Debates of June 11th, 2013

First Nations Elections Act

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this night with the member for Peace River.

I am very happy to have the privilege of speaking in favour of Bill S-6 tonight. As with most of our legislation, some of the main criticisms of this bill have to do with myriad problems this bill neither solves nor addresses. The irony, of course, is that those bills that avoid this criticism are criticized for addressing too much and receive the despised label of omnibus bill. I will save the opposition a bit of time and point out what the bill would not do.

This bill would not ensure good government in the first nations that adopt it. It would not guarantee that tribal councils and chiefs elected under this system will be wise. It would not, on its own, solve poverty or racism or ensure that every person under the act would receive a good education. It would not guarantee the independence and prosperity of those first nations that adopt it. No single bill can do all of these things on its own.

This bill would, however, provide a necessary framework to allow for good government, the selection of wise leaders, the enactment of just laws and the increase in independence and prosperity for those first nations whose electoral systems are still governed by the Indian Act.

Today there are 617 first nations in Canada. Thirty-six are self-governing and hold elections according to their own self-government agreements. There are 343 first nations that select their leaders under their own community-based systems, most of which have a specific election code developed within and by the first nation itself. Unfortunately, the 238 first nations that still hold elections under the Indian Act have been held back from achieving their full potential because of the limitations of the Indian Act's election system.

This system was created at a time when the federal government had no intention of allowing first nations to have any real sense of self-governance and therefore did not need to provide conditions that ensured fairness, stability or legitimacy. Some of the weaknesses in this old election system have led to leadership with low credibility and high instability and such problems as having only two-year terms of office, a loose nomination system, a mail-in ballot system that is open to abuse and no defined offences or penalties relating to election fraud.

Virtually no first nations are satisfied with the current system, but this bill gives first nations three options to choose from.

The communities that hold their elections under the Indian Act have the following choices.

The first option is self-government, the ideal scenario, but that goes far beyond simply determining their own election system. The second choice is to develop a community election code. Unfortunately, due to varying capacity, not all first nations are in a position to take advantage of either of the first two options. That leaves them with the third option, which is to simply carry on operating under the Indian Act system, complete with its long list of problems. The third option is not really an option at all, and many first nations are frustrated.

That is why we need this bill, which gives these communities a third viable option if they cannot choose one of the first two options.

The first nations elections act would allow first nations currently operating under the Indian Act to hold elections under a legislated system that would be strong, modern and comparable to municipal, federal and provincial government election systems.

First nations have been calling for this solution for many years. They even made recommendations advocating such legislation. Those recommendations form the foundation of this bill.

Bill S-6 would provide a reliable, consistent, modern approach to elections in first nation communities that would increase the transparency, legitimacy and stability of their governments, which is a necessary precondition of independence and prosperity.

The first important aspect of this legislation is that first nations could opt in. They could choose to use the system.

It is not mandatory.

For those first nations that did opt in, the band council would now have four-year mandates instead of two. This would go a long way toward improving political stability in their communities and would foster a better climate for economic development and long-term investment.

The bill would also tighten up the nomination process. Right now, many tribal elections have literally hundreds of people running for a 12-member council, making the election results, in many cases, statistically arbitrary. This comes from the fact that one person can sign dozens of nominations. He or she does not have to be choosy when nominating candidates.

Furthermore, a single person can run for chief, tribal council and any other position available at the same time. This legislation would restrict the number of candidates any one person could nominate and would allow a given candidate to run in only one position in any given election.

Bill S-6 would also remove the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs from the elections appeals process. Just as in provincial and federal elections, the power to set aside elections and to appeal those decisions would rest with the courts, where it belongs. This is a judicial matter and should not be in the hands of a legislator or the executive branch.

Finally, believe it or not, under the current system, things such as electoral fraud, ballot-box stuffing, buying and selling of mail-in ballots, bribes, et cetera, are not expressly forbidden. The bill would finally prohibit specific offences and would attach definite penalties for corrupt activities that interfered with the electoral process.

Anyone who engages in those kinds of activities will no longer be able to get away with it. They will be forced to face the consequences of their actions.

The first nations elections act would enable first nations communities, if they chose, to put in place a more reliable, consistent and legitimate system of elections. This would make it possible for members of these first nations communities to add transparent, accountable and effective chiefs and councillors as part of a more stable, respectable and reliable government. This would lead to confidence in government and in the community itself. It would inspire community members and outside investors to invest in these communities and to even bring their businesses and their business operations to these communities, which would bring about real, measurable benefits to first nations people, such as jobs, high-paying jobs, overall prosperity and higher tax revenue. That, in turn, would help pay for infrastructure, which would increase jobs, high-paying jobs, overall prosperity and higher tax revenue, which in turn would help pay for infrastructure. The cycle would go on. It would also pay for education, the arts and our cherished social programs.

The key to realizing these benefits is political stability and predictability, but most important, political legitimacy. Bill S-6, by providing the necessary framework, would make it possible.

In addition to our federal and provincial electoral systems, most of us in the House live in communities in which the political conditions for economic prosperity are taken for granted. So imbedded are these characteristics in our local governments and the electoral systems of those jurisdictions that we do not even notice them. We do not appreciate the extent to which they are transparent, accountable and legitimate and therefore make us ready to seize economic opportunities.

Unfortunately, not all first nation communities enjoy similar political conditions and therefore cannot seize their economic opportunities and seize control of their own lives.

It is time that changes. It is time for first nation elections to be reformed, and it is time to provide the legislative framework that would allow their governments to truly foster the conditions necessary to chase away corruption and attract prosperity.

I urge all of my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of Bill S-6 and in favour of an open, transparent, and accountable government for all Canadians.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

One of the key recommendations from the AMC and the AFN was to establish an independent, impartial appeal mechanism. I wonder why the Conservatives ignored those recommendations.

I would like to know whether the Conservatives will commit to working with first nations to establish an independent first nations election tribunal.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, under the Indian Act, any appeals on elections go directly to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. This bill would change that so that appeals would go to the courts

I do not know what the member thinks, but I consider the court system in Canada an independent process of appeal.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about democracy. I think that is something everyone in this House can stand up and believe in. What the government is doing is trying to modernize. With the system in place right now, there is the possibility of fraud. It is ancient. It is outdated.

The first nations communities deserves democracy. They deserve representation. They deserve to be brought into the modern era. It seems that the opposition wants to delay this type of legislation.

I was wondering if the member could give his opinion as to why it is so important that we finally bring this piece of legislation forward for equality and democracy for first nations.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, because that is at the base of a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a right and a guarantee. As much as we would like to provide guarantees for everyone to have a Mercedes and a three-storey house, we cannot always do that. Rights are the pre-condition to acquiring whatever people want guaranteed.

As with the bill on matrimonial housing rights, a lot of the concerns were that the women involved did not have the money necessary to buy the house or go to court or whatever. That was a shortcoming of the bill. However, it provided the necessary framework so that they could start with those things.

We have to start by giving first nations the right to determine a legitimate self-government. Those are the pre-conditions for accomplishing the other things, the things some of our opponents find lacking in this bill. That is because that is not what this bill is about. The bill would set the framework and allow first nations to start solving those problems, as is necessary for anyone who wants to self-govern.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Lethbridge, and I welcome him back to the House. People who are watching may be happy to know that he is recovering well from a skiing accident. Just apropos of my friend's comment that everybody here can stand up, at least the hon. member for Lethbridge will be able to soon.

My concern, as with many pieces of legislation in this House, is that many of them come from the other place. They are taken apart, bit by bit, and chip away at what should be a transformation exercise relating to a new relationship and a change from the antiquated Indian Act, which has a lot of baggage. I will not get into all of it. I will not have time in this short question.

My concern, and I wonder if the hon. member from Lethbridge would agree with me, is that we would be far better off to have full consultation, nation to nation, Canada to all first nations, in a process that ensures that first nations are full partners in a holistic, comprehensive approach rather than this piecemeal, and I hate to say it, disrespectful approach, to changing legislation that directly affects the lives of first nations peoples.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would definitely like a holistic approach where every first nation in Canada would come together with Canada and with each other to find one big, holistic solution. Maybe someday that will come. It might be at the second coming. However, in the meantime, we have to get something done to allow each first nation to determine its own path while we are waiting for this great day.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand in this House today to speak to Bill S-6. I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for sharing his time with me tonight. I am glad he is back in the House. I congratulate him for his contribution to the discussions tonight.

I serve as the chair of the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, and over the last number of months we have been seized with a number of pieces of legislation that I believe are important to equip and empower first nations to move forward on a number of fronts.

Today, we have the opportunity in the House to continue a discussion on an important piece of legislation that will transform and modernize the elections of first nations, those first nations that choose to be empowered by this act. It is not an act that is being placed on first nations if they do not want it, but they have an opportunity to opt in if they want.

That is what is unique about our government. We are a government that recognizes that first nations are different. From one part of this country to another, first nations are as different from coast to coast to coast as communities are different from coast to coast to coast. It is important that we do not put a one-size-fits-all solution on folks from every part of this country and that we let first nations communities create their own environment to move forward in the way that best supports their priorities.

That is unlike the Indian Act. I think everybody in this House can agree that the Indian Act is an outdated piece of legislation that has lived out many parts of its usefulness. However, it obviously has a great amount of history and it would take some time to move us out of that.

I respect the fact that members are calling for an overhaul and a complete turning of the page. We can recognize as we look from one issue to the other with regard to the Indian Act that there are first nations that have different ideas as to how to move into the future. It is important that we give each community the ability to be empowered, so that they are able to articulate a vision for the future that would reflect the interest and the desires of first nations membership within their communities. That is different in every community.

The Indian Act does spell out issues surrounding elections in first nations communities. I just note that the last time this portion of the Act was updated was sometime in the 1950s.

A lot has changed between now and then. It is important to reflect on the thinking at that time. When they were revamping the Indian Act in the 1950s, it should be noted that the rules as they related to elections were really geared toward holding first nations governments accountable to the minister, rather than holding first nations leadership accountable to their electorate or to their members.

The bill goes a great distance in rectifying this. I think it is so important that we work together collaboratively to see this legislation move forward.

It has been articulated by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that we move forward with a complete overhaul of the Indian Act, but even in the discussions that led up to the change in this portion, just in the issue of elections, there are different visions and different ideas from one part of this country to the next. It is important that we bring forward legislation that provides options for first nations. That is exactly what this legislation does.

However, we do it in a pragmatic way, not in a way that may have a lofty goal without ever being implemented. We have a policy right now that will really create opportunities for those first nations that do want to move forward on this.

We have been undertaking a number of things that will give rights to first nations that they have been limited to receiving in the past as a result of the Indian Act.

Members will reflect on the fact that it was our government that in 2008 repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It finally gave first nations people living on reserve the right to recognition under the human rights act. First nations communities had been waiting decades for that. Unfortunately, the Indian Act had separated them from the right that most Canadians enjoy and take for granted. That was one of the things we did.

Just recently, we extended matrimonial real property rights to first nations women to protect families and those people who were vulnerable in first nations communities.

We are continuing to bring the rights that most Canadians take for granted to those people who live on reserve.

The legislation continues the process of giving rights to first nations people, the same type of rights that other Canadians have come to expect and take for granted. Unfortunately, those rights have not been there for first nations and this bill would go a great distance in providing first nations with additional rights.

I should note that approximately 240 first nations across the country undertake their elections according to sections 74 through 79 of the Indian Act. This regime is not satisfactory for a number of reasons, the least of which is it imposes two year term limits on the time which chiefs and councils can serve in office.

Those of us in elected positions know that two years is really not enogh time for us to become equipped to serve in the capacity of our roles and to take a mandate and try to get it completed, then to continue that and have any type of stable governance in any community. A two-year time limit gives enough time for MPs to learn the basics of our job and then immediately be thrust back into an election campaign. That is not a sustainable structure for governance. Anybody in the House, when reflecting upon it, would say that a two-year term limit is really unreasonable for any elected official, and first nations people should have the right to extend it if their community so desires.

It has been recommended by the Atlantic Policy Congress as well as the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs that the term limits be extended to four years. This is now articulated within the legislation. When we consider the recommendations that came from these two organizations, it makes a lot of sense.

A two-year term limit barely gives enough time for MPs to get trained in their jobs before they are running for re-election, but there are other practical reasons as well.

A two-year term limit is difficult for a new council, especially those people who have run for election for the first time. A new council would find it very difficult to build the necessary relationships to move their communities forward within two years.

One of the most important things that a local council can do is build relationships with neighbouring jurisdictions, with other municipalities or neighbouring government organizations. There is a limited opportunity as well to build relationships with financial organizations and with those people who might want to invest within these communities. This two-year extension is very important.

We believe very strongly in allowing first nations to build an environment within their communities where they will be able to foster an opportunity for the private sector to invest in their communities. Extending the term to a four year limit will allow these first nations communities to have a stable council, a stable government that will be able to negotiate and build an environment so private investment is undertaken within their communities. This would lead to opportunity, prosperity and hope for people who live in these communities, leading to better education, better health care and better outcomes generally.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given all bills before the House that have to do with first nations, including this one, I have a simple question that is however worth asking.

When dealing with first nations issues, does my Conservative colleague think it is better to have a relationship of equals instead of the paternalistic approach that the Conservatives use on almost every bill?

It is truly a simple question and I would like an answer.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have as a hallmark of our government, as it relates to first nations, is we do not believe that a one-size-fits-all solution works for first nations across the country. That is why we have built framework legislation that allows for a different reality in one community than possibly in other communities.

In this case, with regard to the Elections Act, we had strong recommendations from the Atlantic first nations and from Manitoba chiefs. They are asking for this legislation to move forward. They believe the provisions in this act would ensure they could move forward in a way that would better equip their communities. This is being asked for.

It is not a requirement that first nations move into this act; it is actually opt-in legislation. Therefore, those first nations that would desire to be under this act could move into it. Those that choose not to could continue under the current regime.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that one of the key recommendations from the AMC and the AFN, was to establish an independent, impartial appeal mechanism.

Could he tell us why the Conservatives ignored this recommendation in Bill S-6?

Will they commit to working with first nations on establishing an independent first nations election tribunal?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do envision an opportunity for independent and impartial appeals, and through the courts process that is exactly what is undertaken. That is what we as Canadians put our trust in, that those folks who serve in their capacity as judges and within the legal system can provide an impartial appeals process. We believe first nations should have the right to that as well.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and he spoke of democracy, respect and so on a number of times.

In the bill, paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) allow the minister to subject a first nations community to this law against its will. Numerous groups have called for these provisions to be removed because they give immeasurable discretionary power to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Can my colleague share his thoughts on whether a clause that would allow a minister to force people to be subject to a system that they have not willingly accepted is democratic?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.

Obviously, the member has not read through the legislation because this provision within this legislation would allow for first nations to undertake a provision that they would have full control over. Under the circumstance that would be “a protracted leadership dispute [that] has significantly compromised [the] governance of [this] First Nation” then the minister could allow for the first nation to actually choose new leadership.

The minister would not make the choice. He would cede that responsibility to the first nation population. That is exactly what first nations folks are asking for. They are asking for the right to be empowered and the ability to make the choice for themselves as to whom they want to lead them forward. This is not a choice of the minister; it is a choice of the first nations people.

However, without this provision, all that is left is the requirement that we go back to the Indian Act, where it actually spells out a process for dispute resolution that is much more paternalistic. Therefore, it is important that we empower first nations to be the voice and to make the decision as it relates to their own future.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the deputy house leader of the official opposition, who is also the excellent member for Saint-Lambert.

This evening I am speaking to Bill S-6. I want to specify that the bill comes from the Senate and that is why it is assigned the letter S. It is an Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations.

The bill came out of a series of regional round table discussions that were held in Atlantic Canada and Manitoba. The objective was to improve the way elections are run in first nation communities.

I want to point out that although there was consultation, round tables were not held with every first nation community. Those communities are in every province, including Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta. These communities were not consulted during the round tables. There was indeed consultation, but not with every first nation.

We are talking about this bill because a number of concerns were raised about the provisions in the current Indian Act with regard to elections and the rules on elections organized by the communities.

The Indian Act has eroded first nations traditional political cultures and political systems. Before white people arrived in Canada, first nations had their own system for electing their chief. This was part of a custom that, most of the time, was traditional and not recorded in writing. Everyone knew the rules, but they were not necessarily written down. They were passed down from generation to generation. Aboriginal communities clearly had a more oral tradition than a written one. Everyone agrees on that. It explains why many aboriginal communities have different ways to write the exact same language. It is because they only ever spoke it. They never wrote it.

Another problem is the two year election cycle, which causes instability and prevents first nations governments from engaging in long-term planning and development.

Many of the MPs here tonight first won their seats in the 2011 election. However, a few of them have been here longer than that and have experienced the successive minority governments. I think that everyone will agree that, if an election is held every two years, it becomes difficult and complicated to establish a government, whether it be in a first nations community or elsewhere. Those involved try to determine the role that each person will play in the government in question, but once that has been established, it is practically time for another election, so yes, that is a problem with the legislation.

The current problem with the Indian Act is that it reverses the accountability structure and makes band councils accountable to the minister rather than to their communities. The election provisions set out in the Indian Act give the minister or the Governor in Council considerable power over first nations elections and governance structures, including the number of members that can sit on a council, the way in which the chief is elected and the way appeals are dealt with. The minister can also order first nations to be subject to the Indian Act.

There are therefore many opportunities for the government to interfere in elections, which is a problem. That is not a good foundation for a relationship of equals. It does not make sense to make band councils accountable to the minister rather than to their communities. Members of the House are first and foremost accountable to their constituents, and that is how it should be. Anyone who sits in a chamber, who is a member of a government, whether it is a first nations government or here in the House of Commons, must first be accountable to their constituents, because their constituents are the ones who elected them to that position.

I would also like to specify that, right now, under the act, the appeal process, which is, of course, carried out by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, is very long. It is also lacking in terms of thoroughness, transparency and procedural fairness. I would like to remind hon. members that election disputes sometimes occur and, since first nations are operating on a two year election cycle, a government can spend almost its entire mandate dealing with an election dispute, which does not help matters.

First nations communities are forced to choose their selection rules based on requirements set by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. These rules are limited to a rather restrictive governance model that does not take first nations traditions and customs into account. For example, having a written code requires resources and expertise. There are two problems with the written code. These communities sometimes have very small populations and few people with the education to be able to write rules in legal terms. Furthermore, this is being imposed on people who come from an oral culture. People with limited resources are being asked to develop written rules, even though written rules are not part of their traditions. The Indian Act therefore currently presents some problems.

This bill is designed to set out election rules that are different from what is currently in the Indian Act. This includes an election cycle longer than two years and the ability to have common election days, but it unfortunately grants the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs the power to order first nations to be subject to this new regime.

The minister will therefore have the power to interfere in the affairs of a first nation. Instead of developing a relationship of equals and offering advice, he is interfering. The government is saying that first nations must conform and that the government is sick of things not working. In short, it is telling them what to do. That is a paternalistic attitude. As long as they keep that up, they will never be able to develop a relationship of equals with these communities.

The bill also sets out an election appeal process through the courts, instead of through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. It may be shorter, but I am not sure this measure will speed things up.

There are sanctions if they do not comply with the election rules.

The NDP wants to improve the first nations electoral system, but this bill does not tackle the Indian Act head on. It does not address the problems in the act. It does not address the considerable powers the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has over a band's right to determine its own future. That makes no sense.

First nations supported the bill initially. There were round table discussions. However, when they read the final version, the changes they asked for had not been included. If the bill passes at committee stage, you can bet that the NDP will try to ensure that those changes are included in the bill.

Right now, first nations have three different ways of electing their leaders. First of all, 41% hold elections in accordance with the Indian Act. In addition, 54% hold community-based elections or “custom elections”. Of course, they have to develop written election codes, which have to be well known. Lastly, 5% choose their leaders pursuant to the provisions of self-government agreements.

The problem with this bill is that it does not amend the Indian Act. It does not really address the problem that exists in the Indian Act, while also giving new powers to the minister.

Of course, the legislation could grant more autonomy if it were voluntary, but the new provisions allow the minister to interfere with any band and, without consultation, force it to adhere to these principles.

The government had an opportunity to create legislation by consulting first nations and creating a relationship of equals, but unfortunately, once again, it did not do so and instead adopted a paternalistic attitude. The government has said that since first nations did not agree and an agreement could not be reached, the government will decide for them. It is imposing its view and first nations have to accept it.

As long as the government maintains this kind of attitude towards first nations, no real partnership can ever develop.

I have five aboriginal communities in my riding. Since being elected, I meet with them regularly. They have told me repeatedly that it had been forever since any federal government representative had bothered to go and see them.

Speaking with them is the least we can do.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to some of the government members' positions and many of the speeches we have heard tonight on different bills, Canadians might start asking what the government is trying to tell first nations about good governance. Currently it has two members in court trying to keep their seats in the House because they have improperly filed elections receipts. In other words, many of the issues we are debating tonight are about the trust that Canadians have, or do not have, in the government. I am wondering if my colleague would like to comment on the issue of public trust as it pertains to the bill.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond by talking about aboriginal communities in general.

Everyone in Canada has heard about the Idle No More movement. Aboriginal youth, and some older members of the community as well, took to the streets to say that they had had enough, that they could take charge of their own lives and do something. They want to be treated as equals.

That movement would not have existed if the Conservatives had been respectful of aboriginal communities and open in that relationship. Idle No More showed that aboriginal people do not trust the government anymore, that they are tired of hearing promises year after year and never seeing action. That is the message that needs to be repeated and understood.

We need to stop acting like children. In our country's history, the aboriginal people were here first, and they did not cede their lands or their rights. We come here and are constantly forcing bills on them. We do not listen to them. We do not try to include them. Then we ask them to trust us, despite the fact that they have never had access to everything they have been entitled to for years.

First nations communities live in poverty, and this government is asking them to trust it. It does not consult them, but it knows what is good for them, even though no Conservative has ever set foot in an aboriginal community, as far as I know.

It has been years since aboriginal people have seen a government representative, yet they are told that the government knows what is good for them. That is bullshit. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw that word.

The government needs to get out, go see them and talk to them. It is not complicated.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend our colleague for her speech and the passion she brings to the debate on this bill.

As you pointed out, it is almost midnight and tempers are flaring a bit. All the passion and energy she invested in her speech seem to be reflected in her last words.

My question concerns the settlement of appeals by the courts. This is still a very long and cumbersome process, which forces first nations to grapple with a justice system that knows very little about aboriginal cultural and political traditions.

Some witnesses called for the creation of an independent court for first nations, similar to those in place at the federal and provincial levels in Canada.

What can our colleague tell us about that?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be worthwhile to listen to them. If they believe that this measure could help them, it would be wise to consider it.

In any case, it is obvious that the current appeal process does not work, especially with a two-year election cycle. By the time the appeal is settled, it is time for another election. Again, this is basic. They must be consulted. If this is the general will and it can be implemented, it is worthwhile to create something that really fits their needs. This is basic.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to point out to the House that this will be this government's 44th time allocation motion.

Since May 27, just over two weeks now, the Conservatives have moved 12 time allocation motions. Each time allocation motion costs us about one hour of debate on the bill in the House, when we ask questions to the minister and vote. This means we have lost 12 hours as a result of the stubborn approach taken by this government, which refuses to work with the opposition. We only got a few minutes, on a Wednesday night, around midnight, to talk about this bill. Only two people were able to speak.

How can the government justify imposing a time allocation motion on this bill? This is unfortunately yet another example of their undemocratic attitude.

I am pleased to speak to Bill S-6 regarding the election and terms of office for chiefs and councils of certain first nations, as well as the composition of their respective councils.

Aboriginal issues deserve special attention and concerted action. Parliamentarians in the House must work with everyone involved to develop long-term solutions for these communities. That was unfortunately not done with this bill.

In recent years, hundreds of aboriginal women have gone missing or have been murdered, yet no public inquiries have been conducted. The unemployment rate in many of these communities remains twice as high as in the general population, yet we have not seen any plans put forward. Many social problems and infrastructure deficiencies remain, but the government is not addressing the situation.

That is the reality for many aboriginal peoples, and the Conservatives will certainly not solve these problems by imposing their unilateral vision. They will also not achieve this by adopting a confrontational attitude or by forcing the communities to accept their vision. We must work with first nations to come to a consensus that will bring about sustainable solutions.

In a letter to Gerry St. Germain, the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, Chief Nepinak accused the government of acting in bad faith and ignoring the discussions it had with first nations and the promises it made to them and instead unilaterally imposing legislation containing many unacceptable provisions. He said that the government basically included only one of the first nations recommendations and rejected all the others.

If we want to find sustainable solutions for first nations, we must conduct consultations and, most importantly, we must take into account what was said when it comes time to implement policies. It is simply irresponsible to reject out of hand the suggestions made by the most important stakeholders in the process.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could I ask you to call the members to order?

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is getting noisy in here. We have only about five minutes to go. If members want to carry on conversations above a whisper, please take them outside the chamber.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is simply irresponsible to reject out of hand the suggestions made by the most important stakeholders in the process.

Bill S-6 contains several measures related to the election process. First, the government plans to impose an election cycle of longer than two years on aboriginal communities. Then, the government could potentially establish a common election day.

What is more, the bill grants the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs new powers to compel first nations that are holding elections to comply with the new regime. The primary consequence of giving the minister this new power is to once again limit the autonomy of the first nations.

A new elections appeal process will be implemented that will be dealt with by the courts rather than by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. In this regard, we would like to point out that the time it will take for the courts to deal with these appeals could impede the activities of some communities.

Finally, Bill S-6 contains penalties for failing to comply with the election rules. Once again, the government has decided to penalize aboriginal communities rather than partnering with them.

The NDP believes that this piece of legislation does not address the real concerns of aboriginal communities and fails to tackle the various problems they struggle with.

Bill S-6 does not amend the Indian Act and does not directly address the various problems associated with this legislation. The resulting shortcomings will undermine the proposed solution and ensure it cannot mitigate existing problems.

Bill S-6 also provides for limited self-government for aboriginal communities by allowing the minister to determine the future of a band without consultation, without co-operation and without any actual long-term perspective. We believe that undermining the autonomy of first nations will do nothing to resolve the current situation or to help find solutions for the future.

According to Jody Wilson-Raybould, British Columbia regional chief:

These provisions essentially give the minister the ability to impose core governance rules on a First Nation, which...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.

Jody Wilson-Raybould expressed one of our primary concerns regarding allowing aboriginal communities to maintain their autonomy.

Bill S-6 is the result of consultations. The real problem is that Canadian authorities did not take the recommendations into account. The first nations participated in the consultation process. They made suggestions and showed that they were open-minded. Unfortunately, yet again, the government did not listen to them and refused to amend the bill to address the demands of aboriginal peoples.

We are urging the government to stop ignoring these demands and to listen to what the first nations want.

Grand Chief Derek Nepinak, from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, said that this proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC and that it appears to be an attempt by the minster to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the first nations electoral processes that are set out in the Indian Act or custom code. He said he hopes 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.

In conclusion, aboriginal issues are far too important for not putting in place mechanisms to resolve disputes and problems effectively. Canada must engage in a real consultation process so it can work closely with first nations to address the problems affecting their communities. Imposing a solution selected by the minister will not achieve that goal and, on the contrary, could add fuel to the fire.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for her comments, although I am a little confused about some of the things she said.

I am going to ask a couple of simple questions, and hopefully she can give me some simple answers.

First and foremost, the member talked about the importance of providing aboriginal people with some opportunities.

The opportunity that this act provides for aboriginal people is the opportunity for economic development, because when we are talking about economic development, ensuring that aboriginal people can come together and produce ideas that lead to job creation, which leads to economic growth for them, is important.

Only through elections that allow for them to work together for longer periods of time is that possible. That is why Manitoba chiefs came together and asked that there be a change.

The member went on and on about Manitoba, and how Manitoba chiefs did not want this measure. I would like the member to name at least three chiefs she has consulted with in Manitoba. I was the aboriginal affairs parliamentary secretary when this all started with the Manitoba chiefs, and I have met with dozens of them who agree that this is in fact a step forward that they would like to see.

I would like the member to name just three Manitoba chiefs she has consulted with.