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.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

First Nations Elections Act

[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?

[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 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.

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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, 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 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.

Motions in amendment

[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, 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.

[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, 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?