Debates of Oct. 21st, 2013

Motion No. 2

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to join in a debate that I find increasingly difficult to stay out of. The more I listen to some of the diversionary tactics being put forward by my Conservative colleagues as they try to obscure the depth and the breadth of the real substance of the issue that we are debating today, the more increasingly uncomfortable I get. They either do not get it or they are deliberately trying to avoid the reality of what they are doing today to undermine, sabotage and diminish our parliamentary democracy as we see it today.

I agree with my colleague from St. John's and also my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley who made the point that there is nothing untoward, nothing particularly unconstitutional about prorogation. However, when that legitimate parliamentary procedural tactic is abused in a systematic way, it undermines and diminishes the integrity of the parliamentary democracy that both sides of the House dedicate ourselves to.

Maybe the masterminds, the architects of their strategy, realize it, but I am not sure some of the backbenchers realize what a fragile construct we enjoy in our Westminster parliamentary democracy. It requires the two requisite parts to play their roles, to effectively debate and test the merits of legislation put before us. Our strict and rigid guidelines with which to do that are being systematically undermined as we speak because there is nothing normal about using prorogation to avoid being accountable to members of the House of Commons, and by extension to the people of Canada that those members of the House of Commons represent.

By the same reasoning it is completely an affront to democracy to bypass after prorogation the normal negotiations that often take place in order to put certain pieces of legislation of particular merit and virtue back where they were before prorogation.

What is happening today and what my colleague from St. John's was trying to point out is that the government is trying to do an end run on all of that. The Conservatives are trying to have it both ways. They prorogued Parliament to avoid accountability for the increasingly embarrassing Senate scandals. They delayed for an extra six weeks because they said they needed more time to craft a new legislative agenda for the fall session. That is what they told the general public. Yet when we have taken this extra six weeks off so that they can presumably recalibrate their legislative agenda, the first item of business, Motion No. 2, would reinstate everything that happened before. Everything would start exactly where it left off as if prorogation never happened. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They should not be able to have it both ways. I would argue that it is an affront and it should offend the sensibilities of any member of Parliament who considers himself or herself a democrat.

The Senate scandals are perhaps deeper and more fundamental than we even realize. I am sure Conservative members are reeling with shock and horror at every revelation that comes forward. It now becomes apparent that the good senator currently at the eye of the hurricane is not going to go gently into that good night. In fact, he is going to go down kicking and screaming, and he fully intends to take a lot of people down with him.

The Conservatives have not done a very good job of avoiding the very reason that I believe they prorogued Parliament, but let us put it in context.

The whole idea of prorogation and a new Speech from the Throne is to put forward a new vision for where the government wants to take the country. A Speech from the Throne should not simply tweak existing programs or make minor alterations to what had already been under way. We did not hear anything of substance in the Speech from the Throne to deal with what I believe is the biggest problem that Canada has right now, and that is the fact that it has now become increasingly obvious and declared by the courts that the 2011 federal election was decided by widespread electoral fraud.

One would think that the ruling party, the government in power, would be concerned by this now that the courts have ruled that in 246 ridings, by their count and they are not finished their examination, there was widespread fraud that sought to undermine the democratic process and deny Canadians the right to cast their ballot in a free and fair election, free of intimidation, harassment and molestation. In fact, people systematically tried to deny Canadians the right to vote. That should horrify every person in this room. Yet the Speech from the Throne is silent on it and there is nothing in the legislative agenda to correct it in the 18 months or two years that we have before we go to the polls again in another federal election. We are just as vulnerable to those who would seek to defraud the electoral system and steal another federal election by cheating. It concerns me that not a single word in the Speech from the Throne deals with this, whether it is robocalls or widespread electoral fraud. As I have said, people should be horrified by this.

The Conservatives have made reference to the loophole loans bill. In fact, we used to call it the Mazda bill because it was the Conservative member for Mississauga—Streetsville who used his own Mazda dealership to loan himself a quarter of a million dollars to run his election campaign. Of course, when is a loan not a loan? If one never pays it back it is not really a loan, it is a gift or a donation. This is what gave cause to bring in some kind of a loophole bill to plug this loophole. We are not going to have any satisfaction in that either.

We have a problem. We have a serious democratic deficit. We have a democracy that is really only a facsimile of a democracy. I mean, our democracy today in 2013 reminds me of one of those California strawberries or those tomatoes from the supermarket that taste like cardboard. It looks like a tomato but it does not taste anything like a tomato. That is kind of what the public sees. They see us going through the motions of a democracy here, but in actual fact the people across the aisle with their logic that the end justifies the means in every single case have been sabotaging and undermining this fragile democratic structure that we call the Westminster parliamentary system in every way imaginable.

Going back to the widespread electoral fraud, one has to look to motive and opportunity I suppose any time one looks for who committed an offence. The courts have been very helpful to us, but failed to point out specifically, or could not say specifically, that it was the Conservative Party of Canada that orchestrated this widespread electoral fraud. However, the courts did say that it was the Conservative Party of Canada's CIMS database that was used to orchestrate this widespread electoral fraud. One looks to who would benefit from cheating at this level. I mean, why would all the NDP and Liberal voters be phoned in a riding and lied to that their polling station had moved? I do not think we would do that ourselves.

These are some of the concerns that I have as I listen to this debate about what is really red herrings and smoke screens. We are debating the relative merits and virtues of having a museum change its name, when the big picture here is that we have a democratic deficit that is severely problematic. I do not know how we can continue unless that is dealt with. Therefore, if one is going to prorogue Parliament and come back with a Speech from the Throne, one is either negligent or demonstrating wilful blindness if one does not talk about what I think is the most serious thing facing us today as members of Parliament.

I have mentioned the political loans bill, but I would also like to point out some of the things that are happening in Parliament today, never mind political loans and electoral fraud. There is the whole notion of omnibus bills. We are dealing with an omnibus bill now. Essentially this motion is omnibus by nature in that it affects however many pieces of legislation introduced in the 41st Parliament.

However, there are two things I would like to point out about what is problematic in the period of time leading up to the situation in which we find ourselves. This whole notion of omnibus bills is, by its very nature, undemocratic and has to be challenged. We have 60 or 70 pieces of legislation rolled into one with a few hours of debate and a few hours of committee hearings. Some of the things that happened within those omnibus bills are wide, sweeping and deserve a great deal of national attention and scrutiny. How much time did we really spend in the House of Commons on the issue of changing the age of retirement from 65 to 67? How much time were we allowed? How much time at committee could we call witnesses to ask them about the need to change the age of retirement to 67 years old?

There were pieces of legislation affected by these omnibus bills that had huge impacts on industrial sectors where not a word was spoken. It was by accident that we stumbled across one bill that was repealed and was called the construction fair wage and hours of work act. It set minimum wages in the construction industry. Then the same omnibus bill has changes to temporary foreign workers legislation where people can get a temporary foreign worker in 10 days. In one step, they would eliminate the minimum wage laws for construction workers to where people can pay them the provincial minimum wage, and in the second step they invite contractors to bring in temporary foreign workers within 10 days. How is a fair contractor in this country who hires construction workers at a living wage ever going to compete on another job if contractors can now pay a minimum wage on a federal construction project and bring in temporary foreign workers? These things would have come up if we had the opportunity to test the merits of their arguments with rigorous, robust debate as was intended by the very structure of the House of Commons.

Then these things go to committee stage where they also gerrymander the type of witnesses we can hear. Committees used to be the last bastion of some non-partisan co-operation, where we would leave our political baggage at the door and do what is right for the country. I have been a member of Parliament for awhile here. I was here when the Liberals had a majority government and I was the only NDP member on that committee. I used to move amendments to pieces of legislation and have them succeed. That sounds like pie in the sky today, it sounds like a fantasy.

Mr. Speaker, do you know how many amendments have been passed? You probably do, or the table can help us.

Not a single amendment to a single piece of legislation in the entire 41st Parliament has been allowed. Does that mean the Conservatives have a monopoly on all good ideas? Does that mean they would not benefit from any suggestion from anyone? Amendments are being denied and declined on the basis of where they come from, not the merits of the language.

This is what I mean about undermining some of the most fundamental principles of our parliamentary democracy. It is almost absurd when we think about it. The Conservatives will not allow any controversial subjects to ever be debated anymore. We used to have some really interesting exchanges. Studies that I think elevated the standard of political discourse in the whole country occurred at parliamentary committees once upon a time, but not anymore. If we suggest a study that is any more challenging than pablum, we will not get it through. The Conservatives will deny it. They want to tie us up with busy work for 18 months, studying nothing and producing reports that go nowhere and gather dust. That is the state of the nation.

I am not proud of it and in fact I think we are wasting our time. In actual fact, our democracy is in tatters. We are getting these omnibus pieces of legislation so there is no scrutiny, no oversight, no due diligence, pieces of legislation flying past us. We hardly even get a chance to read them by the time this guy, the House leader for the Conservatives moves closure. He sometimes moves closure on the same day that he introduces legislation. There is nothing unconstitutional about time allocation or closure. It is permitted by our rules, but it is supposed to be the exception, not the rule. When I asked how many amendments were allowed into legislation, I could pose the same question about how many pieces of legislation had time allocation applied to them. The answer is easy: all of them, every single bill, every stage of every single bill. Time allocation and time allocation, it is absurd.

I would not have believed 10 years ago that this would be the state of the House of Commons and that our parliamentary democracy would have been so undermined, so eroded and so diminished that we find ourselves in this almost embarrassing situation. That is what I mean when I say we have a mere facsimile of a democracy. It is enough, perhaps, to fool an, unfortunately, quite unengaged public, but for those of us who are locked into this situation, it is depressing. I have talked about the parliamentary committees that used to be a last bastion for some semblance of co-operation. They, too, are gone.

The Conservatives seem to have the attitude that the winner takes it all. In actual fact, when a party wins a razor thin majority, with 39% of the popular vote, the system is such that there is an obligation to take into consideration some of the points of view put forward by the majority of Canadians who, quite frankly, did not vote for the Conservatives. They voted for the people on this side, and they are putting their ideas through their representatives to have them added to the mix and to make good legislation that is for the whole country. That is the way it is supposed to work. However, again, it sounds like some distant fantasy dream now, because I have not seen any evidence of that kind of responsibility whatsoever.

I have a real concern that there are fundamental changes going on in society. There is an agenda going on. There might be two parallel legislative agendas going on. One on the face of it and another, far more sinister, situation going on behind the scenes. I am concerned that the Conservatives have essentially launched a war on the middle class. I saw a bumper sticker the last time I was in Washington that said “at least the war on the middle class is going well”. The same could be applied to this country.

The Conservatives are consistently trying to undermine the influence of unions. There is going to be an attack on labour. They are running out of red meat issues and hot button issues that they can raise funds for their base with. I am surprised they gave away the gun registry and that they finally did do away with it because that was the real money-maker for them, was it not? They were fundraising on the gun registry for years. That has gone.

The Conservatives do not have the Wheat Board to raise funds on anymore, so how are they going to excite their base? They could pick on the public service pension plans, they could pick on unions and they could try to pit worker against worker. It is easy pickings. It is the last refuge of the scoundrel to start picking on the public service and blame workers' pensions for the deficit hole that they have dug for other reasons. We can almost predict that is coming down the pipe.

The Conservatives are going to declare war on what they call “legacy costs”. They have already done away with the minimum wage laws associated with construction workers, the largest employer and the largest industrial sector in the country. Now the Conservatives are going to pick on public servants and say that their pensions are too fat. They will get into the Sun Media newspaper chain and try to convince other working people that the public servants have big, fat pensions.

It is one of these mug's games that is offensive, but it is effective. I can almost guarantee that the Conservatives will be fundraising on that.

I would like to go back, if I can, to another element of what I believe is widespread electoral fraud and some of the examples. I have an example of one guy who phoned me during the federal election, Gerald McIvor, who is an aboriginal man who lives in my riding. He received a phone call on election day, telling him that his voting station had moved across town. He replied that it could not be across town as he and his wife had just voted right across the street. He could see the voting station from his window. They had just got back from voting, so the caller was wrong. He demanded to know who it was, but the caller refused to say and hung up.

This is the kind of thing that went on right across the country and nobody is talking about it. We have been waiting for legislation to fix this since God knows when. We would think that if the Speech from the Throne would create a new vision for Canada, there would at least be some recognition of the problem that took place in the last election, so we could go with some confidence into the next federal election, knowing that our forefathers went to war to fight for democracy and that it is still alive and well in our country.

I put it to the House that it is not. It is sick, it is tattered and it desperately needs attention.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, we appreciate the comments and really insightful perceptions of our friend from Winnipeg Centre.

At the risk of making a sad situation sound even sadder, one thing I do know for sure is that there are backbenchers on the Conservative side who agree with the member, who agree with us that our democracy is heading into the tattered territory.

Would the hon. member like to comment on the following? We are fond of painting the opposite side in one broad stroke, but there are many on that side who believe exactly as we believe and exactly as the member for Winnipeg Centre believes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure in the speech I just gave. I do not accuse colleagues on the other side of any kind of particular malice in this regard.

I can accept that most of us want a robust and well-functioning parliamentary democracy, that we believe in it and that we ran with all the right intentions. However, it is getting to be a widely-held view that there are some very bad people who sabotaged the last federal election.

We do not know who the actual architects of this electoral fraud are. We do know it took place. The courts have now ruled that in at least 246 ridings this kind of electoral fraud took place. The Conservatives won by a 12 seat majority.

Let us do the math. If there was not this kind of interference, trying to systematically deny Canadians' right to vote in a free and fair election, we do not know what the outcome would have been. At the very least, the ruling party should consider the legitimate points of view of the majority of Canadians as represented by the opposition. Those are the two requisite parts of Parliament.

There is an obligation when a party wins an election to rule for all the people. There is an obligation to at least accommodate some of the legitimate concerns brought forward. There is an obligation to consider amendments if they have merit. Amendments to legislation should not just be denied based on who moved them.

I saw a bizarre example where our colleague in the justice committee moved six amendments to a crime bill, because it was clearly unconstitutional. They were denied at committee and the former minister of justice had to stand up in the House of Commons at third reading and amend his own bill because we were right, and he was wrong but there was no way he would allow them just because of where they came from.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy and am somewhat entertained by my hon. colleague across the way, but I think he was being a little disingenuous in his response to that last question in suggesting that there was somehow some doubt as to the results of the last election.

The conclusion by everyone who investigated that, officially and unofficially, was that there was no impact, zero impact, on any election results. To suggest that it might have changed somewhat is certainly disingenuous.

Let me give the member some facts. It is true that in the last election 62% of Canadians did not vote Conservative, 72% did not vote NDP, 82% did not vote Liberal, 94% did not vote Green, and 98% did not vote Bloc. Since we have had more than two parties, there have been 29 governments, 29 elections. There have been 16 majority governments and only 5 have reached more than 50% of the popular vote. Pierre Trudeau did not have one. Jean Chrétien did not have one.

I would like to point out that suggestions that somehow our government is illegitimate because we got less than 50% of the vote would suggest that there have been many illegitimate majority governments in Canada's history. The hon. colleague should maybe acknowledge that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Elections Canada is not finished its investigation and neither is the Commissioner of Elections. Therefore, my colleague from Edmonton Centre cannot make the claim that it has been decided that no one was denied their right to vote.

In fact, one of the biggest problems with the Elections Canada investigation is the Conservative witnesses either refuse to co-operate and the elections commissioner does not have the power to compel production of papers or testimony and some of them leave the country, bailing out so that they do not have to testify.

Somebody knows who dialed those robocalls. Somebody knows who read that script. Somebody, I believe, on that side knows.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I realize it is the nature of the motion tonight that the debate is far ranging. However, I would urge all hon. members to stick to the matter before the House as best as they possibly can.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I do not enjoy hearing the sad tale of this 41st Parliament and I certainly would like to see changes to it.

He spoke to the action at committees. I have been sitting on the aboriginal affairs committee over the past two and a half to three years and have seen legislation brought forward that simply impacts aboriginal people. I have seen the lack of consultation, the failure to consider amendments and the strangling of debate over these issues. We are talking about legislation that is specific to the first nations, the history and part of the future of our country. Those failures speak so much to what is happening with our democracy. The only people being affected by legislation are not being given their proper due at committees. That is one of the great failings of the government. It demonstrates its arrogance toward the Canadian population, those who are interested and so vital to us.

That is why we are debating this today and why we do not accept simply returning legislation after the arrogance of a prorogation that was really not required.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opened his remarks by lamenting this state of committee work. Not a single amendment was allowed to a single piece of legislation in the entire 41st Parliament. That is a record. It must be an unprecedented situation. As I pointed out in my remarks, I have been here during Liberal majorities and minorities as well as Conservative minorities and a majority. We used to get amendments through. If a lone NDP member of a parliamentary committee with very little power brought an idea that had merit, the amendment could succeed, the legislation would be amended. Therefore, the people who I represented were having their voices heard in the democratic process.

This arrogance and idea that not a single amendment should ever be allowed to any bill, even when they are dead wrong, or a former minister of justice humiliates himself by standing up at report stage to move amendments that we tried to move at committee, is an absurd situation. I take no pleasure in that whatsoever.

We have to start objecting to this because the public deserves to know that it is really not a well-functioning democracy. Rather, it is nostalgia for the facsimile of a democracy that we are working under.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg Centre on his eloquent speech, in which he clearly explained the negative effects of prorogation, not to mention most of the decisions the government has made since coming to power.

The Conservatives needed to have their memories refreshed because since earlier today, the Conservative members have been standing up one after the other to whine and complain. They say the opposition does not want to let them move forward and do their work. They claim that we are blocking them at every turn when it is their own government's fault. Their Prime Minister, their government leader decided that we would have to waste our time today talking about a prorogation that was essentially meaningless because they are the majority and they intend to put all of the bills they want back on the agenda anyway. It is absolutely ridiculous.

I heard members in the far reaches of the back benches across the way shouting and uttering little cries of false indignation. My colleague must have touched a nerve or two.

I would like the member to explain to my colleagues yet again why it is undemocratic to prorogue in an attempt to run away from Senate scandals, only to bring back all of the bills that should have been dropped.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks and her grasp of the issue.

My message to the Canadian public would be that as offensive as it is that the Prime Minister's chief of staff gave $90,000 to some errant senator, we are missing the bigger picture. There is an expression, a medieval nursery rhyme, that says:They hang the man [...]
Who steals the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose.

That is the bigger picture that we are losing here. It is up to us as members of Parliament to fight for the integrity of our parliamentary institution, because there are people who are willing to run roughshod and cut a swath through everything that is good and decent about our parliamentary democracy to achieve their own ends. They do not have a mandate to trample all over Parliament. They may have a mandate to govern, but it is with the checks and balances that people smarter than we are put in place to make sure that Parliament works. It is not working now. It is dysfunctional.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this place to speak about an important bill, Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, which, during the last Parliament, passed into committee.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am at a bit of a loss. The member says that he is rising to speak to Bill S-6. Bill S-6 is not before Parliament. I understand that we are debating government business Motion No. 2. I do not think that bill has been called yet. Perhaps he should wait until it is called, and then we can debate it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair would agree with the member for St. John's East. All hon. members ought to address the matter that is before the House. As I have said a couple of times, I appreciate that this conversation has wandered a bit, given the nature of government Motion No. 2. Nevertheless, I would ask all hon. members to speak to the matter before the House.

On that basis, resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member giving me two sentences to launch into my speech before interrupting with a point of order. We are talking about the government motion, which includes the ability to bring the legislation that was before the House last June and that was referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. That is what I will be addressing in my remarks today. I am going to speak briefly, to allow for some questions.

There are currently 240 first nations that are under the Indian Act when it comes to their election processes. There are currently three options available to them. The first is to carry on operating under the outdated and paternalist Indian Act election system, complete with a long list of identifiable problems. The second choice is to develop a community election code. The third option is self-governance, which is the ideal scenario, in which first nations decide on their own electoral system linked to their own community constitutions and traditions.

What we are talking about here is an option for first nations to operate under the Indian Act. There is no compulsory buy-in for this program. It is strictly those first nations that wish to be part of this new election regime. I want to talk briefly about the support we have received for this idea.

The Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs has been unwavering in its support of this initiative since it asked our government to come to the table to work on first nations electoral reform over five years ago. Back in the spring of this year, they wrote every Atlantic member of Parliament, including the member for St. John's East, urging them to take the necessary steps to pass the bill as soon as possible.

Just recently, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development received a letter from the congress asking that we reintroduce Bill S-6 as soon as possible. In that letter, John Paul, executive director of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, described the current failings of the Indian Act. He stated:

As you are aware, for years, many First Nations members have been critical of the Indian Act election system, which they believe sets out an electoral regime that is antiquated and paternalistic. Terms of office that are much shorter than municipal, provincial and federal counterparts, a loose nominations process and an absence of penalties for offences related to the electoral process are just some of the key concerns we seek to have addressed through this legislation.

We also received a letter from the former Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Ron Evans, urging the minister to bring back Bill S-6, in its current form, at the earliest opportunity. In his letter, he stated:

When enacted, Bill S-6 will change the way First Nations are governed, create stability and credibility, strengthen self-governance and allow First Nations to move forward. The current Indian Act election system is not working; it is proven to be weak and creates instability for our communities and their economies.

These communities have been working hard to come up with a system. This has been first nations led. It was developed with first nations. It is something they have been calling for.

I think we need to get this bill back to committee as soon as possible so that we can move forward with giving first nations the tools they have been asking for to give them an option for a new elections regime. That is what I am asking all members of this House to join with me in doing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really see him talk a lot about the legislation. He talked about Bill S-6. He knows very well that a lot of the legislation that was going to the Senate was not being supported by a lot of the first nations. For example, with respect to the throne speech, I could tell members that today, Chief Shining Turtle sent a letter to the Governor General, to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and to Buckingham Palace. In it, he says, “I am going through the text of the Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor General”.

In particular, he seeks clarification on the following statement:

They forged an independent country where none would have otherwise existed.

He asks, “Are we to believe that the indigenous peoples with complex societies throughout North America simply did not exist prior to the arrival of the pioneers?”

Then he goes on to say, “In our view, this is a gross misrepresentation of the true history of North America. Can you provide your historical facts that fully support this claim? There surely must be some misunderstanding on your facts”.

That is not the end of the letter. However, what I am trying to tell members is that the government attempted to press the reset button, and now it is just bringing back everything that did not need to be reset, as far as they are concerned. How is that democratic?

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

Mr. Speaker, exactly what I talked about was improving the democratic process for first nations that want to opt in to a new first nations elections act. That is exactly what some other people have said.

I will continue with some positive comments. Chief Candice Paul, then executive co-chair of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, said:

Our member chiefs do support Bill S-6 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.

Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould from British Columbia, my home province, and regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations, 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.

This is something that first nations have been calling for. We are responding. We will continue to work with willing partners, first nations that want to see these sorts of things go forward. We would ask the opposition to, for once, join with us in supporting first nations across the country instead of voting against every positive measure that we take in those communities.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I personally share the concerns over the aboriginal affairs legislative agenda getting tied up in what is quite obviously just opposition procedural games and endless frustration. It is disturbing. The plight of our first nations should obviously come first and foremost.

I certainly appreciate the information that we have received. Could the member, at this particular time, explain how long this bill has been in development, why it has been delayed for so long, and how critical it is for us to ensure the passage of this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings for his thoughtful question and for his concern for this issue.

The development of the bill was a direct result of collaboration and partnership with first nations. We are simply responding to a process that was started in 2008, five years ago. The bill is based on the recommendations of the Manitoba chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, following extensive consultations. This is something that has been led by first nations. They are asking us to pass this portion of the motion and pass it back to committee as soon as possible so that we can get on with the important work of delivering an option for first nations that want more stability, more clarity, and a better election system.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they are trying to say that they have this great working relationship and that first and foremost they are trying to move the issues of first nations forward. Well, let us look at the press release from Chief Beardy after the throne speech. It says that the federal government’s lack of action on murdered and missing Indigenous women and its dismissive statement that Canada was “empty” before the pioneers arrived only fan the flames of anger and frustration.

Tell me how you are working with the first nations on this issue. Why did you prorogue Parliament, knowing full well that we were already making some movement and some progress on some issues? We also know that some of the legislation that is before the House is not conducive to being supported by first nations.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I would like to remind all hon. members, including this one, that the Speaker did not prorogue Parliament. I ask her to refer to the Chair in this context rather than directly to her colleagues.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course we are all hoping that someday you may have those powers granted to you in the future.

When we have had legislation dealing with first nations before the House, such as the safer water act for our first nations, the NDP voted against it. We brought in matrimonial real property rights for women living on reserves to give them the same protections that are offered to women living outside a reserve; the NDP voted against it. We brought in transparency for first nations chiefs and councils so that grassroots first nations members would know what was happening with the funding that is going to those reserves; the NDP voted against it.

Every single time we bring forward positive measures for first nations, there is one thing that we can count on: the NDP standing in the way of progress. We see more of it today.

We are going to get this passed because this is what first nations are demanding, and we are going to give it to them.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know our government, as stated by the parliamentary secretary, has been working very hard at improving governance on reserves and allowing Canada's first nations to have alternatives to an archaic and outdated Indian Act.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to inform the House, particularly our colleagues across the way, why we must have the opportunity to bring back Bill S-6 and the first nations elections act as part of this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London is the hard-working chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, and I know he is respected by all members in the House.

The NDP and Liberals, whom I have stated oppose every measure we take to work with first nations and improve conditions for first nations living on reserve, apparently do not want to see progress. With Bill S-6, again they are showing with their questions and delaying tactics that they do not want to provide an option for first nations who have been demanding more options for their election process. They have been demanding clarity, clearer regulations and extended terms of office when they opt in under this plan. This is something that first nations have been calling for. This is not something that was cooked up in the backrooms of the department somewhere. This is first nations led and first nations driven, and it is time that we deliver this for first nations.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I call on the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I would remind members that this debate is scheduled to end at 8 p.m. The member will have the floor for his entire 20 minutes even though that may exceed eight o'clock. However, once it is past eight o'clock, there will not be questions or comments. I leave that with the member.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Everything is in the timing, Mr. Speaker.

I always appreciate the opportunity to express a few thoughts with regard to important issues, and this is an important issue before the House today. I would like to put everything in a proper perspective.

I would like to give a couple of doses of reality, if I could put it that way, because there is no doubt that it has been an interesting process. Should a government be able to prorogue a session? Is it proper to prorogue a session? Why do we find ourselves in this situation today where we have what appears to be a divided House on an important matter?

Ultimately it is in the best interests of Canadians that we move forward and continue to apply pressure where it needs to be applied, and that is right to the Prime Minister's Office. Let there be no doubt whatsoever that is ultimately the reason we are where we are today on the legislative agenda.

New Democrats often talk about the Senate and issues relating to the Senate and so forth. There are all sorts of issues. We are concerned about the Senate. As a member of an opposition party and of the House of Commons, I do not want to lose focus on what this is really all about. It is about the Prime Minister's Office and the unethical behaviour that has come from that office

We need to remember that when we were sitting in this place in June a great deal of pressure was applied to the Prime Minister, as the public were demanding answers with regard to a $90,000 cheque. That $90,000 cheque appeared to have originated somewhere out of the Prime Minister's Office. We have been challenging the Prime Minister to be straightforward with us, to tell us what actually took place, but there has been a great deal of disappointment.

I asked a question earlier in question period today. I have had the opportunity to talk to residents in Provencher, Brandon, and Souris, many of my own constituents, and other Canadians. There is a credibility issue here. Even the Prime Minister's own Conservative members are starting to seriously doubt him. He is losing the confidence of Canadians in a rapid fashion. I believe we are witnessing a Prime Minister who wants to avoid accountability, and at the end of the day he cannot do that.

The Prime Minister successfully came up with an idea on how to prevent the House from resuming on September 16, the day it was supposed to resume. We were supposed to be here on September 16, and in mid-September we found out that the Prime Minister did not want to return to the House. We found out he wanted to come back on October 16 as opposed to September 16. Why? He found the tool that he could use. He prorogued the session. Because he prorogued the session, that meant to could pick the date to return, and he chose October 16. We lost 20 sitting days.

What would likely have happened during those 20 sitting days? I suspect that the Prime Minister would have been on his feet answering questions with regard to the Prime Minister's Office and the behaviour of not one but many within his office in relation to the $90,000 cheque that was used in essence to pay off Senator Duffy. The Prime Minister was concerned about that to the degree that he felt he would just prorogue.

I also believe that he chose October 16 intentionally, because he had a sense of what was going to be happening on the following few days. He picked a day for the throne speech, and then in the days that followed, he was in Europe talking about a free trade agreement in the hope that the free trade deal would ultimately make Canadians forget about the scandal taking place that appears to be well rooted within the Prime Minister's Office.

It is a growing scandal, as we heard this morning at a press conference with Mr. Duffy's lawyers. It is really starting to open up. It does not look good for the Prime Minister. Where was he the day after the throne speech? He was nowhere to be found and was only to resurface after he had a tentative deal with the European Union. Yes, the free trade agreement is very important and will be given due diligence in the chamber and will ultimately be voted on, but that is not the issue we should be talking about.

I believe that we should be talking about the Prime Minister's Office and what has taken place there. There are very serious allegations of illegal activity. Before we broke last June, the Prime Minister said he knew nothing about the $90,000 cheque and what took place inside his office. He only found out about it after the fact, once it became public through the media. That is what he was proclaiming to anyone who listened.