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.