Debates of Dec. 10th, 2013

Motions in amendment

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for that very important question. It is a question that I would rightly like to put before the government.

First nations have culture, traditions, history and electoral processes that have been in place in many nations from time immemorial. They have long traditions of self-governing, yet we continue to see an Indian Act system that undermines and devalues those systems of governance.

It would seem that any move toward changes in elections should be governed by first nations. It should be proposed by first nations. It should be developed by first nations. This act simply does not do that.

[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.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

This is not the first time that she has spoken in the House about the first nations, whom she is very committed to. She is very knowledgeable about the issues facing them.

The member mentioned a number of times that the current Conservative government seems to be failing in its commitment to have a real, constructive dialogue with the first nations.

I would like to hear more of what she has to say about that. Based on her experience, how does she think we could have a constructive dialogue with the first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

It is absolutely essential to hold genuine consultations and to listen to the needs and wishes of the first nations of Canada. The problem with this bill is that it contains a provision that makes consultation voluntary. This means that the consultation, which is very important, will not necessarily be as extensive as consultations on other bills that have to do with the first nations.

It is very sad to see a bill that makes consultation optional. Ultimately, the government will not do the consultation that is needed, since the two other clauses in the bill override that by giving much more power to the minister.

[Bal Gosal, Conservative, Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to provide first nations with the option of holding their elections. They have been asking for this.

The member for St. Paul's stated in her remarks that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs no longer supported the bill. I want to state for the record that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, under the leadership of former grand chief Ron Evans, was instrumental in the development of the first nations elections act. Mr. Evans recently appeared before the steering committee on aboriginal affairs and northern development where he reiterated his support for the bill.

Is the member for St. Paul's suggesting that we should only be listening to the current grand chief and forget about all those first nations that have called for this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are individual first nations members who have put a lot of time and effort into the bill. I respect the work that former grand chief Ron Evans put into the bill.

As we said before, in the original proposed bill, these provisions to the minister were not there. I understand the former grand chief really believes that it is important to go forward with this, in spite of these provisions, but the elected Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has decided not to. It thinks these provisions are unacceptable and therefore the current leadership of AMC is opposed to the bill. We are listening to it.

I only wish the member would understand that we in this chamber supported the Kelowna accord. I wish you had listened to the Kelowna accord based on what the former leadership of this chamber had put forward.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions, I would like to remind the member and all others to direct their comments to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has reiterated what we have heard in the House of Commons, time and time again, and that is how in a lot of bills that we study here there is a common thread of ministers having extended decisional power on the direction of some of those bills. I would like her to comment on the paternalistic approach the Conservatives have toward, in this case, first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member asks a very important question. From the apology that the Prime Minister gave in this chamber to the very important meeting that took place last January 11, in terms of the Crown-First Nations Gathering, there was supposed to be a reset. There was supposed to be a new way of going forward that was promised to first nations.

However, this is again unfortunately a continuation of paternalism, which is really a continuation of colonization. It is no longer acceptable. This was one little step the Conservatives could have done in terms of a first nations-led piece of legislation that would have been acceptable. It could have been a precedent. Instead, we have this “father knows best, top down, you will like it, we might need this because there are these generic problems in first nations”. The government does not seem to think first nations can sort this out for themselves.

In nation-to-nation government-to-government relationships, this is unacceptable and a continuation of the paternalism and the reason why the relationship between first nations and the Crown in our country is broken. This legislation would do nothing to put it back in a good way and on the right track.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, more than one-third of first nations people have in government jargon a “core housing need”, meaning their homes do not meet the most basic standards of acceptability. Only 4% of natives have a university education, one-quarter the rate of the rest of society. One-third of aboriginal people do not graduate from high school, three times the rate of non-aboriginals. With regard to infrastructure, overcrowded houses, lack of running water and inadequate sewage are the norm in many native communities.

As the bill is now, it would give the power for the minister to intervene and declare that self-government and the people who are elected by their own community are somehow not good enough. Would the bill actually deal with any of those fundamental issues facing people in first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows the answer is “no”, but it was an important bill to bring forward because it was led by first nations. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Atlantic Policy Caucus had seen a need and were going to put this forward.

We know if first nations have control over the things that the member mentioned, such as housing, infrastructure, health, governance, all of these things, all of those statistics would actually improve.

In the Chandler Lalonde report out of the University of British Columbia, communities that are back in charge of their government, health, policing, education and doing their ceremonies, the horrible statistics on suicide radically improve. This is really important.

I cannot help but remind the member that the things she mentioned were well looked after in the Kelowna accord, another process that was first nations, Inuit and Metis-led. The Government of Canada supported them in their priorities. Almost eight years later, things would have been in much better shape, including the 10-year commitment to having high school leaving statistics at the same as the Canadian average. That was in the Kelowna accord with the money assigned. Instead we are no further ahead than we were when the Conservatives took office.

[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.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to commend my colleague's commitment and devotion to her constituents. She speaks about them from experience. I would also like to acknowledge her struggle for the cause of aboriginal women. We are facing not only a broken relationship between the Conservative government and our first nations, but also a totally dysfunctional relationship between this government and first nations women.

I wonder if the member could elaborate further on this issue. Perhaps she could also offer us possible solutions to give a little hope to aboriginal women.

[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.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague from Churchill is aware that this bill was led by the first nations in her own province.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, under the leadership of former grand chief Ron Evans, was instrumental in this first nations elections act. Chief Evans led an extensive engagement exercise in Manitoba and visited almost all the first nations in the province that hold elections under the Indian Act, to discuss his recommendations and obtain feedback, but he also appeared in committee just last week on this very bill.

Ron Evans also met with first nations organizations in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and wrote a letter to every chief and council in Canada that holds elections under the Indian Act to explain the recommendations for electoral reform. He remains supportive of this bill and recently wrote to the minister, saying that the proposed first nations elections act would change the way first nations are governed, create stability and credibility, strengthen self-governance and allow first nations to move forward.

Could the member for Churchill please explain why she is opposed to this important first nations-led initiative?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given that question, I want to take the opportunity to read into the record a quote from the current grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak, who stated:

This proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC. It appears to be an attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code. I am hopeful that Canada will engage in meaningful consultation with First Nations in Manitoba in order to fix some of the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of First Nations.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we speak, there is a large group of first nations people coming to Parliament Hill. They may even have arrived. They are asking Parliament to seriously focus on the needs of children. We know that aboriginals can expect to live, on average, a decade less than other Canadians. In terms of infant mortality, we know that aboriginal children die at three times the rate of non-aboriginal kids and are more likely to be born with severe birth defects and conditions, such as fetal alcohol syndrome. The rate of suicide is six times higher. First nations young people are in desperate need of hope and better education, and that is what the people out on Parliament Hill are demanding.

Perhaps the member could talk about how this bill does not deal with the fundamental questions of respect, self-government and providing hope for the future of first nations people.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate contribution to this debate and also to this issue for many years. I know that her work as a child advocate here in this province has also been very much connected to seeking justice for first nations children.

Do we need a more obvious message than the fact that aboriginal people are coming to Parliament Hill, taking time away from the AFN assembly where they have serious issues to discuss as well, to call upon us to shape up, to do the job they want us to do?

First nations people in the ridings of so many Conservative MPs want them to do that job, to look at funding for education, to look at employment opportunities, to look at ways in which first nations youth can have hope for the future, can have opportunities in the future.

Why must they come out to Parliament Hill to tell us, once again, and to tell the current government, once again, that it is not doing its job?

The trend, the constant way in which the government has chosen to impose legislation, has failed to consult, has failed to listen to leadership across this country that is saying “We want to work on this; we need to do a better job on this”, the way in which it keeps saying it knows better is appalling. It is not fitting of a government that said, six years ago, it would do things differently. It certainly speaks to its lack of fundamental respect for first nations people, and its ignorance when it comes to the real needs on first nations.

Frankly, I share the sentiments of the people who will be coming to Parliament Hill to tell us that they are watching, that they want change, that they want justice.

[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.

[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, I am so pleased that my colleague agrees with me that the final power still rests with the minister to impose this system on first nations and there is no criteria set out for when the minister would do this.

Yes, the bill does have improvements and we are not saying it does not have some good parts to it. However, categorically in there is that the system to opt in and opt out are two totally different systems, which does not seem right to me. They should be the same.

Further, the minister still retains that paternalistic power to opt in any nation when it chooses not to. I do not want to say that ministers could be political, but they could be and use that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about first nations, I remember the Marshall decision. At the time, Marshall went to the Supreme Court and the first nation got the right to fish, cut wood and work in the forestry. I remember at that time I was in Parliament and the government members were grabbing their heads because they wanted to have powers. It seems to me the Conservatives just want aboriginals on the reserves and not do anything. They do not want them to be self-determined and do things by themselves.

For example, when British Columbia wanted the Nisga'a bill to pass, and the Liberal government at the time supported the bill, the Reform Party or the Alliance Party at the time voted with its amendments. It had 471 amendments to the bill that the first nations wanted. We voted 471 times against those amendments of the Conservative Party, the then Reform Party. We voted from Monday to Wednesday morning to say that we had to respect what the first nation was asking for.

Is it asking too much to say go back to the drawing board? Go back and look at some amendments that first nations will accept. Go back where the Constitution of our country gives them that power. The government has a responsibility of consultation with the first nations. By having a minister just impose something on them goes against the Constitution of our country.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for capturing a historical perspective so well. Once again, here we are that when the opposition brings any amendments forward or even the ones suggested by the first nations people, the Conservatives really cannot have anyone else amend their legislation. They seem to have an allergy to that, to changing their mind once they put something out.

It is a sign of maturity when we can actually listen to the concerns, take them into account and rewrite what we have so it builds consensus and builds that nation-to-nation relationship that the Conservative Party has paid so much lip service to over the last number of years.

We are not asking for too much, nor are the first nations people. All they are asking for is to have the right to determine things for themselves.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for again giving a speech with all the passion and verve she is known for.

I would like to go back to a point that she mentioned repeatedly and knows well because of her experience in education.

What impact does the lack of funding for education have on first nations? Would she care to talk about this particular issue?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is totally puzzling to me. All my life, I have fought for equity. Equality is sometimes misleading, but equity I can understand.

If we were to see what is happening in our first nations communities and the state of education there, I could put forward a very coherent and economically sound argument that we should be investing more per child right now in order to build true equity and for the sake of social justice. Instead, I am at a loss for words as to why the Conservative government is not even willing to give the same amount per child to first nations for education as it does to children right across Canada.

Surely the amount that is spent on education should not be decided by whether a child is aboriginal or non-aboriginal? However, that seems to be the defining moment for us.