Debates of June 11th, 2013

Bill S-6—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad moment. This is the 44th time the government has invoked closure in the House of Commons. It is a record.

We have never had a government in such disgrace and a government so willing to trample on the rights of parliamentarians who have been elected across this country to represent their constituents and to represent Canadians here in the House of Commons.

We have never had a Prime Minister who has shown such profound disrespect in the midst of the greatest scandal we have had in recent memory: repeated scandals in the Senate and payments coming out of the Prime Minister's Office. In the midst of all of this, what the government is trying to do is shut down parliamentary debate. It has been 44 times. It is a sad record of the government's complete lack of respect for Canadians.

This is compounded by the fact that what the government is invoking closure on now are very contentious pieces of legislation on which it did not perform its duty to consult with first nations organizations and aboriginal peoples. This is another bill the government wants to ram through, because it is acutely aware of how embarrassing its record is in regard to first nations. It just wants to force the bill through without debate.

There have been two short speeches on this. That was on Wednesday night, at midnight, a few weeks ago. That is it in terms of any sort of input from members of Parliament on a bill that is this contentious. The government just wants to sweep it all under the carpet. It wants to shut down and put the locks on Parliament and forget about the democratic debate that so many Canadians hold dear.

After 44 times showing disrespect toward Canadians, why does it not start showing respect for Canadians and allow debate to take place in the House of Commons?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, we are moving this motion to expedite a matter that is of great importance and that will bring transformative changes to the way certain first nations choose to carry out their elections.

We all know that the work on this bill started back in 2008 at the request and insistence of first nations. The first nations of the country that conduct elections of their chiefs and councils under the Indian Act have all been engaged and consulted in a major way. As a result, the department and previous ministers have been provided with recommendations, from first nations, upon which this bill has been drafted.

But for this motion, the bill would not be passed, and first nations would suffer the negative consequences of the colonial, paternalistic Indian Act they are under right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague realizes how ridiculous and inconsistent the situation is.

The government says that Canada is doing well compared to other countries, but it moves 44 time allocation motions, or 44 gag orders. It thinks these bills are so urgent and the situation is so bad in the country that these 44 bills have to be passed right away. This makes no sense. It is totally inconsistent.

On one hand, the government tells us that Canada is doing well compared to other countries, and on the other hand it acts as though everything is urgent, as though there is some sort of catastrophe and everything must be passed right now. This makes absolutely no sense.

What is more, the government rises and moves a time allocation motion every time. This shows that it is incapable of governing. Normally, a government would have discussions and negotiate with the opposition to pass bills. The Conservative government is proving incapable of sitting down with the opposition to negotiate within our very own country.

What message does this send to the international community? If the Conservatives cannot even sit down with the opposition to negotiate, what does that mean when they negotiate with other countries? It must be utterly pathetic. They should reconsider their approach. They keep making fools of themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is strange to hear the hon. member compare Canada's parliamentary performance with that of other countries. I encourage the hon. member to think about how other majority governments throughout the world operate. I think she could learn something.

The fact that the government has had to move a 44th time allocation motion is not ridiculous. What is ridiculous is that this shows that, for the 44th time, the opposition party is unable to support a legislative measure proposed by the government. There is something wrong when we cannot rely on our parliamentary system or the discussions that take place in committee to improve bills.

Once the five hours of debate on the bill in question are complete, it will be sent to committee. There, MPs will have ample opportunity to propose amendments.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what the minister just said.

He wants to send the bill to committee so that members can propose amendments. However, after second reading, members are more limited in the amendments they can propose.

The question that I would like to ask the minister deals with procedure. If what the minister just said is true, why did the government not choose to send the bill to committee before second reading?

A period of five extra hours is allotted for debate, as with the motion moved today. No vote is necessary; the bill is automatically sent to committee. The committee would therefore have all the latitude it needs, and the minister seems to want to give the committee that latitude.

In addition, we could have avoided this 44th time allocation motion, which imposes a time limit and a vote and undermines Parliament. We are going to waste another hour—a half-hour of debate and a half-hour to call in the members for the vote.

If the Conservatives were really serious, why did they not choose to send the bill to committee before second reading in order to make the committee's job easier?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill was introduced in the Senate over 18 months ago. Many witnesses appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and representatives from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs clearly indicated that they supported the bill in its current form.

The measure was not imposed on anyone. In fact, it is a concessive law that will empower first nations to choose a new election system, which would be developed by first nations.

If the Liberals and NDP want to oppose first nations' desire to update their election system, they are free to do so. However, we believe that it is time for action.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that it is MPs who are elected by the people, not senators.

What is done there does not count for most people. Canadians will not stand for people wallowing in their tax dollars.

Earlier members were talking about what was ridiculous, and I would like to continue along the same lines. What is truly ridiculous is that 44 gag orders mean 44 30-minute debates and 44 30-minute bells for votes. That is the equivalent of two days lost. The Conservatives tried to make us vote until midnight, until the end of the session, and they gave all kinds of absurd reasons to justify the gag orders, which is completely ridiculous. They spent weeks doing absolutely nothing this spring, while we on this side of the House did all the talking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that Bill S-6 is necessary so that Canada's first nations can have the option of conducting their elections within a legislated system, a system that is robust, modern and similar to electoral systems used by other levels of government in the country. That is what we will accomplish by passing this motion. A standing committee of the House will study the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government has and will continue to work closely with first nation organizations to bring about a real process and improvements that would make the election process work for first nations.

We know that a stronger electoral system would help first nations create the political stability necessary for solid business investments, long-term planning and relationship-building that would lead to increased economic development and prosperity and job creation for first nation communities.

Today, would the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please explain how this legislation is different from the antiquated, archaic election system in the Indian Act, which certainly has not been serving first nation communities?

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

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that the Indian Act is an antiquated, outdated, archaic, paternalistic piece of legislation that dates back to 1867, I believe. It must be replaced with modern legislation.

On this side of the House, we understand that it cannot be replaced overnight. That is why we are taking practical, incremental steps to do just that. Bill S-6, which we are dealing with today, would be just one of those practical solutions.

The bill would offer several key improvements over the current Indian Act election system, including four-year terms of office; the possibility that several first nations could hold their elections on a common day; defined offences and penalties that would allow questionable election activities to be prosecuted; and, finally, the removal of the role and decision-making power of the minister in election appeals.

I know that on that side of the House, the NDP and the Liberals would like to keep the minister intervening with this paternalistic approach to first nations, but we do not agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always regret that the government House leader comes in and tells us that we are going to have time allocation and then leaves whatever minister is responsible for the bill to account for the fact that we have, yet again, a consistent approach of limiting time for debate on bills. As far as I can see, it is the decision not of the hon. minister who is here to answer questions but of the government House leader who is not.

I would once again bemoan the fact that with time allocation having been brought 44 times into this Parliament, we are breaking all historical records. One of the inevitable results of time allocation is that members of Parliament who are not in recognized parties, such as me, as leader of the Green Party, will not have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill S-6 other than through questions and comments.

I ask the hon. minister if he would please prevail upon his colleagues in the Privy Council of this particular Prime Minister to change this anti-democratic trend, which is really going to be the legacy of this particular administration as the most repressive in the history of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my hon. colleague finds solace in the fact that this act, indeed, would be of benefit to first nations.

I understand that many members on the opposite side of the House like to talk. However, on this side of the House, we like to act, and this is about acting. This piece of legislation has been in the works for over eight years. First nation communities under the Indian Act have been fully engaged throughout the country. It is simply time that we passed this bill so that those first nations can get the benefit of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I heard the minister describe the Indian Act as being antiquated, outdated, et cetera, I thought he was talking about the Senate, where this bill originated a year and a half ago. It was debated in this House for a few minutes, at around midnight, last week. Now the minister says that if time allocation is not brought in, it will not be passed.

What is going on is that democracy is being turned on its head. The Senate had this bill a year and a half ago. The unelected Senate, which has no New Democrats and has only appointed people, has debated this bill. It called witnesses, and it heard all about it.

Now, for some reason, all of a sudden, it is urgent that we not have debate on this except for five hours. Is this now becoming routine that this House will effectively be only the rubber stamp for what goes on in the Senate? We are turning democracy on its head here. I hoped that the minister would not want to continue doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the experienced member likes to talk about the Senate and democracy being turned on its head, maybe he could explain to Canadians why his party opposes all efforts made by this government to put democracy back on its head by electing senators at the provincial level.

The member complains about the Senate. Yet, at every step of the way, New Democrats do everything they can to prevent this government from transforming the Senate to an institution with elected members that has the respect of Canadians.

If the member is really concerned about democracy, he should put pressure on his leader, his colleagues and his party to change their position and support Senate reform.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try this again. Earlier, I asked the minister a question, but he did not answer it.

If the government had chosen to send the bill to committee before second reading, we could have used the same number of hours of debate but avoided this confrontation and this situation, which is undermining the role of Parliament. Those are the rules of the House. That would have been far more respectful of the parliamentary process.

Why did the government choose to impose time allocation instead of sending the bill to committee before second reading?

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the member, he is talking about following the rules. Those rules allow the government to move a motion such as the one moved earlier by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

If, despite its openness towards the opposition parties in trying to pass a bill, the government simply faces opposition, it is set out in the rules that the government may, at a given time, act in the best interests of Canadians and first nations. That is the goal of the motion currently before the House.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleagues and the rest of the House, abhor this constant closure of debate.

I have a follow-up question for the hon. minister. He was talking about electing a Senate. I heard the Prime Minister, in response to a question in question period the other day, utter about his party perhaps waffling between their lame reforms, I would say, for the Senate, and abolition.

The Prime Minister himself said abolition, so I wonder if the minister could answer as to whether or not that is now in the plans.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, with the exception of the question from my friend from Ottawa—Vanier, the questions coming from the official opposition have been focused on the abolition of the Senate.

The minister has some important things to say about the piece of legislation that we are supposed to be debating.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully ask you to refocus the debate, for the benefit, I am sure, of the members across the way.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In fact, the questions have been relevant to the motion before us with regard to the Senate, since it is a Senate bill.

The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

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

Mr. Speaker, this important piece of legislation will have serious and significant benefits for first nations whose election system is currently under the Indian Act.

Because of the work that has taken place since 2008, and the full engagement of first nations who have made all of the recommendations that have led to the drafting of the bill, we believe on this side of the House that it is time that first nations received the benefits of their bill.

That is why the motion is before the House, so we can finally pass this piece of legislation and make it law.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for taking the time to be explicit about what the bill is about.

It is only the opposition members who would think that having something started in 2008 and having it resolved in 2013 is pushing it through.

However, I want to get back to what we are here to speak about. It is my understanding that the election of chiefs and councillors can be held in three ways. One of the ways is outlined in the Indian Act, and it falls under the Indian band election regulations. The other way falls under the first nation's own leadership selection process, under what is called “custom election code”. To my understanding, the third way is also pursuant to the community's constitution contained in a self-government agreement.

Some of the background I have is that of the 617 first nations in Canada, 239 hold elections under the Indian Act and the Indian band election regulations, 342 will select their leadership according to their own community or custom election code, and 36 of those are self-government.

Could the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs explain why Bill S-6 is necessary as an additional option by which first nations could hold their elections?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is absolutely right in terms of the current situation.

The Indian Act election system contains several weaknesses that contribute significantly to unstable first nations governments. Among these weaknesses is the two-year term of office. Therefore, a good chief with a good council have a mandate of two years. We know, as legislators, that we cannot engage and execute a program or an initiative within two years; we need more time to execute a plan. However, chiefs and council have difficulties because of that two-year term of office.

There is currently a very loose nomination system. Sometimes there can be as many as a hundred candidates for a post of councillor. The mail-in ballot system is open to abuse. I have received numerous complaints as the minister of the department on this. Additionally, the current Indian Act contains no defined offences and penalties to enforce a rigorous, fair and transparent system, which this bill would achieve.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Conservative minister. Why is his government so incompetent in comparison to all other governments in the history of Canada?

True, the government's toolbox does include the discretion to use time allocation motions, but never in the history of Canada and all the parliaments has a government used a time allocation motion 44 times to silence the opposition. The Conservative member complained and moaned that NDP members opposed his bill and that is why he moved this motion.

However, why were previous Canadian governments, the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals, more competent in terms of getting their bills passed? The current government is apparently too incompetent to get its bills passed, ostensibly for the good of Canadians.

Why did the other governments in Canada's history not need as many time allocation motions as this government?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned competence.

In this regard, I would remind him, along with all my colleagues in the House and all Canadians, that this government's legislative agenda and the actions it took helped the country come out of the recession that took such a devastating toll across the world.

Just last month, about 95,000 new jobs were created in the country. This is the result of the Conservative government's policies. In addition to successfully creating so many jobs for Canadians over this short term, the government has also lowered taxes to a level where a typical small Canadian family consisting of a father, a mother and two children is saving $3,200 per year.

Perhaps $3,200 a year does not seem like much to an opposition member, but to an individual or a small family...

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord on a point of order.