OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 034 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, December 10, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 10, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 034 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 034 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 034 (Version officielle) 147 034 10 12 2013 2013/12/10 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ Translation ] Canadian Human Rights Act Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) Bill C-564. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-564,

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (time limit) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to introduce a private member's bill that would extend the time limit for filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission from one year to two years. In addition, my bill clarifies the circumstances in which the commission can consider a complaint regarding an incident that happened outside that limitation period.

The Canadian Human Rights Act is modelled on the simple, indisputable principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, family status or disability.

That is a well-established principle in Canadian society, and so much the better. However, there is always room for improvement. We need to remain vigilant in defending those rights. My bill is a modest attempt at improving the current law by giving Canadians who are suffering the consequences of a human rights violation a bit more time to have their voices heard. [ English ] I close by noting that today the United Nations celebrates the 65th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] National Capital Act Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) Bill C-565. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-565,

An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park) and to make a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act . She said: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce a new version of my bill concerning Gatineau Park, which I originally introduced in November 2012. I wish to thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for seconding this new version. The version I am presenting here today includes the changes to the National Capital Act that resulted from the passing of the government's Bill C-60 a little earlier this year.

Apart from that, this bill is identical to the one I introduced in 2012. It gives Gatineau Park special status in the National Capital Act by establishing the park's boundaries in the act, giving those boundaries parliamentary protection and prohibiting the sale of public lands located within the park. Once again, I invite all of my colleagues from all parties in this House to support my bill at second reading. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ English ] Petitions Criminal Code Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions with hundreds of signatures, brought to Parliament this morning. The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to decriminalize the selling of sexual services, criminalize the purchasing of sexual services and provide support to those who desire to leave prostitution. As members know, our government has focused strongly on the victims of human trafficking, so these are very timely petitions.

Victims of Crime Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to present a petition in support of victims of crime. The signatories, from Toronto, state that a positive legacy must emerge from the loss of so many, including Kempton Howard, an inspiring young man who was dedicated to helping others in my community of Toronto—Danforth. He played a leadership role in working with youth and was murdered in Toronto on December 13, 2003. The 10th anniversary will be only days from now.

The petitioners ask, among a number of things, for a new approach to supporting victims of crime and are calling on the federal government, among other things, to create a meaningful country-wide system of public support for the loved ones of murder victims, as well as the victims of crime themselves.

Dental Mercury Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions regarding mercury, one of the most toxic substances. Mercury used in dentistry may contaminate the environment by the disposal of solid waste products and contaminate air from dental clinics. Burial, cremation and human waste may also contribute mercury to the environment. The petitioners request that the government recognize that the World Health Organization recommends the phasing out of dental amalgam and recognize the work of the intergovernmental negotiating committee.

The petitioners request the government assume leadership in recommending the phase-out of dental mercury and the phase-in of non-mercury alternatives within Canada.

(1010) Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from thousands of Canadians across the country, calling on the government to say that measures must be taken to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure the responsible conservation and management of sharks. They ask the Government of Canada to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fin to Canada.

The Environment Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, as you know, many Canadians are concerned about the link between the environment and human health, so I have two petitions. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to appoint a royal commission on environment and health, with a mandate to examine and make recommendations regarding all aspects of the environmental and health impacts of industrial activity in Canada and the application of the precautionary principle to the regulation of both industrial processes and the production, distribution and availability of consumer goods in Canada.

Victims of Crime Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Toronto—Danforth in rising today to submit a petition to the House in support of victims of crime. Despite police warnings and international treaty obligations, the Conservatives are refusing to enforce simple rules that would help track and curb gun trafficking. Therefore, among other things, they also ask the government to ensure stable, reliable, long-term funding for programs that help divert youth away from the guns and crime and help keep our streets and communities safe. Ms.

Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Toronto—Danforth in submitting a petition on the issue of victims of crime. In my riding of Parkdale—High Park, there have been instances of gangs and crime. A number of citizens of Toronto have signed a petition calling for a meaningful country-wide system of public support for loved ones of murder victims and victims of crime, but also a long overdue, comprehensive anti-smuggling strategy to deal with the issue of guns and drugs coming across our borders.

Parks Canada Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand today and present a petition on behalf of the people of Cape Breton and the broader community, those who have had access to the Bras d'Or lakes, year after year, and the great sailing and marine opportunities in the Bras d'Or lakes. The cuts at Parks Canada have reduced the number of hours that people are allowed access through the St. Peters Canal, which has created a great burden and really limited access to the lakes.

There are hundreds of signatures from people around Nova Scotia, Cape Breton and outside the province who, for years, have used it, and I present this petition on their behalf.

Victims of Crime Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I stand today to deposit a petition in support of victims of crime. I join my colleague from the city of Toronto in saying that a positive legacy must emerge from the loss of so many young people in Toronto and all other cities across the country. I deposit today a petition that is called “Kempton's legacy petition”, where the signatories are calling for a meaningful country-wide system of public support for the loved ones of murder victims.

They want to ensure stable, long-term, reliable funding for programs that help divert youth away from gangs and criminality. The petitioners are also calling for the reversal of the reckless cuts that the Conservative government has made to the CBSA.

[ Translation ] Air Transportation Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition this morning signed by over 800 people from across the Island of Montreal, including people in my riding, in Saint-Laurent and in Ahuntsic. The petitioners are calling on the government to review the flight paths of planes, set a curfew between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. and create positions on the Aéroports de Montréal board of directors to represent community groups.

The Montreal airport needs to understand the impact it is having on the local population, and although Montrealers understand the economic importance of the airport, I believe there is a way to achieve a healthy co-existence.

[ English ] House of Commons Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition signed by many constituents of Winnipeg North who are concerned about the government increasing the size of Parliament, increasing the number of members from 308 to 338, with the support of the NDP. The petitioners are questioning whether or not this is the correct priority, and stating that there are many other things we should be spending tax dollars on.

(1015) Victims of Crime Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I, too, present a petition signed on behalf of many constituents who are seeking to remember Kempton Howard by making sure that the government creates a country-wide system of public support for the loved ones of murder victims, as well as ensuring stable, long-term funding to keep youth away from gangs and crimes, and to reverse the reckless cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency that allows so many guns and drugs to enter our country.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning with two petitions. The first is entirely from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, and from all the islands, Galiano, Pender, Mayne, Saturna, Salt Spring, as well as from the peninsula. The petitioners are calling on this House to take note of the fact that fracking chemicals, used in the fracking industry, are not even known to Environment Canada.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development found that we do not even know what, of the many thousands of chemicals used and injected underground, they are actually are and how we could cope with them as an environmental risk. The petitioners call for a federal moratorium on fracking across Canada. The second petition is from residents in the lower mainland, mostly in Vancouver. The petitioners are calling for a permanent legislative ban on supertankers along the coast of British Columbia. Such a ban was respected since the early 1970s, at all levels, and we ask for it to be permanent.

Victims of Crime Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, like my neighbour the member for Toronto—Danforth , I too am proud to table Kempton's legacy petition in the House. I share in the hope that from this petition might emerge a positive legacy from the deaths of too many youth in my city of Toronto, like Kempton Howard. Kempton's legacy petition calls in part on the Government of Canada to ensure stable, reliable, long-term funding for programs that help divert youth away from gangs and crimes, and help keep our streets and communities safe. Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am presenting a petition in memory of Kempton Howard and other murdered young men, calling for better youth employment programs and a stop to the smuggling of guns into Toronto.

Child Health Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from many Torontonians in support of my children's health and nutrition initiative, which would provide a daily nutritious meal of locally grown food to all school-aged children in Canada under the age of 18. The petitioners note that this will combat childhood obesity, teach children about eating, and also support the local economy and a sustainable environment.

Public Transit Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is calling on the Government of Canada to provide long-term predictable and non-partisan funding for public transit now, as they note that the GTA economy is suffering because of traffic gridlock. It is costing $6 billion a year in lost productivity. The petitioners note that we still do not have a national transit strategy.

Income Tax Deductions for Tradespeople Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many Canadians. It is on the issue of tradespeople travelling to other parts of the country, trying to find work. It is certainly something that happens a lot in the Atlantic provinces. The petition supports Bill C-201 , introduced by my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain .

It allows tradesperons and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so they can secure and maintain employment at a construction site that is more than 80 kilometres from their home, a very important issue. I am happy to affix my signature and table said petition. The Speaker : I see the member for Scarborough—Rouge River rising. Normally it is the practice when a member has already been recognized that we seek the unanimous consent of the House to see if she can present another petition. Does the House give its consent? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 108, 114 and 119 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 108--

Hon. Wayne Easter :

With regard to the Enforcement and Disclosures Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), for the years 2003 to 2013, inclusive, by year: (

a) what is the budget of the Directorate; (

b) how many people work at the Directorate; and (

c) what training does CRA staff receive in the prosecution of cases against overseas tax evaders?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 114--

Hon. Mark Eyking :

With regard to human trafficking in Canada and the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking (NAPCHT): (

a) how many charges have been laid under human trafficking specific offences in the Criminal Code since 2005 and what were they; (

b) how many convictions have there been of human trafficking specific offences in the Criminal Code since 2005 and, in each case, (

i) what was the person convicted of, (ii) what was the sentence, (iii) for a person being convicted of one or more offence, what other offences (if any) in the Criminal Code was the person charged with and convicted of, (iv) what was the sentence for each conviction for offences in the Criminal Code; (

c) was there consultation done with stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups in the development of the government’s NAPCHT and, if yes, (

i) with which stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups, (ii) did the stakeholders, non-governmental organizations or other interest groups make recommendations to the government, (iii) what were these recommendations, broken down by each stakeholder, non-governmental organization or other interest group, (iv) which recommendations did the government incorporate into the NAPCHT, (

v) which recommendations did the government not incorporate into the NAPCHT and why were they not incorporated; (

d) what metrics will the government use to evaluate the effectiveness of the NAPCHT and who developed these metrics; (

e) what are the metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the Human Trafficking Taskforce led by Public Safety Canada and who developed these metrics; (

f) are there reporting mechanisms in place to report on the effectiveness of the NAPCHT and, if yes, (

i) what are these reporting mechanisms, (ii) when is the first report expected, (iii) how often will reports be made, (iv) will these reports be made available to the public and, if not, why not; (

g) are there reporting mechanisms in place to report on the effectiveness of the Human Trafficking Taskforce led by Public Safety Canada and, if yes, (

i) what are these reporting mechanisms, (ii) when is the first report expected, (iii) how often will reports be expected, (iv) will these reports be made available to the public and, if not, why not; (

h) what are the costs of this plan, broken down by year and expense; (

i) how much has been allocated for the last five years and under what authority or authorities; (

j) in what way(

s) does the plan address the needs of victims of trafficking; (

k) what specific funding is dedicated to the victims of trafficking and how is it accessed; (

l) what sentencing models were considered in the creation of human trafficking offences; (

m) which of the models in (

l) is most effective and how is effectiveness measured and/or defined?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 119--

Mr. David McGuinty :

With regard to “tax fairness” measures and changes to tax regulations announced in Budget 2011, in which the government claimed that these changes “will yield $240 million in savings in 2011-2012, rising to about $1.0 billion by 2013-2014”: (

a) what savings has the Canada Revenue Agency realized, by year, as a result of the implementation of these measures; and (

b) which measures yielded these results?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate Agriculture and Agri-Food S. O. 52 The Speaker : The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

(1020) Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that a request for an emergency debate on the mortality of bees might not be something that the House would usually engage itself in, but I want to bring this forward as an emergency debate because Health Canada and others have all noted over the last two years an increasing mortality rate of bees, which is unusually high. Why is that important to Canadians? It is because one third of our food sources are pollenated by insects, primarily by bees. There is not much greater emergency than not eating.

There is a variety of reasons put forward by experts as to why this is happening, but for the last two years it has been happening and it has been a massive kill. The reason I am asking for an emergency debate now is that this is effectively the last time that we will be able to engage in debate for the next six weeks. Over the next period of time, the farmers will be buying their seeds.

They will also be buying pesticides, so if we have a debate in late January, early February, there is not much that Health Canada or the Government of Canada could do because the seedings will be prepared, the pesticides prepared, the farmers will be prepared. Therefore, we will have another crop rotation through 2014, the effect of which is to postpone the ability of the Government of Canada or anyone else for that matter, to do anything about it until 2015. The cumulative effect of this increased kill rate on bees is quite significant to our food chain, Mr.

Speaker, and I would ask you to give serious thought to this being the last opportunity that we in the House have to discuss this issue. I am not proposing solutions. I think this is a complex issue. I think Health Canada at this point is on top of it, but at some point, and I would hope sooner rather than later, we may have to take actions such as the European Union has taken and such as the United States is considering to deal with this issue. That is the basis for an emergency debate tonight, sir, and I hope you will favourably look upon it.

Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for raising this matter. While I have no doubt the importance of it to a great many people, I do not think it rises to meet the threshold for an emergency debate.

Message from the Senate The Speaker : I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-3 ,

an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

Privilege Letter to the Hon. Member for Terrebonne—Blainville Privilege The Speaker : The Chair understands the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will be rising to add comments to the question of privilege raised earlier this week. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : You are quite correct, Mr. Speaker. I do rise today to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville .

The essential facts are that the hon. member sent out a householder, which prompted a critical letter to her, which was sent by one of her constituents. In her presentation, the hon. member cited page 111 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , which advises that the recourse for any member who feels defamed is to go through the courts. She then quoted from page 96 of O'Brien and Bosc, which refers to limits on the freedom of speech protections extended to members.

Let me offer another quotation from page 111 of O'Brien and Bosc: A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member’s ability to fulfil his or her parliamentary responsibilities. In her presentation, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville did not refer to any proceeding in Parliament in respect of which she was obstructed or intimidated.

The very next sentence in O'Brien and Bosc is, therefore, extremely instructive: If, in the Speaker’s view, the Member was not obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties and functions, then a prima facie breach of privilege cannot be found. Given the nature of the complaint, which is that of a letter from a constituent to a member of Parliament, let me quote from some relevant precedence.

Madam Speaker Sauvé, on March 1, 1982, at page 15474 of the Debates ruled that: Parliamentary privilege is based on the need to protect members from any action tending to obstruct, or intimidate them or impair their effectiveness in the discharge of their duties. It is not designed to protect them from criticism, however strong, even when the language used might be excessive. In a later ruling, on October 12, 1983, at page 27945 of the Debates , Madam Speaker Sauvé observed that: If Members engage in public debate outside the House, they enjoy no special protection.

Finally, given that the constituent in question is a member of the other place, it is relevant to refer to page 278 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , 24th edition: Since the two Houses are wholly independent of each other, neither House can punish any breach of privilege or contempt offered to it by a Member or officer of the other. That passage was favourably cited by Mr. Speaker Parent, on November 16, 1999, at page 1288 of the Debates .

In conclusion, it is clearly established that members of Parliament cannot claim privilege to protect them from external criticism, even when it is in response to their own efforts to communicate with their constituents. Being criticized for one's position is just part of the job for any individual who seeks elected office. I can assure the member opposite, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville , that every member in this Parliament, in fact I would argue every member of any parliament in the world, has from time to time been criticized for the positions that he, she or their party takes.

Sometimes that criticism may be extremely harsh. Sometimes that criticism may be hurtful. Quite frankly, sometimes that criticism may be unfair. However, the point is that when we enter the political arena, when we seek elected office, we put ourselves up to the level of criticism experienced by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville . In other words, that is part of the public and political discourse in the political world in which we operate. I have no doubt the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville was offended and was probably hurt by the comments from the member of the other place.

However, if all members in this place raised points of privilege any time they received an unwelcome communication from one of their constituents, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, we would not get much done in this place. In fact, probably every day there would be a member, or members, rising to make such complaints and raise such points of privilege.

(1025) One can simply imagine that our days would be filled with nothing but points of privilege based on angry constituents' letters. Although we may not like them, it is part of our job to accept them, and they are certainly not, in my view, a point of privilege. In short, I would say that a prima facie case of privilege is neither made out in this case nor would it be reasonable, given what could occur after that point. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I had to step out of the House temporarily for a conversation, but I will look at the comments from my friend across the way.

This is an important issue for New Democrats and I would imagine it is an important issue for all members of Parliament. It is territory we have not been in before where members from the Senate, as has been suggested, take a coordinated attack on sitting members of Parliament and the legitimacy that each member of Parliament has to take their place here. This is a significant thing for all of us.

If this is the pattern that our colleagues in the Senate wish to take, questioning the legitimacy and integrity of members of Parliament and their ability to perform their work on behalf of those who elected them to this place, then it is something I would imagine concerns all parliamentarians regardless of political orientation. In this case, the senator in question talked about a coordinated effort, going to the Speaker of the Senate, your equivalent, Mr. Speaker, to talk about how to perform this attack on a sitting member of Parliament.

This should raise even further concern for all of us, again, regardless of political orientation. It seems to me that this is an issue that the government should take seriously and not take a partisan stance. It should take a stance on the legitimacy of the House of Commons to do our work, as opposed to those in the other place, in the Senate, who arrived there only by the grace and favour of a prime minister. I will read the blues of my friend's comments across the way and will seek, if there is an opportunity today or tomorrow, to address some of the points made by my friend.

Government Orders Government Orders First Nations Elections Act Bill C-9. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of 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 , as reported (without amendment) from the committee. (1030) [ English ] Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of 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. While it is not usual for the Chair to provide reasons for the selection of report stage motions, in this case the Chair would like to provide a brief explanation. As is the case with several standing committees considering bills, members who are not members of a caucus represented on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development were invited to participate in the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 .

However, due to an administrative error, these members were not informed of the deadline to submit amendments for the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. [ Translation ] As members know, consistent with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), the Chair would not normally select motions that could have been presented in committee; however, in light of the circumstances in this case, the Chair has decided to select these motions.

That being said, while the Chair certainly appreciates some of the challenges presented to members who are not part of a recognized caucus to follow the work of numerous committees, the Chair would nevertheless strongly urge all members to continue to ensure they are prepared to avail themselves of all opportunities presented to them with respect to committee proceedings on bills. Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 3 have been selected for debate at report stage. They will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

[ English ] Motions in amendment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Motions Nos. 1 and 2 , seconded by the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska , moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-9, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 3 with the following: “(

b) the Minister, having obtained the opinion of a representative sample of electors of that First Nation, is satisfied that the majority of electors of that First Nation believe that a protracted” Motion No. 2 That Bill C-9, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 3 the following: “

(1.1) For greater certainty, the Minister may not add to the

schedule the name of a First Nation that governs its elections according to the custom of the band, unless such an addition has been approved in accordance with prevailing customary practices.” Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) moved: Motion No. 3 Motion No. 3 That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 31 on page 12 the following new clause: “REPORT 41.1 Within one year after the coming into force of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Minister must prepare a report on the implementation of this Act and its effects on elections of band councils and elections on reserves.” Ms.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your earlier explanation as to why it is that the amendments are coming forward at report stage. I appreciate your consideration of the fact that due to a clerical error at committee, we did not receive notice to bring amendments forward at committee. I must say that I am pleased. I have found that the so-called invitations to committees circumvent rights. I am able, at this point, to speak at report stage to what is a very significant flaw in this bill.

As everyone in the House knows, Bill C-9 initially came to us through the Senate as Bill S-6 . It is a first nations elections act. Except for everything I am attempting to amend this morning, it is a good bill. It provides more precision in first nations elections. The bulk of the bill is a result of recommendations that came from first nations themselves, specifically from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, which represents the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy first nations of Atlantic Canada.

Before I move to my amendments, the intent of the good parts of the bill was to provide greater precision, to create set terms, and to provide for those first nations that had already opted in to elections under the terms of the Indian Act. That is worth underlining. The recommendations that came from the first nations themselves were to apply only to those first nations that had themselves already opted in to elections under the Canada Elections Act and not to those many first nations that elect their councils through traditional customs and methods other than under the Indian Act.

In any case, I will set aside the parts of the bill that are acceptable and will focus only on the amendments you have just read before the House of Commons. They both go to correct the mistakes that are found in clause 3 of the bill. Parenthetically, I want to note that today is international Human Rights Day. Today is the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Vienna Declaration, which brought respect for human rights to the entire community of nations. Why is it relevant that we are looking at a first nations elections act? What about that is relevant to the fact that ironically, today is Human Rights Day?

The problem with this bill and the sections I hope to correct is also found in other bills that have come forward from this administration, such as the bill, not yet tabled, on first nations education. It is also found in bills that have been tabled, such as the NWT devolution in Bill C-15 and this bill, Bill C-9 . What they all have in common is a failure to respect the constitutionally enshrined right of first nations to be consulted about changes that impact them directly.

In Bill C-15 , in addition to the NWT devolution, which everyone supports, there are substantial changes to the Mackenzie Valley regulatory systems that are part of first nations agreements and treaties, without consultation with or the consent of first nations. This brings to mind that these changes are actually questionable constitutionally under

section 35 of the Constitution, as interpreted in many Supreme Court decisions. From the Haida case and the Delgamuukw case to the Marshall case, it is clear that first nations in this country are protected under

section 35 of the Constitution. Further, the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility, a constitutionally enshrined obligation, to consult with first nations. In this case, we have something that is, in my view, outrageous. Under paragraphs 3(1)(

b) and (c), there are two ways in which the minister may impose upon first nations, based on his or her own discretion, a different system for elections within the first nation. What could be more critical in touching on the rights of first nations than changing the way a first nation conducts its own internal elections? These two paragraphs that are objectionable state that the minister may add the name of the first nations to the

schedule of first nations that must conduct their elections as under the act. In other words, the bulk of the act is for first nations themselves to opt in and request to be seen under these sections of a new Indian Act procedure found in Bill C-9 .

(1035) These are the two exceptions that are outrageous. Paragraphs 3(1)(

b) and (

c) state that the minister may add the name of a first nation to the

schedule if: (

b) the Minister is satisfied that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of the First Nation; or (

c) the Governor in Council has set aside an election of the Chief and councillors of that First Nation under

section 79 of the Indian Act on a report of the Minister that there was corrupt practice in connection with that election. As the Canadian Bar Association aboriginal law subsection has pointed out, the bill does not provide any guidance as to what the corrupt practice might be or what threshold the minister has for making this change. It is offensive in a couple of ways. One is that it appears to apply to not only those nations that have already opted in to the current version of the Indian Act in their internal elections.

It would apply to those first nations that have explicitly not wanted to operate under the Indian Act and that operate under their tradition and custom. Again, what could be more directly a denial of rights? The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says very clearly, in

article 3: Indigenous people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4 states: Indigenous people, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal or local affairs... These changes in paragraphs 3(1)(

b) and (

c) strike directly at the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and further offend the Canadian Constitution

section 35. I would have wished that these sections had been corrected inside the committee, but I hope that today we may give them fair consideration. What is being proposed in amendment 2, line 9, on page 3 is a proviso to protect those first nations that have been operating under their own customs. The amendment states: For greater certainty, the Minister may not add to the

schedule the name of a First Nation that governs its elections according to the custom of the band, unless such an addition has been approved in accordance with prevailing customary practices. In other words, self-determination is protected within those first nations that have already decided that they will not opt in under the Indian Act. They will preserve that ability, which is enshrined in our Constitution and enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is therefore further protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which today has its 20th anniversary.

I appeal to my colleagues in the House to assess this amendment. It would preserve the right of first nations that are operating their elections under traditional custom to maintain those rights. The second amendment would deal with this quite discretionary notion of protracted leadership disputes. We have seen instances when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, or DIAND, as it was in the past, decides that, for instance, the ministry does not like the way things are going, to use an example, in the first nations of the Algonquin of Barriere Lake. The dispute is real, and the minister ends up taking sides.

That is hardly respect for a first nations' right to self-determination and self-government. In this amendment, I propose that the minister may not take that step unless, having obtained the opinion of a representative sample of electors of that first nation, those within the first nation are satisfied that they need to have the minister take this step. Otherwise, we have made a mockery in Bill C-9 of first nations rights under our constitution.

We will again do so if we fail to change Bill C-15 for the first nations within the Northwest Territories and some that are affected in neighbouring areas of the Yukon, where the first nations in that area have competing land claims issues. The leadership of the Tlicho as well as the Dene and other nations are appealing to have the bill split apart so that we can proceed with NWT devolution without offending first nations rights.

There is a pattern here with this administration of, bit by bit, chipping away at some fundamental rights in this country that are constitutionally enshrined and further protected by international law. With the amendments I am proposing, we could pass Bill C-9 in good conscience. We would know that we had contributed to good governance, fairer elections, and clearer terms. However, to pass it as it is would be an insult to first nations, and this House would be violating our own constitution. (1040) [ Translation ] Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr.

Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her speech. I agree with what she says about accountability, good governance and transparency with regard to this bill. Of course, these are ideas and concepts that we can all agree on. We do not have a problem with the bill so much as the illegitimate way in which the government imposed it on first nations. I would like to ask my colleague if the governments that usually like precedents so much could not have followed the example of the Government of Quebec in 2002.

That was when Premier Bernard Landry of the Parti Québécois signed the peace of the braves with the Cree. Before the government imposed a bill or did anything, there were proper negotiations with the first nations to ensure that the legislation truly came from both nations. The Conservative government could have followed that example and sat down and legitimately negotiated, nation to nation, with the first nations in order to reach an agreement on this bill.

Then we would not be here today talking about the government's paternalistic way of imposing its views and options on the first nations with regard to good governance.

(1045) Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague very much, especially because he helped me this morning by seconding my amendments. The federal government is clearly imposing its own solutions on the first nations in complete violation of the aboriginal rights entrenched in Canada's Constitution. The importance, the very unique situation and the rights of Canada's first nations must be respected. It is true that the other governments have made an honest effort to negotiate on a nation-to-nation basis in the past. That is how to work together respectfully.

I find it truly appalling that we are here this morning, faced with a bill concerning elections for Canada's first nations without consideration or respect for their fundamental rights. Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. I should talk about the magnificent riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, even though it is not as magnificent as mine. She spoke about International Human Rights Day.

I was at the international conference on human rights in Vienna, in order to make the entire world recognize that aboriginal peoples are also peoples, just like all the other peoples on the planet. We have fought that battle for a long time. However, I would like to come back to an issue that I find to be important in this debate on relations with Canada's first peoples. It is an important issue because, at present, we are celebrating the life of the extraordinary Nelson Mandela, who defeated a system that made no sense.

Does my colleague not have the impression that with the Indian Act we are dealing with almost the same system as apartheid in South Africa? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou . I am absolutely astonished to learn that he was at the Vienna conference in the earliest days of recognition of respect for international human rights. It is indeed very ironic that this bill concerning our aboriginal peoples is based to an extent on the apartheid system in South Africa. It is precisely as he said.

This is a serious issue for aboriginal peoples, the first peoples in Canada, and for the Government of Canada. We must find another way to work together. It is clear that we have to reform the Indian Act. The best way of crafting this bill is not obvious, but any changes made to Canada's legislation on aboriginal peoples must prioritize what the first peoples want and need. It is unacceptable to propose such a solution as Bill C-9 , which was imposed on first nations. Relations are based on respect between the two nations. Relations between the federal government and first nations must be based on respect.

(1050) Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also take a few minutes to speak 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 . Like my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, we were not asked to submit amendments to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. That is why the Speaker has given us permission to discuss these amendments at this point, the report stage. Bill C-9 provides an alternative to the regime in the Indian Act governing the election of chiefs and councillors in certain first nations.

As I said earlier when I questioned the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands , the Bloc Québécois of course fully supports the transparency, accountability and better governance that Bill C-9 provides for. The problem does not lie in the bill itself or in the improvements that I just mentioned. The problem is the way in which the government imposed its solutions and opinions on first nations. That is what I am going to try to demonstrate, and I am also going to introduce my amendment in the next few minutes.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the provisions in the bill limiting terms of office for chiefs and councillors to a maximum of four years, stating that the election of a chief or councillor may be contested before a competent court, and setting out offences and penalties. However, we oppose the fact that the Conservative government did not consult the first nations before going ahead with these major changes to the Indian Act. These are unilateral changes. As usual, the government acted paternalistically. When I say the government, I am talking about successive federal governments.

The government paternalistically imposes unilateral changes on the first nations when it should know that we must talk, nation to nation, when working with aboriginal peoples. Everyone agrees that there must be more transparency, not only during elections but also during each elected official's term of office. The government can give us examples of times when band councils or other councils, chiefs, leaders and councillors—as we see in any population—failed to govern appropriately. That is not the issue. First, as the Green Party member said earlier, this bill originated in the Senate.

However, before introducing this bill, the government should have done what the Government of Quebec did in 2002, which I will talk about in a moment. The government should have sat down and talked, nation to nation, in order to come to an agreement and propose changes. The government would have no doubt received the unanimous support of the House for the bill had the bill first been approved by first nations.

However, we cannot do anything without considering the first nations rights affected by this bill, the direct impact this bill will have on the structures in the communities themselves and how that can affect the communities. The first nations are not opposed to the changes proposed by the federal government. They want to be consulted and be involved in the decisions that will have a direct impact on them. That is a dialogue as opposed to a monologue. We are asking the Conservative government to sit down and have a dialogue, negotiate, come to an agreement with the first nations.

We do not want it to have a dialogue of the deaf or a monologue in which it tells the first nations what is good for them. This goes back to what I was saying earlier when I described the attitudes of federal governments since the very beginning. They have shown a paternalistic attitude towards the first nations. I used the example of the peace of the braves, and I want to come back to that. This was a historic agreement signed in 2002 by the Cree and the Government of Quebec, led at the time by Bernard Landry, the leader of the Parti Québécois. The peace of the braves is a good example.

There were some economic improvements for many peoples, but there are still many problems. I am not saying it is a good example because everything was fixed. It is a good example of how negotiation can lead to a formal agreement, so that the people and communities involved agree with the changes being proposed and carried out. The Quebec National Assembly recognized the first nations as nations, and the peace of the braves is an agreement between nations, as Bernard Landry pointed out when he was interviewed by a journalist who was reporting on what had become of the peace of the braves several years later.

(1055) I would like to remind the hon. members that Quebec made a commitment to involve the Cree in northern development and give them $4.5 billion over 50 years. In exchange, the Cree put an end to certain land claims. A few months later, Quebec signed the Sanarrutik agreement with the Inuit, which is designed to accelerate economic and community growth in Quebec's far north. The peace of the braves and the agreement signed between Ottawa and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee in 2008 brought prosperity to Quebec's Cree. The 16,000 aboriginal people of James Bay now have some of the highest levels of disposable personal income in Quebec, according to a 2011

article in La Presse . However, as I said, things are far from perfect. There are still health problems and a housing shortage. There is still an unequal distribution of wealth, despite the fact that some people are better off. Right now, 92% of Cree youth interrupt their schooling before earning their diploma or some sort of certification. As I said, the agreement was not a cure-all, but it is a good example of negotiation. That is the point I wanted to make about the peace of the braves.

I do not understand why governments that, generally speaking, like precedents so much could not have used that 2002 agreement as a precedent to create a bill that is endorsed by the affected first nations. Now, I want to talk about the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, which long ago developed a consultation protocol that the government is supposed to follow when drafting bills or taking action that affects first nations in Quebec and Labrador. This protocol includes the duty to consult and accommodate first nations before taking actions that could have a negative impact on their interests.

Such actions include the modification or adoption of legislation, policy-making, planning processes, the modification or adoption of resource allocation regimes and the approval of specific projects or resource allocations. A consultation and accommodation report must be prepared. The protocol also includes the duty to conduct consultation and accommodation follow-up. What is more, as provided in the consultation plan, provision must be made for the establishment, funding and operation of mechanisms for follow-up, mitigation measures and compliance monitoring with respect to the contemplated action.

The first nations have therefore already set out a procedure that should be followed by the other levels of government, including the federal government. It is really unfortunate that the government decided to bypass the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador's consultation protocol. We hope that the implementation of this bill is not harmful to first nations communities. Members of the House agree that the Assembly of First Nations' protocol was not followed and that the bill will be passed because the government has a majority.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing to amend the bill in order to, at the very least, respect the second part of the protocol, which involves assessing the bill's impact on first nations communities. We are therefore proposing the following amendment to clause 41.1: Within one year after the coming into force of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Minister must prepare a report on the implementation of this Act and its effects on elections of band councils and elections on reserves. I would like to once again speak about precedents.

People might ask why we are proposing this when such a measure has never been implemented before. However, this type of measure has been implemented before in Bill C-21 , which pertained to the repeal of

section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and affected first nations. At the time, the government had a minority. The opposition required that the changes be reviewed every five years and the bill was passed by a majority vote. A precedent therefore exists. In closing, we would have also liked to introduce funding and mitigation measures, but unfortunately, they would have been deemed inadmissible. However, we would like to take this opportunity to urge the government to implement those sorts of measures.

(1100) Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I also appreciate the fact that he talked about the peace of the braves model, since I personally took

part in those negotiations. I am glad that model is being used as an example, not only for the rest of the country, but for the rest of the world. My question has to do with that model. I know that the relationship between aboriginal peoples and this government is completely broken. Last year, after the January meeting, we were promised a new era of improved relations between this government and first nations. That is not the case today.

I wonder if the hon. member can tell us what is stopping Quebec from using the peace of the braves agreement as a model in its dealings with the other aboriginal peoples in the province, for example. Why not move in the same direction with the Innu, who still do not have an agreement, with the Atikamekw, who still do not have an agreement, and with the Algonquins, who still do not have an agreement like the peace of the braves or the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement? What is stopping Quebec from doing the same thing with those nations? Mr. André Bellavance : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. Indeed, we would certainly never try to give him a lesson on these kinds of negotiations. My colleague's question is really one for the Government of Quebec to answer. He is well positioned to go and meet with Quebec's Minister of Aboriginal Affairs or even the Quebec premier and speak with them about solutions that he has probably already come up with. In the case of the Government of Quebec, first nations have been recognized as peoples since René Lévesque. I think these negotiations need to take place.

We would say the same thing to the federal government, the Quebec government and the governments of all the provinces and territories. To answer the hon. member's question, or the allusion he made about the federal government keeping its hands in its pockets and not keeping its promises, I would say that the Conservative government is unfortunately shopping for votes. The government selects clients to please in order to ensure that come election time, there are enough people in the ridings to elect Conservative members. I think the first nations are not a clientele worth pursuing to the Conservative government.

This is a government that uses marketing and determines how to operate based on the votes it can get. I get the impression that the Conservative government has made a purely political calculation and thinks that it does not need aboriginal peoples in order to win the election. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague means about the Conservatives' current political strategy, that it is based solely on marketing.

However, I find it hard to imagine that a federal government would ignore its constitutional obligations to hold serious and essential consultations on Bill C-9 . No effort was made to hold such consultations. Why does my colleague think that the Conservative government does not feel it is necessary to comply with the Constitution Act? Mr. André Bellavance : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. It is always hard to put ourselves in the government's shoes, when we do not think or operate the same way. We can only imagine or assume what they were thinking.

This government has no regard for the Constitution or even democracy and has not had any since being elected in 2006. Things became even worse when it won a majority in 2011. As I was saying, aboriginal, first nations “clients” are not worth sitting down with properly, in accordance with the Constitution, as my colleague said. With or without the Constitution, the government must sit down with the first nations to make the necessary changes with respect to transparency, good governance and accountability, but also to ensure that this is a real agreement signed between the two peoples.

That is what should have been done. Why did the Conservatives not do that? We are constantly asking them that. They have done the same thing in many other cases, such as the appointment of Supreme Court justices. There is a whole slew of cases where there is no respect for the Constitution, the Quebec people, first nations or Canadians in general. They might negotiate a little more, but only when there is something in it for them and it can win them votes. Otherwise, it is my way or no way. (1105) [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay. An hon. member: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 2 defeated. (Motions Nos. 1 and 2 negatived) [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay. Some hon. members: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion defeated. (Motion No. 3 negatived) (1110) [ English ] Hon. John Duncan (for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) Motion for concurrence moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage without amendment.

The Deputy Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed of the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. An hon. member: On division. The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. (Motion agreed to) The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Monday, December 9, 2013, the House will now proceed to the third reading stage of this bill. Hon. John Duncan (for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) moved that 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 , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-9. Third reading

Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to support Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act . As with everything we do as a government, this bill is about delivering results for Canadians and addressing the priorities of Canadians. That most certainly includes the priorities of first nations citizens of this country, who are currently living under the outdated and discriminatory Indian Act.

As the matters this bill addresses are a priority for first nations, this bill is about empowering first nations across Canada to take charge of their own destinies. In fact, it may easily be said that this is not a government bill, but a first nations bill. The government did not go to first nations with a proposal; first nations came to the government with one. They said, “Here is a serious problem and here is how the government can help us solve it.” Bill C-9 before us today is not the result of the government consulting with first nations; it is the result of first nations consulting with first nations.

I should add that our government was proud to provide the support and coordination that helped first nations engage with each other on a national basis. As the hon. member for St. Paul's stated at a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development: We think this is an excellent example of bottom-up legislation. I could not agree more with the Liberal member.

In that regard, I must recognize the initiative and determination of two first nations organizations that have played a pivotal role in bringing us to this day and giving us the opportunity to provide a legislative framework that is indisputably better than what first nations have been saddled with for decades. This is not simply duplicate legislation to the Indian Act, but an effective, accountable, and responsible option for first nations communities.

It was over five years ago that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, led by then Grand Chief Ron Evans, and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, with the support of our government, began the efforts that ultimately resulted in the bill that is before us today. They saw the need for electoral reform. They had good ideas for improvement. They consulted with the leaders of their local communities and with the people who live in those communities. Half a country apart, they found a remarkable similarity of opinion emerging from these consultations.

The quality and scope of these consultations and the close parallels to be drawn between their recommendations encouraged the government to ask the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs to lead a national consultation process. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs covered the west and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs handled the east. The consultations included not only chiefs and band councils; from the beginning, they recognized the importance of including individual grassroots band members across Canada.

Both organizations gave the consultations a prominent place on their websites. They published their recommendations and explained what they meant and what they intended to achieve. A simple feedback form enabled and encouraged individuals to provide their thoughts and opinions on the initiatives being proposed. I would point out that this feedback carried considerable weight with the government in developing this bill.

As a result, in supporting Bill C-9 , we have the opportunity to endorse not only its contents, but the truly inclusive and collaborative process that led to its creation, an example of how first nations people, their leaders, their representative organizations, and the federal government can work collaboratively to find solutions and achieve a common goal. It is difficult to imagine a more laudable goal than ensuring that all first nations citizens have the opportunity to participate in free and fair elections.

However, the fact is that for many first nations governed by the outdated and archaic Indian Act, the most basic premise of democratic government does not exist. The failures of the Indian Act with respect to elections are well known and long-standing, dating back to the early 1950s. Even before the development of the bill before us today, more than 75 first nations communities decided to take matters into their own hands and move out of the Indian Act to design and implement their own community election codes.

(1115) Adoption of the proposed electoral system described in the bill is voluntary. The bill is intended to provide an option for first nations that may not have the capacity to develop their own community election code or that simply want a turnkey and accountable election code that they can opt into. Let us consider some of the shortcomings the bill would address. The Indian Act, for example, specifies the chief and band councillors are elected on a two-year term. This is hardly conducive to the design and execution of the long-term strategies needed to achieve key priorities.

It also means that first nation communities are in almost constant election mode. By the time a first nation council has been elected, sworn in, got a handle on its responsibilities and started the actual process of governing, it is time to start campaigning for the next election. Bill C-9 would enable first nation communities to fix that by implementing four-year terms for elected officials, bringing them into line with what is the norm for most other jurisdictions in Canada and allow time to not only learn the job but time to actually do the job.

In addition, the bill would enable different first nations to hold their elections on the same day, a common election day. This innovative idea came directly from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and it is a good one. With terms of office beginning and ending at the same time, common election days would make it easier for groups of first nations to collaborate and present a common front in business development endeavours and other shared priorities.

Longer terms in office and the potential to set common election dates are important improvements, but any elected official's term is too long if the legitimacy of the electoral process is in question. This is perhaps the most damaging impact of the electoral system provided under the Indian Act. The sort of checks and balances that allow most Canadians to take for granted the results of an election as an accurate reflection of the will of the people are virtually non-existent in the Indian Act.

We have all heard of cases of vote buying and other irregularities, irregularities that even if they do not effect the legitimacy of an election can cause it to be perceived as such. There is little in the Indian Act to discourage these practices. They can be carried on with little or no consequences. This not only undermines confidence in government, but leads to paralyzing appeals of election results.

Under the Indian Act, anyone who does not like the way in which an election has turned out can simply appeal the results by providing a sworn affidavit to the minister regardless of the merits or validity of their arguments. In addition, the appeal system under the Indian Act is slow and administratively cumbersome. Many months can go by before a decision is rendered. In the majority of cases the appeals are dismissed, but in the meantime with its legitimacy in question, a first nations government comes to a virtual standstill. Projects and initiatives that can benefit a community may be stalled.

To add insult to injury, the Indian Act includes the paternalistic provision that all appeals are decided by the minister. Similar to the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-9 contains provisions that would minimize the likelihood of corrupt election practices by setting out specific offences and specific penalties for those convicted of committing those offences. Instead of appealing to the minister, an elector would file an appeal in federal or provincial court. These appeals would be addressed by the courts, just as they are for federal, provincial and municipal elections.

This provision would minimize the potential for frivolous appeals and at the same time remove the minister from the process. Local law enforcements could lay charges for corrupt activity in connection with first nations elections and they would have the backing of the courts to impose fines and jail sentences on those convicted.

Again, these are the kinds of protections, which most Canadians take for granted, that help to ensure the electoral processes are accountable, consistent and effective and that help to provide for political stability that is so essential to economic growth, job creation and higher standards of living. The first nations elections act would also encourage greater citizen engagement in the political process by eliminating anomalies and other peculiarities that the Indian Act's lack of clarity has allowed to happen. The nomination process is perhaps the most glaring example.

Under the Indian Act, the same person can run for chief and for council in the same election. Not only can the same person run for both positions, the same person can be elected to and serve in both positions. That would change under Bill C-9 .

(1120) In addition, the Indian Act provides little guidance on other aspects of the nomination process. If he or she wishes, one person can nominate dozens or more candidates for any position. It is not unheard of for a first nations voter to be handed a ballot with more than 100 candidates listed on it, sometimes without the knowledge of those candidates. This hardly encourages citizens' engagement. That too would change under Bill C-9 . The first nations elections act would enable first nations to implement a more stringent nomination process.

First nations could impose a fee of up to $250 to discourage the nomination of candidates who were not interested and were simply running as a lark. Under Bill C-9 , first nations would also have the authority to require all candidates nominated to accept their nomination in writing so the names of people with no desire or interest would not appear on the ballot. Other provisions in the bill would enable the development of regulations to address frequently expressed concerns about the potential for abuse in the distribution of mail-in ballots.

In conclusion, I would point out that neither this provision nor anything else in the bill goes beyond what is the norm for most Canadians. Through the consultations led by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, we have learned that first nations citizens want to have the option to divest themselves of the Indian Act provisions and to a new consistent and accountable system similar to that which is enjoyed by all other Canadians. I would emphasize again that adopting the first nations elections act would not be mandatory for first nations.

Bill C-9 is intended to provide an option for those first nations that are having difficulty with the status quo. They may want a more robust electoral system than what is proposed under the Indian Act, but may not have the capacity to design their own. They may have a community electoral system in place that is not working as well as they had hoped. This is an option and it would be flexible. Many of the provisions themselves would be optional, the nomination fee, for example, so it could be tailored to the specific circumstances of individual communities.

It is an option that first nations themselves have asked us to provide. I am confident all members of the House understand and support the belief that a strong, robust electoral system that assures elections are free and fair encourages citizen engagement and promotes good governance. I would urge all members to compare the option the bill would provide to first nations with the electoral system currently provided for in the Indian Act. The problems allowed by the Indian Act's lack of clarity could be exceptionally damaging. Let me give the words used by Mr.

John Paul, executive director of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs in a recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. He said: —the Indian Act election process is very ruthless. It is not a nice process. It is not pretty, and it's very vicious in terms of how it gets played out in a community. It negatively impacts a lot of people in the community. Too many first nations have been struggling under the kind of electoral system described by Mr. Paul. It is why Mr.

Paul and first nations leaders and individuals across the country came to the government with a plan to give those first nations a better option, the option that Bill C-9 would provide. The bill is the result of a true grassroots movement and it reflects broad and legitimate consensus among the people who want this option. I would argue that our task is as clear as it is simple. We need only to step out of the way.

(1125) Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when I give my speech, I will touch on a number of problems with the bill. However, I have a specific question for the parliamentary secretary with regard to the consultation process. He is absolutely correct that the Assembly of National Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress did carry out a consultation process, but in the briefing that was provided to committee members, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs had a frame that it carried out the consultation under.

It was the fact that it was looking at new election legislation affording a common election date and longer terms of office. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs initially supported going forward, but then when the draft legislation was presented, it contained additional clauses that would impact directly on first nations autonomy. Those included a continuance of the minister's ability to intervene with an election process, the fact that first nations were forced to the courts and a regulatory process that was not inclusive of first nations involvement. My question for the parliamentary secretary is this.

Why did the Conservatives not take that draft legislation back to first nations and then gather input on what they were proposing? Mr. Mark Strahl : Mr. Speaker, the key part of this, which I spoke about numerous times during my speech, is the opt in nature of the legislation. There is nothing in the bill that compels first nations to adopt this mode of election for their first nation. If they prefer to operate under the Indian Act system, that is their right. If they have a custom election code, that is their right.

If first nations do not like what they see in the bill, they are free to continue on the same course they have currently. There is nothing to compel first nations to adopt this new elections act, although we hope many will choose that option. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary and he made numerous references to the outdated, the archaic to the discriminatory Indian Act and I agree entirely with him.

Could we hope that the government is mustering the courage to scrap the Indian Act and to start over with something that is much more responsible from a government point of view and that brings us into 21st century? Mr. Mark Strahl : Mr. Speaker, certainly this government is taking steps where we can to provide options for first nations to get out from under the Indian Act. When we look at things like the First Nations Land Management Act, which removes the land related provisions for first nations who want to opt in, the legislation allows first nations to opt out of the Indian Act election system.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River proposed Bill C-428 , which removes several sections of the Indian Act. As the Prime Minister said during the Crown-First Nations Gathering, simply blowing up the Indian Act would leave too big a hole. We need to work with first nations to systematically dismantle the Indian Act and that is what we are doing here. We are taking the election provisions and giving first nations the option to get out from underneath the paternalistic Indian Act. Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, most of us in the House live in communities where economic prosperity in some respects is taken a bit for granted. Any government has a responsibility to help put together a legislative framework to attract economic prosperity in communities. Bill C-9 is one of those vehicles in which we need to look at in order to help do that. One of the issues we need to look at, which the parliamentary secretary talked extensively about, is the elections act and reformation of it. Could the parliamentary secretary highlight quickly the main benefits he feels are in Bill C-9 . Mr. Mark Strahl : Mr.

Speaker, as we have seen, the two-year terms under the Indian Act election system right now simply do not provide enough time for a first nations chief in councils to propose any consistency in their community to allow them enough time to implement a plan perhaps on which they campaigned. The election cycle is too short.

However, the highlights of the legislation, the benefits for communities that choose to opt in, will include reforming the electoral system, which is too often open to abuse, close loopholes in the nomination process so only folks who want to be on the ballot are actually on it and provide the tools and mechanisms to discourage the abuse of the mail-in ballot system. Right now there are too many loopholes in the Indian Act system. There is too much potential for abuse, and certainly we have seen cases of that abuse.

This legislation for those first nations that opt into it would certainly close those loopholes and provide more certainty for those first nations.

(1130) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's speech carefully to hear when he would explain why in a bill, where I agree with him overall, it was about first nations opting in. Overall, it originally came from the Atlantic Policy Congress and the Assembly of First Nations Chiefs of Manitoba. However, without consultation with those first nations, or any other first nations in Canada, we have these two provisions, which I note that my hon. friend from Vancouver Island North , when he was the minister responsible, said that he would not use these provisions. Why on earth does the bill contain 3(1)(

b) and (c), which states that the minister may at his or her own volition, without consultation, force a first nation to operate under this scheme if it believes the minister comes to the conclusion there is a protractive leadership dispute or if cabinet has set aside an election claiming corrupt practice which is not defined. These are imposition terms that even apply to first nations currently operating under customary practice. I would agree with every word the parliamentary secretary spoke, except that he omitted explaining sections 3(1)(

b) and (c). Mr. Mark Strahl : If I had had more time, Mr. Speaker, I would have been happy to talk about that. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development currently has the power, under the Indian Act, to take a first nation that is operating under custom code elections and put it back into the paternalistic Indian Act system. This is not a new provision. He has that power, currently, to move a first nation from the custom code into the Indian Act system if there is a protracted leadership dispute. The member is right. The former minister from Vancouver Island North is correct.

This is rarely used. This provision to move a first nation from a custom code back to the Indian Act system has been used three times. This is not a new provision. It is used extremely rarely, only when all other options are off the table and when there has been a protracted leadership dispute. This is not a new power, and it is used with extreme reluctance, but when the grassroots people of a first nation are not being served because of a protracted leadership dispute, the minister, under the current system, will act.

This provision would allow him to move a first nation from a custom code into this new, improved act instead of putting it back into the flawed Indian Act system. Bill C-9 would allow for that transparency, that robust electoral process, instead of putting the first nation back into the paternalistic and flawed Indian Act. Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is a good step in the direction of good government on reserve, as the member has already indicated.

We have all heard of electoral abuses during some band elections and their effects on the stability of the affected communities. We are all committed to working to empower first nations communities to become self-governing and to ensure that they experience the economic growth and increased job opportunities that most Canadians have come to expect. With that in mind, an opt-in framework is more suitable than a mandatory one-size-fits-all approach to band government. Would the member please comment as to why? Mr. Mark Strahl : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London North Centre , who is a leading person in this government on the issue of the status of women, ensuring women's equality and that women are protected on reserve. I know that is why she was such a strong proponent of our changes to the matrimonial real property rights of first nations women living on reserve. An opt-in approach is obviously preferred because for too long, too many governments have imposed their systems on first nations. This bill takes a different approach.

It says that only those first nations that wish to participate in this system would opt in. It would be a decision made by the band council. This collaborative approach is the approach that we would like to see going forward in working with first nations, because when first nations buy in and take the initiative, as they would under Bill C-9 , we all benefit.

(1135) Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on behalf of New Democrats. We will be opposing the bill. Before I go into the reasons, I want to start with the parliamentary secretary's last comments about the opt-in provisions, because they are really an important piece of the bill.

The member continues to emphasize this is an opt-in piece of legislation, but he does not speak to the fact that the minister still has the power to force a first nation, whether it is currently under the Indian Act or under custom code election, into the new elections act proposed under Bill C-9 . If the government was truly interested in moving away from a paternalistic approach, it would have moved toward something like a first nations election commission that would have removed that responsibility totally from the minister's hands. The government is not moving away from a paternalistic approach.

It is continuing with it, and that is evident in a number of clauses in this piece of legislation. I am going to touch on those. I want to give a bit of historical perspective. Where we would agree with the government is that the current Indian Act is a paternalistic system. I want to refer to a Senate report dealing with first nations elections, which gives a bit of a historical perspective, and I want to read it into the record. It says: The Indian Act 's restrictive electoral system and imposition of federal control was widely resisted among Indian bands.

Despite Indian opposition to the Indian Act system of elective government, attempts to suppress traditional forms of government continued. For example, in 1880, West Coast potlatches, an important means of affirming leadership and social order, were banned, and, in the 1920s, the Canadian government jailed the traditional leaders of the Haudenosaunee and installed an Indian Act council. The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples illustrated the difficulties experienced by Aboriginal peoples with respect to the imposition of the Indian Act elective system.

The Report concluded that: “for the past 100 years the [Indian] Act has effectively displaced, obscured or forced underground the traditional political structures and associated checks and balances that Aboriginal people developed over the centuries to suit their societies and circumstances”. Thus, the Indian Act electoral regime is rooted in a colonial mentality, and amendments to the Act, from the perspective of First Nations, do not erase colonial control over band elections.

I would argue that this particular piece of legislation, despite the fact that it contains some things that first nations wanted included, continues on that colonial mentality route. In a legislative

summary document, there is more that has been indicated in terms of history. I just want to put on the record other proposals that could have been much more effective. The

summary document indicates that: A key attempt at policy reform was the 1998-2001 Assembly of First Nations/Indian and Northern Affairs Joint Initiative on Policy Development.... The Joint Initiative arose in response to the 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and was intended to provide policy options on key themes: elections, membership, additions to reserves and environment.

With respect to elections, a key proposal was to develop community leadership selection systems and remove the application of the Indian Act as a preliminary measure to re-establishing traditional forms of leadership selection. To accomplish this, the following steps were suggested: community-level development of custom codes; community development of local dispute resolution procedures; the establishment of regional First Nations capacity and advisory bodies.... Then it went on to talk about opt-out provisions and so on.

This very good report from 1998-2001, a very in-depth process, was completely disregarded when it came to developing this piece of legislation. In my question to the parliamentary secretary, I did touch on the stakeholder engagement process, but I want to touch on this aspect again, because it is a key sticking point. Canada did indicate, after a great deal of pressure, its commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At the time the Canadian government finally caved and agreed to support it, it indicated it would take next steps. To date, we have not seen those next steps.

However, one of the clauses in the UN declaration calls for “free, prior and informed consent”. What we heard in testimony at the committee was divisions among first nations about whether this piece of legislation was the way to go. Again, the opt-in clause makes it possible for a first nation that does not demonstrate free, prior and informed consent to this piece of legislation to be forced under this legislation.

(1140) When it comes to stakeholder engagement, the briefing document says with regard to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs: With funds provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (the Department) between January and March 2010, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) held community engagement sessions in the province's Indian Act First Nations to obtain views and comments on the development of new election legislation affording a common election date and a longer term of office. Those are the two key points in that consultation process: a common election date and longer terms of office.

Of course, the proposed legislation contains much more than that, so the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has withdrawn its support for the piece of legislation that is before the House. The Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs was also provided an opportunity. It has continued to support this particular piece of legislation despite some concerns about some of the clauses in it. It wants to go forward with it. However, I would come back to the matter of free, prior and informed consent. I want to turn to the Assembly of First Nations, which I think made a very good intervention.

Its representative said: The AFN supports enacting the full decision-making authority by First Nations governments empowered by their citizens. In choosing and designing mechanisms for the fulfillment of this authority, care needs to be taken that new barriers or new oversight mechanisms are not being created, further vesting control in the office of Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Of course, as I pointed out, in paragraphs 3(1)(

b) and 3(1)(c), that continued ability of the minister to interfere and intervene is still there. There were other mechanisms that could have been brought forward, which I will also touch on in a minute. I want to turn to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the appearance of Grand Chief Derek Nepinak before the committee. He raised specific concerns that other first nations have also raised regarding the legislation before us.

He said: Bill C-9 does not accurately reflect the discussions and decisions made by first nations leadership in Manitoba as it: purports to grant the authority to the Minister to subjugate a First Nation to the act without the consent of the people. ... This authority defeats the objectives of the AMC recommendations ab initio that First Nations retain their right to opt-in. This clause would allow the Minister to subjugate those bands that have previously opted out of the Indian Act to custom election procedures.

This clause would allow the Minister to subjugate bands to the Indian Act who have never been subject to the Act, in violation of their inherent and constitutionally protected rights. “Protracted leadership dispute” is not a defined term and leaves broad discretion to the Minister. The AMC did not make any such recommendation. Once placed in the

schedule considerable obstacles and costs limit the ability of a First Nation from being removed from the

schedule of “participating First Nations.” On that point, I will refer back to clause 3(1)(a), which would allow a band to opt in to the legislation by making a request through a band council resolution. By simple band council resolution, the band could have a first nation participate and opt in. However, if a first nation finds that this piece of legislation does not work for it and wants to opt out, under paragraphs 42(1)(a), 42(1)(b), and 42(1)(c), it is a far more complicated procedure. Under this

section of the proposed act, for a first nation to opt out if it finds it does not work, the community election code has to contain an amending formula. Also, the question of a first nation being removed from the act must be submitted to a community vote in which electors must vote by secret ballot. The minister would only remove a first nation from the act if at least 50% of all eligible electors cast a vote and if a majority of these votes were in favour of the community election code and the removal of that schedule.

The requirement to publish the code would ensure that all members would have the opportunity to read and become acquainted with the election code. It is a simple band council resolution to get in, but it is a complicated process to get out. It comes back to the fact that what the government really wants to do is force people into this proposed piece of legislation and then not let them get out of it if it does not work for them. Grand Chief Nepinak went on to talk about

section 3(b). He said the draft bill also: Purports to grant the authority to the Governor in Council to set aside an election "on a report of the Minister that there was a corrupt election practice in connection with that election.” ... This preserves broad discretion of the Minister to determine that "there was a corrupt practice" methods and criteria not outlined under the proposed legislation. The AMC did not make any such recommendation. Once placed on the

schedule considerable obstacles and costs limit the ability of a First Nation from being removed from the

schedule of “participating First Nations.”

(1145) In subclause 3(1), “protracted leadership” and “corrupt practice” are not defined. That gives the minister a fair bit of authority to determine who he or she will force under this new election act. One of the things that had been asked for by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs was a common election date for the first nations that chose that. Grand Chief Nepinak indicated: ...it does not provide Manitoba first nations with the policy of adopting a common election day and an extended term of office. The bill has a quasi common election day that does not mirror the recommendation of the AMC.

Election dates are found in clauses 5 and 6. Grand Chief Nepinak's written brief to the committee stated: The bill does not achieve a common election day with an extended (four year) term for all Indian Act elections, and does not give options for current Custom Election Bands to opt into a common election day with an extended four year term. The other piece that has caused concern for many first nations is the restriction of the appeal process to external courts.

Grand Chief Nepinak also pointed out: This bill limits appeals to what it calls courts of competent jurisdiction and lists federal or provincial court as the only courts of competent jurisdiction. This bill ignores the rights of First Nations people to develop their [own] legal institutions including a local appeal process. This bill ignores the AMC's request for a local appeal process. This bill requires individuals to finance cost prohibitive legal counsel and go to court for appeal rather than a less expensive and less complex and intimidating and local appeal process.

The requirement that First Nations appeal to federal and provincial courts is associated with a reduction [in] administrative and financial responsibilities of the Minister and constitutes a conflict of interest for the Minister, i.e. the Minister is not without motive to subject First Nations to the new legislation. In the conclusion of the brief Mr. Nepinak presented to the committee, he said: The proposed legislation is simply an addition to the Indian Act, citing the same authority and the same

definitions, granting broad additional powers and discretion to the Minister and his office. The legislation mingles only one recommended change from the AMC and the illusion of another and the resultant product is another piece of federal government owned legislation that perpetuates Canada’s self-proclaimed authority and chips away the rights of First Nations. The fact that the government talks about a consultation process, and that the bill was broadly supported and whatnot, flies in the face of the testimony that was heard in committee.

I want to touch on one of the recommendations that came out of the Senate report, “First Nations Elections: The Choice is Inherently Theirs”. Recommendation 3 states: That the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in collaboration and consultation with the appropriate First Nations and/or Treaty Organizations, take immediate steps to establish a First Nations Electoral and Appeals Commission, operating on a national and/or regional basis, empowered to hear appeals arising from First Nations elections and to promote and strengthen First Nations electoral capacity.

That is a very important recommendation that has come from a number of different bodies. I referred earlier to the JMAC study that was conducted. The Senate held numerous hearings across the country to hear from first nations and their representatives about some proposed changes to the Elections Act. That is explicitly not mentioned in this piece of legislation.

It would be an important avenue to provide community members an appeal process that would perhaps allow for appeals to be heard in their own language, because as far as I know, there are not too many federal or provincial court judges who speak many of the indigenous languages across this country. It would be a process that would respect custom codes and some of the traditions that our first nations communities may have. That is one recommendation that was not included in the bill. I want to touch on the regulatory process for one moment because much of the changes in the act will happen under regulations.

Under the regulatory process, clause 41 states, “The Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to elections, including regulations respecting...”.

(1150) It includes appointments, powers, duties, removal of electoral officers, a requirement that electoral officers be certified, the manner of identifying electors of a participating first nation, the manner in which candidates may be nominated, the imposition by participating first nations of a fee on each candidate, the manner in which voting is to be carried out, the removal from office of a chief or councillor of a participating first nation by means of petition, the holding of by-elections, and “anything else that by this Act is to be prescribed”.

Those are pretty broad powers that are outlined in the regulatory process. Unlike other regulatory processes where there was at least some notion of working with first nations, nothing in Bill C-9 talks about how first nations will be consulted and accommodated with regard to developing the regulations. This is a very important piece. For the benefit of people who may be listening, by and large, most regulatory processes have absolutely no parliamentary oversight, as we have seen in other regulatory processes.

The regulations are posted, there is a period of time where the public can comment, the regulations are modified based on public input, and then they are adopted. Neither parliamentary committees nor Parliament has any oversight on those regulations. With the broad range of activities that would be included in these regulations, it is very important to include in this piece of legislation exactly how first nations will be included in developing these regulations, which will have a direct impact on how elections are conducted in their communities.

Part of the reason why that process needed to be spelled out was that there is a deep and abiding mistrust of how the government conducts consultation, or what it is now calling stakeholder engagement because it knows that stakeholder engagement does not meet the test of what the Supreme Court has laid out for a consultation process.

We only have to look at Bill C-9 to find that the government took a step toward a consultation process by engaging the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Atlantic Policy Congress, but then expanded the scope of the bill to that which was not included in the terms of reference for the consultation process that was conducted by AMC and APC. We also have before us a draft piece of legislation called the first nations education act, which is another example where there is a deep mistrust of the consultation process.

In fact, today there will be a rally on Parliament Hill protesting the government's direction on consultation. At the committee stage, the NDP did propose a couple of amendments that would have improved the bill. We voted against clause 3(1)(

b) and (

c) at the committee stage so that they would be removed, which would remove the ministerial jurisdiction. We also asked for a report back to Parliament because we want parliamentary oversight on the regulations. That proposed amendment, which was voted down in committee, proposed that for any amendments made to the regulations or the

schedule respecting the additions or removals of first nations, orders of the minister respecting the coming into force of any community election codes, names of persons who have been convicted of an offence under the act and penalized accordingly, applications submitted to a competent court regarding the contested election of the chief or council of a participating first nation and any decision made by that court, petitions for the removal of office of the chief or councillor, the minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each house of Parliament on any of the first sitting days after which the House is sitting, and so on.

We did attempt to improve the piece of legislation before us so that at least it would reflect some of the concerns and provide some parliamentary oversight both to the regulatory process and the legislation itself. Based on those facts, we cannot support the bill. If the government wants to claim it is engaging in consultation, it must adhere to the principles around consultation, which means that it must provide the resources and the information. It must listen and then take what it hears and make sure it is reflected in the legislation that comes before the House.

(1155) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very indebted to the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan , and to know that the official opposition, like the Green Party, feels compelled to vote against Bill C-9 , even though it initiated with consultations, as she quite rightly pointed out, on two key points, narrow points, of lengths of terms and timing of elections. We have seen the bill morph, thanks only to paragraphs 3(1)(

b) and (c), into something that shows a disrespect for bottom-up control, and a disrespect for

section 35, the inherent rights of first nations. As the official opposition attempted to do in committee, as I attempted to do earlier this morning at report stage, would the hon. member share with me any insight she has as to why, with such good intentions from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations and the first nations chiefs of Manitoba, we could not just get the changes that the first nations themselves requested so that we could vote for it, instead of having this imposition of ministerial discretion on what should be inherently first nations self-government? Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr.

Speaker, it is puzzling. I believe that it just continues with the approach the current government has consistently taken with regard to first nations, which is lack of recognition around inherent rights, lack of movement on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, continued lack of appropriate consultation. This has clearly been outlined by the Supreme Court. We have seen it in the first nations water bill. We saw it in the matrimonial real property bill. We are now seeing it in the elections bill that is before the House and we are seeing it in the first nations education act.

We could always remain eternally optimistic that during this comment period where first nations, schools, parents and organizations across this country have an opportunity to comment on the first nations education act, that the proposed piece of legislation that is before first nations would substantially change, based on that input, but that is not the track record of the government. Once again, first nations have come to the table in good faith. The AMC, the APC, came to the table in good faith, yet they end up with a piece of legislation that at least the AMC cannot support. Mr.

Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan on her dedicated work on the files for first nations. I am glad she mentioned the proposed national first nations education legislation, because I have in my hands a letter that was sent to me by Chief Ted Roque of the Wahnapitae First Nation. Yesterday, I just happened to be speaking to Walter Naveau, the chief of the Mattagami First Nation. The last time I was on the Whitefish first nation, Steve Miller, who is the chief out there, spoke to me.

Marianna Couchie also had a telephone conversation with me about the education legislation a couple of months ago. It is all the same story over and over again. It is the lack of consultation with the first nations. It is the same thing with the bill, Bill C-9 . It always comes back to lack of consultation. Now the Prime Minister is facing a mini-revolt in his own caucus because of lack of consultation with his own members. Would the hon. member comment on the fact that the Prime Minister never consults, not only with his own members but also with first nations? Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr.

Speaker, the member for Nickel Belt has been working very hard with the opposition arising to the first nations education act. It is just another example of a top-down paternalistic approach, imposing more bureaucracy and reporting on first nations, not listening to the very valid concerns, disregarding the successes that many first nations are having. I just want to point to B.C. and the first nations education act that was passed in B.C. in this House a number of years ago. It is showing some very good results, but that could all be wiped out by this supposed first nations education act.

With regard to consultation, it is very interesting, because I would say that the Conservatives acknowledge that they are not doing consultation because they do not call it consultation anymore. They call it stakeholder engagement. As I mentioned earlier, they know that stakeholder engagement does not meet the test clearly outlined by the Supreme Court in a number of court decisions about the duty to consult, and I might add, the duty to accommodate. They know that it does not fit, so they are clearly not doing the consultation.

(1200) Ms. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan commented a couple of times that the bill does not provide for an independent appeals commission. The fact is that this bill would remove the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development from the elections appeal process altogether. Instead, it would put this power back into the hands of the courts, where qualified, independent judges could hear these appeals. This is how the provincial and federal elections appeal processes are decided.

Is the member suggesting that this is not an improvement from the status quo? Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, what the member is suggesting is that the government actually listened to first nations, who asked for a first nations commission, something like the Elections Canada commission, which would be a place where people could go with concerns. That is what first nations have asked for, not what the government is imposing. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her good presentation on this bill.

For 23 years I was involved in the negotiations that resulted in the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Article 3 of the declaration speaks about the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status. The word “freely” is important in this sentence. Perhaps my colleague could help me understand something about this debate. It is now 2013, and today we are celebrating the life of a very important person in our history, Mr. Mandela, who brought down the apartheid system in South Africa.

It seems that what is being proposed here today, to borrow the parliamentary secretary's words, is the improvement of a system that closely resembles the system that existed in South Africa. Can she explain to me why we are going in that direction instead of letting aboriginal peoples freely determine their political status? [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder : 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. Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : 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 . (1205) [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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.

(1210) 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