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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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, 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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague means about the Conservatives' current political strategy, that it is based solely on marketing.

However, I find it hard to imagine that a federal government would ignore its constitutional obligations to hold serious and essential consultations on Bill C-9. No effort was made to hold such consultations.

Why does my colleague think that the Conservative government does not feel it is necessary to comply with the Constitution Act?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also take a few minutes to speak 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. Like my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, we were not asked to submit amendments to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. That is why the Speaker has given us permission to discuss these amendments at this point, the report stage.

Bill C-9 provides an alternative to the regime in the Indian Act governing the election of chiefs and councillors in certain first nations. As I said earlier when I questioned the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the Bloc Québécois of course fully supports the transparency, accountability and better governance that Bill C-9 provides for.

The problem does not lie in the bill itself or in the improvements that I just mentioned. The problem is the way in which the government imposed its solutions and opinions on first nations. That is what I am going to try to demonstrate, and I am also going to introduce my amendment in the next few minutes.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the provisions in the bill limiting terms of office for chiefs and councillors to a maximum of four years, stating that the election of a chief or councillor may be contested before a competent court, and setting out offences and penalties. However, we oppose the fact that the Conservative government did not consult the first nations before going ahead with these major changes to the Indian Act. These are unilateral changes. As usual, the government acted paternalistically. When I say the government, I am talking about successive federal governments. The government paternalistically imposes unilateral changes on the first nations when it should know that we must talk, nation to nation, when working with aboriginal peoples.

Everyone agrees that there must be more transparency, not only during elections but also during each elected official's term of office. The government can give us examples of times when band councils or other councils, chiefs, leaders and councillors—as we see in any population—failed to govern appropriately. That is not the issue. First, as the Green Party member said earlier, this bill originated in the Senate. However, before introducing this bill, the government should have done what the Government of Quebec did in 2002, which I will talk about in a moment. The government should have sat down and talked, nation to nation, in order to come to an agreement and propose changes. The government would have no doubt received the unanimous support of the House for the bill had the bill first been approved by first nations.

However, we cannot do anything without considering the first nations rights affected by this bill, the direct impact this bill will have on the structures in the communities themselves and how that can affect the communities. The first nations are not opposed to the changes proposed by the federal government. They want to be consulted and be involved in the decisions that will have a direct impact on them. That is a dialogue as opposed to a monologue.

We are asking the Conservative government to sit down and have a dialogue, negotiate, come to an agreement with the first nations. We do not want it to have a dialogue of the deaf or a monologue in which it tells the first nations what is good for them. This goes back to what I was saying earlier when I described the attitudes of federal governments since the very beginning. They have shown a paternalistic attitude towards the first nations.

I used the example of the peace of the braves, and I want to come back to that. This was a historic agreement signed in 2002 by the Cree and the Government of Quebec, led at the time by Bernard Landry, the leader of the Parti Québécois. The peace of the braves is a good example. There were some economic improvements for many peoples, but there are still many problems. I am not saying it is a good example because everything was fixed. It is a good example of how negotiation can lead to a formal agreement, so that the people and communities involved agree with the changes being proposed and carried out. The Quebec National Assembly recognized the first nations as nations, and the peace of the braves is an agreement between nations, as Bernard Landry pointed out when he was interviewed by a journalist who was reporting on what had become of the peace of the braves several years later.

I would like to remind the hon. members that Quebec made a commitment to involve the Cree in northern development and give them $4.5 billion over 50 years. In exchange, the Cree put an end to certain land claims. A few months later, Quebec signed the Sanarrutik agreement with the Inuit, which is designed to accelerate economic and community growth in Quebec's far north.

The peace of the braves and the agreement signed between Ottawa and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee in 2008 brought prosperity to Quebec's Cree. The 16,000 aboriginal people of James Bay now have some of the highest levels of disposable personal income in Quebec, according to a 2011 article in La Presse.

However, as I said, things are far from perfect. There are still health problems and a housing shortage. There is still an unequal distribution of wealth, despite the fact that some people are better off. Right now, 92% of Cree youth interrupt their schooling before earning their diploma or some sort of certification. As I said, the agreement was not a cure-all, but it is a good example of negotiation. That is the point I wanted to make about the peace of the braves.

I do not understand why governments that, generally speaking, like precedents so much could not have used that 2002 agreement as a precedent to create a bill that is endorsed by the affected first nations.

Now, I want to talk about the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, which long ago developed a consultation protocol that the government is supposed to follow when drafting bills or taking action that affects first nations in Quebec and Labrador.

This protocol includes the duty to consult and accommodate first nations before taking actions that could have a negative impact on their interests. Such actions include the modification or adoption of legislation, policy-making, planning processes, the modification or adoption of resource allocation regimes and the approval of specific projects or resource allocations. A consultation and accommodation report must be prepared.

The protocol also includes the duty to conduct consultation and accommodation follow-up. What is more, as provided in the consultation plan, provision must be made for the establishment, funding and operation of mechanisms for follow-up, mitigation measures and compliance monitoring with respect to the contemplated action.

The first nations have therefore already set out a procedure that should be followed by the other levels of government, including the federal government. It is really unfortunate that the government decided to bypass the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador's consultation protocol. We hope that the implementation of this bill is not harmful to first nations communities.

Members of the House agree that the Assembly of First Nations' protocol was not followed and that the bill will be passed because the government has a majority. That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing to amend the bill in order to, at the very least, respect the second part of the protocol, which involves assessing the bill's impact on first nations communities. We are therefore proposing the following amendment to clause 41.1:

Within one year after the coming into force of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Minister must prepare a report on the implementation of this Act and its effects on elections of band councils and elections on reserves.

I would like to once again speak about precedents. People might ask why we are proposing this when such a measure has never been implemented before. However, this type of measure has been implemented before in Bill C-21, which pertained to the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and affected first nations. At the time, the government had a minority. The opposition required that the changes be reviewed every five years and the bill was passed by a majority vote. A precedent therefore exists.

In closing, we would have also liked to introduce funding and mitigation measures, but unfortunately, they would have been deemed inadmissible. However, we would like to take this opportunity to urge the government to implement those sorts of measures.