means that first nation communities are in almost constant election mode. By the time a first nation council has been elected, sworn in, got a handle on its responsibilities and started the actual process of governing, it is time to start campaigning for the next election.

Bill C-9 would enable first nation communities to fix that by implementing four-year terms for elected officials, bringing them into line with what is the norm for most other jurisdictions in Canada and allow time to not only learn the job but time to actually do the job.

In addition, the bill would enable different first nations to hold their elections on the same day, a common election day. This innovative idea came directly from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and it is a good one. With terms of office beginning and ending at the same time, common election days would make it easier for groups of first nations to collaborate and present a common front in business development endeavours and other shared priorities.

Longer terms in office and the potential to set common election dates are important improvements, but any elected official's term is too long if the legitimacy of the electoral process is in question. This is perhaps the most damaging impact of the electoral system provided under the Indian Act.

The sort of checks and balances that allow most Canadians to take for granted the results of an election as an accurate reflection of the will of the people are virtually non-existent in the Indian Act. We have all heard of cases of vote buying and other irregularities, irregularities that even if they do not effect the legitimacy of an election can cause it to be perceived as such.

There is little in the Indian Act to discourage these practices. They can be carried on with little or no consequences. This not only undermines confidence in government, but leads to paralyzing appeals of election results.

Under the Indian Act, anyone who does not like the way in which an election has turned out can simply appeal the results by providing a sworn affidavit to the minister regardless of the merits or validity of their arguments.

In addition, the appeal system under the Indian Act is slow and administratively cumbersome. Many months can go by before a decision is rendered. In the majority of cases the appeals are dismissed, but in the meantime with its legitimacy in question, a first nations government comes to a virtual standstill. Projects and initiatives that can benefit a community may be stalled. To add insult to injury, the Indian Act includes the paternalistic provision that all appeals are decided by the minister.

Similar to the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-9 contains provisions that would minimize the likelihood of corrupt election practices by setting out specific offences and specific penalties for those convicted of committing those offences. Instead of appealing to the minister, an elector would file an appeal in federal or provincial court. These appeals would be addressed by the courts, just as they are for federal, provincial and municipal elections. This provision would minimize the potential for frivolous appeals and at the same time remove the minister from the process.

Local law enforcements could lay charges for corrupt activity in connection with first nations elections and they would have the backing of the courts to impose fines and jail sentences on those convicted.

Again, these are the kinds of protections, which most Canadians take for granted, that help to ensure the electoral processes are accountable, consistent and effective and that help to provide for political stability that is so essential to economic growth, job creation and higher standards of living.

The first nations elections act would also encourage greater citizen engagement in the political process by eliminating anomalies and other peculiarities that the Indian Act's lack of clarity has allowed to happen.

The nomination process is perhaps the most glaring example. Under the Indian Act, the same person can run for chief and for council in the same election. Not only can the same person run for both positions, the same person can be elected to and serve in both positions. That would change under Bill C-9.

In addition, the Indian Act provides little guidance on other aspects of the nomination process. If he or she wishes, one person can nominate dozens or more candidates for any position. It is not unheard of for a first nations voter to be handed a ballot with more than 100 candidates listed on it, sometimes without the knowledge of those candidates. This hardly encourages citizens' engagement. That too would change under Bill C-9.

The first nations elections act would enable first nations to implement a more stringent nomination process. First nations could impose a fee of up to $250 to discourage the nomination of candidates who were not interested and were simply running as a lark.

Under Bill C-9, first nations would also have the authority to require all candidates nominated to accept their nomination in writing so the names of people with no desire or interest would not appear on the ballot. Other provisions in the bill would enable the development of regulations to address frequently expressed concerns about the potential for abuse in the distribution of mail-in ballots.

In conclusion, I would point out that neither this provision nor anything else in the bill goes beyond what is the norm for most Canadians. Through the consultations led by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, we have learned that first nations citizens want to have the option to divest themselves of the Indian Act provisions and to a new consistent and accountable system similar to that which is enjoyed by all other Canadians.

I would emphasize again that adopting the first nations elections act would not be mandatory for first nations. Bill C-9 is intended to provide an option for those first nations that are having difficulty with the status quo. They may want a more robust electoral system than what is proposed under the Indian Act, but may not have the capacity to design their own. They may have a community electoral system in place that is not working as well as they had hoped. This is an option and it would be flexible. Many of the provisions themselves would be optional, the nomination fee, for example, so it could be tailored to the specific circumstances of individual communities. It is an option that first nations themselves have asked us to provide.

I am confident all members of the House understand and support the belief that a strong, robust electoral system that assures elections are free and fair encourages citizen engagement and promotes good governance. I would urge all members to compare the option the bill would provide to first nations with the electoral system currently provided for in the Indian Act. The problems allowed by the Indian Act's lack of clarity could be exceptionally damaging.

Let me give the words used by Mr. John Paul, executive director of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs in a recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. He said:

—the Indian Act election process is very ruthless. It is not a nice process. It is not pretty, and it's very vicious in terms of how it gets played out in a community. It negatively impacts a lot of people in the community.

Too many first nations have been struggling under the kind of electoral system described by Mr. Paul. It is why Mr. Paul and first nations leaders and individuals across the country came to the government with a plan to give those first nations a better option, the option that Bill C-9 would provide. The bill is the result of a true grassroots movement and it reflects broad and legitimate consensus among the people who want this option. I would argue that our task is as clear as it is simple. We need only to step out of the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I give my speech, I will touch on a number of problems with the bill. However, I have a specific question for the parliamentary secretary with regard to the consultation process.

He is absolutely correct that the Assembly of National Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress did carry out a consultation process, but in the briefing that was provided to committee members, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs had a frame that it carried out the consultation under. It was the fact that it was looking at new election legislation affording a common election date and longer terms of office.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs initially supported going forward, but then when the draft legislation was presented, it contained additional clauses that would impact directly on first nations autonomy. Those included a continuance of the minister's ability to intervene with an election process, the fact that first nations were forced to the courts and a regulatory process that was not inclusive of first nations involvement.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is this. Why did the Conservatives not take that draft legislation back to first nations and then gather input on what they were proposing?

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

Mr. Speaker, the key part of this, which I spoke about numerous times during my speech, is the opt in nature of the legislation. There is nothing in the bill that compels first nations to adopt this mode of election for their first nation. If they prefer to operate under the Indian Act system, that is their right. If they have a custom election code, that is their right.

If first nations do not like what they see in the bill, they are free to continue on the same course they have currently. There is nothing to compel first nations to adopt this new elections act, although we hope many will choose that option.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary and he made numerous references to the outdated, the archaic to the discriminatory Indian Act and I agree entirely with him.

Could we hope that the government is mustering the courage to scrap the Indian Act and to start over with something that is much more responsible from a government point of view and that brings us into 21st century?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly this government is taking steps where we can to provide options for first nations to get out from under the Indian Act. When we look at things like the First Nations Land Management Act, which removes the land related provisions for first nations who want to opt in, the legislation allows first nations to opt out of the Indian Act election system.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River proposed Bill C-428, which removes several sections of the Indian Act. As the Prime Minister said during the Crown-First Nations Gathering, simply blowing up the Indian Act would leave too big a hole. We need to work with first nations to systematically dismantle the Indian Act and that is what we are doing here. We are taking the election provisions and giving first nations the option to get out from underneath the paternalistic Indian Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, most of us in the House live in communities where economic prosperity in some respects is taken a bit for granted. Any government has a responsibility to help put together a legislative framework to attract economic prosperity in communities. Bill C-9 is one of those vehicles in which we need to look at in order to help do that.

One of the issues we need to look at, which the parliamentary secretary talked extensively about, is the elections act and reformation of it. Could the parliamentary secretary highlight quickly the main benefits he feels are in Bill C-9.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, the two-year terms under the Indian Act election system right now simply do not provide enough time for a first nations chief in councils to propose any consistency in their community to allow them enough time to implement a plan perhaps on which they campaigned. The election cycle is too short.

However, the highlights of the legislation, the benefits for communities that choose to opt in, will include reforming the electoral system, which is too often open to abuse, close loopholes in the nomination process so only folks who want to be on the ballot are actually on it and provide the tools and mechanisms to discourage the abuse of the mail-in ballot system.

Right now there are too many loopholes in the Indian Act system. There is too much potential for abuse, and certainly we have seen cases of that abuse. This legislation for those first nations that opt into it would certainly close those loopholes and provide more certainty for those first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's speech carefully to hear when he would explain why in a bill, where I agree with him overall, it was about first nations opting in. Overall, it originally came from the Atlantic Policy Congress and the Assembly of First Nations Chiefs of Manitoba. However, without consultation with those first nations, or any other first nations in Canada, we have these two provisions, which I note that my hon. friend from Vancouver Island North, when he was the minister responsible, said that he would not use these provisions.

Why on earth does the bill contain 3(1)(b) and (c), which states that the minister may at his or her own volition, without consultation, force a first nation to operate under this scheme if it believes the minister comes to the conclusion there is a protractive leadership dispute or if cabinet has set aside an election claiming corrupt practice which is not defined.

These are imposition terms that even apply to first nations currently operating under customary practice. I would agree with every word the parliamentary secretary spoke, except that he omitted explaining sections 3(1)(b) and (c).

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

If I had had more time, Mr. Speaker, I would have been happy to talk about that.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development currently has the power, under the Indian Act, to take a first nation that is operating under custom code elections and put it back into the paternalistic Indian Act system. This is not a new provision. He has that power, currently, to move a first nation from the custom code into the Indian Act system if there is a protracted leadership dispute.

The member is right. The former minister from Vancouver Island North is correct. This is rarely used. This provision to move a first nation from a custom code back to the Indian Act system has been used three times. This is not a new provision. It is used extremely rarely, only when all other options are off the table and when there has been a protracted leadership dispute.

This is not a new power, and it is used with extreme reluctance, but when the grassroots people of a first nation are not being served because of a protracted leadership dispute, the minister, under the current system, will act.

This provision would allow him to move a first nation from a custom code into this new, improved act instead of putting it back into the flawed Indian Act system. Bill C-9 would allow for that transparency, that robust electoral process, instead of putting the first nation back into the paternalistic and flawed Indian Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is a good step in the direction of good government on reserve, as the member has already indicated.

We have all heard of electoral abuses during some band elections and their effects on the stability of the affected communities. We are all committed to working to empower first nations communities to become self-governing and to ensure that they experience the economic growth and increased job opportunities that most Canadians have come to expect.

With that in mind, an opt-in framework is more suitable than a mandatory one-size-fits-all approach to band government. Would the member please comment as to why?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London North Centre, who is a leading person in this government on the issue of the status of women, ensuring women's equality and that women are protected on reserve. I know that is why she was such a strong proponent of our changes to the matrimonial real property rights of first nations women living on reserve.

An opt-in approach is obviously preferred because for too long, too many governments have imposed their systems on first nations. This bill takes a different approach. It says that only those first nations that wish to participate in this system would opt in. It would be a decision made by the band council.

This collaborative approach is the approach that we would like to see going forward in working with first nations, because when first nations buy in and take the initiative, as they would under Bill C-9, we all benefit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on behalf of New Democrats. We will be opposing the bill.

Before I go into the reasons, I want to start with the parliamentary secretary's last comments about the opt-in provisions, because they are really an important piece of the bill. The member continues to emphasize this is an opt-in piece of legislation, but he does not speak to the fact that the minister still has the power to force a first nation, whether it is currently under the Indian Act or under custom code election, into the new elections act proposed under Bill C-9. If the government was truly interested in moving away from a paternalistic approach, it would have moved toward something like a first nations election commission that would have removed that responsibility totally from the minister's hands.

The government is not moving away from a paternalistic approach. It is continuing with it, and that is evident in a number of clauses in this piece of legislation. I am going to touch on those.

I want to give a bit of historical perspective.

Where we would agree with the government is that the current Indian Act is a paternalistic system. I want to refer to a Senate report dealing with first nations elections, which gives a bit of a historical perspective, and I want to read it into the record. It says:

The Indian Act's restrictive electoral system and imposition of federal control was widely resisted among Indian bands. Despite Indian opposition to the Indian Act system of elective government, attempts to suppress traditional forms of government continued. For example, in 1880, West Coast potlatches, an important means of affirming leadership and social order, were banned, and, in the 1920s, the Canadian government jailed the traditional leaders of the Haudenosaunee and installed an Indian Act council.

The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples illustrated the difficulties experienced by Aboriginal peoples with respect to the imposition of the Indian Act elective system. The Report concluded that: “for the past 100 years the [Indian] Act has effectively displaced, obscured or forced underground the traditional political structures and associated checks and balances that Aboriginal people developed over the centuries to suit their societies and circumstances”. Thus, the Indian Act electoral regime is rooted in a colonial mentality, and amendments to the Act, from the perspective of First Nations, do not erase colonial control over band elections.

I would argue that this particular piece of legislation, despite the fact that it contains some things that first nations wanted included, continues on that colonial mentality route.

In a legislative summary document, there is more that has been indicated in terms of history. I just want to put on the record other proposals that could have been much more effective. The summary document indicates that:

A key attempt at policy reform was the 1998-2001 Assembly of First Nations/Indian and Northern Affairs Joint Initiative on Policy Development.... The Joint Initiative arose in response to the 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and was intended to provide policy options on key themes: elections, membership, additions to reserves and environment. 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 selection. 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....

Then it went on to talk about opt-out provisions and so on.

This very good report from 1998-2001, a very in-depth process, was completely disregarded when it came to developing this piece of legislation.

In my question to the parliamentary secretary, I did touch on the stakeholder engagement process, but I want to touch on this aspect again, because it is a key sticking point. Canada did indicate, after a great deal of pressure, its commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At the time the Canadian government finally caved and agreed to support it, it indicated it would take next steps. To date, we have not seen those next steps. However, one of the clauses in the UN declaration calls for “free, prior and informed consent”. What we heard in testimony at the committee was divisions among first nations about whether this piece of legislation was the way to go. Again, the opt-in clause makes it possible for a first nation that does not demonstrate free, prior and informed consent to this piece of legislation to be forced under this legislation.

When it comes to stakeholder engagement, the briefing document says with regard to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs:

With funds provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (the Department) between January and March 2010, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) held community engagement sessions in the province's Indian Act First Nations to obtain views and comments on the development of new election legislation affording a common election date and a longer term of office.

Those are the two key points in that consultation process: a common election date and longer terms of office. Of course, the proposed legislation contains much more than that, so the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has withdrawn its support for the piece of legislation that is before the House.

The Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs was also provided an opportunity. It has continued to support this particular piece of legislation despite some concerns about some of the clauses in it. It wants to go forward with it.

However, I would come back to the matter of free, prior and informed consent.

I want to turn to the Assembly of First Nations, which I think made a very good intervention. Its representative said:

The AFN supports enacting the full decision-making authority by First Nations governments empowered by their citizens. In choosing and designing mechanisms for the fulfillment of this authority, care needs to be taken that new barriers or new oversight mechanisms are not being created, further vesting control in the office of Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Of course, as I pointed out, in paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c), that continued ability of the minister to interfere and intervene is still there. There were other mechanisms that could have been brought forward, which I will also touch on in a minute.

I want to turn to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the appearance of Grand Chief Derek Nepinak before the committee. He raised specific concerns that other first nations have also raised regarding the legislation before us. He said:

Bill C-9 does not accurately reflect the discussions and decisions made by first nations leadership in Manitoba as it:

purports to grant the authority to the Minister to subjugate a First Nation to the act without the consent of the people. ...

This authority defeats the objectives of the AMC recommendations ab initio that First Nations retain their right to opt-in.

This clause would allow the Minister to subjugate those bands that have previously opted out of the Indian Act to custom election procedures.

This clause would allow the Minister to subjugate bands to the Indian Act who have never been subject to the Act, in violation of their inherent and constitutionally protected rights.

“Protracted leadership dispute” is not a defined term and leaves broad discretion to the Minister.

The AMC did not make any such recommendation.

Once placed in the schedule considerable obstacles and costs limit the ability of a First Nation from being removed from the schedule of “participating First Nations.”

On that point, I will refer back to clause 3(1)(a), which would allow a band to opt in to the legislation by making a request through a band council resolution. By simple band council resolution, the band could have a first nation participate and opt in. However, if a first nation finds that this piece of legislation does not work for it and wants to opt out, under paragraphs 42(1)(a), 42(1)(b), and 42(1)(c), it is a far more complicated procedure.

Under this section of the proposed act, for a first nation to opt out if it finds it does not work, the community election code has to contain an amending formula. Also, the question of a first nation being removed from the act must be submitted to a community vote in which electors must vote by secret ballot. The minister would only remove a first nation from the act if at least 50% of all eligible electors cast a vote and if a majority of these votes were in favour of the community election code and the removal of that schedule. The requirement to publish the code would ensure that all members would have the opportunity to read and become acquainted with the election code.

It is a simple band council resolution to get in, but it is a complicated process to get out. It comes back to the fact that what the government really wants to do is force people into this proposed piece of legislation and then not let them get out of it if it does not work for them.

Grand Chief Nepinak went on to talk about section 3(b). He said the draft bill also:

Purports to grant the authority to the Governor in Council to set aside an election "on a report of the Minister that there was a corrupt election practice in connection with that election.” ...

This preserves broad discretion of the Minister to determine that "there was a corrupt practice" methods and criteria not outlined under the proposed legislation.

The AMC did not make any such recommendation.

Once placed on the schedule considerable obstacles and costs limit the ability of a First Nation from being removed from the schedule of “participating First Nations.”

In subclause 3(1), “protracted leadership” and “corrupt practice” are not defined. That gives the minister a fair bit of authority to determine who he or she will force under this new election act.

One of the things that had been asked for by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs was a common election date for the first nations that chose that. Grand Chief Nepinak indicated:

...it does not provide Manitoba first nations with the policy of adopting a common election day and an extended term of office. The bill has a quasi common election day that does not mirror the recommendation of the AMC.

Election dates are found in clauses 5 and 6. Grand Chief Nepinak's written brief to the committee stated:

The bill does not achieve a common election day with an extended (four year) term for all Indian Act elections, and does not give options for current Custom Election Bands to opt into a common election day with an extended four year term.

The other piece that has caused concern for many first nations is the restriction of the appeal process to external courts. Grand Chief Nepinak also pointed out:

This bill limits appeals to what it calls courts of competent jurisdiction and lists federal or provincial court as the only courts of competent jurisdiction.

This bill ignores the rights of First Nations people to develop their [own] legal institutions including a local appeal process.

This bill ignores the AMC's request for a local appeal process.

This bill requires individuals to finance cost prohibitive legal counsel and go to court for appeal rather than a less expensive and less complex and intimidating and local appeal process.

The requirement that First Nations appeal to federal and provincial courts is associated with a reduction [in] administrative and financial responsibilities of the Minister and constitutes a conflict of interest for the Minister, i.e. the Minister is not without motive to subject First Nations to the new legislation.

In the conclusion of the brief Mr. Nepinak presented to the committee, he said:

The proposed legislation is simply an addition to the Indian Act, citing the same authority and the same definitions, granting broad additional powers and discretion to the Minister and his office. The legislation mingles only one recommended change from the AMC and the illusion of another and the resultant product is another piece of federal government owned legislation that perpetuates Canada’s self-proclaimed authority and chips away the rights of First Nations.

The fact that the government talks about a consultation process, and that the bill was broadly supported and whatnot, flies in the face of the testimony that was heard in committee.

I want to touch on one of the recommendations that came out of the Senate report, “First Nations Elections: The Choice is Inherently Theirs”. Recommendation 3 states:

That the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in collaboration and consultation with the appropriate First Nations and/or Treaty Organizations, take immediate steps to establish a First Nations Electoral and Appeals Commission, operating on a national and/or regional basis, empowered to hear appeals arising from First Nations elections and to promote and strengthen First Nations electoral capacity.

That is a very important recommendation that has come from a number of different bodies. I referred earlier to the JMAC study that was conducted. The Senate held numerous hearings across the country to hear from first nations and their representatives about some proposed changes to the Elections Act. That is explicitly not mentioned in this piece of legislation. It would be an important avenue to provide community members an appeal process that would perhaps allow for appeals to be heard in their own language, because as far as I know, there are not too many federal or provincial court judges who speak many of the indigenous languages across this country. It would be a process that would respect custom codes and some of the traditions that our first nations communities may have. That is one recommendation that was not included in the bill.

I want to touch on the regulatory process for one moment because much of the changes in the act will happen under regulations. Under the regulatory process, clause 41 states, “The Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to elections, including regulations respecting...”.

It includes appointments, powers, duties, removal of electoral officers, a requirement that electoral officers be certified, the manner of identifying electors of a participating first nation, the manner in which candidates may be nominated, the imposition by participating first nations of a fee on each candidate, the manner in which voting is to be carried out, the removal from office of a chief or councillor of a participating first nation by means of petition, the holding of by-elections, and “anything else that by this Act is to be prescribed”.

Those are pretty broad powers that are outlined in the regulatory process. Unlike other regulatory processes where there was at least some notion of working with first nations, nothing in Bill C-9 talks about how first nations will be consulted and accommodated with regard to developing the regulations. This is a very important piece.

For the benefit of people who may be listening, by and large, most regulatory processes have absolutely no parliamentary oversight, as we have seen in other regulatory processes. The regulations are posted, there is a period of time where the public can comment, the regulations are modified based on public input, and then they are adopted. Neither parliamentary committees nor Parliament has any oversight on those regulations.

With the broad range of activities that would be included in these regulations, it is very important to include in this piece of legislation exactly how first nations will be included in developing these regulations, which will have a direct impact on how elections are conducted in their communities.

Part of the reason why that process needed to be spelled out was that there is a deep and abiding mistrust of how the government conducts consultation, or what it is now calling stakeholder engagement because it knows that stakeholder engagement does not meet the test of what the Supreme Court has laid out for a consultation process.

We only have to look at Bill C-9 to find that the government took a step toward a consultation process by engaging the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress, but then expanded the scope of the bill to that which was not included in the terms of reference for the consultation process that was conducted by AMC and APC.

We also have before us a draft piece of legislation called the first nations education act, which is another example where there is a deep mistrust of the consultation process. In fact, today there will be a rally on Parliament Hill protesting the government's direction on consultation.

At the committee stage, the NDP did propose a couple of amendments that would have improved the bill. We voted against clause 3(1)(b) and (c) at the committee stage so that they would be removed, which would remove the ministerial jurisdiction. We also asked for a report back to Parliament because we want parliamentary oversight on the regulations. That proposed amendment, which was voted down in committee, proposed that for any amendments made to the regulations or the schedule respecting the additions or removals of first nations, orders of the minister respecting the coming into force of any community election codes, names of persons who have been convicted of an offence under the act and penalized accordingly, applications submitted to a competent court regarding the contested election of the chief or council of a participating first nation and any decision made by that court, petitions for the removal of office of the chief or councillor, the minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each house of Parliament on any of the first sitting days after which the House is sitting, and so on.

We did attempt to improve the piece of legislation before us so that at least it would reflect some of the concerns and provide some parliamentary oversight both to the regulatory process and the legislation itself.

Based on those facts, we cannot support the bill. If the government wants to claim it is engaging in consultation, it must adhere to the principles around consultation, which means that it must provide the resources and the information. It must listen and then take what it hears and make sure it is reflected in the legislation that comes before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very indebted to the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, and to know that the official opposition, like the Green Party, feels compelled to vote against Bill C-9, even though it initiated with consultations, as she quite rightly pointed out, on two key points, narrow points, of lengths of terms and timing of elections. We have seen the bill morph, thanks only to paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c), into something that shows a disrespect for bottom-up control, and a disrespect for section 35, the inherent rights of first nations.

As the official opposition attempted to do in committee, as I attempted to do earlier this morning at report stage, would the hon. member share with me any insight she has as to why, with such good intentions from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations and the first nations chiefs of Manitoba, we could not just get the changes that the first nations themselves requested so that we could vote for it, instead of having this imposition of ministerial discretion on what should be inherently first nations self-government?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is puzzling. I believe that it just continues with the approach the current government has consistently taken with regard to first nations, which is lack of recognition around inherent rights, lack of movement on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, continued lack of appropriate consultation. This has clearly been outlined by the Supreme Court. We have seen it in the first nations water bill. We saw it in the matrimonial real property bill. We are now seeing it in the elections bill that is before the House and we are seeing it in the first nations education act.

We could always remain eternally optimistic that during this comment period where first nations, schools, parents and organizations across this country have an opportunity to comment on the first nations education act, that the proposed piece of legislation that is before first nations would substantially change, based on that input, but that is not the track record of the government.

Once again, first nations have come to the table in good faith. The AMC, the APC, came to the table in good faith, yet they end up with a piece of legislation that at least the AMC cannot support.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan on her dedicated work on the files for first nations.

I am glad she mentioned the proposed national first nations education legislation, because I have in my hands a letter that was sent to me by Chief Ted Roque of the Wahnapitae First Nation. Yesterday, I just happened to be speaking to Walter Naveau, the chief of the Mattagami First Nation. The last time I was on the Whitefish first nation, Steve Miller, who is the chief out there, spoke to me. Marianna Couchie also had a telephone conversation with me about the education legislation a couple of months ago.

It is all the same story over and over again. It is the lack of consultation with the first nations. It is the same thing with the bill, Bill C-9. It always comes back to lack of consultation. Now the Prime Minister is facing a mini-revolt in his own caucus because of lack of consultation with his own members.

Would the hon. member comment on the fact that the Prime Minister never consults, not only with his own members but also with first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nickel Belt has been working very hard with the opposition arising to the first nations education act. It is just another example of a top-down paternalistic approach, imposing more bureaucracy and reporting on first nations, not listening to the very valid concerns, disregarding the successes that many first nations are having. I just want to point to B.C. and the first nations education act that was passed in B.C. in this House a number of years ago. It is showing some very good results, but that could all be wiped out by this supposed first nations education act.

With regard to consultation, it is very interesting, because I would say that the Conservatives acknowledge that they are not doing consultation because they do not call it consultation anymore. They call it stakeholder engagement.

As I mentioned earlier, they know that stakeholder engagement does not meet the test clearly outlined by the Supreme Court in a number of court decisions about the duty to consult, and I might add, the duty to accommodate. They know that it does not fit, so they are clearly not doing the consultation.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan commented a couple of times that the bill does not provide for an independent appeals commission. The fact is that this bill would remove the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development from the elections appeal process altogether. Instead, it would put this power back into the hands of the courts, where qualified, independent judges could hear these appeals.

This is how the provincial and federal elections appeal processes are decided. Is the member suggesting that this is not an improvement from the status quo?

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

Mr. Speaker, what the member is suggesting is that the government actually listened to first nations, who asked for a first nations commission, something like the Elections Canada commission, which would be a place where people could go with concerns.

That is what first nations have asked for, not what the government is imposing.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her good presentation on this bill.

For 23 years I was involved in the negotiations that resulted in the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 3 of the declaration speaks about the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status. The word “freely” is important in this sentence.

Perhaps my colleague could help me understand something about this debate. It is now 2013, and today we are celebrating the life of a very important person in our history, Mr. Mandela, who brought down the apartheid system in South Africa. It seems that what is being proposed here today, to borrow the parliamentary secretary's words, is the improvement of a system that closely resembles the system that existed in South Africa. Can she explain to me why we are going in that direction instead of letting aboriginal peoples freely determine their political status?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for that very important question. It is a question that I would rightly like to put before the government.

First nations have culture, traditions, history and electoral processes that have been in place in many nations from time immemorial. They have long traditions of self-governing, yet we continue to see an Indian Act system that undermines and devalues those systems of governance.

It would seem that any move toward changes in elections should be governed by first nations. It should be proposed by first nations. It should be developed by first nations. This act simply does not do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, one shakes one's head as one begins to discuss this bill. It could have been a bill that got total support across the House, but yet again, the government just cannot help itself. It cannot help itself putting something in that is just totally unacceptable to the majority of first nations in this country.

It is about two paragraphs. First, all the government had to do was not put in the two paragraphs. Second, it should just remove them. The official opposition, ourselves, the Green Party and everybody else is asking the government to take out these two paragraphs. Then, we would finally get on with a piece of legislation that is first nations-led and supported by the House of Commons. It could have begun a process of first nations being able to suggest and put forward legislation that Canada would expeditiously get through and support. Instead, the government just cannot help itself.

The process began, as we say, in a good way. It began with the development of a bill that was led by first nations. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs worked closely with the government to develop a new set of optional election rules that first nations could choose to adopt and remedy many of the flaws in the Indian Act election rules.

Both the AMC and APC facilitated consultations. Many of the issues identified by those consultations are reflected in Bill C-9.

The bill would establish a regime, alternative to the one under the Indian Act, to govern the election of chiefs and councillors of certain first nations. This regime would provide that chiefs and councillors hold office for four years; provide that the election of a chief or councillor may be contested before a competent court; and set out offences and penalties in relation to the election of a chief of councillor.

The bill would also allow 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.

Both the AMC and APC-facilitated consultations, again, are reflected in those clauses. That is why it is such a shame that the minister has insisted on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with this current version of Bill C-9, with these two totally aggravating paragraphs.

While much of the bill is largely based on the consultations with first nations, the Conservatives included elements that were not supported during the consultations, and have refused to remove or amend the offending sections.

Yet again, the government does not seem to understand what consultation means. Consultation means actually asking the opinions of first nations and listening, and then doing what has been suggested. Instead, yet again, the government thinks consultations are actually information sessions that just tell first nations what they are going to do and presume they will just accept it, love it and live with it; and indeed, it is the ultimate paternalism to put in these two paragraphs that give the minister these unprecedented powers.

In particular, Grand Chief Nepinak, grand chief of the AMC, has highlighted the minister's ability to bring first nations under the legislation without their consent. As we know, the AMC was one of the proponents of this bill and now the grand chief is seriously clear that the lack of a first nations appeal process and the conduct of draws to resolve tie votes in elections for band council chiefs and councillors are areas of real concern.

However, what is most appalling is Grand Chief Nepinak's first point, which was the minister's refusal to keep the bill truly optional, unlike how it was sold during discussions with first nations.

In fact, Bill C-9 would give the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development broad discretionary powers that go against the opt-in nature of the legislation. The opt-in nature of this legislation had total support, and instead the Conservatives have inserted these two paragraphs.

In paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c), the bill would provide the minister with explicit powers to bring a first nation, currently under the Indian Act system or a custom code, under Bill C-9 when the minister finds “...that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of that First Nation”, in paragraph 3(1)(b), and the Governor in Council has, under section 79 of the Indian Act, set aside an election of a first nation on the basis of the minister's finding of “...corrupt practice in connection with that election”, in paragraph 3(1)(c).

Given the opt-in nature of Bill C-9, it is completely unacceptable that the Conservative government has included a clause that would provide the minister broad discretion to force first nations under the act. Forcing first nations under an act is not exactly opting in. Opting in is what first nations agreed to in their support of this legislation. Now we have clauses that would allow the minister to force a first nation under Bill C-9.

The minister's power grab has turned what could have been a positive tool for first nations governance into unnecessarily divisive legislation. In fact, one of the two initial first nations partners in creating this legislation, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, is now strongly opposed to the bill. Further, while the level of consultations may have been sufficient if the bill were truly voluntary, opt-in legislation, the minister's insistence on inserting discretionary powers to force a first nation under the bill means that much broader consultation across the country would have been required.

According to the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs' report on the engagement process, the level of feedback received from first nations was uneven across the country and, the report notes that little or no feedback was obtained in Ontario and Quebec. This may well be because, in a truly opt-in piece of legislation, the first nations understood that they would have the ability to opt in or not. The fact that now the nature of this legislation has totally changed, giving the minister these unprecedented powers, means this level of consultation is totally unacceptable.

AFN regional chief, Jody Wilson-Raybould, representing the AFN before the Senate on this bill's predecessor, stated:

In terms of clauses 3(1)(b) and (c), I believe that if those clauses remain in the bill, the consultation of which you are asking for clarity and the depth of consultation you are seeking would be greatly increased if those clauses remained, or the obligations would be greatly increased if those clauses remain in this bill.

She went on to say:

If those clauses are removed, it is simpler. The bills become simpler and the consultation would not be required in that this is a First Nations-led initiative and it's entirely optional, which it is not right now.

Although there are other improvements that could have been made, such as creating a new independent and impartial first nations elections appeal body instead of relying on the courts, returning the bill to a truly optional piece of legislation would have made it more acceptable.

Grand Chief Nepinak told the aboriginal affairs committee, while he still had concerns over the bill, “I think it does become a little more palatable if you remove that broad discretion of the minister”.

If the Conservatives had agreed to our proposed amendment to remove this discretion, this would have been a much more acceptable piece of legislation to both first nations and the Liberal Party. The minister has suggested this power is necessary to fill a gap that would be created if he did not have it. He also stated that if he is going to impose an electoral system on a first nation, as he currently can under the Indian Act, he would prefer to impose this one.

What the minister does not seem to understand is the inherent paternalism in that statement. The minister does have similar powers under the Indian Act. However, this legislation was sold as purely opt in during all of the consultations. The minister is essentially saying that unilaterally changing the fundamental character of the bill is acceptable if it gives him a better option when he decides to step in.

This new optional legislation should not be used as a vehicle for the minister to have another option when imposing any electoral system upon a first nation.

Further, the degree of discretion the minister has given himself is truly worrying. The terms “protracted leadership dispute” and “significantly compromise government” are not defined in the legislation. These terms, which would trigger the minister's ability to impose the legislation, are therefore extremely broad in nature.

This is not, as the parliamentary secretary tried to frame it at committee, the “ability to opt in” and as he stated in the answers to the questions in this debate so far.

This is clearly the ability of a minister to impose a set of rules on a first nation that has not chosen to adopt it. This is therefore not opt in legislation. This is not voluntary legislation. This is legislation which would give the minister the ability to force a first nation under the power of this act.

We truly feel this is insulting only because all of the work that the AMC and APC put into this project. Here is this impressive piece of work that was generated bottom up by the AMC and the APC. It is really upsetting to us, as the Liberal Party of Canada, to have to impose what could have been a very important precedent in first nation generated legislation because of their inability to remove these two egregious subclauses in what could have been totally acceptable legislation.

The government's insistence on inserting this ability to impose these rules upon a first nation has really squandered an opportunity to develop practical legislation in partnership with first nations rather than for them. In fact, this was actually led by first nation organizations and this is the way I think all of us believe we should go forward in the future.

It is too sad that the government just cannot help itself. It had a perfect piece legislation, but it had to insert the poison pill to ensure it could be on the wrong side of what was to be the future of first nations, legislation that would affect them and their people in keeping with the Constitution, and the duty to consult in keeping with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the idea of free, prior and informed consent.

Here it was, a first nations' initiative, a first nations' legislation that they put forward, that they consulted on and that everybody was ready to help.

The government cannot help itself. It had to put in some stupid little clause that would ensure we could not support it nor could first nations support it. This is a really sad moment in that there was an opportunity for the government to at least listen to the first nations in the consultation, or remove these clauses at committee or at report stage. No, it is just charging on, forcing this legislation through, which would give this unacceptable power to the minister to force the bill upon first nations that do not opt in, that do not accept or need the legislation in their community,

It is quite clear the government is just continuing in its paternalism, continuing in the way that it has dealt with matrimonial real property, the way it has dealt with the water bill, with the governance act and is threatening to deal with the education act.

I do not know how the Conservative members of the aboriginal affairs committee can continue to listen to witnesses after witnesses telling them not to go forward on this, that they do not agree. Those Conservative members of Parliament continue to not hear anything that is said at committee or anything that is said in consultation and press on forcing through legislation against the wishes of first nations in the country. It is totally unacceptable.

Maybe those Conservatives will come out to the rally at 1 o'clock today. Maybe they will come and hear what first nations and Idle No More have to say about the education act coming up. Maybe they will have a sober second thought when it comes to forcing through even more legislation against the wishes of first nations in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

This is not the first time that she has spoken in the House about the first nations, whom she is very committed to. She is very knowledgeable about the issues facing them.

The member mentioned a number of times that the current Conservative government seems to be failing in its commitment to have a real, constructive dialogue with the first nations.

I would like to hear more of what she has to say about that. Based on her experience, how does she think we could have a constructive dialogue with the first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

It is absolutely essential to hold genuine consultations and to listen to the needs and wishes of the first nations of Canada. The problem with this bill is that it contains a provision that makes consultation voluntary. This means that the consultation, which is very important, will not necessarily be as extensive as consultations on other bills that have to do with the first nations.

It is very sad to see a bill that makes consultation optional. Ultimately, the government will not do the consultation that is needed, since the two other clauses in the bill override that by giving much more power to the minister.

[Bal Gosal, Conservative, Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to provide first nations with the option of holding their elections. They have been asking for this.

The member for St. Paul's stated in her remarks that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs no longer supported the bill. I want to state for the record that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, under the leadership of former grand chief Ron Evans, was instrumental in the development of the first nations elections act. Mr. Evans recently appeared before the steering committee on aboriginal affairs and northern development where he reiterated his support for the bill.

Is the member for St. Paul's suggesting that we should only be listening to the current grand chief and forget about all those first nations that have called for this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are individual first nations members who have put a lot of time and effort into the bill. I respect the work that former grand chief Ron Evans put into the bill.

As we said before, in the original proposed bill, these provisions to the minister were not there. I understand the former grand chief really believes that it is important to go forward with this, in spite of these provisions, but the elected Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has decided not to. It thinks these provisions are unacceptable and therefore the current leadership of AMC is opposed to the bill. We are listening to it.

I only wish the member would understand that we in this chamber supported the Kelowna accord. I wish you had listened to the Kelowna accord based on what the former leadership of this chamber had put forward.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions, I would like to remind the member and all others to direct their comments to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has reiterated what we have heard in the House of Commons, time and time again, and that is how in a lot of bills that we study here there is a common thread of ministers having extended decisional power on the direction of some of those bills. I would like her to comment on the paternalistic approach the Conservatives have toward, in this case, first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member asks a very important question. From the apology that the Prime Minister gave in this chamber to the very important meeting that took place last January 11, in terms of the Crown-First Nations Gathering, there was supposed to be a reset. There was supposed to be a new way of going forward that was promised to first nations.

However, this is again unfortunately a continuation of paternalism, which is really a continuation of colonization. It is no longer acceptable. This was one little step the Conservatives could have done in terms of a first nations-led piece of legislation that would have been acceptable. It could have been a precedent. Instead, we have this “father knows best, top down, you will like it, we might need this because there are these generic problems in first nations”. The government does not seem to think first nations can sort this out for themselves.

In nation-to-nation government-to-government relationships, this is unacceptable and a continuation of the paternalism and the reason why the relationship between first nations and the Crown in our country is broken. This legislation would do nothing to put it back in a good way and on the right track.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, more than one-third of first nations people have in government jargon a “core housing need”, meaning their homes do not meet the most basic standards of acceptability. Only 4% of natives have a university education, one-quarter the rate of the rest of society. One-third of aboriginal people do not graduate from high school, three times the rate of non-aboriginals. With regard to infrastructure, overcrowded houses, lack of running water and inadequate sewage are the norm in many native communities.

As the bill is now, it would give the power for the minister to intervene and declare that self-government and the people who are elected by their own community are somehow not good enough. Would the bill actually deal with any of those fundamental issues facing people in first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows the answer is “no”, but it was an important bill to bring forward because it was led by first nations. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Atlantic Policy Caucus had seen a need and were going to put this forward.

We know if first nations have control over the things that the member mentioned, such as housing, infrastructure, health, governance, all of these things, all of those statistics would actually improve.

In the Chandler Lalonde report out of the University of British Columbia, communities that are back in charge of their government, health, policing, education and doing their ceremonies, the horrible statistics on suicide radically improve. This is really important.

I cannot help but remind the member that the things she mentioned were well looked after in the Kelowna accord, another process that was first nations, Inuit and Metis-led. The Government of Canada supported them in their priorities. Almost eight years later, things would have been in much better shape, including the 10-year commitment to having high school leaving statistics at the same as the Canadian average. That was in the Kelowna accord with the money assigned. Instead we are no further ahead than we were when the Conservatives took office.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to have the opportunity to speak in this House on 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.

I stand with my colleagues in the NDP to oppose this bill in the House of Commons. This bill is very important to me as a New Democrat, but most importantly, as the member of Parliament for Churchill.

In northern Manitoba, I have the honour of representing 33 first nations. These first nations and the leadership of these first nations have often been at the front lines calling for a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government. They have been at the front lines pointing to the way in which the Indian Act and a colonial system of legislation imposed on first nations has led to nothing but trouble.

These first nations have made clear the connection between the paternalistic attitude of successive federal governments and the way first nations are not able to deal with the serious issues they face at home, such as the third-world living conditions.

They have talked about the way in which, because of the approach of the federal government, they have not been able to get at the table or have had to struggle to get at the table to discuss basic things such as ensuring proper water and sewer services in their communities, ensuring that there is adequate housing for the people who live in their communities, and ensuring that there is equal funding for education in their communities. At every step along the way, these first nations have been told that the federal government and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs know best.

It is 2013, and if there is anything we have learned from our history, it is that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the federal government do not know what is best for first nations. There are many incidents in our history that indicate just that, such as the residential schools, a policy that was supported by the federal government, a policy that was seen by the federal government overtly as a tool of assimilation and as the way to go. We know that it was a policy that has created long-term trauma and damage for first nations people in our country.

We had the Prime Minister, a number of years ago, doing something that many first nations took very seriously. He apologized to first nations, Métis, and Inuit people for the federal government's approach towards them. He committed to a new day, a new chapter, when it came to indigenous people in Canada.

That day has not come. First nations people in Canada are still waiting for that day. Allies of first nations people are still waiting for that day. Instead, the Prime Minister and his government have used that important symbol, the apology, as a tactic to wash themselves of the responsibility and duty to truly change course.

What they did after that apology, and every step along the way, was adhere to the same old paternalistic approach, which is that the federal government knows best. However, it makes it look as if it is engaging in some consultation. We do acknowledge that in the context of this bill, there were discussions and round tables that took place around the country. Unfortunately, the government took the feedback it got at these round tables and basically shelved it.

The government chose the discourse that suited it and came up with a bill that does not reflect the needs of first nations people. It does not reflect the real issues first nations people face in terms of their electoral system.

Instead, what the government's bill would do is give greater power to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to decide how electoral systems exist in first nations. It would take away power and models that first nations people have developed that work for them. The government has made it more difficult in terms of the appeal process.

It is really a slap in the face of first nations people when we are talking about that new chapter.

I have stood in the House far too many times in the last five years to speak out against bills from the Conservative government that would have a negative impact on first nations. I do not speak about them in theory. I have seen what they mean on the ground.

I have visited these first nations. I have heard from people first-hand what it is like to feel as if they still live in a time when paternalism rules the day. I have talked to chiefs who have fought to come to Ottawa to sit at the table with the minister, if they get that meeting. They have poured their hearts out about the pain in their communities, whether it is about housing, water and sewer services, or health care, only to be told to wait longer or that the federal government will come up with something. Instead, all we see, bill after bill, are bills that exclude first nations' voices.

It is great to have a process that listens to people, but if the final result, the final bill and the final piece of legislation, do not reflect what these people said, the Conservative government is not living up to its duty to consult. The constant paternalistic tone of knowing better has a detrimental effect on the ability of first nations to push forward.

Yesterday I was part of the special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women. It is a perfect example of the way the Conservative government is refusing to listen to first nations on the issues that really matter. A constituent of mine, Brenda Bignell, said that we need a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. We are a committee. We are looking for recommendations. Brenda Bignell's recommendation is one we could consider for our report. However, we have already heard from the Prime Minister that he does not feel that there needs to be a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.

What do we tell Brenda Bignell? She has lost her stepmom, her cousin, and her brother. She talked about all of these stories. Do we say that we want to hear from her but that what she tells us will probably not end up in the end result of what we are doing here? That deeply saddens me. It saddens me to be part of a committee, when I know that the Prime Minister has set the tone on a very important issue for first nations people.

It also saddens me that day after day, week after week, month after month we have proposals by the Conservative government and bills that would change laws in our country that are created without hearing the views of first nations people. The government may have heard them, but the end result certainly does not reflect them. As I said, this has an impact on that working relationship.

Idle No More was a movement that came out as a response to Bill C-9, Bill C-27, Bill S-2, and all of the bills that have come forward that do not reflect true consultation with first nations people. Idle No More was people at the grassroots level standing up and saying “enough”. It was the first nations, Métis, and Inuit people and their allies who stood up and said that there is a pattern here and they have had enough of it.

We know that there is a long-term negative impact when it comes to the lack of consultation and the tokenistic approach of picking testimony that suits the government but not actually listening to what everybody has to say. We know that all first nations people suffer when their electoral and governance systems are not allowed to be developed based on what they think is best.

I thought we were past this. I thought that in this year, 2013, we were past this. I thought that after the apology six years ago, we were past this. I thought that after Idle No More, maybe the Prime Minister and his government had gotten the message. Business as usual is not going to work. I thought we were past this, but we clearly are not.

In addition to all of this, what bothers me is that the government uses its bills to divide our society. I have seen how it has done it in the communities I represent.

Parts of my constituency have high numbers of first nations people. Some parts do not. Interestingly, in the last election, the Conservative Party shared literature in the parts of the constituency where not many aboriginal people live that talked about corruption in first nations. It also talked about the chiefs and the councillors and those people who were using taxpayers' money. The government did not engage in a conversation with the people who live on reserve. There were some materials with vague references to accountability and transparency, which are issues we all think are important. Rather, it chose to speak in parts of the constituency and to fan the flames of division and racism. It chose to use examples of legislation to say that it is keeping people in line.

That was not just an election tactic. Unfortunately, it is a governing tactic that I have seen from the government too many times. The Conservatives go out there and use material that says that they know best and will tell the first nations how to run their business. However, they will not invest equally in first nations education or make a difference when it comes to the highest dropout rates in our country. They do not talk about the fact that, on average, aboriginal people live shorter lives than non-aboriginal people in our country. They do not talk about the fact that young first nations women are five times more likely to be killed than young non-first nations women. They do not talk about the fact that, on average, aboriginal people live in more precarious conditions, in poverty, compared to other people in our country.

The government talks about bills that will fix how things get done. The Conservatives will tell aboriginal people how to do it. They will point to a few people who maybe gave some testimony that sounded like what the Conservatives would like to say. They will not listen to people like Grand Chief Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who currently represents first nations from across Manitoba. He said that there are problems and that they have made recommendations, and those recommendations have not been heard.

The government will not listen to Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Regional Chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. It will not listen to Tammy Cook-Searson, the Chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band. It will not listen to people like Aimée E. Craft, the past chair of the National Aboriginal Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. The government will not listen to first nations people who live in places like northern Manitoba. It will not listen to people who want to come to the table, want to work on a nation-to-nation relationship, and want to talk about what is best for their communities.

I have heard vague references made by some members about how they have been on a reserve or have worked on a reserve. Somehow that gives them the authority to know what is best.

Thirty-three first nations helped send me to Ottawa. What I have heard from people in my constituency, not just from the leadership but from people on the ground, is that they are still waiting for that new chapter from the Prime Minister. They are still waiting for consultation and for the word of the AMC Grand Chief to be taken seriously. He said that we have to go back to the drawing board when it comes to first nations electoral reform.

We in the NDP agree that changes need to be made, but this bill is not the way to do it. I could take any bill the government has put forward in the last five years related to first nations and raise similar issues and poke holes in the kind of paternalistic discourse it tries to use to divide Canadians and keep first nations at arm's-length. Unfortunately, it perpetuates the problematic relationship that sets so many first nations back. I wish the government would take on some of the serious day-to-day issues first nations people face with the same energy and passion.

Maybe government members could spend some time talking to the chiefs of the Island Lake First Nation. I would be happy to take them on a tour. We could visit houses that do not have sinks because they do not have running water.

Can members imagine that, in 2013? This is their regular house. They have a counter, but where there should be a sink, there is not one because there is no running water. Guess what that means? There is also no bathroom. One has to go to an outhouse.

I remember visiting an elder who had mobility issues due to diabetes. In -30° weather—the way the winter gets in northern Manitoba—he has to trudge out to the outhouse, with mobility issues, because he has no indoor bathroom. This was not 50 years ago; I was there just last year.

I could talk about other instances, such as in communities like Gods River where the chief is extremely passionate about people in his community succeeding when it comes to education. This is a community that has grown significantly over the last number of years, and the school is so overcrowded that the science lab and home economics room have been taken over for regular classrooms. This means that these children are obviously not getting the one-on-one attention they need. It also means that these kids are not able to access specialized programming because the needed classrooms equipped to do that have been dismantled and made into regular classrooms.

Often these kids see a system that has given up on them. They see their chief fighting for them, but they know that, although the chief has gone to Ottawa and Winnipeg fighting for a new school to fit their needs, year after year, that demand is denied, and many lose faith and hope.

Unfortunately, in communities like Gods River, Gods Lake Narrows, Shamattawa and Pukatawagan, too many kids have gone down that path too far and have not turned back. They have committed suicide, fallen through the cracks of our society or moved to urban centres where they have been lost and have never come back.

There would be an opportunity for change. It is not because their chief, their leadership, and people like the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have not said what needs to be done, but that the current federal government does not listen.

Not only do the Conservatives not listen, but they choose to drive an agenda that suits them. It is an agenda that sucks up wedge issues, pits people against aboriginal people in our country and tells first nations and aboriginal leadership that they do not know how to run their business. It is an agenda that fundamentally keeps us on the path of a history that has only created trouble, is based on paternalistic colonial views and has been proven wrong.

I am proud to stand with a party that seeks justice when it comes to first nations people, which is why we are opposed to Bill C-9, and why we are opposed to so many of the first nation-related bills that the Conservative government has put forward. It is why we are asking for change, for a better future for first nation people and all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to commend my colleague's commitment and devotion to her constituents. She speaks about them from experience. I would also like to acknowledge her struggle for the cause of aboriginal women. We are facing not only a broken relationship between the Conservative government and our first nations, but also a totally dysfunctional relationship between this government and first nations women.

I wonder if the member could elaborate further on this issue. Perhaps she could also offer us possible solutions to give a little hope to aboriginal women.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would also like to thank her for recognizing the NDP's advocacy in support of aboriginal women and their families as well as all missing and murdered aboriginal women.

The government denies the need to ensure justice for the families of missing and murdered women. This is part of its agenda, which opposes the voices of first nations, the aboriginal peoples of our country. As I said earlier, many aboriginal peoples believed the promise made by the Prime Minister six years ago. He said he was ready to begin a new chapter and to work with others to change the colonial and paternalistic relationship that still prevails today.

Investments in the education system are not equitable when it comes to education for first nations. We cannot start a new chapter with Bill C-9. Government relations with first nations are still the same and the way it works with first nations is still the same. That is precisely what needs to change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague from Churchill is aware that this bill was led by the first nations in her own province.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, under the leadership of former grand chief Ron Evans, was instrumental in this first nations elections act. Chief Evans led an extensive engagement exercise in Manitoba and visited almost all the first nations in the province that hold elections under the Indian Act, to discuss his recommendations and obtain feedback, but he also appeared in committee just last week on this very bill.

Ron Evans also met with first nations organizations in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and wrote a letter to every chief and council in Canada that holds elections under the Indian Act to explain the recommendations for electoral reform. He remains supportive of this bill and recently wrote to the minister, saying that the proposed first nations elections act would change the way first nations are governed, create stability and credibility, strengthen self-governance and allow first nations to move forward.

Could the member for Churchill please explain why she is opposed to this important first nations-led initiative?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given that question, I want to take the opportunity to read into the record a quote from the current grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak, who stated:

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.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we speak, there is a large group of first nations people coming to Parliament Hill. They may even have arrived. They are asking Parliament to seriously focus on the needs of children. We know that aboriginals can expect to live, on average, a decade less than other Canadians. In terms of infant mortality, we know that aboriginal children die at three times the rate of non-aboriginal kids and are more likely to be born with severe birth defects and conditions, such as fetal alcohol syndrome. The rate of suicide is six times higher. First nations young people are in desperate need of hope and better education, and that is what the people out on Parliament Hill are demanding.

Perhaps the member could talk about how this bill does not deal with the fundamental questions of respect, self-government and providing hope for the future of first nations people.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate contribution to this debate and also to this issue for many years. I know that her work as a child advocate here in this province has also been very much connected to seeking justice for first nations children.

Do we need a more obvious message than the fact that aboriginal people are coming to Parliament Hill, taking time away from the AFN assembly where they have serious issues to discuss as well, to call upon us to shape up, to do the job they want us to do?

First nations people in the ridings of so many Conservative MPs want them to do that job, to look at funding for education, to look at employment opportunities, to look at ways in which first nations youth can have hope for the future, can have opportunities in the future.

Why must they come out to Parliament Hill to tell us, once again, and to tell the current government, once again, that it is not doing its job?

The trend, the constant way in which the government has chosen to impose legislation, has failed to consult, has failed to listen to leadership across this country that is saying “We want to work on this; we need to do a better job on this”, the way in which it keeps saying it knows better is appalling. It is not fitting of a government that said, six years ago, it would do things differently. It certainly speaks to its lack of fundamental respect for first nations people, and its ignorance when it comes to the real needs on first nations.

Frankly, I share the sentiments of the people who will be coming to Parliament Hill to tell us that they are watching, that they want change, that they want justice.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak on this topic. I am very proud to rise in opposition to 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.

I want to acknowledge at the outset the amazing work done by a colleague of mine from Nanaimo—Cowichan. She has been an amazing advocate for this file, along with my colleague from Manitoba who just spoke.

I am a very optimistic and hopeful person, but there are moments when I despair. When I look at the role of the federal government when it comes to the first nations people, to our aboriginal and Inuit, I think here we are in 2013, the 21st century, and we have people living in our first nation communities that absolutely bring tears to our eyes when we see the way the children live and the way the communities are surviving.

I have had the privilege of visiting many first nation communities in my previous life. Every time I went to those communities, I was so impressed with the strong feeling of community, with the strong feeling of hope that something will change. These communities are asking us the biggest question of all: When will things change and get better for first nations people in many parts of Canada?

Since I have been in the House, we have dealt with a lot of pretty tragic cases. Attawapiskat is a fine example. The report from the United Nations is another fine example. All of the information we have says that some urgent action needs to be taken on a whole lot of issues to address concerns with the first nations people.

I was pleased when I heard the Prime Minister say there would be a new way of moving forward with our first nation communities. Being a hopeful and optimistic person, that actually made me feel good. However, since I have been in the House and have heard some of my colleagues from the other side on the way our federal government is dealing with the first nations people, none of that has come to light. What we get are lots of words. Words are good because they are a first step, but it is absolutely imperative that we take the next step and the next step in order to put right wrongs that have existed for hundreds of years.

This is the 21st century. We are beyond colonialism, I hope. We talk about respect for our first nations, nation-to-nation relationships, moving forward nation to nation, but in reality, what we have is more paternalism, and “We might have talked with you, and we did, but we know better what will work for you”. It is that kind of paternalism that is at the root of why I am opposed to this piece of legislation.

No one is saying that we do not need to address some of the problems that exist with the Indian Act and the election provisions within it. We agree that we need to make some changes, but those changes cannot be railroaded and they cannot be imposed. Yes, consultations occur, but when the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, not just one person but the assembly, says that this is not good and this does not reflect what we said, then surely it is time to take a breather and go back to try to build consensus and to try to address the concerns that were raised.

Instead, the government is going to say that they talked with them, they had round table discussions and they came, and that they found the APC does support Bill C-9.

We agree that the APC supports this. However, there is not overall support. For the government to say one group supports it and the other group does not and therefore it is going to do it anyway, it seems a little top-heavy and unnecessary. If the government had taken the time to address some of the issues, we would not have this dilemma today. If it had even accepted the amendments, we would not be here debating the bill in this way today.

Everyone wants to see elections fixed, or whatever they are, and to make sure things go right. We agree with that. However, we do have the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs saying this does not cut it. One of the reasons it does not cut it is that to opt-in to this scheme it just takes a vote by the council, but to opt-out is a very cumbersome affair. Surely, opting-in and opting-out should be similar mechanisms.

The other thing is that we know the ministers under this government love to have more and more power centralized in the ministries, but in this, the minister could even impose a first nation to come into this system, even if it decides not to go in. That seems way over the top and totally unnecessary. Once again, what it would do is give far more power to the minister, and in that process, it would diminish the nationhood of the first nation groups that it impacts. We should really be paying attention to that.

The Assembly of First Nations, when it came and gave witness to the Senate, said:

What, in fact, is missing from our toolbox to move beyond the Indian Act is an effective and simple mechanism for a First Nation to remove its core governance out from under the Indian Act when it is ready, willing and able to do so and after its citizens have legitimized governance reform through a community referendum.

Is that really too much to ask for? That seems to capture what would have made the first nations people support Bill C-9. Instead, we would give more power to the minister and then we would move the appeals toward the court system, which is already overburdened. It would be a lengthy, cumbersome and expensive process.

I was so impressed by the first nations people wanting something similar to what we have when it comes to federal and provincial levels of government. All they wanted was the creation of an independent first nation election tribunal, very similar to Elections Canada, yet we cannot even move toward that.

During the time I have been here I have seen legislation after legislation that impacts first nations people. Every time, I have had to stand up in the House and oppose it, yet if it was changed to actually respect the nation-to-nation relationship with our first nations, then I could have supported it.

This bill would have taken very few amendments to get my support as well.

As members know, there are many things, when it comes to our aboriginal and first nation communities, the indigenous people of Canada, that we should be addressing. A lot of that comes from identity and who we are. There are huge issues of loss of language. There are huge issues of isolation. However, there are also huge issues around identity and also of not having that independence that is so critical. With that comes a certain amount of, I would say, mental distress.

As a high school counsellor for years, I am always appalled at the very high levels of suicide among our first nation communities. All I know is that when things should be getting better, in many ways things are getting worse. Maybe things are getting worse now because we can actually see it. Because of our technologies such as television and satellites, we can actually see what is happening in some of our remote communities. I would invite my colleagues across the way not just to drop in but to actually go there and visit people's houses, not the ones that have been specially cleaned for them but visit the houses and some of the seniors and even some of the schools. I would really invite them to do that.

More than that, I would urge our government and our Prime Minister to live up to the words he gave to the first nations people. I can remember the look of excitement and anticipation on Chief Atleo's face when the minister made his speech, and I know how full of hope and optimism the first nations people were that this was a way forward. However, I would say that since then the words do not look so shiny. As a matter of fact, they have been muddied because over and over again we have not responded to the needs of the first nations people, nor has the government, despite all its words, respected that nation-to-nation way of moving forward, getting out of colonialism and out of this paternalistic type of governance, and moving into true nation-to-nation governance for our first nations. With that comes rights, and with that comes responsibilities.

However, it is very disturbing for me when we hear some of the comments. For example, children who go to first nation schools should surely get the same dollar amount as the students who go to public schools, K to 12, in Canada. Surely when we have communities up in the north, we have to build into the budget the cost of heating and transportation. If we do not, once again that takes away from the dollars that can be used to educate our first nations' children.

We have a huge responsibility as a nation. As a country, Canada has given me lots. It has given me not only my beautiful children and grandchildren, but an opportunity to have a wonderful life, to teach for many years and now to be here as a member of Parliament. I could not live with myself if, sitting in this House, I did not use my voice to advocate for our first nations people, but not in place of them. We have colleagues in here from the first nations community sitting on this side who will be speaking and have spoken.

As Canadians, we have a responsibility to set things right. We have it within us. We have the words. What we need now is the will to take action, meaningful action not just words for the sake of words that sound good when there is a camera shot, but take real steps to build a strong, meaningful relationship with our first nations people.

Our first nations people are in territories that are very rich in resources. I also know they are very concerned about the environment as each and every one of us should be. If we only talk about extraction of resources without thinking about the impact it is having on us globally, then we do our children a huge disservice.

We need to pay special attention to our first nations people who are raising red flags, who come on television and say “Look around us. The ice is melting, folks. This is not a textbook issue anymore.” It is real. It is happening around them. We need to pay special attention. We also need to pay special attention to what we are talking about, and that is our first nations people, our aboriginals and our Inuits.

As the Prime Minister has made a commitment on building a relationship nation-to-nation, we need to have real action to take us forward in that direction.

Getting back to this legislation, I am from the beautiful province of British Columbia. Every one of our provinces is beautiful, as well as all our territories and regions. B.C., my home province, also has as its emblem, “Beautiful British Columbia”.

Most of my knowledge of first nations and their communities is about British Columbia. Jody Wilson-Raybould, B.C. regional chief, Assembly of First Nations, had this to say on clause three:

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.

I could not put that more eloquently than my friend, Jody. When Jody says that, she is not using words lightly. It actually makes common sense. As a teacher, one thing I have learned is that when teachers are teaching children, they cannot talk at them, they must work with them, with their learning. We know that about children.

Here we are talking about first nations and surely when we are talking about first nations, we cannot, in the 21st century, be so paternalistic and think that we know better than they do. Even though 50% of the group we consulted was opposed to the changes, the government will make those changes anyway.

Surely this is the time for common sense to prevail and for my colleagues to oppose the bill. Let us send it back and get it fixed, so all of us can support it and respect the nation-to-nation commitment that the Prime Minister made to the first nations people not so long ago.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech occasionally touched on Bill C-9. As well she quoted Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould, the B.C. regional chief of the band.

In an appearance before a Senate committee, Chief Wilson-Raybould said:

In conclusion. for nations that want to use them, there is no question that the election rules that have been developed in Bill S-6 and that will be expanded in regulations are superior and more thought through than those under the Indian Act.

Obviously this is opt in legislation. The provision the member talked about where the minister could put a first nation operating in custom code back into the new code envisioned by Bill C-9, that power has only been exercised three times in the history of our country. It is a last resort when there is a protracted leadership dispute where grassroots first nations people are not getting the services that are delivered.

Will the member accept the words of Jody Wilson-Raybould, who said that this was far superior to the Indian Act system, and accept as well that only in the most extreme circumstances where first nations grassroots members do not get the service they require, the minister would intervene?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that my colleague agrees with me that the final power still rests with the minister to impose this system on first nations and there is no criteria set out for when the minister would do this.

Yes, the bill does have improvements and we are not saying it does not have some good parts to it. However, categorically in there is that the system to opt in and opt out are two totally different systems, which does not seem right to me. They should be the same.

Further, the minister still retains that paternalistic power to opt in any nation when it chooses not to. I do not want to say that ministers could be political, but they could be and use that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about first nations, I remember the Marshall decision. At the time, Marshall went to the Supreme Court and the first nation got the right to fish, cut wood and work in the forestry. I remember at that time I was in Parliament and the government members were grabbing their heads because they wanted to have powers. It seems to me the Conservatives just want aboriginals on the reserves and not do anything. They do not want them to be self-determined and do things by themselves.

For example, when British Columbia wanted the Nisga'a bill to pass, and the Liberal government at the time supported the bill, the Reform Party or the Alliance Party at the time voted with its amendments. It had 471 amendments to the bill that the first nations wanted. We voted 471 times against those amendments of the Conservative Party, the then Reform Party. We voted from Monday to Wednesday morning to say that we had to respect what the first nation was asking for.

Is it asking too much to say go back to the drawing board? Go back and look at some amendments that first nations will accept. Go back where the Constitution of our country gives them that power. The government has a responsibility of consultation with the first nations. By having a minister just impose something on them goes against the Constitution of our country.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for capturing a historical perspective so well. Once again, here we are that when the opposition brings any amendments forward or even the ones suggested by the first nations people, the Conservatives really cannot have anyone else amend their legislation. They seem to have an allergy to that, to changing their mind once they put something out.

It is a sign of maturity when we can actually listen to the concerns, take them into account and rewrite what we have so it builds consensus and builds that nation-to-nation relationship that the Conservative Party has paid so much lip service to over the last number of years.

We are not asking for too much, nor are the first nations people. All they are asking for is to have the right to determine things for themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for again giving a speech with all the passion and verve she is known for.

I would like to go back to a point that she mentioned repeatedly and knows well because of her experience in education.

What impact does the lack of funding for education have on first nations? Would she care to talk about this particular issue?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is totally puzzling to me. All my life, I have fought for equity. Equality is sometimes misleading, but equity I can understand.

If we were to see what is happening in our first nations communities and the state of education there, I could put forward a very coherent and economically sound argument that we should be investing more per child right now in order to build true equity and for the sake of social justice. Instead, I am at a loss for words as to why the Conservative government is not even willing to give the same amount per child to first nations for education as it does to children right across Canada.

Surely the amount that is spent on education should not be decided by whether a child is aboriginal or non-aboriginal? However, that seems to be the defining moment for us.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. I have been listening to the speeches since we started this morning, and there really are two opposing viewpoints.

On the one hand, we have a government that seems to have adopted the policy of taking baby steps, which is clearly insufficient, and on the other we have the opposition calling for a paradigm shift, a new way of looking at relations with the first nations.

Could the hon. member please tell us how she sees the paradigm shift we need to get tangible results? We cannot always do little things and get them wrong. I think now is the time to do big things and get them right. I would like to hear what she has to say about that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very simply, let us respect our first nations communities, first nations leadership and first nations people. Let us start behaving nation-to-nation and start putting the words that the Prime Minister has used into action.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

Mr. Speaker, 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, also known as the first nations elections act, is what I will be speaking to today.

The bill was first introduced as a senate bill earlier this year and now comes to us at third reading in this House as Bill C-9.

The bill came out of a series of regional round tables centred in Atlantic Canada and Manitoba. The round tables focused on making elections work better for first nation communities.

There is no doubt that there are many problems with how elections currently function in many first nation communities. Indeed, there are problems with how elections function at the federal level in Canada too, including expense claims scandals forcing resignations of sitting MPs and the robocall scandal whereby voters were systematically misled in the hopes of tricking them out of their right to participate in our democratic process. There is room for improvement on all sides.

A troubling feature of first nations elections on reserves is the low voter turnout. As with other Canadian and provincial elections, low turnout is problematic, and it is a sign of more complex underlying issues that need to be addressed.

In terms of first nations elections, New Democrats agree that there is room for improvement, but we also believe there are some significant issues with the bill. I would like to go into a few of those issues.

Bill C-9's key provisions include an election cycle longer than two years.

We agree this is necessary. We support four-year election terms. With a two-year election cycle, disputes can take most of the two-year mandate to solve through the current appeals process, which lacks rigour, transparency, and procedural fairness.

Another provision in the bill is the ability to have a common election date. This is also a reasonable provision. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has called for a single election day so that a region can standardize time spent electioneering.

Another provision 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.

New Democrats believe Bill C-9 could allow for more effective self-government if it is limited to opt-in legislation, but the current provisions allowing the minister to determine a band's future without consultation contradict the spirit of self-government.

Another provision is for elections appeals through the courts, rather than through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and for penalties for breaking election rules. Let me speak to these. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has spoken in this place about our concerns with these two provisions.

This act would not specifically allow for either an independent tribunal or an electoral commission, similar to what federal and provincial governments have in place. In this legislation, disputes would have to be resolved in the courts. This requirement could mean increased legal costs for first nations, which already tend to be cash-strapped. Why did the government not consider an independent body that would oversee disputes, as was recommended by the Senate, as well as by the joint ministerial advisory committee's report?

I would like to turn to consultations now.

As I said before, New Democrats want to see first nation elections improved, but this legislation would not amend the Indian Act where some of the most egregious powers of the minister reside.

What concerns me most about the bill is the government's approach to its relationship with first nations. The process seemed to start out relatively well, in terms of the AMC and the APC holding regional round tables on how to improve the elections process. Then, with the support of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, consultations were held on developing new opt-in legislation.

However, as the bill was developed, it seems the government's willingness to work together with others waned. The government had an opportunity to create this legislation in consultation with first nations, but instead it ignored recommendations it received and has refused to make amendments to the bill that were requested by first nations.

The concept of consultation has been disregarded time and time again by the government. Where is the government's commitment to working in consultation with first nations and ensuring consent before legislation is unilaterally imposed?

This strikes me as very similar to some of the issues I worked on in my capacity as deputy critic for Fisheries and Oceans. When the government's omnibus budget bills were introduced, there was much concern over the gutting of habitat protection legislation, as well as a unilateral change to the definition of the term “aboriginal fishery”.

We talked to the government, which insisted it had consulted with first nations on these massive changes, but when we talked to first nations, it was clear that the government's view of the term “consultations” is very different from how anyone else would define that term.

One would think “consultations” would mean a somewhat rigorous process whereby input is legitimately sought and incorporated, or at the very least valued, in the decision-making process. However, what I heard was that these consultations often just meant a brief meeting at which government officials informed stakeholder groups of their plans. It was very one-sided. There was no real effort made to gather input, let alone to reflect this input in the final outcome.

The result of this approach is troubling, and we see it with the bill before us today. Without proper consultation, there is a serious lack of buy-in on the final product, in this case Bill C-9. It means complexities and potential issues in proposed legislation are not fully fleshed out.

I, for one, was not surprised to hear the government's legal bills have soared to exorbitant levels over the past few years. The government has made massive changes to dozens of pieces of legislation, and its approach has tended to be unilateral in terms of lack of consultation and lack of proper debate and review in the House.

We have seen dozens upon dozens of time allocation motions. We see that government-controlled committees refuse to incorporate reasonable amendments to problematic legislation, and then they go in camera so that there is not even a public record of their shenanigans. I would prefer that bills be given thorough study and due process so that hopefully the government can avoid these exorbitant legal costs to fix their mistakes. In terms of the omnibus budget bills, the lack of meaningful consultation with first nations was a key driver in the Idle No More protests across the country.

In conclusion, the Conservative government has promised a new relationship with Canada's first nations, but it is all talk and no action. At every turn, the government prefers to impose legislation without truly consulting with first nations first. First nations have the right to be involved in and consulted on every decision that affects them. The government should work with first nations to solve the problems they are confronting instead of always resorting to knee-jerk paternalism.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan as well as her hard-working staff, who put a lot of effort into understanding this bill and its various propositions and provisions. I would like to thank as well the official opposition critic for aboriginal affairs. She has done an amazing job over the years. My hat is off to her and to her critique of this bill.

While there are a number of good provisions and goals in this legislation before us today, I cannot, in good faith, vote in support of this bill at third reading.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little confused when he said that the government was unilaterally imposing opt-in legislation. I do not know how one would impose opt-in legislation.

I want to ask him to react to a quote from Ron Evans, Chief of the Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba, who stated:

...when enacted, Bill C- 9 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.

I know the NDP does not like to support government legislation, but would it maybe take the words of Ron Evans, former grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and current Chief of the Norway House Cree Nation, that he wants this legislation and he wants us to pass this bill so that his first nation can have this option going forward?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the NDP is happy to support good legislation at any time. In fact, that is the intent behind the amendments and the comments we have made at committee. I think it would be a good parliamentary process if the government actually listened to not only the official opposition but to first nations.

The parliamentary secretary quoted one first nation chief. I also want to add a quote from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Grand Chief Derek Nepinak, who said:

This proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forward 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 the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of First Nations.

I think that is something that the government should heed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Nepinak makes a valid point. It is something we have talked a great deal about with regard to legislation that impacts our first nations, which is that we have to respect the fact that there is a very strong, able, and capable leadership within our first nations. Far too often we do not allow them to lead the way in legislation, as is required to hopefully enable and foster a better overall relationship.

I wonder if the member might comment on the importance of acknowledging the strong and powerful leadership that is currently in place within many of our first nations and doing what we can to enable them to provide the leadership in making the necessary changes to have a positive impact on our first nation people.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question from my colleague and I think it is a very good point.

In terms of consultation, I think first nations across this country really want to be listened to, have input, and actually lead legislation. They do not just want to be listened to and then be put aside and left out of the legislation.

We have seen a real development over the years with first nations in their capacity and their willingness to be involved in the process and in their desire to be self-governing. I think that is to be commended. We should, as a federal government, work with the first nations and listen to their comments.

I want to make a point regarding subclause 3(b) and 3(c) in the proposed legislation, where there are some specific concerns over the ministerial power in the bill. Many first nations have spoken about this, and the government needs to listen if we are really serious about consultation, self-government, and listening to first nations. There are real problems with that subclause.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak to Bill C-9, for several reasons.

Twenty years ago, I was in Vienna for the World Conference on Human Rights. I am proud to say that I was thrown out of the Vienna conference centre because I dared to stand up for something that was important to me, and that was the recognition of aboriginal peoples as peoples, just like all other peoples on the planet. I had a poster with a big “S” on it because I was insisting that people call us “indigenous peoples” instead of “indigenous populations”. I hope the same thing will not happen in this august chamber if I stress certain points today.

I would first like to address a number of aspects of this bill that really fascinate me, because there are several aspects of the government's behaviour that I find completely ambiguous. Everyone is supposed to understand that aboriginal peoples are the only distinct group mentioned in the Canadian Constitution and the only one that is referred to separately. In that regard, I think the Constitution should allow a nation-to-nation relationship with those peoples.

However, that is not the case with this government. This government is not taking action on these relationships, which should have taken on a new scope in January 2012. The way this Conservative government treats the first peoples in this country is certainly not the way partners of Confederation should be treated. There is a problem across the way with relations with aboriginal peoples.

I mentioned the fight to get recognition for aboriginal peoples as peoples, which took several years to accomplish. Today, I can also tell you that it took us 23 years of discussions, negotiations and drafting to create the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Those 23 years of negotiation took a lot of energy, effort and emotion because it is never easy to work multilaterally, as was the case for those negotiations. It took 23 years to create that declaration, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007.

I am proud to have been personally involved in this process, even though it took a very long time. We are used to that. For aboriginals, patience is in our genes, in a way. Sometimes we do not have the choice.

Sometimes we do have the choice though. Article 3 of the declaration I just mentioned establishes the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination. I mention it because the basic right to self-determination belongs to all people, this right to freely determine their political status. The word "freely" is important here.

Yet that is not what we have here today. This bill goes against the spirit of self-government that aboriginal peoples should be afforded. It is not in this bill.

I would like to quote a witness who appeared before the committee, I believe. Her name is Chief Tammy Cook-Searson of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band. She said:

My main objection to this bill is the lack of positive change from the old Indian Act. Neither the Indian Act nor Bill [C-9] 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.

That is what I was saying. This opinion is shared by many people.

There is something about this government that I do not understand. It seems to ignore major global trends.

Today we are celebrating the life of the great Nelson Mandela. He got rid of a system that had no place on this planet, namely apartheid. While his life is being celebrated, what are we doing here? We are trying to improve a system that does not work. Those are the parliamentary secretary's words. I think that apartheid was largely inspired by the Indian Act and the way aboriginal people were treated in this country. That is an issue.

In my opinion, another worrisome aspect is the government's lack of willingness to listen to first nations. I want to stress that, because when aboriginal peoples speak of consultation, they are not indulging in political whims. I said that to the House as recently as last week. Calling for consultation is not just a political whim. It is a constitutional duty to consult with first nations and accommodate the concerns expressed during that consultation.

The government has a dual responsibility, a dual constitutional duty concerning aboriginal peoples; however, it seems to have forgotten that.

I am always surprised to see that this government does not seem to want to take the path of partnership and co-operation with aboriginal peoples. There is a need for mutual respect. The aboriginal peoples are the original partners of Confederation. It is important to constantly remember that. The government should have really consulted with and listened to the first nations. Changes to this bill have been proposed by a number of aboriginal groups across the country. The intent behind the bill is right, but people have proposed changes and amendments.

It is important to always remember that we have the constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate aboriginal peoples.

I have participated in negotiations with the government for many years. That is the only way to move forward with aboriginal peoples. We are certainly not going to accomplish anything by excluding first nations from the table or from discussions.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, again, in the last couple of debates on Bill C-9 and Bill C-15, the NDP members have brought forward witness testimony that they say the government should consider. However, at the same time they refuse to consider the witness testimony of people like Ron Evans of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, who say that they want this bill, they want it the way it is, they want it to go forward and they want to be able to opt in.

The one thing I have heard the most from the NDP members is concern about clause 3, that the minister can choose to put a first nation into this election provision as opposed to back into the Indian Act. I find it ironic that they are concerned about that, when members of the NDP have contacted the minister recently and demanded that he intervene in an election in a first nation in Ontario.

The NDP members do not seem to want the Bill C-9 provisions, but they have no trouble asking the minister to intervene under the current act.

Maybe the member could address the hypocrisy of that position of the NDP.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members on the other side of the House often miss the mark by trying to portray the NDP in this way or that way. That is not what matters today. That is completely ridiculous.

When we try to present constitutional arguments to the government, the government does not want to listen. Aboriginal people are marching in the streets. In fact, I just came back from one of those demonstrations where people keep repeating that the principle of consultation with aboriginal peoples is vital. It is actually a constitutional obligation. We are not talking about political whims.

When will this government get the message?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I now have to say that it is unacceptable that this government does not consult more with first nations. They play a key role in our Canadian Constitution and we all should be very proud of this.

My hon. colleague, who made such an impassioned speech, is very well known. I recently saw a documentary on the great explorers of northern Quebec in which he was praised for being among those who listened to our first nations. I also think that he understood them, and I am very proud of him and his work. I think we should pay much more attention to his perspective on this issue. This is important, because I know that many Canadians share this view.

I would also point out that his work is recognized even beyond our borders. When I travel, I see what the Conservatives are doing to our international reputation and to the way we treat others—because the debate is about that too. I am really disgusted with that attitude.

I hope that in 2015 we can do some housecleaning. We will quickly clean things up so we can enjoy a truly international reputation.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate and humbly acknowledge the comments made by my colleague from Québec.

I have been working very hard and very patiently on these issues for over 30 years. Often, people tell me that aboriginal affairs are complicated and complex legal issues. However, we have to understand that this does not have to be the case. These issues do not have to be complicated or complex.

When we find the political will, our political creativity will emerge and allow us to address these issues, which, in my opinion, have been dragging on for far too long.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, which is a vast region in northern Quebec.

Today, a group of aboriginal people is on Parliament Hill, and I think groups often come to protest the government's actions.

If the government consulted more with first nations, would there be as many demonstrations on Parliament Hill as there are now? What does my colleague think?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that I was just there. I spoke to the protesters outside. One thing I said was that this would not be the last time we see each other, because the government has not changed its attitude toward the rights and interests of aboriginal peoples across the country at all, even though the Prime Minister promised in January of last year that there would be a radical change in the government's relationships with aboriginal peoples.

It was just rhetoric, which is unfortunate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

First Nations Elections Act

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in this House, as always, representing the people of Timmins—James Bay on 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.

This is yet another bill that is being brought forward to tinker with the highly problematic Indian Act. It comes at a time where the breach in relationship between the Government of Canada, the Crown, and first nations across this country is at a very stark moment in our Canadian history, where government seems to believe that it can move back toward a colonial relationship with the first peoples of this country and that it is in the power of the minister to make decisions that really belong in communities.

There are elements in the bill about tinkering with the problems of the elections act, which we have seen. There are elements in the bill about trying to alleviate some of the problems we have seen with the Indian Act, but the fundamental problem is the breach of trust in relationship that is not being done with the communities.

Once again, it is Ottawa, the Department of Indian Affairs, imposing upon the people themselves how situations are going to be resolved, rather than recognizing that in the 21st century it is not acceptable to treat an entire section of our Canadian population, basically, as a hostage people under a bureaucracy.

As we speak, in my communities we are now in probably the 15th state of emergency that I have seen in the James Bay region, due to chronic infrastructure and failed government plans for basic health and safety and housing. We have 70 people who were burnt out of a construction trailer.

For the people back home to understand what this is, this is not living quarters. This is a bunkhouse that was brought in on an emergency basis after a 2008 infrastructure collapse in Attawapiskat, where the sewage system failed.

Now, most people in Canada have no concept of how a municipal infrastructure like sewage would fail, but in each one of my communities on James Bay, I have seen the complete collapse of sewage or water from underfunding, from poorly planned projects: Fort Albany, a complete collapse of infrastructure in the winter of 2009; Kashechewan, in 2005-06, an entire evacuation of 2,000 people; Attawapiskat, in 2008 and again in 2011.

In 2008, when the sewage backed up and destroyed numerous houses in Attawapiskat, the community called upon the federal government for help. Here is what the federal government did. It just said, “You're on your own”.

We talk about the financial problems in these communities. It was the communities themselves that were forced to evacuate 80 people to accommodations in Cochrane and pay for hotels for months on end at the expense of the band, which put the band seriously in debt.

We just had a report from the Auditor General on the complete failure of basic safety protocols from the federal government, that the government sets aside $19 million to deal with emergencies across Canada, whether they be fire, flood or other needs for evacuation, when what it spent in 2009-10 was $286 million; $180 million of that went on response and recovery, but only $4 million went toward prevention and mitigation.

That means that it had to take money from building schools, it had to take money from safe water, it had to take money from building houses to deal with whatever the emergency was at the time.

I want to put this in context. There is not a single non-native community in this country to which, if there were a fire, the government would turn around and say, ”Well, guess what? There are no more schools in your district for the next five years”. It would say, “We're not building you a hospital. You know why? Because you people ended up getting flooded out”.

We saw the incredible response in High River and Calgary, from across Canada. The federal government and the provincial government helped the residents there.

However, when our communities are flooded out, we see the derision and the abuse from the trolls all over the main media sites blaming the people, laughing at the people for being the victims of a natural disaster, and we see the government choosing to ignore them.

This destabilizes band councils in their ability to deal with the developments in our communities because they are always having to try to find money to deal with the fundamental problem, which is the failed infrastructure.

While we are talking in the House about this government-imposed bill that has not been done with proper consultations, I want to also speak about the deep sense of broken trust that exists with first nations communities and this government—in particular, the abuse of the aboriginal residential school apology.

It was the proudest moment of my life as a parliamentarian to stand in the House and see the Government of Canada acknowledge what had been done in the residential schools. Since that proud day, I have seen systematic attack on the survivors of these institutions by the federal government—in particular, the victims who survived St. Anne's residential school. In the long histories of abuse and degradation that happened in the residential schools, St. Anne's stands out as a particularly dark and brutal story.

In 1992, the Ontario Provincial Police launched an investigation into the abuse that went on at St. Anne's. It was probably the largest police investigation into child torture and abuse of its kind outside of Mount Cashel. More than 900 witness statements were gathered. Thousands of pages of documents were subpoenaed and obtained from the Catholic Church in Montreal and Moose Factory. The OPP did an extraordinary job.

Survivors of St. Anne's finally came forward to be part of the independent assessment process, which the government had set up. It told the people who survived this brutal institution that, if they came forward and told their stories, it would work this out with them. The legal responsibility of the federal government at that time, laid out in the terms of agreement under the independent assessment process schedule D, appendix VIII and appendix X, was that the federal government would provide a narrative, a written record of all the known documentation of abuse that occurred at St. Anne's. The federal government, though, chose not to tell any of the survivors, or their legal teams or their adjudicators about the thousands of pages of police evidence that the federal government was aware of, thereby undermining and compromising the independent assessment process.

I wrote to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs about this breach, because this is serious. The obligation to disclose evidence is a fundamental principle of justice. The minister wrote on July 17: “Canada is, of course, aware of the Ontario Provincial Police investigations regarding St. Anne's Indian Residential School and the resulting...trials”. However, he said that it was not their job to obtain this evidence and it certainly was not their responsibility to tell the survivors.

He also claimed that the evidence was not even admissible. He said: “...statements made to the Ontario Provincial Police in the course of investigations...cannot...be used as evidence in the Independent Assessment Process. ...only the oral testimony of a witness is considered evidence”. He then referred me to page 10, paragraph 10, of the terms of agreement. I read that and it says nothing of the kind.

I have the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs putting on record something that is completely false, regarding the withholding of evidence about the abuse and torture of children. In fact, the terms of agreement of the independent assessment process says the exact opposite to what the minister is claiming. It says “...findings in previous criminal or civil trials...may be accepted...without further proof”. This is the key issue.

The poor survivors who chose to come forward. However, I know many in our communities in Fort Albany, Moose Factory, Attawapiskat and Peawanuck who have not participated in the independent assessment process because they could not bear the trauma of being challenged and having to go through the process again. Yet, the government knew. All the evidence was there, particularly evidence that the administrators of the school built an electric chair to electrocute children, for the kicks of staff. That was in the police affidavit. The survivors coming forward would have to tell this, only to be challenged by federal lawyers who would say that it is not true or not admissible. This is the real key of the breach of trust that shows the dark, dark heart of this government.

When the issue of the fact that it had suppressed evidence and compromised the truth and reconciliation process was brought out and exposed, the government admitted that it needed to deal with this at the Ontario Superior Court. Next Tuesday, December 17, this issue will be addressed at Ontario Superior Court.

What we have found out since the July 17 letter from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is that the federal government had this evidence all along.

The federal government went to Ontario court in 2003 and demanded access to all of the police evidence. The government was not doing that on behalf of the victims. It said that it was its right, as the defendant and the entity responsible for the abuse of these children, to access the thousands of pages of police testimony and the 900-some witness documents about the abuse that was perpetrated against the children.

In 2003, the federal government got that evidence. In his 2003 decision, Justice Trainor said that this evidence was to be used and should be used by future plaintiffs. However, the future plaintiffs were not told that. They were lied to in the legal process that they participated in. The evidence was suppressed.

This is a very serious breach of fiduciary and legal obligations. The federal government acts as the defendant in this case against the abuse of these children, but it also acts, under the obligation of the independent assessment process, to provide all the evidence so that it can be adjudicated by the legal teams. The government decided to suppress this evidence and say that it did not know where it was or have access to it. The government even tried to claim privacy right provisions to prevent the survivors from seeing it.

The people that I represent in our communities still live with the abuse that went on at St. Anne's. There is not a family I have met who is not still trying to put the pieces back together from the intergenerational damage that was done and the outright attempt to destroy the James Bay people through this horrific institution.

The federal government knew the extent of the abuse. It knew the number of perpetrators of the abuse. It sat on it and it told the survivors who came before a legal process that there was no evidence to back up their claims. When I go home to James Bay and to see the survivors in Fort Albany, I really do not know what to tell them about a government that could be that mercenary and cold-blooded.

When the Conservative government comes forward with its colonial attitude about first nations education and its spin and misinformation and attacks on the leadership in these communities, and its blame about it being a big waste on the taxpayers, the communities that I represent know that the Conservative government is one that has not shown any good faith toward them. They know that the Conservative government is one that has breached the fundamental promise that the Prime Minister made when he stood up and talked to the survivors about the residential schools.

That system was set up to destroy the Indian in the child. Under Duncan Scott, going back, it was meant to eradicate a people. The Conservative government is continuing on a process of treating the survivors, the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren who suffered under this system, in a manner that is abusive and fails to show respect.

We could continue to talk about tinkering with the Indian Act. We could talk about long-term goals, but I have never heard any long-term goals from the government when it comes to first nations. Otherwise, we could say that something fundamentally wrong happened when the treaties were breached and the children were sent off to the residential schools. It is up to the House of the common people of Canada to repair that breach. We need to do it by moving away from the abusive, uninterested, arrogant, and incompetent attitude of this government when it comes to first nations communities, first nations governance, and first nations children.

Right now, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has his first nations education act. I have never seen a man have to run so fast from legislation that he said was going to be a great benefit to all first nations children. He is having to run from it because the government has not consulted with the communities. It is again attempting to impose a model that no other community in this country would allow.

Education is about children. Education is child-centred. The government believes that it can bring in some edicts and change things, but the government does not understand that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is de facto the education minister of one of the largest school populations in this country.

He cannot even tell us how many schools are condemned. He cannot even tell us how many schools need building. He cannot tell us the per person cost of educating a child under his watch. That level of negligence is astounding, because we are talking about children.

The threat the government is making now on the first nation education act is that it is going to put a little money on the table, and either everyone plays ball or it will take the money away. It has the attitude that it can dangle a carrot in front of communities that have substandard education. There are communities in my riding like Attawapiskat where, after 13, 14, 15 years, they may finally get a school. In Kashechewan in my riding, grade school still does not exist. I can name communities across this country where the schools have been condemned for years.

The government is offering to put a little money on the table, and then people will either do what the government tells them to do or it will take the money away. One has to ask what kind of government would use children as bargaining chips. We used to hear the minister say that the government gives more money to first nation children than the provincial system, but of course he was laughed out of the room for that one, so now he is saying the government will provide a little money and people will come along or it will pull the whole project.

I asked what kind of government would use children as bargaining chips. I remember when the federal government imposed a third-party manager on the band in Attawapiskat in 2011-2012. It thought the community would fold, but the community did not fold, and they went to court. When they went to court, the government cut off all the funding to the community, including for education, and the community went two months without education dollars. That would be illegal in any other jurisdiction.

There have been many fights with municipal governments, but imagine a fight with the municipal government in Toronto if it were told the money is going to be cuff off to all the schools until it complies with its mayor. That would never happen, but that is what happened in Attawapiskat. The government imposed a third-party manager at $1,800 a day, who I think was making more money than the Prime Minister, yet students were being evicted from college because the money was not being transferred for their college funds.

There are some fundamental problems with the relationship, and I would like to tell my hon. colleagues that it does not have to be this way. When I look at first nation communities across this country, I see such immense possibilities. I see inspired young people coming forward as leaders. On the James Bay coast I have seen a whole new generation of young, articulate leaders who see a much bigger world and want to be part of that world. I see industry saying it wants to find ways to get peace on the ground so development can occur, saying that for development to happen, it needs trained, empowered first nation communities, but I do not see the federal government at the table.

For example, the government claimed that the Ring of Fire—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

On a point of order, the hon. Minister of State.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are debating the first nations elections act, and I think the record will reflect that we have not heard the member even come close to the ambit of discussion around the first nations elections act. I can appreciate that his next sentence was going to be expressing his appreciation for what this government has done to invest in educational opportunities for the Ring of Fire, which would be a good talking line for him, but unfortunately this debate has to do with the first nations elections act and nothing to do with what he has said since he started his speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I came to the chair part way through and I must admit I have not heard anything about the elections act.

The member for Timmins—James Bay has only about a minute left, so perhaps he could address his closing comments.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly send you the blues to help you out so that you will understand the erudite nature of my speech.

Before I finish up, I would like to point out that I think my hon. colleague was getting a little tense because the Ring of Fire is near his area, and the government blew it. I do not want to embarrass him, but this is why I go back to the issue of governance. We need to deal with this issue of governance. The issue that we are talking about is the breach of faith. The governance between first nations and the government needs to be based on trust, and we have not seen any of that level of trust.

We can hear all the talking points we want on how the government blew it on the Ring of Fire, but the communities do not trust the government, and neither should they. As I said earlier in my speech, we can tinker with the problems of the Indian Act, but the fundamental problem is the relationship.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for my colleague, and I will go ahead because what this bill shows is the Conservatives' attitude toward first nations. Again, this is a paternalistic attitude that aims to impose a decision rather than take into account the consultations held with first nations.

In the NDP, we are fortunate to have an excellent critic, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who discusses issues on a nation-to-nation basis. This very capable member has done a remarkable job on this file for several months using this nation-to-nation approach, which is very different from the Conservatives' paternalistic tactics.

Today at noon, there were protests outside Parliament to show the government that first nations want an approach that is more respectful of aboriginal rights and more in line with this practice that the NDP has begun to adopt, that is, a nation-to-nation approach.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether he thinks that the Conservatives, in this bill, showed respect for our first nations and what they asked for.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the excellent question and for the reference to the phenomenal work of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. He is a man who has represented us at the United Nations on the issues of first nations.

As he always points out, we can look to La Paix des Braves in Quebec. The signing of the James Bay agreement with the Grand Council of the Crees was a historic moment. The Government of Quebec recognized that it had to deal with the land issues of the James Bay Cree. It set the first modern treaty, but it was with a provincial government, because the feds were not at the table. We can see from that model that when something is done with respect and involvement, change is possible.

When I look at the east side of James Bay on the Quebec side and then I look at the west side in Ontario, I see vast differences between the poverty and lack of infrastructure in our region and the development that has happened on the Quebec side. That is not to say that it has been easy. It is not to say that the treaty principles of La Paix des Braves have not been breached, but there is a mechanism in place.

Unfortunately, we are still tinkering here with a broken act, a colonial act, a 19th century act. We can talk about tinkering, but I think we need to look at the models that work and we need to learn from the people who know how to make things work.

My hon. colleague who represented the Grand Council of the Cree at the United Nations and in the negotiations with Quebec would certainly be well positioned to be an Indian affairs minister. He could actually deal with some of these fundamental problems that need addressing.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member how he feels about the process of consultation, because I think that is one of two issues with the bill. In addition to the lack of respect for self-government, there is a lack of consultation on so many issues.

Yes, there were some first nations that wanted to talk about elections, but when they said things the government did not want to hear, the government proceeded with the bill anyway. It is going ahead without respect for what consultation really means, which is not just to let people speak but to hear what they have to say and act on it.

I wonder what the experience of consultation with first nations in the member's riding might be.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the great honour to work with some of the Algonquin communities in northern Quebec and really learn on the ground how the governance structures need to work. I have also had the great honour to serve the Cree communities of the upper James Bay region.

We certainly know that the two-year cycle of elections has been very disruptive and we are glad to see that is changing. Two years is not sufficient time to build any kind of sustainable governance structure.

The problem with what continues to be imposed is that it is an inverted model of accountability. It is that the band and the band council are responsible to the minister, not to the people.

In our regions in the north, 180 years ago we had the Hudson Bay agent, who lorded it over the land. Then we had the Indian agent. Now we have the INAC bureaucrat. As far as I can see, they are all the same guy and they all stem from the same problem, which is this idea that they are the ones who will make the decisions and not the people whose lives are being affected. That is not a democratic model.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very passionate and well-informed speech.

When speaking with aboriginal people in the community, they tell me that what we saw in South Africa, the apartheid movement, was actually inspired by the Indian Act in Canada. At first, when I heard that, I was so disheartened. What we are seeing today is a continuing lack of consultation and a lack of respect for our first nations aboriginal and Métis people in this country.

With this change in Bill C-9, what we are seeing is a further lack of respect, not consultation with the communities or with the people who will actually be impacted by the changes. This is a very non-democratic process disguised as a democratic process.

I was wondering if my hon. colleague could comment.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly on this world freedom day, the day we remember the great Mandela and his walk to freedom, I really believe that in northern communities, there are young people who are the next Mandelas. What Mandela showed is that it is possible to reconcile after years and years of injustice. The word I hear all the time in first nation communities is “reconciliation”. I hear that the treaties will the honoured, that we committed to the treaties for as long as the sun shines, as long the grass grows, and as long as the river flows.

We have a fundamental duty. It is our primary relationship as Canadians, the relationship formed when those treaties were signed. Everything else comes after that.

It has been a broken relationship, but in first nation communities, I hear the word “reconciliation”. I never hear it from government. Never. I have never heard the word “reconciliation”. There is no understanding of what it means. Reconciliation is to come together with respect. I think when we come together with that respect, we will actually be able to start re-understanding how to build a governance structure that is forward-looking and accountable to the communities. Fundamentally, when it comes to education and children, no child in this country should ever be thrust into fourth world conditions in marginalized communities across the far north of Canada.

When we look at Mandela and what he stood for, I think Canada is on the verge today, so we need to take that next step. It is what the world expects of us and what we need to expect of each other.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will say, in the spirit of reconciliation, that when the hon. member for Drummond mentioned, after the long and somewhat rambling, off-point speech by the member for Timmins—James Bay, that the current system of elections in first nations communities is paternalistic, I could not agree more.

Perhaps distracted by his colleague's speech, the hon. member for Drummond did not read the bill that is up for debate today. If he did, he would see that it is designed to take the minister out of the day-to-day governance of on-reserve elections. This, in fact, has been the request of multiple first nations, from Manitoba to the Maritimes.

Although it takes a little more time, I would urge my colleagues across the way to actually read the bill and see that it is designed to increase self-government in an opt-in manner for first nations communities.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to finally get a question from the shy Conservatives over there. It is interesting to hear the member talk about the opt-in mechanism, but he does not talk about the opt-out mechanism, and that is one of the key issues raised by the first nation communities. The fact is that “[i]t 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 the participants”.

That was Aimée Craft, chair of the National Aboriginal Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association.

I know that the group over there does not want to debate these issues. I want to thank the member for having the courage to rise and ask a question.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I am going to share my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I rise at third reading to speak against Bill C-9, which has a very long title, and to demonstrate that I have actually read it, I am going to go through the title. 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.

I am always a bit resentful when members on the other side imply that disagreement means that we have not actually read a bill. In fact, I am disappointed to be in this situation of opposing this bill, because there was actually a promising start with some first nations in terms of trying to come up with a bill to reform the regulations under the Indian Act for conducting elections. However, somewhere this went off the rails, I believe. It is also disappointing because we have been discussing these kinds of issues of governance for a long time. I want to spend some time on how we got here, or more accurately, on how we are stalled at the place where we are now.

When I said I wanted to talk about how we got here or about how we are stalled here, I am really referring to the broad underlying issue of first nations self-government. This is a principle that was first recognized by this Parliament more than 30 years ago, when all parties agreed to support what was called the Penner report, in 1983. This report was named after the chair of what was called the Indian self-government committee. This was an exceptional committee in the House of Commons in that it invited a first nations representative, Roberta Jamieson, a very respected Mohawk leader, to sit as a full member of the committee. It was certainly the first and perhaps the only time any committee of this House of Commons has had someone from outside the House sit on a committee. The reason for doing that was that we wanted to make sure that first nations were heard.

The committee travelled the length and breadth of this country, literally from coast to coast to coast, to hear directly from first nations and their communities. I know about this committee quite well, because as a young researcher at the House of Commons, I was actually attached as staff to the committee, and I travelled across the country for nearly a year with the committee.

What the Penner report did was groundbreaking in what it recommended and in that it actually listened to first nations in their communities. In adopting the Penner committee report, the House of Commons broke new ground, because the House of Commons said that Canadians needed to recognize the right of self-government for first nations and needed to entrench that right in the Constitution. Then there needed to be legislation to implement self-government by recognizing first nations as a third order of government, independent of federal and provincial governments, in their own areas of jurisdiction.

This marks a journey that began 30 years ago to make first nations self-government a reality in this country, and unfortunately, Bill C-9 indicates that we still have not gotten there.

The new approach taken by the Penner committee was entrenched in the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognized and affirmed existing aboriginal rights and treaty rights and provided for constitutional conferences to be held later to define and implement those rights. Unfortunately, in the four conferences held between 1983 and 1987, there was a failure to get agreement on how to define those rights and on how to move forward with legislation to implement them.

The year 1987 marked the biggest setback for the recognition of self-government we have seen in this country, with the failure of that constitutional conference on self-government and with the exclusion of aboriginal people from the talks leading to the Meech Lake accord. Of course, fate sometimes has a way of paying back, so when it came time for the Meech Lake accord to be approved, it failed. It was defeated in the Manitoba legislature by a single vote, that of the respected first nations leader Elijah Harper.

There was an attempt to reset the debate at Charlottetown, and aboriginal people were included in that next round of constitutional talks. The Charlottetown accord would have explicitly entrenched the right of self-government in the Constitution, but it was subsequently, unfortunately, defeated at referendum.

I am going to continue just a little longer down this road of talking about history, because it explains what is fundamentally wrong with Bill C-9, as it is presented to us.

In 1996, we had the publication of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which echoed what had been said in the original Penner report, now some 13 years before. It said again that we needed to recognize and entrench the right to self-government; to recognize first nations governments as a third order of government, equal in every way to federal and provincial governments; and to reorganize our federal institutions to reflect those facts.

Unfortunately, the response of the Liberal government in 1998 was simply that they were open to talking. The Liberals did not actually do anything to implement those recommendations.

Alongside this halting political process, there were important legal developments based on the recognition of aboriginal rights in the 1982 Constitution. This refers to the Supreme Court of Canada decisions, beginning with R. v. Sparrow in 1990, which established that the federal government has a duty to consult and to accommodate first nations when considering any infringement or abridgement of an aboriginal treaty right. The Supreme Court of Canada has found this duty to flow not only from section 35.1 of the Constitution Act but also from the fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown to aboriginal people and from the duty to uphold the honour of the Crown by dealing with aboriginal people in a fair and just manner.

Returning to Bill C-9 directly, no one argues that the election process under the Indian Act could not be improved, but there are two much more important questions at play here. How does Bill C-9 stack up when it comes to these two constitutional principles governing relationships between the federal government and first nations: the recognition of the right of self-government on the one hand and the duty to consult on the other? I submit that on both grounds, the bill fails and fails miserably.

Consultation means more than just asking people to speak and then ignoring their concerns. Again, a process that started well with the first nations in the Atlantic provinces and with the Manitoba chiefs went off the rails when people raised concerns about particular aspects of the bill. The government decided to press ahead, despite losing the support of its partner in those consultations. This is not what consultation means in Canadian law. Consultation means to hear the other side, to take seriously their concerns, and to accommodate those concerns when it comes to first nations' rights. This has not been done in the bill.

Respect for self-government also means that we recognize first nations governments as equals in the constitutional order. What is fundamentally wrong with the bill, and what first nations object to, is giving the minister the right to decide which kind of election first nations should use.

The bill would allow even those using custom elections to be forced under the provisions of this new parallel process, even over the objections of that first nation. If the minister believed there was something wrong in the first nation in terms of corruption or the election process, the minister could unilaterally decide to force them into a selection process for their leaders that they did not choose. This fundamentally disrespects the right to self-government.

I have five first nations in my riding. Elections in four of those are conducted under the Indian Act. The Songhees Nation, Scia'new First Nation, T'Sou-ke Nation, and Pacheedaht First Nation are running under what, admittedly, is an act with some problems, in particular the two-year term for leaders. However, they were not consulted directly and have not asked for these changes.

One of the nations in my riding, Esquimalt Nation, operates under custom, and certainly Esquimalt has not been consulted and would object strenuously to giving the minister the power to force them away from their customary elections.

First nations in my riding should be concerned about that lack of consultation, but they are even more concerned about the lack of respect for first nations as equal partners in Confederation.

Unfortunately, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development confirmed earlier today in the House the bullying attitude of the Conservatives when it comes to first nations by restating his position, once again, that he will not discuss funding for first nations education unless they first agree to accept his bill to reform first nations education. Again, it is fundamental disrespect for consultation and fundamental disrespect for the equality of first nations.

I see that I am running out of time. Let me say that in my riding, certainly, we have no problem with the leadership of first nations. We have a large number of initiatives that have been undertaken by chiefs in our ridings, including Chief Rob Sam, of the Songhees Nation, which is about to open a wellness centre; Chief Andy Thomas, of Esquimalt Nation, which has entered a partnership for apprenticeships in the shipbuilding industry; Chief Russell Chipps, who is in a partnership to build a new housing development on the Scia'new Reserve; and Chief Gordon Planes, who has led his nation in becoming a solar nation, according to a division of his elders, and has taken the first nation off the grid, with solar hot water in every nation and solar cells on the first nations office roof. It is certainly a great initiative. The Pacheedaht Nation, under Chief McClurg, recently purchased a tree farm licence to provide sustainable care of the forest and sustainable economic development in his community.

This is a bill that tries to fix a problem that does not really exist in my riding. It would do so without consulting the first nations of my riding, without listening to them and without respecting their right to self-government.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the five first nations in his riding. This bill would have no effect on the first nations in his riding if they chose not to opt in to the provisions of Bill C-9. He should be telling his members that.

As for the Esquimalt Nation, which operates under custom code, the minister currently has the power under the Indian Act to take it out of custom code and put it into the Indian Act code if it has a prolonged dispute. That power currently exists. It is not a new idea.

What this legislation proposes is that the minister would be able to, in extreme circumstances, put them into the more robust system proposed under Bill C-9. The current rules have only been exercised three times in Canada's history, when a first nation has been taken out of custom code election and put back into the Indian Act because of a prolonged dispute. On those extremely rare occasion where a first nation has been unable to internally resolve a leadership problem, Bill C-9 would allow it to be put into this more robust system.

This is not a new power. The member should know that. If he paid attention to the debate and what was discussed in committee, he would know that this is the case. It has only been done three times. I wish he would recognize that fact.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's questions illustrates my point. I have paid attention. I know he has that power now, but what did first nations say when they were consulted about what should happen in disputed elections?

First nations actually made a proposal that we should establish a commission of first nations representatives who would hear disputes about leadership and elections in first nations communities. Instead of the minister making a decision, first nations themselves could govern themselves and appeal to a commission of first nations that would make those decisions.

Again, it illustrates my point exactly, that true consultation means hearing the other side and what it has to say and making a legitimate effort to include those suggestions in the bill. In doing so, that would provide a fundamental respect for self-government for first nations. Unfortunately, the government failed to do that. That is one of the reasons I am opposing the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the speaker made reference to Elijah Harper. Elijah Harper served in a period of time when I was inside the Manitoba legislature. I am very familiar with the Meech Lake debate and discussions and why it did not pass the Manitoba legislature. At the time, I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, as was Elijah Harper.

There is no doubt about the number of protests, particularly the number of first nations people who came into the rotunda of Manitoba legislature. It was not just our first nations community, but the community as a whole that ultimately saw what was necessary. What the first nations were really pushing back then was the fact that they were not a part of the process.

Even though we see some changes through Bill C-9, it is important to recognize that there is a lack of consensus from within the first nations leadership in working with the government and bringing the legislation forward to the point where it is. We need to do more to enable that leadership to bring the solutions to the problems that we have.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question raises a question for me. If he was a member of the Manitoba legislature and first nations had failed to be consulted in the Meech Lake accord, why was the single vote that defeated it Elijah Harper's? Why was it not the member's also, if he claims to recognize the failure of consultation and the exclusion of first nations at that time?

It is a good example of what happens when first nations are excluded from the process in which they should rightfully be included in.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to revert to tabling of reports from committees.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Does the member for Edmonton—Leduc have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House to speak to Bill C-9, which establishes an alternative electoral regime that the first nations can adopt to replace the current regime.

The bill proposes a number of improvements to the current systems, and many first nations said they were satisfied with the proposals when they first appeared before the Senate committee. This was a Senate bill, Bill S-6. In the House of Commons it became Bill C-9.

However, we know this government. Things are not always what they seem. The witnesses also raised a number of concerns about some of the measures in the bill, and most of those concerns are shared by experts.

According to the government, this bill is meant to update the first nations electoral system. However, while almost everyone agrees that the Indian Act is paternalistic and must be replaced, one of the most controversial clauses of Bill C-9 is modelled on it.

The greatest similarity between Bill C-9 and the Indian Act is the fact that the minister is given the authority to subject a first nations community that has its own election code to this new, so-called voluntary, system by order. That led Jody Wilson-Raybould, AFN Regional Chief for British Columbia, to say the following:

...subclauses 3(1)(b) and (c) permit the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to add the name of a First Nation to the schedule without its consent; this is not appropriate. First Nations are in a period of transition and moving towards increased autonomy and self-government [where] appropriate accountability is to our citizens.

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

When he presented the bill to the Senate committee, the then minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development wanted to clarify certain myths surrounding Bill S-6. He said that the clause was not problematic because the legislation controlled its use by imposing specific prerequisites. That is a half-truth because subsection 71(1) of the Indian Act states that the minister can use the order whenever he deems it advisable for the good government of a band.

Bill C-9 specifies the circumstances under which he can do so. However, some of them could be seen as rather subjective, especially in the hands of this government. For example:

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

[when] 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.

The main idea behind the bill is that these provisions give the minister the power to impose rules of basic governance on a first nation, rules that the first nation may find illegitimate, which will no doubt add fuel to the fire, considering the current conditions.

According to the Assembly of First Nations, this is not simply a political problem. According to the AFN, if there is one aspect of the inherent right to self-government that we can all agree on, and that must absolutely be constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, it must be the ability of our nations to determine their own method of selecting leadership. Otherwise, section 35 is meaningless.

If the right of first nations to choose their own means of election is protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, how can we justify the spirit of this legislation, which could quite simply allow the government to legislate unilaterally and to violate this right?

If I recall correctly, I believe that one of the witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee even referred to the fact that this provision could be challenged on the basis that it tramples, without justification, the right of a nation to self-determination. The government is contradicting itself by being so spiteful with this bill while claiming that it wants the first nations to become autonomous. We are still a long way from nation-to-nation dialogue.

I will quote Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada:

Canada's economic and social well-being benefits from strong, self-sufficient Aboriginal and northern people and communities. Our vision is a future in which First Nations, Inuit, Métis and northern communities are healthy, safe, self-sufficient and prosperous—a Canada where people make their own decisions, manage their own affairs and make strong contributions to the country as a whole.

That quote is from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development's website.

Some aboriginal leaders have said that certain aspects of this bill are problematic. In Canada, a chief can be elected in three different ways. Bill C-9 offers a fourth option.

The three systems we have now are: the Indian Band Election Regulations, elections pursuant to the custom code, and self-government agreements. This bill offers a fourth option.

According to Jody Wilson-Raybould, regional chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, the fact that the government is not necessarily making a distinction between the first nations that use different systems:

...[could have] an unintended consequence...that could lead to political and perhaps legal problems for a First Nation and Canada...This could mean that a chief and council, by resolution only, could overturn a community-approved custom election code. This raises some flags, and it might be seen as a step back along the governance continuum in empowering community.

In addition, a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee pointed out that the system the department is proposing is too complex. Candice Paul, co-chair of the Atlantic Policy Conference of First Nations Chiefs, had concerns about a number of aspects of the proposed electoral system.

Ms. Paul had questions, for example, about the mandate of band councils elected under the Indian Act. First nations communities are almost constantly in an election campaign, which is detrimental to the stability of band councils and their ability to develop long-term projects. She was concerned about the weakness of the nomination process, which could result in a large number of candidates—sometimes more than 100—running in the same election.

She also questioned the postal ballot system, which may be open to fraud. The process of appeal to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is paternalistic and complex, and it sometimes takes too long to come to conclusions and to issue binding decisions. Finally, the lack of specific election offences and associated penalties in the Indian Act leaves the door open to fraud, as well as to other illicit activities, such as buying and selling votes.

However, the harshest and most common criticism is about the lack of consultation with first nations. The chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band took exception to the fact that she had only a few days in which to prepare for the hearing that took place in February 2012. When she was asked to appear before the committee, she had never even heard of the bill. The community is concerned, because its elections are going on under its custom code.

However, the chief stated that:

Our First Nation, the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, is signatory to the adhesion of Treaty 6, signed in 1889. We have treaty and inherent rights to First Nations governance.

In its media release, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada stated that Bill C-9 was the product of collaboration. However, according to the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, the bill was not examined by their band councils, the Prince Albert Grand Council, or the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. I am being sarcastic when I suggest that this is one more fine example of true collaboration.

The government claims that it held consultations before it introduced the bill. The government also claims to be helping first nations with the electoral model. However, it is clear now, as it has been in the past, that the Conservative government did not understand the concept of nation to nation negotiation and nation recognition.

First nations have established governance principles. Indeed, some aspects deal with governance in the Indian Act. It is also widely acknowledged that the Indian Act is extremely problematic and that the House should have a real debate on this matter.

This bill does nothing of the sort and, like many other bills—whether they deal with the economy, immigration or other issues—it confers additional rights or discretionary powers on ministers to the detriment of organizations that, in this case, want to self-govern.

In that sense, we can think of no justification for this bill and the new process that the government is proposing. That is why we will oppose Bill C-9.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member raises concern with the necessity of ministerial intervention in a first nation's protracted governance dispute.

Only recently the NDP asked the minister to intervene to remedy an ongoing dispute in the case of one particular first nation by ordering an immediate election. It is quite ironic, given the NDP's position on Bill C-9 where they have consistently stated their opposition to ministerial intervention in future protracted governance disputes.

Is the member suggesting that the first nation communities under a protracted leadership dispute should not have access to the same robust electoral system that would be available to other first nations? Can the NDP members across the aisle come to a coherent policy or will they continue to speak to the bill as incoherently as the member for Timmins—James Bay?

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

Mr. Speaker, I admit that I read my speech. I think it was quite obvious. I therefore thank my colleague for reading his question.

We are talking about a case-by-case situation. I am not familiar with the specific situation that the hon. member for York Centre is referring to. However, his question brings the whole issue into perspective.

We currently have a situation where a member took action. I am not sure whether it was in a consultation with first nations in his area. However, there is a big difference between a case-specific situation, where a representation is made by a member with regard to a local situation that may cause problems, and a situation enshrined in law, which gives the minister power to make a decision that affects an entire community, with little or no consultation.

In this particular case, I assume there was consultation. If not, I assume it was, at very least, a local situation, which required the minister to make a local decision that did not apply to the entire country. Right now, we are having a debate. Ultimately, we will vote for or against a bill that would grant discretionary powers to the government for all situations.

It is really not the same thing. That is why I do not really understand why the hon. member is asking this question. There is a big difference between anecdotal situations, situations that are resolved on a case by case basis, and situations that will then extend to an entire department.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his excellent speech on Bill C-9.

Today, we are looking into an extremely important issue. In fact, it is the very essence of this Parliament, namely, what to do about first nations issues. Do we want to have a nation-to-nation dialogue, as the Prime Minister promised us, or is the government going to continue with its paternalistic attitude toward first nations? The hon. member's speech was most enlightening.

That being said, my question will deal more with the consultations. I know that my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, like most of my colleagues on the NDP side, has been conducting many public consultations. He has held many discussions with his constituents to find out their priorities.

A number of first nations communities—primarily in the Maritimes and Manitoba—have been consulted in connection with Bill C-9. However, the recommendations that came out of those consultations were not necessarily taken into consideration.

What does my colleague think about the fact that consultations were held but that the government did not consider the recommendations that were made?

[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?

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)