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?

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I am absolutely astonished to learn that he was at the Vienna conference in the earliest days of recognition of respect for international human rights.

It is indeed very ironic that this bill concerning our aboriginal peoples is based to an extent on the apartheid system in South Africa. It is precisely as he said. This is a serious issue for aboriginal peoples, the first peoples in Canada, and for the Government of Canada. We must find another way to work together.

It is clear that we have to reform the Indian Act. The best way of crafting this bill is not obvious, but any changes made to Canada's legislation on aboriginal peoples must prioritize what the first peoples want and need.

It is unacceptable to propose such a solution as Bill C-9, which was imposed on first nations. Relations are based on respect between the two nations. Relations between the federal government and first nations must be based on respect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 4 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage 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. While it is not usual for the Chair to provide reasons for the selection of report stage motions, in this case the Chair would like to provide a brief explanation.

As is the case with several standing committees considering bills, members who are not members of a caucus represented on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development were invited to participate in the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9. However, due to an administrative error, these members were not informed of the deadline to submit amendments for the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

As members know, consistent with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), the Chair would not normally select motions that could have been presented in committee; however, in light of the circumstances in this case, the Chair has decided to select these motions.

That being said, while the Chair certainly appreciates some of the challenges presented to members who are not part of a recognized caucus to follow the work of numerous committees, the Chair would nevertheless strongly urge all members to continue to ensure they are prepared to avail themselves of all opportunities presented to them with respect to committee proceedings on bills.

Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 3 have been selected for debate at report stage. They will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

The House proceeded to the 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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important that we oppose this amendment for the reason that there is already a power for the minister. This is not a new power for the minister to restore recognized leadership in a community in rare and exceptional circumstances. That power exists already under the Indian Act in subsection 74(1). That allows the minister, whenever he deems it advisable for the good government of a band, to remove them from a custom code and place them back into the Indian Act process for elections.

If this clause is removed, the effect would be to continue to allow the minister to have the ability to move a first nation with prolonged leadership issues back into the Indian Act process, but it would not allow him to move them into this improved, more robust system that Bill C-9 proposes.

As was said in testimony, as we pointed out, this power to remove a first nation from their custom code when there's been an ongoing leadership dispute has only been used three times—twice under the Liberals and once under our government—and then it was done only when every other option, every other avenue, had been closed, where there was just no hope of resolution. The ministers of the day, under both the Liberal and Conservative governments, have acted in the best interests of community members. This is a rarely used provision, but we believe it is necessary because we believe that members of first nations who are experiencing a prolonged leadership dispute should come under this improved system, rather than being forced back under the Indian Act election system, which is a power that would be retained even if these clauses were removed from this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll call this meeting to order.

This is the fourth meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we are continuing our review of Bill C-9.

With us today we have witnesses who have been asked for. We have the pleasure of having Brenda Kustra, who is from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and we have Tom Vincent, who is from the Department of Justice.

We want to thank you for being here. We will turn to you if there are questions with regard to the legislation or the amendments that are being proposed. We thank you for being here.

Colleagues, it is my intention to move directly into the clause-by-clause consideration. I'm hopeful that everybody has the information they need in front of them, but we'll begin with the clause-by-clause consideration.

As is the practice of all committees, the short title will be deferred to the end of the consideration of the bill. We'll move immediately to clause 2.

Not seeing anybody seeking to move an amendment, I shall call the question.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

There is an amendment being proposed for clause 3, so I turn to Ms. Jones.

Welcome here.

(On clause 3—Order)

[Grand Chief Craig Makinaw, Grand Chief, Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations]

Good morning.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Today I am speaking for the Confederacy of Treaty 6 on Bill C-9.

I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations as well as my home nation, the Ermineskin Cree Nation.

As grand chief of the confederacy, I'm tasked with advocating for the protection of our treaty rights which have been enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as in the sacred agreements themselves. As grand chief I advocate for the 18 member nations and speak from a unified position.

Today I've been tasked with outlining our concerns with Bill C-9, the first nations elections act, and the continued imposition of supposed Canadian authority over first nations and our governance. The problematic sections of Bill C-9 are as follows.

Overall Bill C-9 can be seen as a slight modification on the current default election system outlined in section 74 of the Indian Act. These slight changes, although minimal, have great implications for first nations that rely on their own custom laws or those encountering some leadership issues. According to INAC numbers, out of 617 first nations in Canada, 238 hold their elections according to the Indian Act, 343 hold custom election systems, and 36 are self-governing.

The changes proposed by the bill may be of interest to the 238 that hold their elections in line with the Indian Act, but they will also have implications for those 343 that hold custom elections.

Our specific concern is with clause 3 of the bill in which the opt-in legislation can be applied by order in council to a first nation for which a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of that first nation.

Interpretation of this provision could lead to the imposition of the new act on a first nation that is following a custom election system and that is involved in a dispute. By empowering the minister to impose the act, the Government of Canada once gain is overstepping its bounds in regard to first nations governance.

Disputes in leadership are commonplace in politics, yet first nations are the only bodies of which the leadership can be unilaterally changed, be it through the Indian Act or through Bill C-9.

Further to this intrusion on first nations governance, the minister and INAC are given the ability to define who an elector is. Although some first nations have come in line with Corbiere, the onus falls on the government to determine who these bands are and to deal with them individually. There is no unilateral blanket definition of elector.

These intrusions of the federal government continue to serve as a detriment to leadership and to relationship building, and they seem to impose changes that fit the government agenda.

Compounding the definition of elector is the provision that empowers the electors to petition for a change in leadership. This petition exists and is unique to first nations in a very discriminatory fashion, and as well may lead to the attempted application of the provincial judicial system, which is a violation of section 91, class 24, of the BNA Act, 1867.

These issues must be taken into full consideration by the minister and government.

On the right to self-determination, attempting to impose new provisions regarding first nations elections is a violation of their rights as laid out in section 35.

There are also internationally recognized inherent rights of first nations. A UN declaration outlines the rights of first nations in regard to governance. I've referenced four articles in my presentation. I'll just give the numbers, because there are four different sections, as you all know, in the declaration: article 3, “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination; article 4, “Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination...”; article 5, “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions...”; and article 6, “Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.”

The chiefs of Treaty 6 call upon the INAC minister to respect and enact these provisions of the UN declaration, and not simply recognize, but affirm them through practice.

Bill C-9 is not to be construed as a respecting of first nations governance. The reality is that Canada is attempting to define the rules by which first nations govern themselves, and this is not self-determination.

With respect to the contradictory actions of the government, once again we have an example of the government acting contrary to the statement made by the Prime Minister at the crown-first nations gathering in 2012.

Unilateral imposition or altering of the Indian Act was targeted by Harper as a step in the wrong direction, yet we have been provided with numerous alterations and changes through Bill C-45, Bill C-27, Bill C-9, and finally with Bill C-428.

Chiefs call upon the continued attacks on our sovereignty to cease and for the Prime Minister to stand by his words. Archaic provisions of the Indian Act and perhaps the entire act itself must be scrapped. However, the replacement legislation must be created by first nations and embody the relationships that serve as a foundation for this country. A treaty must be fully implemented and enshrined.

In closing, I would like to state that the provisions that allow for a unilateral imposition of the act on those first nations that follow custom election systems must be re-examined as this is a direct violation of our treaty and their inherent rights enshrined in section 35 as well as in section 91, class 24, of the BNA Act, 1867.

The government appears to be making a habit of violating these foundational documents, including the breaking of the treaty with little recourse or penalty. This continued approach will only hamper progress not only for first nations, but for the country as a whole.

The chiefs of Treaty 6 call upon the government to retract all bills that are unilateral in nature and demand that meaningful consultation begin at the nation-to-nation level.

Thank you for your time and consideration today.

I have another paper besides my confederacy paper from the Treaty 6 chiefs. It's from Ermineskin. They are pretty much the same, so as you read them both, the arguments are the same.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration in my being here today.

[Grand Chief Derek Nepinak, Grand Chief, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs]

[Witness speaks in Ojibwa]

My name is Derek Nepinak. I'm grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

As grand chief of the AMC, I act pursuant to legitimately established mandates of the member chiefs of 60 first nations in Manitoba. I am obligated to adhere to that direction now, as were former grand chiefs of the AMC.

I make this point because it's apparent to me that politicians have been asked to provide personal political opinions as former grand chiefs on the merits of the draft bill, or to add the appearance of legitimacy and process and consultation to the draft bill. For the purposes of accurate reflection, however, it's important to understand that I, Derek Nepinak, am the grand chief of the AMC today, and I'll provide you with an informed opinion unencumbered by personal political agendas.

While I represent the AMC, there are distinct treaty groups or aggregates of treaty communities that wanted to make their views known to this committee. I will say that these communities have a right to be consulted on the intentions of government to create policies or laws that impact or could potentially impact, their exercise of section 35 aboriginal or treaty rights, more specifically, aboriginal or treaty rights to self-government or the pursuit of self-determination.

Within the membership of the AMC, there are approximately 37 first nations communities that hold Indian Act elections, which I'll refer to as section 74 bands, while the remaining communities hold their elections pursuant to custom codes. As I'll explain a little bit later, however, this point is not material, because under the draft legislation the minister has granted a broad discretion under ambiguous terms to bring both custom code and section 74 bands into the purview of the proposed legislation.

It is apparent from our review of draft Bill C-9 that it does not reflect the purpose of the mandate supported and advanced by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs throughout the engagement period. As we have become accustomed to witnessing as indigenous people, the federal government of the day is demonstrating a lack of good faith by setting aside our recommendations and its own representations and substituting a unilaterally developed bill that includes unwanted provisions and omits key recommendations.

As the bill stands, it includes essentially only one of our recommendations and fails to incorporate all others. The magnitude of variation between the Manitoba recommendations and the draft bill is such that it continues a breach of the trust that the first nations invested in the process and further undermines an already tenuous first nations and federal relationship.

More troubling to us is the federal government's repeated attempts to hold out the proposed legislation as something the AMC agreed to. This is simply false and misleading to the public. In 2010, the AMC chiefs in assembly supported specific limited recommendations with respect to election reform.

During the 2010 assembly, the chiefs reviewed presentations made by INAC officials at the time and passed a resolution supporting a four-year term, a common election date, and a local dispute resolution process. The discussions among the chiefs also included the development of a common first nations election code, developed by the first nations themselves, which could be adopted by each first nation that so chooses. The code in this context is not synonymous with federal legislation.

The resolution also contemplated referenda in each first nation, not federal imposition. This is critically important, because it is by way of referenda that community members have the opportunity to exercise a right of free, prior, and informed consent to the process. The option selected by the chiefs is the only option supported by the Manitoba chiefs, and only as described in our resolution form.

Beyond the omissions and the selective set-aside of recommendations in the draft bill, there exists a fundamental problem with revision, manipulation, or amendment to Indian Act terms or regulations. The fundamental problem lies in the continued denial of the existence of inherent rights of self-determination and self-governance of indigenous people. The premise that the Indian Act or any other legislation developed by federal governments presents the only solution is an affront to the original jurisdiction of first nations people and is an implicit denial of the treaty-based relationship.

In asserting this truth, I propose that indigenous first nations communities do not need, nor are they required to accept, federal legislative initiatives to effect improvement to election systems under the Indian Act if they so choose. Rather, if communities want to run a common election day with other communities, or extend their terms from two to four years, or develop local election appeal mechanisms, they can do so of their own accord, at their own pace, and within their own defined limits.

For the Government of Canada to create, amend, impose, and implement any law pursuant to section 91, class 24, that attempts to manage the relationship between Indians is beyond the scope of section 91 and is not only paternalistic, but it's a perpetuation of the unique brand of colonialism that Canada has now become too well known for.

For many first nations people, elections are equated with Indian Act governance systems. Many band governments continue to operate on the basis of the authority granted in the Indian Act because practical management administration and band moneys are tied to the Indian Act elected chief and council. Customary governance. in contrast, recognizes traditional social organization and means of selecting leaders and provides for broad community input for decision-making.

It is a fallacy to conclude that first nations communities face an either/or proposition on matters of contemporary community governance. In Manitoba there are 37 first nations who hold their elections under the Indian Act while 26 hold their elections pursuant to their own custom election code outside the Indian Act. This is, however, not the plenary of options to communities who invoke self-determining initiatives to effect self-government according to their own terms.

AMC did pass resolutions starting in 2009 specific to this exercise. AMC specifically stated in one of its resolutions that notwithstanding other Canadian jurisdictions, we develop a common election code that respects the authority and jurisprudence of each first nation and ensures our inherent right to self-government and to work in partnership with first nations communities to prepare referenda options for a province-wide referendum with potential timelines to be brought to the next chiefs in assembly in September 2009 for deliberation and decision.

Again, in 2010 we came together and AMC, through resolution, said to request the Minister of INAC fund and take the necessary steps to remove the electoral provisions of the Indian Act that apply to the election of chiefs and implement a new legislative election system affording four-year terms, a common election day and include flexibilities that can be adapted to community needs.

Bill C-9 does not reflect the discussions and the decisions made by the first nations leadership in Manitoba as it purports to grant authority to the minister to subjugate a first nation to the act without the consent of the people. We believe this to be ultra vires with respect to the minister, beyond the powers of the government to legislate. We find that in clause 3(b) of the draft legislation. This discretionary authority defeats the objective of the AMC recommendation that first nations retain their right to opt in. The 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 under section 35.

“Protracted leadership dispute” is not a defined term and leaves broad discretion to the minister. The AMC did not make such a recommendation.

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. We believe this also to be ultra vires with respect to the minister. The AMC did not make such a recommendation. This preserves a broad discretion for the minister to determine that there were corrupt practice methods and criteria not outlined under the proposed legislation.

This is a key point. I will reference a recent case that happened in the Federal Court, Woodhouse v. the Attorney General of Canada, Bernard Valcourt representing the ministry of aboriginal affairs. The Federal Court judge found that Minister Valcourt did not establish guilt in terms of a corrupt election practice and his decision was set aside.

Although it's purported that the minister may hold the discretion to set aside an election, that is not clearly defined in law. For the minister to exercise that type of discretion requires certainly a step-by-by step process that he is clearly trying to clean his hands of by delegating or removing himself from the election appeal process, which is another thing that we did not agree to or recommend as the assembly.

The legislation purports to grant the authority to the Governor in Council to set aside an election on a report of the minister that there were corrupt practices in connection with that election. I make this comment as well in contrast to established Canadian law in the Norway House Cree Nation case, Balfour I believe is the case name, where a community finding of a corrupt election practice in the Norway House Cree Nation was upheld at the Federal Court.

On the one hand, we have the minister setting aside a decision on a corrupt election practice and losing in Federal Court, and on the other hand, we have a community code defining what a corrupt election practice is and having that upheld in the Federal Court. The idea that the minister can purport to have the best interests of communities in mind in exercising a discretion that he has, that he retains under the act, to me is a fallacy because we have already proven in the Canadian courts of law that the minister may not have the mechanisms in place to effect the decision according to Canadian law. We believe that was proven in October 2013 in the Woodhouse case in Manitoba.

Another challenge with the draft law is 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. It also restricts appeal processes to external courts, and this denies access. Referring appeal processes in elections to Canadian court systems denies access to those people who cannot afford to bring an application into a Canadian courtroom under Canadian jurisdiction. That is a truth. Statistics are out there that people who are forced to go to Canadian court systems are denied access on the basis of financial resources.

The bill also does not provide for the creation of a Manitoba chief electoral officer or provide for the appointment of electoral officers by band councils without requiring the minister's approval. If this bill is purported to create self-government or enhance self-determination, why are so many checks and balances in place that need to be vetted through a minister? That seems to be the opposite of what we're trying to achieve.

In conclusion, Bill C-9 is easily characterized as an extension of limited delegated authorities under a paternalistic Indian Act. It is apparent that notions of self-determination and self-government are viewed by the drafters of the legislation as powers that are given or granted to first nations by the federal government.

Manitoba first nations view self-determination and self-government as inherent rights and selection of leadership as fundamental to self-government, included in the suite of self-government rights.

Our right of self-government is self-evident; moreover, it is entrenched in section 35 of the Constitution. Notwithstanding, the federal government continues to propose legislation that is designed over the long term to terminate the existence of status Indians while confining first nations governments within narrowly construed delegated authorities and powers at the discretion of the minister.

Imposing legislation on first nations people pursuant to the Indian Act in this manner perpetuates the federal government's unilateral interpretation of first nations self-government. This approach is inconsistent with our inherent rights, international law, and declarations endorsed by Canada.

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. The resulting product is another piece of federal government-owned legislation that perpetuates Canada's self-proclaimed authority over indigenous people.

We live in an age when we should be beyond this type of thinking, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I will call this meeting to order. We have delayed starting because we're looking for one witness who was intending to be here. Hopefully she'll show up partway through.

Colleagues, today we continue our study of Bill C-9. Today we have the privilege of having at this point two grand chiefs with us. We have Derek Nepinak, who is a grand chief, as well as Craig Makinaw.

Thank you so much for being here. We appreciate your both coming and your being willing to testify on behalf of your communities with regard to this particular piece of legislation.

What we'll do which is common to our committee is turn it over to our guests and hear from them for about 10 minutes each. Then we'll begin with rounds of questions.

To begin, we'll turn to Grand Chief Nepinak.

Again, thank you for being here. We'll turn it over to you for the next 10 minutes.

[Chief Donovan Fontaine, Sagkeeng First Nation]

Good afternoon, honourable members and colleague chiefs. Good afternoon everybody.

I'm here on short notice, so excuse my tardiness. I don't have a presentation that's formal, but I could submit one when I get back home.

I want to thank my colleague chief for having me as part of this, going back to 2009, and being here today. So thank you, Chief Evans.

I don't know where to begin because, as I said, this was a last-minute thing last night. So I'm going to speak off the cuff, and that's fine that it's on record.

Where do I begin? Our community had a referendum in 2009 on whether we should have an election code and whether it should be every four years. It was unanimous. Our community endorsed it and supported it. Over 80%, I do believe, supported a change to our two-year term. I also supported the resolutions at the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs level, which Chief Evans just spoke about, so there was a good consensus and a good group there.

That group is not there today, but the resolution is still there, and the mandate that the current grand chief has must respect those past resolutions. To say whether or not he's in favour of this is a moot point. He has to be driven by those resolutions.

Obviously we're here for Bill C-9. We're here because of the election system that we didn't create. I don't want to call it a mess, but I didn't create the system; I was elected into it. Our community signed a treaty in 1871. It was a hereditary chief, and then his son took over for another 27 years, so I don't know when the amendments were made. You have to excuse my chronology of events here, but there were amendments to the Indian Act, and then we had elections in the community. That's the system we have been under since.

I support this for the very reasons you heard my colleague talk about: stability and continuity in community, so you can advance community comprehensive planning and you can advance economic development. That's the primary reason I support that.

But the catch here—and I think it's a catch-22—is that if I support this, and if leadership supports and drives these initiatives, it's pretty quickly turned around by people saying we're self-serving, we're looking after ourselves, we want a four-year term, we want to be in office longer, and we want power longer. So we turn it and we give it back to the grassroots. We give it back to the people and say, “You develop the code; you develop the process”. More often than not, these things sit on the shelf. We had about three or four election codes, and they sat on a shelf for years. We got funding from the government to develop these, produce them, and take them to our community. They weren't perfect by any means. Neither is this bill. There is some good and there is some bad in here, but at least it's taken us out of the two-year system.

Can you imagine the U.S. government—Canada even—being in constant election mode every second year? I've watched the American channels. It's crazy. They are already talking about elections, the year right after the election. It's just crazy. In our communities where there are families, close ties, and factions in groups, I would say it's even more confrontational. There's bitterness. It's not healthy for communities to be in constant election mode every second year.

You want to talk about austerity budgets. You want to talk about tightening the belt. Every second year in our community is election year. What do you think our leadership's going to do? Will they say no to every request? They become more laissez-faire and more lax, and they say yes to requests. Otherwise they're out the door, right? That's not to take away from the good leadership that does say no and just drives the community economic development plan and gets elected based on its track record of success.

But there are some out there who can't do it, so they spend, and keep putting the community back to square one again the next year. It's just a vicious cycle. Here we are trying to administer poverty...administer social programs. For me to keep track of all these bills, I can't do it. I can't go to my community and consult on every bill. I was inundated with all these bills coming through from the government in the last three or four years. I can't take every bill to the community—the omnibus bill, this, that, the water bill, everything else. My hands are tied with administering the crumbs, so to speak.

I can't consult on every line here, and I can't read between the lines on everything, but I do know there are some good things in here. I like the recall mechanism. I think we do need a recall mechanism.

How do we handle this? For example, if you have a community of 300 people, 60% of them are one family. You're probably going to have that person from that family elected all the time, but that's no different from the government system. You've got your corporate people, that's a family; you've got your middle-class taxpayers, that's a family; and you've got your lower-end poor people, that's a family too. They're elected based on certain things, so you can't say the big families. There are corporate families in Canada and they drive the political agenda.

I don't know what the appeal mechanism would be, what the answer is, but I do know if there is room in here for communities to fine-tune it themselves, have a recall mechanism, perhaps have a review after two years, saying, “Here's the plan you were elected on, here's the community vision you said you were going to deliver”. Two years later we'll have a look at it and if they didn't deliver, sorry, they're out the door.

There has to be some kind of mechanism because the community can be handcuffed for four years with incompetent leadership. That's the danger I see. It puts the onus back on the electorate. You have to put good people in there. But then if you have big families putting the people in, you could say it's their own choice. They're living in the community.

So it fixes itself, in other words. We don't have to worry about how these people are elected as long as it's fair, it's democratic, and they respect Corbiere and Gull Bay. I'm okay with it.

Chief Evans talked about custom. That system is good as well. As I said, we had our hereditary chief. It's not to say that those systems weren't democratic in our communities. We had patriarchal, matriarchal societies throughout this land and those were really good democratic models. Women took a lead role in leadership. There were ways to whip your leadership into line, so to speak. I don't think it's any different from what we're proposing here.

To give a little historical context. I talked about imposition on all these amendments, where we had no say, or at least involvement, in drafting them. it goes back right to day one when we signed our treaties. We had trading posts in our community: Hudson's Bay, the North West, these people had a very strong influence on our community. Our people couldn't leave the reserve to make a living. You were bound and at the mercy of the trading companies. Fort Maurepas, Fort Alexander, Port at Morris, about four or five forts in our community controlled everything. On top of that we had the church: Anglican, Catholic, and again, controlling families, based on family names, and there were competitions. They also played roles in our leadership. They drove the agenda. If you weren't a churchgoing, devout Catholic they were going to support somebody else behind the scenes.

So there is always that outside influence in our community. This, again, I see as an imposition. However, is it better than what we have now? I would say so, based on having four years' stability, putting the onus back on the community to put good people in there.

So thank you all.

[Chief Ron Evans, Chief, Norway House Cree Nation]

Mr. Chair, I want to acknowledge my colleagues who are here with me to present to the hon. members.

With all due respect to Mr. Bevington, I am the Chief of Norway House right now, although that says “Grand Chief”. I am no longer the Grand Chief, but I hope I can still garner his respect, as well as that of all the members, which is precisely why you should support this bill. That is the attitude out there when there is a change. That's not the position any longer.

I am very pleased to have been invited to testify to the House of Commons standing committee on aboriginal peoples to speak on this important bill before us, Bill C-9.

As the former Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the current Chief of Norway House Cree Nation, I am pleased to provide support for Bill C-9, the first nations elections act.

Although this bill does not directly affect my community of Norway House Cree Nation, as we have enacted a custom election code that already gives us four-year terms, this bill is important for those 37 first nations in Manitoba and the 240 first nations in total across Canada whose elections are governed by the Indian Act.

Years of hard work and commitment stand behind this bill. Bill C-9 will change the way first nations are governed, create stability, strengthen self-governance, and allow first nations to move forward.

I would like to thank the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for his position on it, and the departmental staff for their commitment to supporting this very important initiative, and hope that each of you, as our representatives in the House of Commons, sees the urgency and importance in supporting this bill.

I would also like to thank the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs for their partnership in undertaking the national engagement process in 2010. During my time in my former role as Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, we reached out, in collaboration, to first nations across Canada to discuss the groundbreaking work that both of our respective organizations had done to improve the electoral system for first nations whose elections are governed by the electoral provisions of the Indian Act.

The first nations elections act provides some constructive provisions that will strengthen the election process and governance of first nations, including a longer term of office, from two- to four-year terms; and a common election day where all first nations who opt in to the first nations elections act will eventually be elected on the same day. This type of general election adds a more robust and transparent nomination process for candidates, fair and sound penalties for offences, and most importantly, an independent process for the first nations elections act.

Let me just remind you of our history in Manitoba, when we had the framework agreement initiative, the FAI. Over $60 million to $100 million was spent over a 10-year period. At the end of 10 years, of those who had signed on, I believe there were only a handful of leaders when the FAI was concluded who had started out in the process, and therefore the new leadership was not aware of what the understanding and the direction was. As a result, the whole initiative failed, and that cost millions of dollars simply because of the high turnover of leadership.

The current Indian Act election system is not working. It is proven to be weak and creates instability for our communities and their economies. It has prevented first nations from moving forward on important projects and initiatives such as economic development, and on important infrastructure developments that are vital for communities, their well-being, and their quality of life.

With the current two-year term of office, our research and experience has shown that newly elected chiefs and their council members have little time to learn their responsibilities, build the necessary relationships, and develop or complete the necessary projects and initiatives before it's time for another election. In any given month, leadership in one or more of the band councils in each province is changing due to an election. Constant changes to band councils cause major disruption to the important plans and projects being worked on in the community, as I just finished describing. This political instability makes first nations very unattractive to long-term investment and economic development by both internal and external entities.

It is important to note that the vision of a four-year term of office, a central component of this initiative formerly known as the common election day initiative, is not a new concept.

This vision was first articulated by the leadership of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood in 1971, in Wahbung: Our Tomorrows, a document that has inspired our leadership ever since it was written because it strikes at the very heart of our sustainability and self-governance.

Wahbung is a visionary document that was created by the Indian tribes of Manitoba expressing the position and policies to achieve honourable and mutually satisfactory relationships between Canada and the Indian people of Manitoba. Wahbung is referenced by the leadership of today to guide us in the work we do and to respect the work of the past leadership.

In reference to governance it is stated in Wahbung that the method of elections must be left at the discretion of each community. It is recommended that the terms of office of elected chief and council be extended to four years. That's going back to 1971.

The ultimate goal of all first nations is to be self-sustaining and self-governing. Creating an electoral system that is accountable, transparent, and driven by first nations is essential in creating stability and credibility within first nations governments and will strengthen first nations governance in Canada. These changes will benefit all first nations, will improve and strengthen first nations governance, and will allow first nations to move forward in a positive and progressive manner.

In 2009, The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, as mandated by chiefs in assembly via resolution, researched and discussed changes to first nations' election systems with first nations leadership, technicians, and first nations people across Manitoba. I personally went and met with these communities, with the grassroots people themselves in those communities. This initiative was coined “the common election day initiative of electoral reform”. As part of this initiative, engagement sessions were held within the leadership and with community members of the 37 Manitoba first nations that hold their elections under the section 74 electoral provisions of the Indian Act.

The engagement sessions held were extremely significant, informative, important, and valuable as we gathered thoughts, comments, and recommendations on how to improve the election system for first nations governments. The input received from the community engagement sessions was carefully considered in crafting recommendations to then-Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, now Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, to develop an improved system for first nations elections.

The feedback we received from the communities supported the call for a common election day for first nations to opt in to the new legislation and a four-year term of office, along with an appeal and recall process.

This however, would not be mandatory. It would be the prerogative of each individual first nation to decide whether they want to opt in to the first nations elections act. With the support of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, departmental staff, and in partnership with the Atlantic Policy Congress, we were able to undertake a national engagement process in 2011, while I was in my former role as grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. This allowed us the opportunity to discuss with first nations in other regions across Canada the groundbreaking work that our organizations had done in collaboration to improve the electoral system for first nations currently under the Indian Act.

As part of this national engagement process I had the privilege of meeting with the first nations leadership across Canada, engaging them in discussions on how we could make this a reality together. We extended the opportunity for the leadership and the members who participated in the engagement sessions to provide their recommendations and feedback with respect to improving the electoral system for first nations.

Both the first nations leadership and members also shared with us their challenges stemming from the inefficiencies of section 74 provisions that have detrimental impacts on first nations people and communities.

The engagement sessions proved to be successful as we received positive and supportive feedback from the leadership in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario. The Atlantic Policy Congress engaged the eastern provinces and received the same positive feedback with consistent recommendations. We also used social media, urban forums, and our respective organizations' websites to ensure that individuals across the country had the opportunity to engage and provide feedback and recommendations no matter where they lived.

After this information was gathered and reported to the department, the next step was to work together with the department to craft the proposed legislation before you, which is Bill C-9.

This important, groundbreaking, and historic initiative has been many years in the making. A concept born in the 1970s is finally closer to reality thanks to the hard work and determination of the Manitoba first nations leadership, the Atlantic Policy Congress, and through the hands of now four ministers of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

I want to acknowledge and thank those former ministers, the Hon. Jim Prentice, the Hon. Chuck Strahl, and the Hon. John Duncan, and now the Hon. Bernard Valcourt, as well as the respective staff, each of whom deserve ample credit and thanks for their ongoing support and commitment and for their every effort in ensuring this initiative would one day become a reality and legislation.

Once again I would like to express my absolute support for Bill C-9. I hope that in this session of Parliament you as our representatives in the House of Commons as well as our representatives in the Senate understand the importance of this bill, and that you provide your support to ensure that first nations governance can be strengthened, and that you be part of making the positive and necessary legislative change that is supported by many first nations in this country.

Thank you, once again, for the invitation to participate in today's standing committee proceedings.

Ekosani.

Thank you.

[Chief Dean Vicaire]

Rob Clarke made some valid points and had personal experiences in his former position. Perhaps the leadership in the first nations community can ask the minister to step in. That way, it speaks to the first nation still having control and it has the minister step in when—and only when—requested. That's just an idea.

Although the APC did not recommend that a new election regime allow for a common election day among first nations, it appears that the provision in the bill that allows a minimum of six first nations to line up their terms of office is gaining interest among many of our first nations. I'm sure John will speak to this point, which is that we're in the perpetual motion of the election mode throughout first nations. Every month, I believe it is, it continues. It's like a bad nightmare.

I will speak to some of the elements of Bill C-9 that have been commented upon and debated in the past.

One is the new opt-in legislation by band council resolution. The APC recommended that individual first nations, if they so choose, could opt in through a band council resolution. We debated a great deal on whether it would be preferable for the opt-in mechanism to be a referendum. We reached the conclusion that although it is certainly an effective way to determine the will of the community, it is simply not cost effective to consult the community in this fashion on all issues.

Moreover, our experience with community votes is that first nations voters tend to favour the status quo. Therefore, requiring a referendum to move to the new election regime would in effect act as a huge barrier for first nations to reap the benefits of the four-year terms, which is what we are trying to achieve. Even though a referendum is not required, our chiefs have told us that they would not make this type of decision without first engaging in some substantive way with their community members on this particular question.

The second element, of course, is the term of office for band council members. The APC recommended that the new election legislation provide terms of office of four years, making them comparable with most other governments in Canada.

The Indian Act, in requiring elections every two years, has created conditions of instability and has fostered divisions in first nations communities. Most often, the two-year term of office is too short to provide political stability for first nations governments to plan for and implement long-term initiatives and to build a proper foundation for community development before they face re-election.

Being a newly elected chief of a year and three months, I can certainly attest to that.

The two-year term is especially difficult and challenging for those elected to a band council for the first time. New chiefs and councillors need time to learn about their responsibilities and the various projects that require their attention. Projects are often put at risk by the two-year election cycle and the related high turnover of elected officials. Time and focus are key for economic prosperity and change in our communities, to allow leaders more time to implement the vision that will help all communities and increase their ability to show progress and results.

The third element is the appeals of band council elections. Under the Indian Act, election appeals are received, reviewed, investigated, and decided upon by the minister and his department. Numbers given to us by the department show that 30% of all elections under the Indian Act have been appealed, which amounts to 40 elections per year, give or take. Each year, usually no more than five of the appeals result in the overturning of an election. Very few of these occur in the Atlantic region.

These numbers illustrate a fundamental problem with the way appeals are currently dealt with. In close to 90% of the appeals launched, the allegation of wrongdoing is either unfounded or is deemed not to have affected the outcome of the election. The problem is that it usually takes months, if not over a year, for these conclusions to be reached. While an election appeal is outstanding, it is very difficult for a band council, whose very election is called into question, to govern effectively, to make long-term plans and key decisions, and to initiate projects.

We think the problem lies in the fact that the appeal process is simply too easy to engage in by community members whose motives may be questionable, and we also think that the role of the minister in investigating and deciding upon election appeals is a paternalistic and inappropriate intervention in the internal affairs of a first nation.

We need a more rigorous appeal system that does not afford a role for the minister, while at the same time ensuring that frivolous—to use his word—or unfounded allegations do not engage a lengthy appeal process that hampers the first nation's ability to govern.

The APC initially recommended that the role of the minister and his department in election appeals be eliminated in favour of the establishment of independent tribunals.

We are comfortable with the election appeal process in Bill C-9. The courts decide election appeals, impose penalties, and overturn results in municipal, provincial, and federal elections. They could play this same role in first nations elections.

In conclusion, this submission on Bill C-9 to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is based on our analysis of how well Bill C-9 responds to the recommendations put forward by our organization when we engaged our first nations members on the issue of elections. We have called for the design and implementation of a new opt-in first nations election act and resulting regulations that would provide an effective and modern system for governing elections for the opting-in first nations.

As evidenced by the recommendations, first nations are interested in having free and fair band council elections that support stable, effective, and accountable first nations governments, as well as supporting the individual rights of their members.

We thank you for providing us with this opportunity to hear the reasons why we support this bill. We ask that you lend your support as well. We strongly believe that all first nations in Canada need other options for addressing these important and pressing governance matters that are currently facing their communities.

Thank you.

[Chief Dean Vicaire, Executive Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs]

Thank you to all in the room for giving us the opportunity to once again express our opinions with regard to Bill C-9.

My name is Chief Dean Vicaire of Listuguj First Nation and the co-chair of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. With me today is my colleague, John G. Paul, who is our executive director, and we are here today to speak on behalf of the Atlantic chiefs regarding our support of Bill C-9.

Our member chiefs do support Bill C-9 as it currently stands. We feel it reflects the recommendations in a resolution we adopted in January of 2011 asking the minister to draft legislation that would present a strong alternative to the Indian Act election system.

One of the reasons we decided to champion electoral reform is because at 75%, Atlantic Canada has the highest percentage of first nations that hold elections under the Indian Act system. We believed that if we could build a better election system, the majority of our first nations would immediately benefit. We first became interested in election reform in October of 2008, when we passed a resolution asking the minister to amend the term of office under the Indian Act election system from two years to four years. As we continued to discuss this change, both amongst ourselves and with what was then the Department of Indian Affairs, we realized that the Indian Act election system had other fundamental weaknesses that needed to be addressed. The department's willingness to support further discussions on this matter presented an opportunity to elaborate a more extensive reform.

At the current time, approximately 40% of first nations in Canada hold their elections pursuant to the Indian Act. Those election provisions are outdated and problematic, to say the least. Not only did we hear this when we were engaging with our own constituents on this question, we also heard it when we were discussing our recommendations with first nations groups in other parts of the country.

Specific issues centre on the following:

The term of office for elected band councils under the Indian Act is two years. This short length of term places first nations communities in an almost continual state of electioneering, and it undermines the band council's stability, as well as their efforts to develop long-term projects.

A weak process for the nomination of candidates can result in the nomination of many candidates. As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs clearly said earlier, there are sometimes over 100 candidates for one election. That, indeed, happens constantly in my community.

The mail-in ballot system is open to abuse.

The appeal process to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is paternalistic, complicated, and often takes too long to produce findings and a final ruling.

The absence of defined election offences and associated penalties under the Indian Act allows alleged cheating and other related activities, such as the selling and buying of votes, to go unpunished.

As I mentioned earlier, the APC has taken a keen interest in looking at ways to stabilize and improve upon first nations governance through a stronger and more modern election system. With the support of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the APC undertook research on the issue of band council elections. After having heard from first nations leaders, governance technicians, and community members in their respective regions, we came forward with our recommendations.

I would like to outline for all of you how we went about developing these recommendations.

We struck a working group to conduct research and develop options. We published articles in a widely circulated first nations newspaper, the Mi'kmaq Maliseet Nations News, and we developed a Facebook page, both of which invited first nations members in the whole region to share their views and complete a survey. The working group presented their research, options, and all the feedback to a group of governance experts and electoral officers and, of course, the chiefs themselves. Based on all the discussions and feedback received, we arrived at the definitive recommendations that we submitted to the minister.

I want to share with you our recommendations that are reflected in Bill C-9.

The APC recommended the development of brand new opt-in first nations election legislation and further provided recommendations for its content. For the most part, these recommendations are reflected in Bill C-9. Bill C-9 contains some of the same rules as the Indian Act election system along with some important differences, which are the following:

The term length is four years, instead of the two-year term that exists under the Indian Act system.

There are defined qualifications for candidates for chief and clear rules around the nomination process.

There are clearly defined offences and penalties that will deter questionable election activities, especially those that take place around mail-in ballots.

Finally, the minister is not involved in election appeals.

I'm going to stop there and share my thoughts, which I shared with some people I spoke with during the suspension.

The minister does indeed have a valid point with regard to leaving that void, having courts get involved in policies. At the same time we all understand that the minister has these overriding powers that are contradictory in terms of a paternalistic viewpoint.

I'm sharing with John and some of my other colleagues around the table. Since it's an opt-in choice for communities, perhaps we can correct the legislation or make an amendment that upon written consent or request from the individual first nation, the minister can step in, for instance if there's wrongdoing in one of the four or five issues that we've talked about.

One of the members here.... I'm sorry I've forgotten your name.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for coming before us.

We think this is an excellent example of bottom-up legislation. A lot of first nations have come together to bring this forward to you. Most other first nations we've talked to have seen this bill as basically positive as long as it remains optional legislation. As my colleague pointed out, although Bill C-9 is basically optional, clause 3 clearly provides you with explicit powers to bring first nations currently under the Indian Act or custom code under Bill C-9, which flies in the face of the optional nature of this bill, and it seems to be the primary source of concern for most first nations.

You said in your opening remarks:

This is paternalistic and frankly not a business I think that the minister should be in. This bill would remove the minister from the equation—and would ensure that appeals are dealt with by the courts....

You get that the minister shouldn't be in this business, but clause 3(1)(b) and (c) puts you right back telling first nations what to do again.

Will you remove this clause? It was almost right, and then you put this thing in and alienated all the people who were your original partners. You had a partnership and now they're annoyed. Neither protracted leadership dispute nor significantly compromised governance is defined in the legislation. We're back to the whim of the minister, and you have a very broad discretion about where you can intervene.

Minister, would it make more sense to just remove that one piece and let us get on with the bill, as was the original intent? From the AFN and Regional Chief Wilson-Raybould's testimony, there's a consensus: just get this little piece out and we'll help you get your bill.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

If the first nations wish to abandon this inefficient, paternalistic, and unaccountable Indian Act election framework, under Bill C-9 they would have to follow a relatively simple process.

First, the band councils—I'm sure, because that's the way I see them operate—would consult their own membership. And then they would have to adopt a resolution that would be forwarded to the department, whereupon an order would be made designating the band under the new act and setting the first election date. It's as simple as that.

Historically, we know there have been two ways to opt in to federal legislation relating to aboriginal affairs: a band council resolution or a referendum. Now, the referendum option was considered, but it did not garner much support with the first nations that participated in the consultation process. And because of the experience of first nations, we decided that we'd rather go with their preferred course, which was the resolution and not the referendum.

However, to get out of it once you are under this, the only way you can go is with a custom system that they can do, provided, again, it meets the requirements of the policy in that regard, which ensures that the custom system must respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To get out of this act, this new bill, they would have to go through a referendum that must garner the support of the majority of the electorate in which 50% of eligible voters participate, and it must then be published in either the First Nations Gazette or on the website maintained by the first nation.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, I am very pleased to be here today to address Bill C-9, the first nations elections act.

As you all know, our government has been working closely with first nations to bring about real improvement to the election process for first nations and this has been going on for over five years. Indeed, this legislative proposal has been largely driven and led by first nations, in particular the Atlantic Policy Congress and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs under the then leadership of Grand Chief Ron Evans.

These two organizations first came to our government in 2008 when they told us their views about the current Indian Act elections system which, in their view, was simply not working for them. They said they would rather have another option to the current Indian Act election system.

It is their efforts over the past five years that have led to the development of the proposed first nations elections act that is before you today in the form of Bill C-9. Both organizations first engaged in their own regions of the country, then subsequently with first nations organizations and leaders in other provinces to develop recommendations for a better election system than the one operating within the Indian Act. It was these recommendations that formed the basis of the bill you see before you today.

Mr. Chair and member of the committee, I think it is time we passed this bill into law so that first nations can take advantage of the benefits it has to offer.

In fact, just recently, I received a letter from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs wherein they reiterated their strong support for the First Nations Elections Act and further stated that this bill would ... help reform elections by creating the political stability needed to effectively implement long-term community plans and build the confidence in governance that should result in increased economic opportunities and development for first nations who choose to opt in to the legislation.

I also received a letter from former Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Ron Evans, who stated that ... when enacted, Bill C- 9 will change the way first nations are governed, create stability and credibility, strengthen self-governance and allow first nations to move forward.

As my colleagues are aware, there are currently three ways in which first nations select their leadership in Canada: 343 conduct elections under their own community or custom election codes; 238 conduct elections under the Indian Act; and 36 conduct elections under self-government agreement provisions.

And what we heard from first nations during these consultations is that transitioning to a community election code or to a self-government agreement is not a viable option for them, but that they wanted a strong, viable legislative alternative to the Indian Act.

That's exactly what this bill does. It provides first nations that so choose with another alternative that addresses the many weaknesses of the Indian Act election system. It is important to understand that no one is obligated to participate; first nations who want to adopt the election system under the legislation may do so.

I want to take a moment, Mr. Chair, to highlight some of the weaknesses in the Indian Act that the first nations elections act seeks to address.

First, the election terms under the current act are too short. The Indian Act requires that first nations communities hold elections every two years. Let's be realistic. Two years simply does not provide enough time for first nations leadership and council to plan for and implement long-term community development projects and take full advantage of emerging opportunities to improve the lives of the people in their communities. It really puts first nations in perpetual election mode and it has been expressed time and time again that changes are desperately needed to lengthen the election term.

The first nations elections act would provide for a term of office of four years and would also enable six or more first nations communities to line up their terms of office and hold elections on the same day, also referred to as “common election day”. This is something that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs in particular had identified as the major impetus for calling for changes to the current Indian Act election system.

Second, rules are lacking regarding the nomination of candidates and mail-in ballots. For example, there are absolutely no eligibility requirements in order to be nominated for chief, and individuals can be nominated for both chief and councillor in the same election. This bill would provide clearer rules regarding eligibility for nominations and for the making of regulations that address many issues surrounding the nomination of candidates and mail-in ballot voting that commonly surface at elections held under the Indian Act. We are committed to developing these regulations in partnership with first nations.

This bill would provide for clearer rules regarding eligibility for nominations. It would also provide for the making of regulations that could address many of the issues surrounding the nomination of candidates and mail-in ballot voting that commonly surface with respect to elections held under the Indian Act.

Third, unlike the Canada Elections Act, the Indian Act does not set out any offences or penalties for election-related abuses. The Indian Act does allow for the removal of an elected official from office if they are guilty of engaging in a corrupt practice in relation to an election, but there is no fine or additional penalty such as imprisonment.

There is also absolutely no penalty for a non-elected official that engages in election-related abuses such as buying votes, using a forged ballot or obstructing the conduct of an election. This system allows for serious offences to go unpunished, which is an encouragement rather than a needed deterrent.

This bill would rectify this unacceptable legislative gap and provide for defined offences and penalties surrounding questionable and fraudulent activities, such as vote buying, using intimidation and obstructing the electoral process.

Fourth, election appeals under the Indian Act currently go to the minister, not the courts. This is paternalistic and frankly not a business I think that the minister should be in. This bill would remove the minister from the equation and ensure that appeals are dealt with by the courts as is the case for many other levels of government in Canada.

Mr. Chair, I am sure my honourable colleagues would join me in expressing our appreciation to these first nations leaders—some of whom I know you will be hearing from later today—for their important work on this bill. They saw the need to reform their election system and then took action to bring about practical changes. All the credit should go to them, and they deserve our support in passing this bill swiftly into law.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have on this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Order please.

Colleagues, this is the second meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Today we continue our work and we'll be hearing from the minister with regard to our study 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 is our custom in this committee, we'll turn the meeting over to the minister for about 10 minutes, then we'll have some rounds of questioning.

Minister, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate you coming.

Colleagues, as for the second hour, we do have people here to testify in the second hour and then we have one housekeeping motion that needs to be dealt with. We'll deal with that at the very end of the meeting today.

Minister, we turn it over to you now.

First Nations Elections Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-9, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations.

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

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