Bill C-33 (Historical)

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment provides for the control by First Nations of their elementary and secondary education systems. It establishes a framework to enable First Nations to exercise that control by administering schools situated on their reserves, by delegating the power to administer schools to a First Nation Education Authority or by entering into a tuition or administration agreement. It also creates a right of access to elementary and secondary education to persons of school age who are ordinarily resident on a reserve, establishes the Joint Council of Education Professionals, sets out the roles and responsibilities of the main participants in First Nations education systems and provides for the necessary funding. Finally, the enactment makes related and consequential amendments to the Indian Act, the Mi’kmaq Education Act and the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act.

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

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

moved that Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to open debate on Bill C-33, the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, and mark what I believe is a pivotal moment in ensuring the future success of first nations children and youth in Canada.

I firmly believe—and I am sure that all members in this House will agree—that every child in this country has a right to a quality education, regardless of where they live. Unfortunately, right now, this is simply not the case for first nations students living on reserve in Canada.

First nations youth represent the fastest growing segment of our population, yet the reality is that graduation rates continue to be significantly lower for first nations students on reserve, compared to other Canadians. It is 38% versus 87% in 2011.

In 2012, 72% of first nations members living off reserve who had completed a high school degree had a job, compared to 47% without a high school diploma. The unemployment rate for Canadians aged 25 to 29 without a high school diploma, the majority of which are first nations, is almost double that of high school graduates, at 16.4% compared to 8.8%.

It is clear, and our government firmly believes, that the current situation is neither acceptable nor sustainable. That is why we have made reforming first nations education a priority. We believe that the time to act is now.

Do not just take it from us. This is a goal we share with first nations parents, teachers, students and communities across the country who have been calling for years for greater control of first nations education. In fact, they have been calling for this for four decades now.

The National Indian Brotherhood, as it was then known, and now known as the Assembly of First Nations, released its landmark paper in 1972, entitled “Indian Control of Indian Education”. It has itself directly informed the development of this legislation. More recent, the call for first nations education legislation has been repeated in years of studies, audits and reports, including: the 2011 June Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada; the Standing Committee Aboriginal Peoples in the Senate 2011 report, entitled “From Crisis to Hope”; and the 2012 report of the National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education for Students on Reserve, “Nurturing the Learning Spirit of First Nation Students”.

Each of these reports exposed the lack of a system for first nations K-12 education. Everywhere in our country, in every province and territory, there is education legislation in place to ensure that students have access to equal education, but this does not exist on first nations reserves.

Each of these reports recommended the development of a legislative framework supported by stable and predictable funding.

I am proud to stand before this House today to say that this proposed legislation, for the first time in our country’s history, will put in place a comprehensive education system for first nations elementary and secondary education on reserve.

I am pleased that, like us, the Assembly of First Nations has placed the needs of children first and confirmed that this bill is a constructive and necessary step forward. However, getting to this point was not an easy road.

Our government launched formal intensive consultations with first nations across the country in December 2012. That work was spearheaded by my colleague, who is now our whip.

The input received from the extensive and intensive consultations that were held with hundreds of first nations leaders, educators, and parents across the country guided the development of the draft legislative proposal that was shared last fall with first nations leaders and made public for further input from all interested parties. That document was a springboard for much more discussion and debate. We listened. In November 2013, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations sent me an open letter that identified, according to him, five conditions for success for education on reserve. These conditions were subsequently endorsed by consensus in a resolution by the Chiefs-in-Assembly at their December 2013 gathering here in Gatineau.

Specifically, the resolution directed the national chief, national executive of the first nations, and first nations to take all necessary steps to press Canada to respond to the conditions required to achieve success for first nations children, including respect and recognition of inherent rights and title, treaty rights, and first nations control of first nations jurisdiction. Second, it called for a statutory guarantee of funding. Third, the first nations education system would be enabled, supported, and funded to design and implement languages and cultures programming. Fourth, it called for mutual accountability, including recognition of the principle of first nations control and supports without unilateral federal oversight. Finally, it called for ongoing meaningful dialogue with first nations on education and co-development of regulations.

Following the special chiefs assembly, I responded with my own open letter where I reaffirmed our government's strong commitment to working with the Assembly of First Nations and first nations leaders to stand together to create a better education system for first nations students and address each of these five conditions in the legislation. That is exactly what we did.

The way forward was subsequently announced by the Prime Minister and the national chief this past February at Kainai High School in Standoff, Alberta and included an historic agreement to proceed with the final drafting and introduction of the first nations control of first nations education act that embodies the five conditions for success identified by the Assembly of First Nations.

In addition, the Prime Minister announced an unprecedented financial commitment of over $1.9 billion in new, incremental funding to support the legislation through three different streams.

One stream is core statutory funding, including funding for language and culture; the second stream is transition funding to support implementation of the new legislative framework; and the third stream is funding for long-term investment in on-reserve school infrastructure.

The first stream includes core funding in the amount of $1.252 billion over three years beginning in 2016-17 on top of the existing funding of approximately $1.55 billion and all of this with an annual escalator of 4.5%. This core funding mechanism would replace the current mix of seven different programs, each with their own reporting requirements, and will move to a single formula-based core fund providing first nations with access to the stable and predictable funding supports that they have been asking for. The 4.5% escalator is important because it replaces the much maligned 2% funding cap on education put in place by the former Liberal government under former finance minister Paul Martin in 1996.

The second stream, the education enhancement fund, would allow first nations to move quickly to become early adopters of the new system and structures set out in the bill. It would also promote partnerships, build capacity, and encourage innovation in education practices in the longer term. This fund would provide $160 million over four years beginning in 2015-16.

Finally, the third stream provides an additional $500 million for school infrastructure over seven years beginning in 2015-16 when budget 2012 investments end. This funding would support the construction of new schools and major innovations to existing schools and help gain efficiencies in the way projects are designed, procured, financed, and constructed.

On April 10, 2014, I was pleased to introduce this legislation in this House. I am proud to report that Bill C-33 not only responds to, but enshrines in law every single one of the five conditions for success that were endorsed by first nations at the special assembly.

First, at the heart of the legislation before us is the recognition that first nations are best placed to know what their children need, and it puts control of first nations education back in the hands of first nations leaders, parents and educators—where it rightfully belongs.

As the Prime Minister stated in February at Stand Off, the legislation will end Ottawa’s unilateral authority over first nations education, while requiring first nations communities and parents to assume responsibility and accountability for the education their children receive.

Specifically, Bill C-33 legally enables first nations control of first nations education in several specific ways. First nations will choose their governance system from a number of options to manage their own schools. First nations will develop their own curriculum. Ottawa will not impose any of the curriculum; first nations will develop it themselves.

First nations will choose how they will incorporate language and culture into their curriculum. They will choose their own education inspectors, control the hiring and firing of teachers and determine how their students will be assessed. First nations will determine how the school calendar will be structured to meet a set number of days. All of that is designed to give them control over their education.

I have heard criticism from certain people who allege that this bill would actually give the minister more power and more control over first nations education. That could not be further from the truth.

Bill C-33 gives the minister less power and it is less intrusive than comparable provincial legislation in the country. The bill simply demands that first nations schools meet five core standards, including access to education, minimum instruction days, the need for certified teachers, recognized degrees or diplomas, and the ability to transition with provincial systems.

These are the five core standards that the act requires be adhered to, but for all other aspects of education, they are free to design it the way they wish. All other standards will be defined by first nations. In fact, the legislation reduces the role of the minister in comparison to the current powers afforded to the minister.

That was to deal with the unilateral oversight of the federal government. The bill would also create a joint council of education professionals. The joint council would provide advice and support to the Government of Canada and to first nations on the implementation of the act. It would also serve as a strong mechanism for ensuring the accountability of the minister to first nations. The creation of this council, coupled with the legislated and funding supports for first nations education authorities, would dramatically reduce the involvement of the minister and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in the administration of education on reserves.

It would also help develop regulations and be obliged by law to review the act in five years. In addition, as I outlined earlier, the proposed legislation would put in place the mechanism required to provide first nations with stable, predictable, and sustainable funding, which includes a statutory funding regime that accounts for language and culture programming.

In fact, clauses 43(2) and (3) exceed the second condition set out by the AFN chiefs by not only setting a statutory guarantee of funding but by taking the unprecedented step of legally requiring that federal funding be sufficient to support comparable service delivery to that offered in the provincial system. We go further than what was proposed as a condition for success.

As for language and culture programming, as I stated in my letter of April 15 to all first nations across the country, Bill C-33 ensures in law the incorporation of first nations language and culture programming in the education curriculum, including the option of immersion in a first nations language in a manner that ensures transferability of students between education systems and allows for students to obtain a recognized diploma.

Clearly, this is a giant step forward for first nations students, and follows years of dialogue and consultations with first nations all over the country and the Assembly of First Nations who identified the need for a better education system for first nations children.

Just last week, the Assembly of First Nations published an analysis of the bill that states:

Bill C-33 is a constructive and necessary step supportive of the goals expressed by First Nations for control, respect for Treaty and Aboriginal rights, recognition of language and culture and a clear statutory guarantee for fair funding.

That is the analysis and the result of the analysis of the Assembly of First Nations.

Let me be clear: the partnership does not end with introduction. As I made clear on April 10, I have extended an invitation to the AFN to work on a political protocol to establish exactly how the members of the joint council would be chosen with meaningful input from first nations and how the joint council would then work with first nations to develop the act's regulations.

Obviously, there is a great deal of work ahead to have regulations in place by the 2016-17 school year and for statutory funding to flow.

In order to do this, we all have to continue to work together.

In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to put partisan politics aside and do what is clearly in the best interests of first nations children and youth across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the minister referred to the five conditions. I want to specifically make reference to the one on meaningful dialogue, which says:

Ensures a meaningfully support process to address these conditions through a commitment to working together through co-development, fully reflective of First Nations rights and jurisdiction.

It goes on to say that Canada must commit to direct dialogue.

I know that there was a letter sent on April 11 to the minister and to the Prime Minister from Vice-Chief Bobby Cameron from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. Part of the basis for the letter is that the trust is broken, and that is not a partisan remark. This is a trust that has been broken over a number of years. What Vice-Chief Bobby Cameron asked for was confirmation that the new legislation will ensure first nations jurisdiction over education. The letter quotes Vice-Chief Cameron:

“We asked the federal government to make a commitment and to confirm in writing, by signing a confirmation letter, that First Nations will have jurisdiction and control over our education systems, and that First Nations will have the authority to design education systems that reflect the Inherent and Treaty Right to Education”, says Vice Chief Cameron.

Given the fact that the minister seems convinced that this is going to give first nations control over first nations education and that he says he honours that commitment to dialogue and a joint process, will he commit to signing that letter as a gesture of good faith that the government will fulfill those conditions?

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

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that if people care to look at the bill before the House, Bill C-33, they will find it is clearly stated not only in the preamble but in section 4 that:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The question by the hon. member is about jurisdiction. There is a following section clearly stating that:

...a First Nation that has the power to make laws with respect to elementary and secondary education under an Act of Parliament or an agreement relating to self-government that is given effect by an Act of Parliament...

is not subjected to this act. Therefore, with regard to the power to make laws in regard to education, there is, as the member knows, another process allowing first nations to self-govern and to attain self-government, and that process remains.

In the meantime, if one cares to look at the bill, it will be seen as an important step allowing first nations to get to that level of self-government where they can then have full jurisdiction over education.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about education as an issue, often we equate it with opportunities.

The minister made reference to the issue of financing. I used to be a critic for education in the Province of Manitoba. A great number of challenges face educators and student bodies, including the issues of curricula and so forth, but one of the greatest challenges is making sure that the resources necessary to provide quality of education are second to no other in terms of performance.

A big challenge has been to try to get the government to recognize that the financial resources need to follow to support an educational infrastructure that would benefit our children and to enable the leadership within the first nations, such as the Assembly of First Nations, to ensure a quality educational product. In other words, Ottawa needs to pony up with some financial resources.

I am wondering if the minister can add further comment as to what he envisions in terms of the financial support that would ultimately follow legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important point. He will remember that throughout the debate and throughout the consultation process, we were hearing from first nations, from teachers, from parents, from stakeholders, and from members of academia. The Auditor General had been clear in her 2011 report that funding had to accompany reform.

We have always indicated as a government that investment would not replace reform, but that funding would accompany reform. That is exactly what we are doing here.

I want to point something out to the hon. member. He will remember that when the Chiefs-in-Assembly got together here in the capital region in December and outlined those five conditions necessary for success, they said that there had to be a statutory guarantee of funding. Bill C-33 indeed includes extensive and unprecedented statutory funding obligations on the part of the minister. In fact, subclauses 43(2) and 43(3) exceed the second condition set out by the AFN by not only setting a statutory guarantee of funding but by also taking the unprecedented step of legally requiring that federal funding be sufficient to support service delivery comparable to that offered in the provincial system.

That is important, because we wanted to make sure that the quality of education that a first nation student gets on reserve in any part of a province is no different from what the non-aboriginal gets in the same region. That guarantee is in the bill now.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister outlined a bit of the unprecedented level of consultation and collaboration with first nations that came with the development of the bill. A draft piece of legislation was discussed last fall, and it was after that draft that we saw the letter from the National Chief and the resolution of the Chiefs-in-Assembly.

I am wondering if the minister can outline for the House some of the differences between the first nations control of first nations education act and that earlier draft.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good and pertinent question. Indeed, we had circulated a draft of what the bill could be, but after the first nations, through the Chiefs-in-Assembly, passed the resolution outlining those five conditions, we had to go back to the table and redo our work.

To ensure that the legislation addresses the issues raised by the Assembly of First Nations through the Chiefs-in-Assembly, the following changes are included in the bill.

First, there is the recognition of the ability and responsibility of first nations to manage their education system. That is now in the bill.

On the question of unilateral oversight of the federal government, the bill proposes the creation of a joint council of education professionals to provide advice and support to the Government of Canada and first nations on the implementation and oversight of the bill. Additionally, the mandate of the joint council would also be to review the act after five years.

In the bill is a commitment to legislate adequate, stable, predictable, and sustainable funding, taking into account the inclusion of language and culture. That is now in the bill, in section 43. There would also be support for the incorporation of language and culture into the curriculum. Again, that is clear in the bill. The bill says that the funding to be provided by the minister must include support for language and culture in the curriculum. That is in the bill.

Finally, the bill includes the collaborative development of the act's regulation. That would be done through the joint council and the first nations. As I indicated, I have offered the AFN the opportunity to conclude a political protocol whereby we can work out the details of how we could best create this joint council to ensure first nations have input in the development of the regulation.

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

Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to take a minute to acknowledge the tragedy that took place today in Nanaimo, where people lost their lives and were shot at the Western Forest Products mill. My condolences on behalf of New Democrats, and I am sure all members of this House, go out to family and friends and to the community, and to the first responders who had to deal with the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-33, an act to establish a framework to enable first nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other acts.

I would like to start by situating the importance of education, both to first nations communities and to this country. I know many first nations community members and leaders have said to me that, of course, they want quality, fair, comparable education for their children; that they want to deliver services that are accountable; and they want their children to succeed, so they can become part of the workforce of the future in Canada. So there is no question that, for all sides of the House and for first nations, our goal collectively is to ensure that first nations children have the same right to education that all other children in this country have.

In that context, I want to refer briefly to the rights of the child, because it is important to put this in the context of rights.

Under article 28, regarding the right to education, all children have the right to a primary education, which should be free.

Under article 29, children's education should develop each child's personality, talents, and abilities to the fullest. It should encourage children to respect others' human rights and their own and other cultures'. Education should aim to develop respect for the values and cultures of their parents.

Another important rights document is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 14 states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.

2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination.

3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.

Article 18 says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

Those two articles are very relevant to the bill before this House today. I know the minister referenced some of these documents.

However, I want to turn to a couple of documents. Of course, first nations education has been on the books for discussion for many years, going back to the 1972 paper on Indian control of Indian education. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples talked about the importance of education and first nations control of education.

Then, in the Auditor General's report in 2011, the Auditor General laid out some criteria for moving an education system forward because, as the Auditor General pointed out, success certainly was not being achieved. The Auditor General said:

To provide true comparability, it would be important to include a clear statement of comparability in program objectives and define comparability on a program-by-program basis. Roles and responsibilities would also need to be specified, as would the level of services required for comparability. In addition, the costs of achieving comparability would have to be determined and programs would have to be adequately funded.

Part of the talk about the legislative base said:

A legislative base for programs specifies respective roles and responsibilities, eligibility, and other program elements. It constitutes an unambiguous commitment by government to deliver those services.

That one in particular is important, because what we see in the piece of legislation that is before us is that there is a lot about defining the roles for first nations, but there is very little about defining the roles for government, and that is absolutely a piece that must be part of any legislative agenda. We must be able to hold the government to account for its successes, but also for its failures.

Finally, the Auditor General stated:

We noted that INAC—

It was then called INAC.

—used a funding formula dating back to the 1980s and lacked information that would enable it to compare costs with those of providing comparable education services....

For any of us who have been dealing with this file for a number of years, when we met with the department to talk about comparable services, we have always been told that it is like comparing apples and oranges. Although this legislation talks about comparable services, there really is no mechanism to talk about what those comparable services are, and I am going to cover that a little more.

I also want to touch on Justice Berger's report. He did a report in Nunavut back in 2005-06. I want to talk about this because of the language element, and although it says “Nunavut”, it is relevant to the piece before us. It states:

There are essentially two methods of effectively producing bilingual graduates in Nunavut. One model is that which is common in many European countries, in which students are taught in both languages, typically the standard languages of European nation-states, from the first year to the last. The second model, perhaps more familiar to Canadians, is the immersion model.... Either model appears to be capable of producing the desired results: students who are not only bilingual but also biliterate—able to read and write at an acceptable level in either language. The difficulty is in the detail: both require a high level of commitment to both languages, together with the resources—skilled teachers, appropriate curriculum materials, and methods for assessment of student progress—in both as well.

The reason I raise that is that much is being made of the fact that language is included in this legislation, and yet nobody has the comfort level that the kinds of resources that are required to make sure that happens are actually going to be available.

I want to turn to a few more points before I go into some of the concerns about the particular piece of legislation.

In a briefing document prepared by the Library of Parliament for members, it indicated that “Indian control” has often meant little more than local administration of federal education programs and policies, and many people who are opposed to this legislation maintain that the legislation before us is little more than administrative in nature. It is not truly first nations control of first nations education; it is just a document that outlines what kind of administrative responsibilities first nations will have. Further on, it speaks of transferring only limited administrative control of education to first nations but not the necessary resources that allow for full implementation of a first nations-controlled education system.

In 1995, the federal government formally recognized the inherent right of aboriginal self-government as an existing right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Under the inherent right of self-government policy, federal recognition of that right is based on the view that aboriginal peoples in Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages, and institutions. Importantly, the policy identified education as a matter falling within the scope of self-government negotiations.

It goes on to talk about two very specific agreements, the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act and the Mi'kmaq Education Act. Of course, there are successes with the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act and the Mi'kmaq Education Act and yet, under this piece of legislation before us, those two agreements, after 2017, would be forced under this piece of legislation. There are grave concerns, because a significant amount of work has already been done in those areas and successes are being achieved.

One of the other documents that has been referenced is “Nurturing the Learning Spirit of First Nation Students”. That particular document laid out a process for making sure we move forward on a successful piece of legislation. The document said:

A strong First Nation Education System would be built upon a solid foundation that encompasses the following:

The co-creation of legislation in the form of a First Nation Education Act that outlines responsibilities for each partner—

There is that “each partner” again, both the government and first nations in the system.

—and recognizes and protects the First Nation child’s right to their culture, language and identity, a quality education, funding of the system, and First Nation control of First Nation education Statutory funding that is needs-based, predictable, sustainable and used specifically for education purposes...

Of course, there was much more in this document, but again, it is important to talk about the fact that a number of reports and human rights conventions laid out the fact that legislation must be co-created. First nations need to be at the table throughout the process in a meaningful way, not in a way that has been developed by the government, which leads me to consultation.

In a brief by Hutchins Legal, the firm said that the duty to consult was not met with regard to how this legislation was developed. It said there are minimum requirements for the consultation process:

In consultation regarding the First Nations Education Act, the federal government must explicitly acknowledge, respect, and accommodate First Nations' jurisdiction over education. Canada must acknowledge and respect First Nations' jurisdiction over education as part of the consultation process.... First Nations ought to determine internally who Canada will consult, and Canada ought to respect their decisions. Canada and First Nations should cooperate in developing a methodology for assessing and addressing submissions made during the consultations before any further consultation sessions are held. All submissions made during the consultation process should be made public.When the draft legislation is produced, the Crown ought to provide written reasons to show that First Nations' concerns raised during consultation were considered and to explain how they impacted on the draft text. Meaningful consultation must continue after the draft legislation is produced and throughout the legislative process. The Crown must provide adequate funding to ensure that First Nations can effectively participate throughout the consultation process.

Those are important points. We are hearing from first nations from coast to coast to coast who do not feel that kind of process has been followed.

Information was provided to me, which was gathered by another individual under an access to information request. It was discovered that in the draft legislation proposal for first nations education, 293 documents were received in response to the access to information. Of those 293 documents, 236 were clearly against the legislation and/or expressed concern regarding consultation, and only 7 were for it. Yet when we see the draft legislation that came out and the legislation that is now before the House, we note that some changes have been made but they are not significant.

If we want to talk about a respectful relationship, if we want to talk about consultation and collaboration, if we want to talk about joint development, then we need to tell first nations that we heard the 236 concerns and this is how they were addressed in this piece of legislation, or this is why they were not addressed. I have not heard from one person who submitted a comment who heard back from the government saying why it was or was not included.

In lining those up and in hearing concerns from across the country, New Democrats did what any responsible parliamentarian would do, and we wrote to the minister. We wrote to the minister before this legislation was debated today at second reading. We told the minister that we all agree that first nations education is important and that New Democrats believe that first nations control over first nations education is not only important but an inherent right.

In that spirit we asked the minister if he would consider referring the bill to committee before second reading because that would allow us to have a much broader look at it and a better ability to amend this legislation that many people feel is flawed. It was really no surprise to most of us that the minister said no, and here we are debating the bill at second reading, which will limit our ability to change it.

I want to turn to some of the concerns that have been raised because it is important that it is just not my voice talking about the concerns. We are hearing from the first nation chiefs and councils and first nation community members who are going to be the ones who will be directly impacted by the legislation.

In my question to the minister, I read into the record the request from Vice Chief Bobby Cameron asking the federal government to confirm in writing its commitment that first nations would have jurisdiction and control over their education system. I want to reiterate that, because when I asked the minister this question, I did not get a commitment that the minister would sign off on the letter that was sent on April 11.

This is an important matter. As I pointed out to the minister, there is a lack of trust between first nations and the government, and that is not just the current government. This has a long, sorry, sad history in Canada of a Colonial approach which says that the government knows best and first nations need to do what they are told.

First nations are saying that they understand their communities. They know what their treaty and inherent rights are. They understand their culture and language. They want to work with the government to develop legislation and they ask the government to truly commit to that co-creation process, but it will not do that.

We have to ask why. I have spoken about this a number of times in the House. What is it that the government thinks it knows best so first nations are not at the table as meaningful partners throughout the entire process?

Consultation does not mean, “what do you think?” Consultation means providing the resources and information, that first nations determine who will sit at the table and that they sit at the table from beginning to end. They do not just say to the government that this is what they think and the government goes behind closed doors and dreams up something without their input on the final product.

The fact that the minister will not commit to that in writing is a concern for first nations.

The First Nations Education Council through the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador had done a detailed brief. I will not have time to go through the whole brief, but it maintains that many of the five conditions that were set out have not been met.

The brief starts off with the first condition, respecting and recognizing inherent rights and aboriginal titled treaty rights, not being met:

—the bill does not in any way recognize the legal jurisdiction of the First Nations, nor does it promote implementation of the policy statement.

In the brief, it goes through the bill in detail, section by section, for example, sections 20, 23, 27 and 47. It says:

The exercise of legal jurisdiction entails the power to pass laws but in this case the power of First Nations is limited to adopting administrative regulations in accordance with the bill.

It highlights throughout this document how many times the bill says “may”, which is a tricky word. The word “may” does not compel a minister to do something. The minister “may” do something. The more important word is that the minister “shall”, but that is absent. Throughout the proposed legislation, we find this time and time again, that the minister “may”.

The minister referenced the joint council and talked about how it would be providing advice, but there is nothing in the act that actually says the minister will follow the advice of the joint council. It will provide advice, but so what?

I want to read from a couple of other news releases because I want to give the flavour. I have already noted Quebec and Labrador and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, UBCIC, says that:

Bill C-33 reflects Canada’s interpretation of control by ensuring that control remains with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs with 'advice' from a Joint Council of Education Professionals leaving First Nations across the country to choose from the menu set by the federal government” stated Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, UBCIC President.

The news release states:

The Bill imposes increased federal supervision, burdensome compliance and enforcement requirements, by imposing unilateral national standards and increased administrative reporting. With this bill, the federal government is plowing ahead with its punitive “take it or leave it, resistance is futile” approach to First Nations where the Minister reigns and remains the supreme authority to appoint third party management or revoke a designation of a First Nation Education Authority.

I think that is pretty clear.

Grand Council Chief Patrick Madahbee stated:

The Minister of Indian Affairs has all the power and authority over First Nations education while taking on no legal responsibility whatsoever—that’s the reality of the kind of control this government is talking about...We asked for an integration of language and culture, but they’re making French and English mandatory with an option of First Nation language, if the Minister approves it....We asked for fair and equitable funding, so they announce vague promises of increased funding after the next federal election with no specifics on how it will be allocated.

Regional Chief Stan Beardy stated:

Bill C-33 continues to take a disciplinary approach rather than a collaborative approach to improving First Nations education. First Nations have much more innovative ideas on how a collaborative approach would serve our students better but once again, we weren’t involved in the direction of a bill that affects our future.

I already mentioned the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador that have done a thorough analysis. This is an important piece because the government asks where the solutions are, but Chief Gilbert Whiteduck said:

Let's be very clear, all our Chiefs, all our teachers and all our specialists have been engaged for decades to ensure our young people get quality educational services to which they are entitled and that the federal Government refuses to provide them. We have proposed repeatedly concrete solutions that the federal Government systematically refuses to listen too. He prefers to impose on us its views...

There are many more than I have time to read into this record. However, I wanted to conclude with an analysis of the first nations control of first nations education by Wab Kinew. He does a detailed analysis on this. He concludes:

Yet in the bill tabled today, the government does not use the words fair or equal. Instead it will fund education of a “quality reasonably comparable” to provincial schools in similar locations and with similar demographics. This is not inspiring language. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of equality, not reasonable comparability.

On that note, the New Democrats will be opposing this bill at second reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I share her thoughts and prayers for the victims of the tragedy in Nanaimo today. I know that is in her area. Certainly our thoughts are with everyone involved in that situation.

I am disappointed that the hon. member and her party are choosing to oppose this legislation.

I noticed throughout her speech she quoted from a lot of individuals, but avoided certainly quoting a fellow British Columbian, the National Chief Shawn Atleo, who has said quite clearly that the first nations control of first nations education act is necessary for first nations students living on reserve, that it is an improvement and that it meets the five conditions that the AFN and the Chiefs-in-Assembly have laid out. Therefore, I wonder why she is avoiding talking about the AFN and its strong support for this direction.

However, I would like to know why she is opposed specifically. The legislation is very clear that it provides first nations with the power to choose their own government options, develop their own curriculum, choose how they will incorporate language and culture into their curriculum, choose their own education inspectors, control the hiring and firing of teachers, determine how their students will be assessed, determine how the school calendar will be structured, et cetera.

That is control of the education system. It is given to first nations for them to finally have control over their education system. I wonder why the NDP opposes that when the AFN and many first nations have been calling for it for decades.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary. I think he is very well aware who will be responsible for delivery of education in first nations communities is not the Assembly of First Nations. Who will be responsible is duly elected people in those communities, the chiefs and councils, and community members will bear the brunt of whatever decisions their chiefs and councils make. Therefore, the treaty holders, the inherent rights holders are the people who are being directly affected by whatever legislation comes before the House.

What is interesting is I talked a little earlier about trust. That comes to the heart of the matter that is before us. That truly is the issue before us. We are hearing from first nations leaders and first nations community members that they do not trust the government. They do not trust it to have their interests at heart.

I earlier asked if the minister would be prepared to sign a letter of commitment and I did not get an answer.

What I think would give people a bigger degree of comfort around this is if there was evidence that this bill was co-created by first nations from coast to coast to coast, that they were at the table from the beginning of the process to the end of the process, that their feedback was heard and reflected back to them in some way, that they had an opportunity to provide input, and that we would have a fulsome debate here and at committee to ensure all of those views would be heard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to talk a great deal about first nation concerns.

One of the things we recognize as a very important issue is that of quality education. I posed the question to the minister in regard to the whole issue of financing. Financial resources is of critical importance moving forward. It is very difficult to provide quality education, if the necessary resources are not available.

I wonder if the member might comment on the degree to which the Government of Canada needs to play a stronger leadership role to ensure that there is adequate financial resources necessary for our children on first nations reserves to be provided the same sort of quality public education that our children have in our cities and municipalities.

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

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, a 2% funding cap has been in place since 1995-96. The population in first nations communities has grown, overall, by approximately 11%.

One does not need to be a mathematical genius to figure out that from 1995-96 to this day and age that first nations schools consistently have been seriously underfunded. We hear horror stories all the time about schools that are falling apart, that are cold, and that they are full of mice and all kinds of things.

If there is roughly an 11% population growth and a funding cap is still being imposed with a 4.5% escalator, then first nations schools will not have an opportunity to catch up to a comparable level with other schools off reserve.

Part of the issue that is raising concerns is, as the First Nations Education Council says, there is no way to affirm that the funding will match the needs or that it will be adequate.

It also does not recognize the fact that schools and the school system are seriously behind off reserve schools. The amount of money needed to play catch-up is not well-defined at this point in time.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's presentation on the bill was very thorough. Overriding, what is most troubling, as the member has pointed out, is the lack of consultation.

To my horror, going through the bill, I am discovering that not only has the government not consulted on the drafting of this bill, but most of the content of this bill is going to be formulated by regulations. The regulation does not provide a requirement to consult with first nations in the promulgation of the regulation under this law, which is supposed to be in the interest of the first nations.

Then, five years after the act is promulgated and the regulations are in place, there will be review, but it is by the joint council which is appointed by the cabinet.

I wonder if the member would like to speak to this. It seems the so-called separation from government control of how first nation education will be run seems to be rife throughout the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the language around the regulations, it says, “After seeking the advice of the Joint Council, the Minister may make any regulations that are necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act...”.

The amount of activity that will be regulated by these regulations is of major concern. Of course, as parliamentarians know, regulations do not come back before the House when they are being developed.

When we come back to one of the five conditions that talked about meaningful co-creation and meaningful involvement, I would argue that the joint council is not the body that represents that meaningful co-creation. The joint council is made up of nine people, four are appointed by the government, four are recommended by first nations, but the minister still gets to do the appointments so the minister still makes the decision, and the minister appoints the chair of the joint council.

The government will have control of the majority of the joint council. That, again, does not fulfill the duty to consult in terms of first nations selecting their own representatives, and they get to determine who should sit on that joint council. This is just one small aspect of how it is a smoke-and-mirrors game about control being within first nations. It is still largely controlled by the minister.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some foreboding to the speaker's discussion on education, because I think she has lost sight of the act as it is today. With some reservation, and when all is said and done, it is a pretty good act.

Let us take a minute to look at education in the provinces compared to education for the first nations. Both educational systems have a minister. The minister has a lot of power in those educational systems. If members doubt that, just check through all of the educational systems of Canada from coast to coast to coast, and they will find that the ministerial position is exceedingly strong.

The minister then has power to work with and suggest what the curriculum should be for students in K-12 programs. The amount of money that goes to those programs is decided by a pupil allowance. Is the money sufficient? For the most part. Can more money be used in education? Always.

When we look at the first nations and say that it is underfunded, the first thing we have to do is say what the reasonable length of funding is, in terms of commitments for two years, three years, or five years. We then have to justify what it is that we are going to do with those monies.

The hon. member has kind of jumped into the middle of the act and not thought about what goes before the act, because all of the time spent—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I am sorry, we have run out of time. I want to give the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan an opportunity to respond to the comments, at least, that are on the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. What I understood the member to say is that he is reaffirming the fact that the minister will maintain control over first nations education.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Democratic Reform; the hon. member for Halifax West, Foreign Investment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Paul's.

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

Mr. Speaker, improving educational attainment for first nations students is one of the most pressing social justice issues in Canada. It is absolutely fundamental in ensuring the equality of opportunity for first nations in Canada.

Shockingly, still only one third of those living on reserve achieve a high school leaving certificate, compared to 78% for other Canadians. All Canadians should see this gap as totally unacceptable. It is quite clear that the status quo is just not good enough. As the House has heard already, the Auditor General of Canada, in 2011, and the government's own 2012 evaluation of on-reserve education both made it clear that education opportunities and results that are comparable to the Canadian population are not being achieved.

Although first nations have made meaningful strides to improve education themselves, a lack of proper resources and systemic structural problems in the first nations education system have severely limited their progress. Fixing those structural problems must be grounded in a process that is first nations-led, and one that recognizes first nations' inherent and treaty rights.

Unfortunately, the approach of the Conservative government has been rooted in unilateralism and paternalism.

It is currently estimated that it will take nearly 30 years to fix this.

All Canadian children have a right to basic education and for first nations it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that access. The unacceptable gaps in educational attainment between first nations people on reserve and the rest of the Canadian population is not only a profound social injustice but represents a huge loss to the Canadian economy. In the economy of the 21st century, access to jobs and even skills training requires a high school and often, post-secondary education. We know youth who graduate high school are twice as likely to find a job as those who do not. Research shows that aboriginal high school graduates have almost the same post-secondary participation rate as non-aboriginal high school graduates.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has identified Canada's labour skills shortage as one of the 10 biggest barriers to Canadian competitiveness and the aboriginal population “a huge potential workforce” that we must support more.

Furthermore, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives has clearly stated that the government needs to improve education and skill levels in the aboriginal population and create more opportunities for aboriginal peoples, to enable them to participate fully in the economy.

The Canadian business community now gets it. It believes engaging the aboriginal population in Canada, the youngest and fastest growing population in the country, is fundamental to dealing with an aging population and the current disconnect between worker skills and labour market needs.

The question is, how do we ensure first nations students have the equality of opportunity they deserve and that first nations communities and the Canadian economy benefit from the huge potential of the current generation of aboriginal young people?

It was 10 years ago that first nations, Inuit, and Métis leadership met across the street with provincial, territorial, and federal ministers to begin the process that ended in October 2005 with the Kelowna Accord. Indigenous leadership chose five areas to focus upon: health, education, housing and infrastructure, economic development, and accountability. They divided into working groups and then developed real strategies: what, by when, and how. The necessary budget was determined and the then-Liberal government booked the money in the fiscal framework. For education, a hard target was determined that within 10 years, first nations students would complete high school at the same rate as the Canadian average. The $1.7 billion was booked over five years with the promise that additional resources would be available to meet that target if needed.

Unfortunately, the Kelowna accord was not honoured by this government. Aboriginal youth paid the price, and Canada is worse off as a result.

Liberals know that simply bringing back the Kelowna Accord a decade later is not possible, but we do believe that the true partnership that led to that breakthrough holds the key to improving current education outcomes for aboriginal peoples. We feel that this was a lost decade in that still only one third of first nations students living on reserve are finishing high school.

How do we fix it? Beyond the need to recognize first nations jurisdiction over their own education, we must develop a comprehensive approach to protect language and culture, a mutual accountability framework and adequate, sustainable, and predictable funding. First nations must also be intimately involved in developing every aspect of education reform, not just in terms of legislation and regulation, but any government policy that impacts on the administration of first nations education.

The national panel on the first nations elementary and secondary education for students on reserve set out the key components of what would be needed to effectively improve on-reserve education, as I was reminded on Monday when I met with the chiefs from Quebec. Among its 2012 recommendations was for the federal government and first nations to “Co-create a Child-Centred First Nation Education Act”.

Instead of working in collaboration with first nations to co-develop this legislation, as the panel recommended, the government released a unilateral one-size-fits-all proposal last fall.

This proposed legislation for first nations education was quickly rejected by first nations and educators from coast to coast to coast.

Building on the work of the national panel and the first nations communities, chiefs from across Canada passed a resolution last December setting out five conditions that must be met for any first nations education reform to be acceptable.

That resolution called for: one, the recognition of first nations jurisdiction respect for treaty and rights; two, a statutory guarantee of funding; three, funding for language and culture; four, reciprocal accountability; and five, ongoing meaningful dialogue.

We now have before us Bill C-33, which is the latest attempt by the Conservative government to restructure the on-reserve education system. The December AFN resolution provides an excellent lens to assess whether the bill will actually deliver what first nations have been working toward for the last 30 years, meaningful control over their own education system.

While some people have suggested that Bill C-33 is a good start, first nations have also expressed many concerns about this bill.

In the model proposed by Bill C-33, the Aboriginal Affairs Department becomes a ministry of education, as well as a national school board, and in some cases, actually operates first nations schools.

While the bill has been renamed the first nations control of first nations education act, the bill itself does little in terms of jurisdiction beyond entrenching the delegation of day-to-day management that has already been government policy for the last 30 years.

Many first nations have told me that they are worried about the fact that the body of the bill does not reflect the title or the conciliatory language of the preamble.

Put simply, the bill fails to expressly recognize first nations jurisdiction over first nations education.

Further, first nations are very concerned that the minister retains extensive powers, arguably more power than he currently has under the Indian Act, to intervene in the administration of first nations schools. These excessive powers of the minister include the ability to effectively oppose third party management on first nations education authorities and even disband responsible education authorities based on broad and ill-defined criteria.

The bill should actually enable the transfer of law-making authority to first nations related to education like sectoral self-government arrangements. We have seen this before regarding land management under the First Nations Land Management Act, or for taxation, financial administration, and public financing under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act. It does not.

Furthermore, the minister's discretionary powers are very broad and, for the most part, unnecessary. Those powers should be limited and, in many cases, eliminated.

There is no question that stable and predictable funding, which was announced, confirmed, in budget 2014, is a step in the right direction. This increased funding is particularly welcome given that as recently as January this year, the then minister was denying that there was a funding gap for students attending school on reserve. However, it is completely unacceptable that the government is delaying money to help close the annual per student funding gap until 2016-17. As a result, first nations students on reserve will have to wait at least another two years before the significant funding gap, compared to their provincial counterparts, will even begin to close. This is patently wrong. First nations students should not have to wait one more day for the equitable funding they deserve. The money should have flowed immediately.

I am hearing across the country that people are very concerned that the language and culture funding cannot be stolen from other areas in terms of core curricular activity. Language and culture is essential to the secure personal cultural identity of first nations students, and it is essential to their actually doing well in educational outcomes, health outcomes, and economic outcomes.

There is also some serious concern across the country about the need for funding for special needs students, which unfortunately are in great numbers in the first nations schools. They want to see that the funding is secure, and again, is not coming out of other core funding needs.

Mutual accountability is also an issue. While the accountability will be an important component of effective education reform, that accountability must not amount to responsibilities being downloaded to first nations without the corresponding authority or resources to fulfill them. It should also not include unnecessarily paternalistic oversight powers, exercised by the minister, in Ottawa. First nations expect a truly reciprocal partnership in terms of the evaluation and oversight of a restructured first nations education system.

Bill C-33 does establish a joint council of educational professionals, and the government points to this body as ensuring mutual accountability and oversight of the new system. However, the joint council, ultimately appointed by the Governor in Council, only advises the minister and is answerable to the minister. It is not mutually accountable. It is not accountable to first nations. It is not even a shared governance entity, as are, for example, the First Nations Financial Management Board and the First Nations Tax Commission, and it has no meaningful statutory power. With the exception of its responsibility for carrying out a review of the act and its associated regulations every five years, there are no other specific functions or powers identified in the bill.

First nations have also expressed serious concerns about the makeup of the joint council.

The bill provides the Governor in Council with the discretion to appoint a minimum of five and a maximum of nine members, on the advice of the minister, and only requires one to be nominated by an entity representing first nations' interests. I do not believe that this is first nations control over first nations education. The phrase “entity representing the interests of First Nations” is not properly defined, and the minister also retains the authority to remove members of the body during their five-year term. The potential imbalance in the composition of this body and the vagueness regarding its powers and responsibility undermines its credibility and falls far short of the mutual accountability that first nations rightly expect.

While I understand that there have been some discussions between the government and the AFN about entering into a political protocol to bring clarity on the function of this body, something so fundamental to the legislation should be in the bill itself. There is a need for more creative machinery of government here. What is needed is a responsible and accountable first nations institution to support responsible and accountable local governance and the delivery of quality education services that are adequately funded. The bill should define the powers and functions of this body and address concerns about the broad discretion of the government to appoint its members, and particularly, we are hearing, the chair.

We believe that the bill should ensure that a majority of the members of the joint council are first nations and should mandate that the chair of the joint council be a first nations nominee. The bill should also include a mechanism to ensure appropriate regional representation on the joint council.

Bill C-33 provides the minister with the regulatory authority to determine the extent of the use of a first nations language as a language of instruction. First nations have questioned why the minister finds it necessary to retain that authority.

Questions have also been raised about its potential impact on immersion programs.

Although the minister has stated that Bill C-33 legally supports “the incorporation of First Nation language and culture programming in the education curriculum, including [the ability to administer] immersion in a First Nation language”, there are serious questions about whether regulations, which are yet to be developed, would actually do this.

In terms of the ongoing dialogue that will be essential for improving first nations educational outcomes, the Conservative government's cynical and unilateral approach to aboriginal issues thus far has badly undermined the trust of first nations. This is extremely problematic for the needed good-faith discussions going forward.

There are numerous sections of the bill that are excessively prescriptive, and given that there is no requirement in the legislation for meaningful consultation on regulations and tight timelines, there are very real concerns about whether first nations will be sufficiently engaged in developing those regulations.

We have listened to many concerns of first nations across the country, and in their opinion, the bill only partially meets the five conditions. Moreover, it would actually create a system that is administratively top heavy, which would put excessive power into the hands of the minister. The bill would essentially make the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the new ministry of first nations education.

Bill C-33 still needs a lot of fundamental work. The bill needs to live up to its title: first nations control of first nations education.

We will continue to work with the government on this, but we believe that, unfortunately, the trust of first nations has been irreparably damaged by the government.

We look forward to a real solution. We will continue to work with first nations and the government on this. This is too important to get wrong.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the requirement for adequate funding. I would point out that in the paper accord that was brought out in the dying days of former Prime Minister Martin's government, the Liberals were proposing a 2% cap on funding. That was included in the so-called Kelowna accord. This legislation would replace it with a 4.5% funding escalator to ensure stable and predictable funding. Under the first nations control of first nations education act, funding for elementary and secondary education would increase by $1.9 billion over five years. That is larger than what was proposed under the Kelowna paper accord.

I am glad to hear that the Liberals are willing to work with the government on this to make a good bill even better. Improvements are always welcome.

Some of the rhetoric that is coming from the hon. member is a bit rich, considering some of the things the Liberals did not do in all the time they had, except on their governmental deathbed, when they saw the light and brought in a paper plan, with no implementation plan attached to it at all.

I am glad to hear that they are willing to work with the government to make a good bill even better. I am pleased to hear that the Assembly of First Nations supports Bill C-33 as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is misinterpreting what the Kelowna accord was. The Kelowna accord took off the 2% cap. The Kelowna accord put in $1.7 billion over five years, with a commitment to renew and to put in as much money as it would take to reach that hard target of first nation students finishing high school at the same rate as the Canadian average. The bill attached to budget 2014 is $1.9 billion over seven years, not $1.7 billion over five years.

This is not a commitment to reach the results we need. If we need more money for culture and education, or language and culture, or special needs, it needs to be there. This is about achieving results. It is not some attempt by the government, before the budget, knowing that the bill was coming forward, to delay the funding for two or three years until it does what needs to be done today, which is to close the gap in the per student per year funding, the same as in the provincial systems.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the bill as well.

Having spent time on the aboriginal affairs committee, I realize the great depth of the problems in education among first nations. There are the capital requirements to restore a decent education system across those vast, rural, remote communities across the country. Coming from the Northwest Territories, I understand the cost of capitalization for building facilities. We are talking about 600 reserves. The capital cost for a new school is between $50 million and $100 million to get a decent school for people on a reserve. With 600 reserves, many schools every year would need to be brought up to a certain standard that would meet Canadian standards.

Does the member see anything in this bill that would guarantee that when first nations are moving to take over the education system, the Government of Canada, which is responsible for the existing condition of facilities on reserves, would upgrade those facilities for those first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, even with the infrastructure needs, which are so extreme, as the member mentioned, we were hoping that the money could have begun to flow in budget 2014.

It is unbelievable. We hope that people will go and visit some of these schools and see the mould, see what is falling down, and see the kinds of needs that are out there. I have been on many reserves where there is nobody in the school, because everyone is sick, because there are 14 people living in one house. Without moving on affordable housing and without moving on all the other infrastructure needs, there is no way we can have these young people being successful.

I encourage the members opposite to visit the first nations in their areas and see the disastrous situations in which these children are being asked to learn. Look at how long it took to get a school in Attawapiskat.

Even in British Columbia, which was this close to getting an accord with the First Nations Education Steering Committee, the government decided at the last minute to put in that it had to do own-source revenue. Many of those first nations are concerned that they do not get that it is the responsibility of the crown to make sure that there is adequate funding for these students to be successful.

As the member noted, it starts with a building and a roof over their heads to do this properly.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Paul's has suggested that under Bill C-33, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would have extraordinary powers, but unfortunately, that statement is not true. In fact, under Bill C-33, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would have less control over first nations education than the provincial ministers would have over provincial education.

Could the member opposite please explain why, if the minister has such excessive powers, the Assembly of First Nations has endorsed Bill C-33, not once but on two different occasions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the members opposite to understand that taking a provincial approach in terms of a provincial minister of education and applying it to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the first nations of this country is totally inappropriate.

What we are asking for in this bill is for first nations to have control over first nations education. Comparing this new federal minister of education with the provincial minister is even more irritating and shows that the government does not get it. This bill would not give first nations control of their education.

Many people feel that the language in this bill is even more prescriptive than in the Indian Act and that the minister is actually taking all kinds of powers for himself. Even the chair of the committee is not a first nations appointee.

This just will not work. The minister thinks that he is the minister of education, and that is where the problem begins and ends.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in actual consultation with first nations across the region that I represent in northern British Columbia, and they are astounded at what they are seeing coming from the Conservative government with respect to education.

One place we can find agreement in this House among all the parties is with regard to the importance of first nations education in terms of achieving the kinds of success that we hope for for all Canadians. We know the statistics. We know the results and the failures that have gone on.

I have a question for my hon. friend across the way. In a number of communities in northern British Columbia and across British Columbia, new programs and new initiatives with greater control from the first nations communities have been under way. These first nations communities have been directing the programming and directing and supporting the types of initiatives that they know will work in their communities. They know best what will work, and they know it much better than the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development here in Ottawa does.

These people are actually on the ground with the students and the families. They know what the challenges are and what the solutions to those challenges might be.

I appreciated many of the comments by for my friend from the Liberal Party. Concerns are being raised, not just by us in the opposition but by first nations education leaders who have read the legislation. They have looked through the act and realize the implications of a consultative body that is appointed by the minister when the minister is not obligated to actually listen to the consultation.

My question is this: if we have had success and if we have started to see initiatives working that are more locally controlled, why, for heaven's sake, would the Conservatives choose this moment in our troubled history with first nations to try to seize more control back to the federal government, rather than support the programs that are working and that by and large have placed control much closer to the communities that are involved?

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more that there are places in the country where educational leaders have been working diligently for decades and have actually been achieving success. That is certainly true in the member's home province of British Columbia.

That should have been a poster child for the government, in terms of what the first nations education steering committee has been able to achieve.

There is no certainty now, in terms of that agreement and the kinds of progress they have made, because all of a sudden there are new criteria in terms of first nations and their own-source revenue negotiation, which makes no sense. Also, those education leaders do not see any certainty in this bill as to whether they will be able to continue in the way that they have in moving the success rate for their students and in being able to go forward.

In northern Ontario and a number of places across this country, people are saying that this bill does not recognize what they are already doing and where they are successful. It is back to “father knows best” yet again, with the minister telling them what they can and cannot do.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to rise and voice my support for Bill C-33, the first nations control of first nations education act.

I have to say I am disappointed that the opposition members have indicated that they will not support this bill. It is an important initiative, and a lot of work has gone into it with first nations, precisely as we have said. We have been working on this legislation with first nations for years. They have been calling for it for decades. As the minister noted, first nations have long called for first nations control of first nations education, dating back as early as a 1972 policy paper on education by the National Indian Brotherhood. It is a principle that has been repeatedly called for in many reports and academic studies since then.

I am proud to be a part of this government, the only government that has heeded these calls for first nations control over first nations education, that has worked with first nations to address their concerns and has moved forward with the introduction of legislation that would, at long last, put an end to the patriarchal and colonial approach to first nations education and would instead put the best interests of first nations children first, respecting that first nations know best how to educate their own children.

Anyone who has read the bill will be able to clearly see that first nations control is at the very core of the bill before us today. However, it has been a long journey to get here. I want to take this opportunity to explain the significance of returning control of first nations education to first nations through force of law. To do so, history must be acknowledged.

The Government of Canada first began to play a role in the development and administration of Indian residential schools in 1874. Throughout this dark chapter in Canadian history, some 150,000 aboriginal children were separated from their families and communities to attend residential schools. While most Indian residential schools ceased to operate by the mid-1970s, the last federally run residential school closed only in the late 1990s.

In 2006, again it was our government and this Prime Minister that announced the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, the largest class action settlement in Canadian history. In 2008, the Prime Minister offered an historic apology to former students of Indian residential schools on behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians. The apology acknowledged that the policy of assimilation was wrong, had caused great harm, and had no place in our country.

The legacy of Indian residential schools is still felt today by aboriginal people across Canada. Our government recognizes this, and that is why we have placed such importance on reconciliation and the renewal of Canada's relationship with aboriginal people. First nations control over first nations education is part of the commitment to closing the door on this chapter and moving forward in reconciliation.

Our government is proud of the deeply collaborative approach that has been taken on this important file, and we are seeing the results. From the outset, our government committed to working with first nations to develop a first nations education act. Consultation and engagement with first nations parents, students, leaders, and educators, as well as the provinces, were integral to the development and drafting of the legislation we are talking about here today.

This critical reform of first nations education is informed by discussions that have taken place for decades, including a series of engagement processes over the last several years. I want to highlight some of the important milestones.

In 2011, our government and the Assembly of First Nations jointly launched a national panel on first nations elementary and secondary education. Over the course of five months, the national panel held seven regional round tables and one national round table. Panel members visited 25 schools and 30 first nations communities across Canada, meeting with key individuals and organizations in each region. In its final report, the national panel described education legislation as a fundamental part of an education system. In the words of the national panel, legislation:

...establishes and protects the rights of the child to a quality education, ensures predictable and sufficient funding, provides the framework for the implementation of education support structures and services, and sets out the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of all partners in the system.

Following the report, our government made a commitment in economic action plan 2012 to put first nation education legislation in place and launched an intensive consultation process in December of 2012.

The consultation process consisted of two stages. First, our government shared a discussion guide with all first nations across Canada. The discussion guide informed first nations of components that could be covered in proposed elementary and secondary education legislation for first nations on reserve. The guide was informed by years of studies, audits, and reports, including the June 2011 status report of the Auditor General of Canada, the 2011 report by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and the 2012 report of the National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education for Students on Reserve.

From January to May of 2013, our government engaged first nation parents, youth, educators, provincial partners, and others with an interest or expertise in education through regional consultation sessions across the country. As well, more than 30 video and teleconferences were held, and opportunities, including email submissions and online surveys, were made available to provide additional input.

Areas of interest and concern raised throughout these consultation activities included first nations control over first nations education, funding, the transition to a legislated system, parental involvement in education, language and culture, and aboriginal and treaty rights.

After considering the findings from the national panel and the feedback received through the consultation process, the government developed an annotated outline of the proposed legislation. The blueprint, called “Developing a First Nation Education Act—A Blueprint for Legislation”, was released in July 2013. It was shared with first nation chiefs and councils, first nation organizations, provincial governments, and others with an expertise or interest in first nation education for their feedback.

In October 2013, following additional feedback and comments in response to the blueprint, the government released “Working Together for First Nation Students: A Proposal for a Bill on First Nation Education”.

In addition to posting this draft legislative proposal on the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada website, our government shared the draft legislative proposal with more than 600 chiefs and band councils and every first nation community across the country, as well as provincial governments, for their input.

We have undertaken unprecedented and intensive consultations with first nations across this country, which have led to the exchange of open letters and dialogue between the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

In November 2013, the Assembly of First Nations released an open letter to the Government of Canada asking for collaboration on five issues. These issues included first nation control and respecting inherent and treaty rights, a statutory guarantee for adequate and fair funding for education, support for first nation languages and cultures, jointly determined oversight that respects first nation rights and responsibilities, and an ongoing process of meaningful dialogue.

In December 2013 my colleague, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, responded in an open letter with a commitment to address the issues raised. Our government worked with the Assembly of First Nations to address its five conditions for success.

It is in this context that we can understand the importance of the February 7, 2014, announcement by the Prime Minister and the Assembly of First Nations to move forward on first nations primary and secondary education as an historic moment for Canada-first nations relations.

The Prime Minister stood with the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and announced an unprecedented $1.9 billion in new funding through three streams: statutory funding with an unprecedented annual rate of growth, transition funding to support the new legislative framework, and funding for long-term investments in on-reserve school infrastructure.

This historic announcement was reinforced through economic action plan 2014, which would ensure stable and predictable funding consistent with provincial education funding models.

In addition to current funding, core transfer funding in the amount of $1.252 billion over three years, beginning in 2016-17, would be implemented through the act and would also increase annually by 4.5%. The core transfer would include funding for language and cultural programing.

This funding responds to one of the five conditions for success set out in a resolution by the Assembly of First Nations, endorsed by Chiefs-in-Assembly in December 2013. While it is important in the context of reconciliation, integrating languages and cultural programs into schools also increases parent and community involvement and supports student success.

As demonstrated by the name, first nations control is the central principle upon which this proposed legislation is based. It would recognize the ability and responsibility of first nations to educate their students. It would recognize the importance of treaty and aboriginal rights, which are protected by the Constitution, and it would not apply to first nations who are taking part in existing comprehensive or sectoral self-government agreements that cover education.

When our government announced our intention to introduce legislation, we made it clear that the partnership does not end with the introduction of a bill. Going forward, through the creation and role of the joint council of education professionals as proposed by this bill, Canada and the Assembly of First Nations would continue to explore ways to further engage first nations as part of the commitment to respecting first nations control over first nations education.

This partnership with the first nations, as I said, does not end with the introduction of this bill. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has extended an invitation to the AFN to work on a political protocol to establish how the members of the joint council would be chosen. This would ensure meaningful input from first nations and elaborate on how the joint council would work with first nations to develop the act's regulations. The government looks forward to continuing our partnership with the AFN in developing this political protocol.

Full implementation of the proposed legislation would occur in steps over a three-year period; from royal assent, to coming into force, and the application of the first and second sets of regulations. First nations and all Canadians would have the opportunity to continue engaging during this parliamentary process.

In addition, if and when this bill receives royal assent, our government will work with first nations to ensure that there is a smooth transition for communities and first nations education organizations, and has committed the funding to do so.

The proposed legislation would ensure first nations control of first nations education while establishing a legislative framework that sets out standards consistent with provincial standards off reserve, standards that are common to students across Canada.

The act would establish five core standards: access to education, a recognized certificate or diploma, certified teachers, a minimum number of instructional hours and instructional days, and transferability of students between systems without penalty.

For example, the act would require that first nations schools teach a core curriculum that meets or exceeds provincial standards and that students meet minimum attendance requirements. It would require that teachers are certified and that first nations schools award recognized diplomas or certificates.

All other decisions on standards would be made by first nations who would control the schools. Specific details that support standards would be contained in the regulations. As part of the announcement on education in February, our government and the Assembly of First Nations agreed to collaborate on the development of these regulations.

The choice of which governance model to pursue would be up to each individual first nation. While the Government of Canada would be encouraging the development of aggregates through the creation of first nations education authorities, each first nation would have to make the determination on which governance option would best address the educational needs of their students while meeting the standards as laid out in the legislative framework. First nations could choose to continue to operate schools directly, establish or delegate their authority to operate schools to a first nations education authority, or enter into agreements with provincial school boards to operate on-reserve schools.

First nations students, parents, families, communities, schools, teachers, and administrators would all have roles and responsibilities in the implementation of the act, as would governments, the joint council of education professionals, and first nations educational organizations.

The proposed legislation would establish clear structures, roles and responsibilities, service delivery standards, and accountabilities in a measurable way. It would introduce a system of rigour and accountability that has not existed in the past.

The joint council of education professionals would support this approach through its robust oversight role, its review of annual reports, and its advice to the minister on how to respond to the findings of school inspections. Further, its role would support first nations councils and first nations education authorities in the improvement of their education system, as well as the oversight role of ensuring that the ministerial powers provided by the act are exercised with the benefit of the first nations perspective and used only as a last resort.

Results on the achievement of standards would be monitored and reported on regularly by the responsible education authority selected by the first nations community. Where required, school success plans would set out how to improve performance. These reports would be overseen by the joint council of education professionals, which would make recommendations to the minister when further steps are necessary to protect student well-being.

Under exceptional circumstances and as a last resort, the minister may appoint a temporary administrator after seeking advice from the joint council of education professionals. This provision would only be exercised in exceptional circumstances, such as where inspection reports have not been submitted, significant issues have been revealed, or there is significant risk to student well-being and success. The joint council would also conduct a review of the legislation after five years.

Members would be chosen for their recognized experience and education and their knowledge of education in first nations communities. As previously mentioned, the minister is committed to concluding a political protocol with the AFN to establish an appointment process for the joint council.

The joint council of education professionals is a key change to the draft legislative proposal shared in October 2013. It responds directly to first nations concerns about the unilateral authority of the minister to intervene in the administration of first nations education. I would also like to note that we agree with National Chief Shawn Atleo that Bill C-33 is not a replacement for self-government, but, rather, a bridge to support first nations in establishing their own first nation-controlled education systems that respond to their own traditions and priorities.

What we all agree on is that every child in this country has a right to a quality education no matter where he or she lives in Canada. We can also agree that despite the best efforts of countless parents, teachers, and communities, too many first nations children are being left behind. We stand behind the consultation and engagement process that supported the development of Bill C-33. Our government conducted extensive consultation activities, which allowed for a fruitful dialogue with first nations organizations and individuals on the content of the proposed legislation.

The historic way forward with the Assembly of First Nations is reflective of this constructive exchange with first nations. I am proud of the deeply collaborative approach that we have taken on this file. Working closely with first nations we have reached an historic agreement on education, something that has been desperately needed for generations. Bill C-33 represents an important step forward together. We will continue to focus our energies to work even harder now to ensure improved outcomes for first nations students on reserve. Every child in this country has a right to a quality education no matter where he or she lives.

To quote National Chief Shawn Atleo, “This work is simply too important to walk away and abandon our students to the next round of discussions...” I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to support the speedy passage of Bill C-33 to create a first nations-controlled system of first nations education in Canada.

Bill C-33—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary on the question that I previously put to the government, which was about the fact that while the parliamentary secretary says that he has agreed to consult with first nations in the making of the regulations, why then is that commitment not enshrined in law to not only bind the government, which may choose to do so in good faith, but all future governments?

I will bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the government has endorsed. Article 18 states, “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves”, and article 19 states, “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith”. Where is the delivery on the UNDRIP?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course there were concerns raised by the AFN to the first draft of the legislation that was put out. It came forward with five conditions for success. One of those was to enable first nations control of first nations education act.

I talked extensively in my speech about the joint council of education professionals. This is a major change from the first draft to the current first nations control of first nations education act. The member speaks about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Of course, it was our government that recognized the UNDRIP. Certainly, it is an aspirational document. It is part of the consideration here, but we also work with the AFN and what it has said is the joint council of education professionals is the body it believes should be used to develop those regulations. There would be four members appointed on the recommendation of the AFN, including the chair, in consultation with the minister.

I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to more questions the next time this is before the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one short question and response. We will go to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep it very short. We just witnessed the government House leader come in on day one. The minister introduced the bill and he has already stated that the government has full intention of closing debate, on the very day it was introduced. I wonder if the member feels our first nations education is not important enough that we should not allow for debate, as opposed to the government bringing in time allocation to try to force the end of debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, we do believe that education is a priority. That is why, unlike the Liberal government that did nothing on the file for 13 years, our government is taking action and is going to deliver the first nations control of first nations education act, because that is what first nations students on reserve deserve.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That was right on time.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion by the member for North Delta, relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

Bill C-33—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one further sitting day after the day on which this Order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will now be a 30-minute question period. I will ask members to keep their questions to around one minute and the responses to a similar length so that we can accommodate as many as possible.

The hon. House leader of the official opposition.

[Peter Julian, NDP, House Leader of the Official Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by this for Canadians and for first nations.

I am first saddened by the fact that this is now over 60 times that time allocation and closure measures have been brought into this House of Commons. There is absolutely no question that is an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of the democratic framework that Canadians adhere to.

However, what is even more important is that first nations are strongly opposed to Bill C-33. Many first nations are saying that it is not in line with what they want. Opposition to the bill is beginning to mount right across the country. It is clearly an abuse of Parliament. It is obvious that first nations are having a hard time accepting this bill. Instead of consulting them, the minister and the government want to impose this bill on them and shut down debate, ending the discussions that should be held in the House. My question is simple.

Is it not because of the growing opposition from first nations across the country and the growing concerns about the bill that the government wants to shut down debate using closure, basically ending the discussion that should be held in the House? It is shameful.

I would like the minister to explain to first nations who have expressed so many concerns about the bill why he does not want to hear debate in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is becoming an accomplice of a few people determined to bring Canada's economy to its knees and to prevent first nations students on reserve, for the first time ever in the history of this country, from enjoying the same statutory right to education as other Canadians have.

The position of the NDP was made clear yesterday. Those members will oppose the bill. If they have 10 or 15 more speakers who will say the same thing, we have heard it. We understand.

As for the Liberals, they have indicated that they are ready to work constructively. The constructive work can take place at the committee hearings of the standing committee to which the bill will be referred and where first nations will have the chance, just like other stakeholders and Canadians, to indicate their point of view on the bill, which will be transformational for first nations all across Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

To be very clear, Mr. Speaker, what is really under debate right now is the government's use once again of time allocation to prevent members from fully participating in a debate on legislation.

No government in the history of Canada has invoked closure as many times as the current Conservative majority government. It is a different style of government. It goes against the principles of democracy and the manner in which the House should be operating. As has been pointed out, closure has been used over 60 times by the government to try to pass legislation. That is not healthy for democracy.

I look to the government House leader, because he is the one responsible for what takes place inside the House and for making sure that things are done in an orderly fashion. My question is not for the minister about the bill. My question is for the government House leader, who is responsible for the manner in which we are forcibly proceeding inside the chamber. Why has the majority Conservative government continued to use closure, thereby limiting the right of members of Parliament, and through members of Parliament, all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, to ensure that there is due process when it comes to making and passing laws here in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reason is clear and obvious. Were it not for time allocation, first nations students on reserve would be deprived, as they have been for many decades, of enjoying the basic right to education.

The hon. member knows very well that if it were left to the opposition, the government would not pass any laws. All the benefits Canadians get from the legislative agenda of this government, such as over one million jobs created because of our good governance of the country, would not happen. All the good measures Canadians benefit from would not happen, because the mantra of members on the other side of the House is to oppose everything, and in this case, first nations students. It is urgent that the House adopt this to give those kids on reserve the right to education, which they plainly deserve.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I am seeing some inquiries, perhaps, by body language, in the House. The process for this type of question and answer period is for the opposition to be given priority for their questions, and questions and comments allowed from the government side are at a more limited level.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague who spoke earlier, I too am saddened by this motion that the government has moved.

I am saddened because this really has nothing to do with the importance of education for first nations children. That is not the issue. I think that we all agree that aboriginal children should receive the best education possible. That is not what we are talking about.

What we are talking about are the government's constitutional obligations. I would like to hear the minister's comments on that. If there is one thing that should not be compromised, it is the constitutional rights of aboriginal peoples. One of the government's obligations is to consult with first nations and accommodate the concerns that are raised during those consultations. That is not what happened. I would like to hear the minister's comments on his understanding of the honour of the crown.

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

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the honour of the Crown is embodied in clause 5 of Bill C-33, which is before the House:

5. This Act does not apply to

(a) a First Nation that has the power to make laws with respect to elementary and secondary education under an Act of Parliament or an agreement relating to self-government that is given effect by an Act of Parliament, including a First Nation that is named in the schedule to the Mi’kmaq Education Act or the schedule to the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act; or

(b) the Sechelt Indian Band established by subsection 5(1) of the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act.

Clause 4 states:

4. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

That is what it means to respect the honour of the Crown.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the discussion and the answers from the minister, it is pretty clear. This discussion is absolutely not about closure. It is really not about the Constitution. The discussion is about the NDP deciding not to support this bill for first nations children. The discussion is about the NDP deciding to put the rights of first nations children on the back burner. We can wait another two or three or four decades, and they will never get an education and never participate in society.

This is about putting the rights of first nations children first, not second or third or fourth.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indeed right. As a matter of fact, I am a bit astonished. Since 1971, when the Indian Brotherhood issued its policy paper on Indian control of education, first nations students, chiefs, councils, and members of those communities throughout the country have been calling for control of their education system.

Now our government is putting on the table incremental, committed funding of close to $2 billion to implement, for the first time, a school system that would bring about results and better outcomes on reserve, and this is opposed by the NDP. Well, it means that it simply wants to play politics on the backs of first nations students. We do not accept that on this side of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to time allocation, because the act that is before us is supported by some very prominent, important first nations organizations and is opposed by other chiefs and councils. It is obviously an issue of great importance.

No one on this side of the House is paying less attention to first nations education than the minister, but the question of the complexity of the issue and getting it just right is paramount.

I have not heard a single reason advanced for why, once again, in anti-democratic contempt of this place, we have the 60th-plus use of time allocation on a government piece of legislation. Could the minister offer one single cogent reason why this place should rush through a bill of such importance and complexity?

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

Mr. Speaker, very simply, the characterization by the hon. member of the procedure and the process omits saying that the best way to fully look at the different points of view on this bill is at the committee level. Once second reading is completed, there will be ample opportunity at the standing committee for members, witnesses, and people interested to weigh the points of view of those who favour and those who oppose it. We will let the hon. members at the standing committee do their job and report back to the House, where the debate will continue.

This is not about shutting down the debate. It is about ensuring that we can make a decision in the best time possible for first nation students to benefit from this legislation.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you heard a lack of noise from this side when the House leader from the government moved the closure motion, because it is so usual for us to hear that.

The minister suggested that somehow we oppose everything. Let me remind the minister that today Bill C-30 will come before us and that it was this opposition, this New Democratic Party, this critic of agriculture, who said to the minister opposite, “We will help you, sir. We will help you get the legislation through. We will help you at committee. We will help you bring it back, because it is an emergency.” We intend to continue to do that.

Unfortunately, as you heard earlier in the Speaker's ruling, the government brought forward amendments. What happened in its rush to do all of that? The government was ruled out of order. When we rush, we make mistakes. That is a human frailty. It is not necessarily a Conservative frailty, albeit the government is the one that brings closure all the time. Clearly, its frailty is probably more obvious than anyone else's when it comes to making mistakes.

This single piece of legislation is immensely important. I do not sit on that committee, so my opportunities to speak to this legislation are limited to this place. By doing what the government has done 60-odd times, it limits the opportunity for those of us who do not have the opportunity to go to committee. Some would ask why we do not just substitute in. That would be an opportunity. However, I can imagine that the government would come up with some sort of ruling that there could only be so many substitutes, because if we all tried to substitute in to listen to committee hearings, the government would say that it would take too long as well.

There are times we need to take the time to study. In this case, the minister should reconsider. I do not know why he wants to rush this through. Education is important for every child. We agree with him that first nation children deserve to have the same education and the same opportunities as everyone else, but let us get it right in the first place. Let us not make mistakes.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened intently to the position of the official opposition on this bill. It opposed the principle of the bill. The opposition is very clear. I have been in this House long enough to say that I have never seen the opposition party change its mind on a bill after it has stated its opposition, and we know that it opposes this.

What is important is that Canadians, first nation members, stakeholders, and people who care can see the bill at committee, where the members will listen to witnesses and first nation representatives, and as the previous questioner said, weigh the views to ensure that at the end, we get a bill that enshrines in law the right of first nation students to have quality education and to finally get the outcomes they deserve.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do have to oppose this over-60th time allocation motion.

The member for Welland made a very good point about the fact that, yes, this may go to committee, but there are a lot of members in this place who are extremely interested in this issue. As a result of the time allocation, we do not have the opportunity, and the public in Canada does not have the opportunity, to hear the views from a wide range of people from across the country.

My colleague, our critic, spoke extensively on this issue yesterday. She outlined a number of concerns that should be talked about in this place, not just at committee. There are time allocation motions here. We see the way the committees operate in this place, too, ramrodding a bill through without the committee hearing all the proper witnesses.

Again, this is an affront to the democratic process by the Conservative government in terms of ramming legislation through. We know it has had five extensive defeats at the Supreme Court in the last month. That is what happens when the proper legislative inspection is not done in the House of Commons. Mistakes happen, and things get turned down by the Supreme Court. Then, to a certain extent, it has been a waste of time.

I encourage the minister to back off on the closure of this debate and to let proper debate on this legislative matter happen in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the same old story. What more can we say except that we must assess the process that led to the preparation of the bill and its introduction?

For decades, first nations across the country have been asking for control over their own education system on reserve.

I cannot say it enough: it is very important and urgent that we provide the chiefs and band councils in the country with a legal framework that will enable them to provide first nations' children with an education system that produces results. That is what is driving the government's efforts.

We have been working in concert with the first nations since 1971. For the first time, a government wants to take action on the Assembly of First Nations agreement.

I am simply asking the hon. member that we hurry up and send this to committee so that we can pass this bill that will benefit the first nations.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of shocked and saddened to see exactly what is going on here today.

Here is a very important piece of legislation for aboriginal students. It is a generation that we can capture and embrace. We are hearing that the NDP members will not even let it go to committee and that they are going to vote against it at second reading. They say they want to debate it, yet they will not even let it go to committee. It is shocking and saddening.

We would spend some $1.9 billion on aboriginal students with this piece of legislation. Can the minister tell us just how important it is that we not miss the members of this generation, that we embrace them, help them up, and give them a hand up, so they can participate in this blooming and growing economy we have here in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the hon. member.

As a matter of fact, it is important to note that the fastest growing segment of the Canadian population is among the aboriginal community.

In many provinces throughout Canada, we have a cohort of young first nations kids who are going to enter the labour market in the next decade at a speed and a number that is incredible. These kids today too often graduate or get out of the school system, attempt to enter university or trade school, and they are lacking a degree that is comparable to what the non-aboriginal kids are getting.

This serious investment, incremental funding of $1.9 billion, over the $1.55 billion that we are currently investing, would provide first nations kids on reserve throughout the country with an education system that would be comparable to what their non-aboriginal neighbours are getting.

This is the promise of the bill. This is the promise of Canada. Aboriginal people are fully members of our country and deserve the same rights as non-aboriginals.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, members have an opportunity at this moment in the proceedings to talk about why the government has introduced its 60th-plus time allocation motion on a bill that the minister himself said was so important in terms of its implications.

We have some ideas on this side that are perhaps contrary to those of the minister and members opposite. I am from Nova Scotia, where the first nations and Mi'kmaq have had control of their education system for the past 20 years and are doing just fine, thanks, without the support of the patrimony of the minister and his office. They do not need a superintendent provided by the minister, who reports to the minister on matters of education.

I would like to have the opportunity to debate the issue, to explain the experience, as I understand it, from the perspective of the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia and of Nova Scotians about this issue and why I am concerned. I find it offensive. The members opposite suggest that I should not have the right to stand and express my views, views that may be contrary to theirs. I would like him to explain why it is that I, who has been elected by the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, do not have the right, on an important piece of legislation like this, to explain what I and my constituents feel is important on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk about what is offensive, what is offensive is the hon. member leading people to believe that the bill would prevent first nations across Canada from becoming a self-governing institution over education, as is happening in Nova Scotia. He talks about Nova Scotia, and we all know about the success of the Nova Scotia system. If he cared to read this bill, he would know that it does not apply to Nova Scotia. He would also find out, if he read the bill, that this is probably the best promise for first nations to be able to get to the self-government level with their own education system.

Obviously, as you can hear, Mr. Speaker, he is not interested in the answer—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. There is too much chatter going back and forth in the House. I am having difficulty hearing the minister, even though he is less than 20 feet away from me.

Minister, you may continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it just goes to show that when New Democrats ask a question and do not like the answer, they heckle. It does not change the fact.

The fact is that members will have the chance to continue this debate. We have until tomorrow at least, and then it will go to committee. There the hon. member is well represented by his party and he will have the chance, with other members, to see and hear witnesses and consider the bill. We shall get the report from the committee and act accordingly.

What is important is that we do this as quickly as possible because the current non-system is failing a whole generation of first nation students.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain one thing and that is the urgency of all this. The funds will be available in 2016. If this were urgent, and if the government were taking it seriously, should the money not be available already?

I lived on a reserve for two years. For 30 years, aboriginal people have been ready to get an education and to exercise the same rights as all other citizens in that regard. Until now they have only been given promises. That is probably the reason for the skepticism. This is strangely similar to the promise about the Kelowna accord, a promise made by a government that, although on the verge of collapse, at the last minute gave out money that was not included in the budget. In the end, nothing happened. That is why aboriginal people are fed up.

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

Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for the member to be coherent? He just said that over a period of more than 30 years, first nations children were deprived of an education system. We are bringing forward a bill that will finally give them this statutory right and his party is opposing it.

He just mentioned the Kelowna accord. It was money thrown at them by the Liberals, without reforms and without a system to ensure the success of first nations children. We have invested and committed $1.9 billion in the budget, and he voted against it. I would like him to be coherent.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the minister is being hypocritical. This bill is about education in aboriginal communities, and just because the NDP has concerns about this bill, the Conservatives are accusing us of being against education in those communities.

People may remember that, not so long ago, we had a bill before us that was supposed to fight child pornography. The NDP was concerned about the bill because it was poorly drafted. Because of its concerns, the NDP was accused of supporting child pornography. Actually, the minister had to withdraw that statement. As it turned out, the bill was so badly written that the minister himself had to withdraw it.

Let us remember that and put things into perspective. This debate is about more than education in first nations communities. It is also about the way the government drafts its bills, about how often they are messed up and badly written. The Conservatives do not even bother to consult the parties involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member will be happy to learn that the process leading up to this bill took place over a long period of time. Those drafting the bill considered the advice and opinions of countless first nations chiefs and band council members, school boards, first nations members and parents.

The important thing now is to study this bill in committee and find out whether the real goal can be achieved through the provisions in the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #109

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When this matter was last before the House, there were seven minutes remaining in questions and comments for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand in the House to speak to a bill that is extremely important to the people who sent me to Parliament, first nations and indigenous people in northern Manitoba, and of course, first nations people across our country.

I want to begin by speaking about the reality that first nations youth face in communities in our part of the country. Some weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Little Grand Rapids. Little Grand Rapids is a small first nation on the southeast side of Lake Winnipeg. It is isolated. There are no roads that go there; it is in the middle of the forest, or the bush, as we call it. People work hard at what they do, hunting, trapping, fishing, and they hope for the best for the future of their kids, as anybody does.

What I hear from them when I visit from house to house is their concern for their kids, the concern that their kids are not going to have the same opportunities as other kids. It is not because of where Little Grand Rapids is, how far it is from the city or where it is positioned geographically. It is because it is a first nation, and they know their kids face some of the most unequal opportunities in terms of education in this country. Because they are first nations, going to school on reserve, they are guaranteed to be going to a school that is funded to a lesser extent than other schools.

What does that mean? It means that their kids go to a school that some people describe as a fire trap. It is a school where the doors do not lock properly. In order to lock them in -40° weather, so the cold does not come in, they have to a use a chain and a lock. It means the fire alarm system does not work. In fact, when Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development built the school, it hooked up those little fire alarm contraptions that we see everywhere else. It put them on the walls throughout the school and never hooked up the wiring to a fire alarm system. Guess what? There is no fire alarm system. Not only is there no fire alarm system, but as a result there is no sprinkler system, and due to the underfunding, there are no fire extinguishers.

My question in the House for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is whether he would be okay with his kids going to a school like that. Why should the youth of Little Grand Rapids and first nations across this country go to schools that are dangerous, underfunded, falling apart, and full of mould, that do not have enough books, do not have enough teachers, and do not have enough resources, and that are setting them up to fail?

When we talk about the history of colonialism and paternalism that first nations have faced in this country, we cannot just talk about history, because it is happening today. It is happening in the way first nations people face unequal standards across the board, whether it be education, health, employment, housing, or infrastructure. The list goes on.

To see what is most fundamentally clear in the response to the needs of first nations youth and the kind of paternalism we see, one has to go no further than the approach the government has taken on Bill C-33, the first nations education act. The reason I say that is that a fundamental obligation of the federal government to consult with first nations people has not been adhered to in the development of this critical bill.

First nations across the country, certainly those in Manitoba, have been clear that, without consultation, the bill cannot be supported. It is not because they have not made clear the importance of consultation. They have made it clear and have been consistent over the last number of years.

In December 2012, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada began consultations on an education act. In July 2013 the department released a document called “Developing a First Nation Education Act: A Blueprint for Legislation”. With few amendments, that blueprint became a draft legislative proposal for a first nations education act in October 2013. I am sure all too many members of the government will remember that the draft proposal was condemned by first nations educators, leaders, and activists overwhelmingly.

On the very issue we are discussing today, on the critical issue of education for first nations, first nations have told us the direction they want to take and their priorities.

In 2013 a special assembly the Assembly of First Nations highlighted five priorities: first, respect and recognition of inherent rights and title, treaty rights, and first nations control of first nations education jurisdiction; second, statutory guarantee of funding; third, funding to support first nations education systems that are grounded in indigenous languages and cultures; fourth, mechanisms to ensure reciprocal accountability and no unilateral federal oversight or authority; and fifth, ongoing dialogue and co-development of options. Those five priorities were laid out clearly in a very public manner by first nations themselves, and sadly, the federal government failed to adhere to those priorities.

What we hear from the federal government is rhetoric that is at first premised on having spoken with first nations and of having heard real concerns. Then when I and my colleagues raise the concern that first nations across the country have not been consulted on this legislation, when they need to be consulted, we hear threats, intimidation, and the same old colonial attitudes that first nations have put up with for centuries.

It is clear that first nations across this country are saying no to the first nations education act. I and my colleagues in the NDP are proud to stand with them. I am proud to stand with first nations educators who are speaking out against the first nations education act.

I would like to share the words of Janice Mokokis, an educator and lawyer from Alberta, who has been involved with the Idle No More movement. She has been clear in her opposition to the first nations education act. Janice tells us:

There have been rallies and teach-in's held across the country to inform the Canadian public and First Nations about the implications of this Bill. People who have attended the rallies include children, mothers, fathers, teachers, professionals, leaders and those that would be directly affected by this...[government's actions]. There has been consistent opposition about the Conservative's agenda what they deem to be good for First Nations on Education. The Conservative's idea of 'consultation' needs to be closely questioned and critically examined. For example: In the Saskatoon consultation, people were...pushed out of the 'education consultation'.

It was made clear that they were not welcome to have their voices heard.

I also stand in solidarity with people in the blue dot campaign, who made clear their opposition to the government's desire for them not to be welcome at the announcement on the Kainai first nation in Alberta. Members of that nation and first nations people from across the country were there to hear an announcement of legislation that has everything to do with their future, and yet they were not even welcome to stay in the room.

It is clear that there is opposition from coast to coast to coast. First nations people are saying that their inherent rights are not being respected, that their treaty right to education is not being respected, and that the right to consultation that they have under the Canadian Constitution and that is recognized in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not being respected. The necessity of consultation is not being respected.

The reality is that first nations youth sit by and suffer as a result of the way the Conservative government is approaching a fundamental part of their development and future. We know the statistics are grim. Secondary school data over the last number of years identify the rate of first nations graduation at approximately 36%, compared to the Canadian graduation rate of 72%. Some 61% of first nations young adults have not completed high school, compared with 13% of non-aboriginal people in Canada.

In 2010, there were more than 515 first nations elementary and secondary schools available to approximately 109,000 first nations students resident on reserve. Over 64% of these students attended 515 on-reserve schools operated by first nations. The majority, 75%, were enrolled in either kindergarten or elementary school.

First nations youth is the largest young population in our country. I am so privileged to have had a chance to visit first nations across our region and look into the bright faces of these little kids, who want to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, and carpenters and who want to do great things. All I can think of is the way I come to work every day to look at a government, a Prime Minister, and a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that do everything in their power to ignore the voices of their communities, educators, and leaders. They say they are doing the right thing and they say they are going to do the right thing, but after the next election, maybe in a few years, or maybe if they get re-elected. Maybe. All the while, these young people are left in limbo.

I am also fortunate to have learned from elders. They are elders who fought as part of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, fought against the white paper, and fought against the control that the federal government had on their education. They fought back, and they fought for first nations control of first nations education. Many of these elders are not with us today, owing to the challenging life situations in our communities and the shorter life spans that first nations people have. However, in my conversations with them and in my journey to Parliament, they taught me a very clear lesson, that first nations control over first nations education is fundamental to the success of the education system. It is fundamental to the success of first nations youth as they go forward. This is because first nations know what their nations need.

We know about education in first nations language; youth who learn their first nations language succeed at great rates. We know that when they have the resources in their schools to learn their mother tongue, the historic language of their people, they will have opportunities that other youth do not have. We know that when first nations have control over the kind of curriculum, priorities, and lessons that are shared with their youth, their students succeed.

I think of first nations like Roseau River, Peguis, Fisher River, and others that have had very successful models when it comes to education. It is not because the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development told them how to do it. In fact, it is the absolute opposite. It is these first nations that have stood up and sometimes, with the few resources they have, pulled together extraordinary people. They have supported the education of their youth, who have gone on to become experts and specialists in education and have come back to their communities and invested in the resource that is most important to them: their youth.

One would think that, in seeing the successes and knowing the way graduation rates in first nations increase when there is proper funding and proper support, when there is a focus on first nations language, the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs would celebrate, that it would say that first nations control over first nations education is critical.

Consulting with first nations on further steps, on a first nations education program, is not only critical but first nations need to be leading that direction. Instead, what we have is a slap in the face from the federal government, which has a fiduciary obligation to first nations that makes it very clear that it does not matter what success these students have, it does not matter what success these leaders have had in fighting for education in their communities, with its response to promise action and change and to do that with a father-knows-best mentality, that what it knows best is what is going to go.

Some years ago I had the honour of sitting with leaders and grassroots people in Thompson at the office of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, where we saw live the apology the Prime Minister made to first nations people about the tragedy of the residential school system. I remember it moved all of us. I am proud that our leader Jack Layton was integral in that important historic day. There were tears. There was sobbing. There were people who were very emotional about that apology, people who had been very clear about the abuse, the oppression, and the racism they had faced. However, there was also an overwhelming sense of hope, hope that things can change, that a new spirit of reconciliation was guiding our country.

Over the last six or seven years, I cannot say how many people I have met across northern Manitoba, how many first nations people, who have said obviously that apology meant nothing to the Prime Minister. People took the time to believe and to enter into that spirit of reconciliation. Unfortunately, through the actions of Prime Minister, not just in looking at Bill C-33 but also Bills S-2, S-6 and S-8, as well as omnibus bills like Bills C-45 and C-38, we can look at the long list of legislative actions that the government has taken that fly in the face of that apology, of that spirit of reconciliation, of that commitment that the relationship with first nations would be different.

At the end of the day, is there anything more important than investing in the future of our young people? In the one area of education, the federal government had the chance to change course and maybe remember the statement that the Prime Minister had made in terms of that apology and act in the spirit of that apology. Instead, he and his government have chosen to take a very different approach, an approach that is clearly not only supported by first nations but is extremely deeply problematic in terms of the future of first nations education in our country.

In closing, I am proud to stand with first nations in Manitoba who oppose the first nations education act and who are very clear in demanding far better from the government, from Canada, and from the Crown when it comes to the future of education for first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately that speech was once again a great example that the NDP is prepared to put politics ahead of the interests of first nations students.

It is clear as well that the member has not read the bill. She spoke about the protection of treaty rights. Clause 4 states:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35....

She talked about funding. Section 43(2) says that funding shall be such that it is of a quality reasonable and comparable to that of similar services offered in a similarly sized public school that is regulated under provincial legislation located in an analogous region.

If she did not want to read the bill, I hope she would have read the analysis from the Assembly of First Nations, which states:

Bill C-33 is a constructive and necessary step supportive of the goals expressed by First Nations for control, respect for Treaty and Aboriginal rights, recognition of language and culture and a clear statutory guarantee for fair funding.

That is funding of $1.9 billion that the member voted against in the last budget. Therefore, I would like to ask her this. Why is she siding with Derek Nepinak, who wants to bring the Canadian economy to its knees, instead of siding with the students who have been calling for this type of legislation? Everything that she raised is in the legislation. Why will she not support it?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand with first nations in northern Manitoba, across the Churchill constituency. I have heard from first nations youth, first nations students, and first nations leaders over the last number of days, who were unequivocal in their opposition to the first nations education act. I take very seriously the opposition they are bringing forward and the very clear statement that the federal government, despite its fiduciary obligation, has not consulted with first nations, and that treaty rights and inherent rights are not respected in the approach that the current federal government has taken when it comes to first nations education.

I am not willing to play partisan games on something as important as first nations education. I would ask that the current government go and fix the school in Little Grand Rapids or the school in Garden Hill or in Red Sucker Lake, or the long list of schools in first nations across Manitoba. And then we will talk about who is committed to first nations youth.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus some attention on the important people we enable to make education of our first nations a reality. I reflect back on a wonderful high school located in Winnipeg's north end. I am sure my colleague will know the high school, and that is the Children of the Earth High School, located on Salter Street just north of the CP tracks.

This is a high school for first nations, primarily where we had organizations like the Thunder Eagle Society, Urban Aboriginal Education Advisory Committee, and many different leaders from within the community who recognized the importance of having some form of aboriginality in the education system. We can see that there today. There is a great sense of pride. The reason I say that is that if we look at the budget of that particular school administration, we will find it is supported well in terms of public finances. I say that because it is important that we recognize that another important component of this bill is that we need to provide financing to ensure quality education. The member might want to comment on the importance of the financing of public education.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the example of the school in Winnipeg; the Children of the Earth High School has been very successful. There are numerous examples of indigenous people leading the development of curriculum and programming across our country. Of course, on reserve the situation is very different because of the unequal funding that first nations have to deal with.

It is appalling that first nations youth, per capita, receive either half or maybe two-thirds of the same funding that off-reserve youth have to get an education. First nations youth who live in Nelson House, an hour away from Thompson my home community, receive about two-thirds the amount of money to get the same education that kids one hour down the road receive to get that same education. We know that the results show that first nations do not have the same supports, that they drop out of school earlier, that they do not succeed the way other youth do. It has everything to do with the systemic underfunding that the current federal government and previous federal governments have imposed on first nations.

I reiterate, if the current government really cares about first nations youth, it could start right now by fixing the schools that are falling apart, and by investing in every first nations youth the way any Canadian would expect.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Churchill for her excellent speech and her excellent understanding of the situation we are dealing with today. Beyond the issue of the importance of first nations education, everyone agrees on the importance of children and youth in aboriginal communities.

It is troubling that, in this debate, members are accusing those who oppose this bill—as the parliamentary secretary did just a moment ago—of conspiring to bring the Canadian economy to its knees. That is completely false.

For example, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador has taken this government to court because it was not consulted about this bill. It is a constitutional obligation to consult with and accommodate the first nations, yet this was not done for the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador.

One of the basic rights in this country is the right to initiate court proceedings. However, the Conservatives are trying to intimidate us and prevent us from doing so. Does my colleague agree with me on that?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree, and I thank my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who is a true leader in the fight for aboriginal rights across the country.

I want to echo his message that we will not be intimidated by threats or accusations by anyone in this House or outside. Our words will not be twisted to mean something they do not mean.

We are here as New Democrats to put forward the concerns we have heard from first nations, whether from Quebec or Labrador, Manitoba or Saskatchewan, or wherever, when they are saying they were not consulted, and that is not okay. In large part, because of that, they are opposed to the first nations education act.

It is called “democracy”. We are here to raise our voices to convey that message. If the federal government chooses to use threats and accusations and change the rhetoric, Canadians will judge for themselves. First nations and all Canadians deserve better than the kind of attitude we are seeing from the current federal government.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in support of the first nations control of first nations education act. I am proud to stand in support of my colleague, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I am sharing my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

The overriding goal of the first nations control of first nations education act is better outcomes for first nations students. First nations and our government agree that this goal is best achieved through first nations control over the education that is provided within first nations.

The introduction of this bill marks a historic event. The proposed legislation recognizes first nations control over first nations education as an essential to better outcomes for first nations children and for youth.

While the act sets out standards that would have to be met, first nations would have the authority to determine how best to meet these standards. For the first time, elementary and secondary first nations students on reserve would be guaranteed access to quality education, supported by a statutory guarantee for the funding that is required for that education.

I would like now to focus on the funding associated with this act.

To date, first nations youth have not achieved the same educational outcomes as other Canadians. According to the 2011 national household survey, only 38% of registered Indians aged 18 to 24 who were living on reserve had completed high school, compared to 87% of non-aboriginal Canadians.

Too many first nations students do not have the benefit of an education system that ensures they can graduate and become active participants in all the economic opportunities that exist in our country. Helping first nation youth to succeed in school and graduate is critical to increasing their participation in Canada's economy. Their talents and their ambitions should be part of the solution to Canada's looming labour shortage.

I was honoured to join the Prime Minister in February when he announced the funding of $1.9 billion to support major reforms of the elementary and secondary education schools through the first nations control of first nations education act. In addition to the current funding levels, this new funding would provide a better system and it would be provided through a streamlined approach.

We propose to consolidate existing and new sources of education funding into three funding streams: a core operating transfer that would have a reasonable rate of growth and would be able to provide statutory payments for this educational funding, transition funding to support implementation of a new legislative framework, and funding for long-term investments in on-reserve school infrastructure, specifically for new schools and for renovations of existing schools.

Our government has committed $1.25 billion in core operating transfers over three years, beginning in 2016, which includes funding for language and cultural programming, increasing annually on a 4.5% escalator and on a statutory basis. This funding is in addition to the current expenditure levels and would support first nations in providing their children access to an on-reserve education system comparable to that provided for children in the provincial system.

Statutory funding would be allocated to first nations based on their chosen governance model under the first nations control of first nations education act. Those governance models include community-operated schools, a first nation education authority, or a provincial school board.

Allocations to recipients will be largely formula-driven, supporting both the on-reserve school system and tuition arrangements with school boards or provinces where first nations students are attending provincial schools.

Core funding amounts may only be spent on educational services, such as paying principals, teachers, and other staff; classroom and school supplies; operating and maintaining schools; guidance and counselling; busing and other services to students; and paying tuition fees for students going to provincial schools.

First nations have long called for control over first nations education and for the inclusion of language and culture as essential to education for first nation students. Statutory funding for first nations that includes funding for language and cultural programming into the educational curriculum responds to this call. The bill would allow first nations to develop or build on the programming for their language and cultural priorities. This includes curriculum development, teaching tools, and program design and activities to integrate language and culture into the teaching environment.

At the same time, first nations will have the responsibility for meeting minimum standards set out in legislation and regulation.

The second stream, known as the enhanced education fund, would provide of $160 million over four years, starting in 2015-16. This targeted funding will support transition to the new legislative framework and encourage innovation.

The education enhancement fund would provide funding to first nations to establish the new educational authorities, develop service agreements, support early adopters of this act, and strengthen the partnerships that they may develop.

Our government will work with first nations to ensure that there is a smooth transition for communities and educational organizations as we move forward on this education system.

The third stream, the new education infrastructure fund, would provide funding of $500 million over seven years, starting in 2015-16, to build and renovate schools. This multi-year education fund would provide dedicated funding that is focused on improving on-reserve education facilities through construction and renovation of schools and on gaining efficiencies in the way they are designed, procured, financed, and constructed.

It is also important to understand the timelines over which funding will flow. When Bill C-33 receives royal assent, there will be a great deal of work required over the next three years to put into place the regulations to fully implement the new system. We will have to work together to make this happen.

On top of the annual funding for services and infrastructure, budgets 2008, 2010, and 2012 included additional investments in education, yet the significant gaps in education outcomes remain between first nations students and the population of Canada as a whole.

Reports by the Senate, the Auditor General, and the national panel on first nation education all came up with the same conclusion. All recommended structural reform and sustainable funding.

As the government has committed to in economic action plan 2014, stable, predictable, and sustainable funding is essential to achieving the reforms that are needed so that many more first nations children can succeed and thrive in school.

Unfortunately, it seems the NDP is putting its partisan interests before those of the kids I hear from and the parents who call my office, concerned with regard to the challenges their children are facing. The members who are opposing this legislation seem to be willing to delay the important actions that need to be undertaken. Time and time again, the NDP has failed, I believe, first nations children because of the delays it has been willing to be part of.

While money is critical, it is also clear that the problems in first nations education cannot be solved with money alone. By putting education systems in place, first nations schools will be able to improve access to services and develop efficiencies in the delivery that education.

A significant challenge facing first nation education is that many schools on reserve are unable to benefit from the economies of scale that provincial schools can achieve through provincial education systems. One of the ways that this new funding is intended to address these challenges is by providing the option to first nations to aggregate into first nation educational authorities similar to those found in the provincial systems.

First nation students want and deserve a chance to have a quality education that will provide them with the building blocks to succeed in their lives. They must not wait any longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member not only for his remarks but also for the great job he does as the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee.

I have had some urgent questions put to me and I hope that the member will be able to help me with clause 3, where the wording says, “to administer schools situated on their reserves”.

There are first nations schools, particularly in northwestern Ontario, that would not be covered by this act. They include the Dennis Franklin Cromarty High School in Thunder Bay, the Matawa Learning Centre in Thunder Bay, Pelican Falls First Nations High School in Sioux Lookout, Wahsa Distance Education Centre in Sioux Lookout, Bimose Community High School in Kenora, and the Keewaytinook Internet High School in Red Lake.

I want to know if we can get assurance that those schools will continue to receive funding after this bill is passed.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize and thank the member for her question, as well as for her work and her commitment to this file. This is exactly the type of thing that our committee needs to look at.

It is my understanding that the intent would be that those schools would be under the control of first nations. That is why if there are wording or text challenges, we must resolve them. Those are things that need to be investigated within committee, and I am certain that with the co-operation of the opposition, we can get it to committee expeditiously and make those corrections if necessary.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Alberta for his presentation and for the great work he does on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Northern Affairs.

In my riding, when I meet with chiefs, councils, community leaders, and elders, they always tell me that they believe the key to success in the future of their communities is the education of their youth. Making sure they have strong, well-funded schools with good curricula is going to be paramount, along with the support they require to ensure they have education programs in place and the ability to have them consistently across the country, not just in their own communities and provinces but across the country.

Could the member to talk about that some more, and talk about how it affects first nations communities in his riding?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Manitoba for his intervention and for his support for improving educational outcomes for first nations people across this country. His concerns are reflected in the concerns that I hear from parents of first nations students in my riding.

The priority for parents who have kids in first nations schools is that the quality of education be equivalent to that in provincial schools. They want to be assured that if kids move from grade 1 or grade 2 in a reserve school to a provincial school and then, some time later, move back to the reserve school, the kids will see a reflection of the same type of curriculum, the same standards. They want to be assured that the teachers are qualified to be teaching, that there is a standard of curriculum equivalent to the provincial system, and that they have the resources to ensure those things can actually be implemented and maintained.

It is important that those things happen. Those things do not just naturally happen through simply shoveling money at the issue. It is absolutely essential that there be funding to ensure that those things happen, but it is an absolute necessity to ensure that the framework exists to channel those funds toward resolving the concerns felt by first nations parents and leaders within our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this chance to highlight one of the most important aspects of this legislation and what for me, as a first nation parliamentarian, is perhaps the most important. As a Cree, my home reserve is Muskeg Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan. I would like to highlight the linguistic and cultural provisions included in this long-awaited, historic piece of legislation.

One of the strongest messages we heard during the extensive consultations held on Bill C-33 is that first nation language and culture instruction must be at the heart of any reforms to first nations education. Going back to first nations discussions on education in the 1970s, language and culture were identified as necessary for a first nations controlled education system. The 1972 policy paper of the National Indian Brotherhood, the forerunner of the Assembly of First Nations, called for the inclusion of first nations language and culture in provincial and territorial schools.

The Assembly of First Nations' 2010 policy paper, “First Nations Control of First Nations Education: It's Our Vision, It's Our Time” reaffirmed the importance of language immersion.

The 2010 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, “The Journey Ahead: Report on Progress Since the Government of Canada's Apology to Former Students of Indian Residential Schools” stated that: “Measures to support Aboriginal languages and culturally appropriate educational systems will allow Aboriginal youth to develop the skills and perspective necessary to succeed through greater knowledge and appreciation of their history and their identity”.

Most recently, language and culture was identified as one of the five key conditions by the Assembly of First Nations during discussions on education at the Special Chiefs Assembly in December 2013 and in the open letter sent by National Chief Shawn Atleo to the minister.

There is solid evidence on the importance of promoting the inclusion of language and culture in first nation schools. Research demonstrates a relationship between language and cultural knowledge and positive outcomes in academic achievement. One study on the effect of providing supplementary funding for the language development of students found that reading skills improved substantially in school districts that took up these funds. Examples of first nations schools where language and culture have been integrated into the school curriculum across Canada demonstrate considerable improvement in student achievement. Educational outcomes from bilingual or immersion programs in first nations schools, such as the one at Kahnawake, are strong.

Our government recognizes the advantages that such an education offers first nation students. That is why several federal departments with responsibility for aboriginal issues already provide opportunities to develop language and cultural programming for children, youth, and communities. These are based on the communities' determination of what plans and initiatives may best help improve local education outcomes.

The new structures and standards being established under the first nations control of first nations education act would build on these successes. The bill goes further, strengthening support for language and culture in first nations schools and providing a statutory commitment for funding of language and culture programs. Meeting the conditions set out by the Assembly of First Nations, the bill stipulates that all schools must offer English or French as the language of instruction in order to ensure recognition of certifications and diplomas and transferability of students without academic penalty. This ensures the full participation of first nations youth in post-secondary institutions and trade schools and full participation in the Canadian economy.

Despite this, the bill gives first nations the authority to incorporate first nations language and culture into their education programs. In fact, Bill C-33 specifies that the funding methodology to be outlined in regulations must include support for the provision of first nation language and culture programming. This represents how far we have come from the days of residential schools, which my grandparents attended. I am proud to be a member of the government that finally apologized to the survivors.

I am also proud that this bill incorporates the provisions of my private member's bill, Bill C-428, by stripping the Indian Act of the provisions concerning residential schools.

Bill C-33 specifically provides that first nation students, parents, families, communities, schools, teachers, and administrators have a strong voice in the development of the language and culture curriculum. They and first nation governments, the joint council of education professionals, and first nation education organizations would all have roles and responsibilities in implementing the act. That is a key point.

Our government is committed to working with first nations through joint council education professionals to develop regulations in a manner that would allow regional and local flexibility. In fact, we have extended an invitation to the AFN to work on political protocols to establish how the joint council would work with first nations to develop the act's regulations.

First nations will decide how to best integrate language and culture programming in their curricula. Bill C-33 aims to make first nation students' right to education meaningful and to afford them the opportunities that all students in Canada have.

It is important to understand that first nations will have three governance models to choose from, offering them maximum flexibility in deciding how to best address language and culture issues.

It is also essential to recognize that the bill is not a substitute for treaty implementation or self-government but rather is a bridge to support first nations in establishing their own education systems based on histories and backgrounds. In fact, there are numerous examples of highly successful education models already in place across the country operating under these types of agreements, including the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey in Nova Scotia.

I also want to clarify that once self-government arrangements are concluded, those first nations would be exempt from the first nations control of first nations education act.

I am convinced that Bill C-33 would help to motivate first nations youth to stay in school and graduate with the skills they need to succeed in today's economy. This will improve their lifelong prospects so that they will enjoy the same opportunities as other Canadians, and as I have received.

I am convinced that all first nations, all Canadians, and all parliamentarians share this goal. Therefore, I urge all parties to support us in advancing Bill C-33 to see this promise realized.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I believe the minister also stated again today that this bill is the result of a consultation process. On April 11, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador issued a press release. I would like to quote from it.

...all our teachers and all our specialists have been engaged for decades to ensure our young people get quality educational services to which they are entitled, and that the federal Government refuses to provide them. We have proposed repeatedly concrete solutions that the federal Government systematically refuses to listen too.

Is the member denying that the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador was not consulted while this bill was being drafted? If he is admitting that the assembly was not consulted, why not?

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing I want to make very clear is that everyone had the opportunity to provide their input and feedback in the drafting of this legislation.

There are 600 first nations across Canada, and not every one of them will agree on the process. We are going to have the naysayers and those who are in favour of the bill. The unfortunate part, which we hear today, is that the naysayers get more recognition than those who are positive toward the proposed legislation.

The introduction of the first nations control of first nations education act gives first nations input into meaningful drafted legislation. The act follows years of discussions, dialogue, and studies reflecting the efforts of many first nations and governments to arrive at this point.

All first nations were presented with numerous means of engaging in the consultation process and were offered multiple opportunities to be part of that dialogue and a process leading to this legislation. Consultations were held in 2011. The Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations launched a national panel from coast to coast to coast asking for input on this legislation.

When we have opposition members over there with the paternalistic approach that they know best, I find it very offensive to first nations. It is degrading and mocking. When are they going to wake up?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in hearing from the member his thoughts regarding financial compensation. Financial resources for education are absolutely critical. We need to get some indication from the government as to its financial commitment.

We recognize that education often equates to opportunities. If we do not develop the educational system or support it financially, what we are really doing is selling our children short in terms of their future opportunities.

First nation leaders across Canada are very much concerned about the importance of finances. The member is talking about education in the bill today. There is reference to a financial commitment within this legislation. I wonder if the member might want to focus on that component. How important is it that dollars follow along with the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his aboriginality on the question.

To go back to the funding mechanisms in place, the Government of Canada is currently providing for first nations education. There is almost $1.6 billion provided for K-12 education. That goes to 117,000 first nation students across the country. That is an average of over $13,000 per student.

It is unfortunate that at the administration levels, there is always an administrative fee at each level of government or bureaucracy at the AFN and FSIN level. We are not seeing the grassroots bands get their total funding.

What the government has done is provide monumental funding of almost $1.9 billion to go toward K-12 education, with an increase per year of 4.5% for inflation. The Conservative government is looking at the needs of first nations. It is making first nations accountable to their own education system. The government is setting up those mechanisms so that those first nations can succeed.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to remain consistent since I started my term nearly three years ago to the day, so in today's debate I will focus on the bastions of identity associated with providing education services adapted to the realities of first nations youth.

The bastions of identity are a notion I have discussed in the past, and I think that this notion is crucial when it comes to the bill we are discussing today. When we talk about the emancipation and governance of first nations, the first bastion is education, since increased intelligence, economic development and the emancipation of peoples are closely related to it. It is very much a matter of identity. These are the concepts I will be talking about today.

I must stress how important it is to take a practical approach that is free of electioneering tactics. This outdated political approach is responsible for making the public disinterested in and distanced from the process of enacting public policy.

As for the bastions of identity, it is essential to get front-line players and members of first nations involved. That is one of the issues I mentioned yesterday when the bill was introduced.

When I made recommendations to my colleagues, I made sure that I encouraged my colleagues to keep a low profile during the big demonstrations that will be held in the coming months—that is a scoop—since in 2014, the Canadian public and all members of first nations are cynical when people use contentious issues and aboriginal identity issues to win votes and serve their own ends.

That is why we need to focus on the work on the ground. I invited my colleagues to start by visiting the communities in their own ridings and to do grassroots work, instead of trying to monopolize the microphone and cameras, as we have seen in the past. These kinds of methods were used by other parties and a political elite whose day has come and gone.

In 2014, the power needs to be given to members of first nations, since these issues are important to them now, and that is the problem with the bill.

I will talk more about that over the next few minutes, but first nations involvement in the drafting and implementation of this bill has been rather minimal. This needs to change in the future.

Based on those observations, the NDP would like to see an education system that is culturally relevant, that includes the people affected and that is effective for students, teachers and communities. This ideal will only be attained by taking an approach that places members of the community at the forefront. The Canadian government's role should be limited to co-operating fully with those who want a modern system to be created.

In that regard, the NDP would like to see education standards developed in partnership with first nations educators, and at their initiative, in order to achieve that goal. We recognize that standards are needed, but they cannot be imposed by Ottawa. Provincial standards may not suit the needs of first nations communities.

The first way to demonstrate the progressive nature of any proposed approach is to recognize the chronic underfunding of first nations education. That is precisely the problem. The government admitted this indirectly in recent months with the announcement of a massive infusion of money, which will begin in 2016 or 2017—basically, who knows when. The government announced considerable investments. This does constitute tacit recognition of the underfunding, which was always denied by previous successive governments.

The consent of first nations members must also be obtained before any new public policies are adopted that aim to control, manage or hem in first nations members.

I will continue my speech later.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for government business has now expired. The hon. member for Manicouagan will have 15 minutes to conclude his speech after oral question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us resume where we left off a few minutes ago.

Following consideration of Bill C-33, as well as the study I did with my colleagues and the meeting that took place two days ago with representatives from APTN and the Assembly of First Nations, in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, I have been telling my colleagues that we need to stand back when first nations take assertive action. They want to be heard and they will very likely mobilize in the upcoming months because of this draft bill on first nations education. By that, I mean let us not try to score political points.

In my last few years in the House, all too often I have noticed that some politicians, regardless of their party affiliation, usually try to score political points at public gatherings. Given the identity issue that is primarily at stake in this bill, namely first nations education, we must act judiciously. That is why first nations must be front and centre and their assertive action, their own arguments and their own points must take precedence.

It is also important to recognize that education is chronically underfunded, which naturally affects the quality of education offered in remote first nations communities. Unlike what has been claimed, it is the chronic under-funding that has affected the delivery of education services in most of the remote regions. This contradicts the claims we have heard here and what the bill is trying to imply in a roundabout way, namely that the first nations are responsible for overseeing and maintaining the quality of education and that they should shoulder the blame for their lax approach to integrating and applying the recognized education principles.

Statistics and interventions show that the chronic underfunding has been primarily responsible for the adversity in these communities. My chief said that communities can receive up to 35% less funding than the rest of the Canadian public might receive.

Therefore, the first nations members, teachers, principals and staff who are responsible for education have had to make do with less funding and under less-than-ideal conditions. The very fact that I am here today and that there has been an increase in the level of education in these communities is evidence of the resilience of first nations members.

The government must also try to get the consent and support of community members when it enacts public policy, which has not been done or has not been done often enough. With this bill and with many others, the Conservatives have shown a rather narrow view of the concept of consultation, research and consent. I have witnessed this in my few years in the House.

That is why members of first nations, who are the primary stakeholders, were only somewhat involved. In fact, their degree of involvement remains unclear to this day. The AFNQL told us that it had not been consulted, and the vast majority of first nations members said the same. That is deeply deplorable considering the nature of the issue, the education of first nations people, which is closely linked to their identity and will ultimately lead to self-determination, a basic principle of our justice system and our parliamentary system. Self-determination of peoples can be achieved only by emancipation through education. That is why primary stakeholders must be involved in the drafting and enactment of this particular kind of bill.

It is important to keep in mind that the honour of the Crown and the responsibility of the state are inextricably linked to the enactment of public policies that affect matters relating to the quiddity of being Indian. Identity and quiddity are synonyms, but there are differences. The term “quiddity” is used primarily in a legal and “aboriginal law” context.

The education of first nations is also covered by the fiduciary responsibility that must be observed between the Crown and first nations. That is my understanding, and I think that many jurists in the country would agree. As such, attempting to attribute all of the blame for the questionable outcomes of education in these communities to teachers and first nations is quite inappropriate.

Canada is currently in an uncomfortable international spotlight. UN representatives, auditors and rapporteurs have come here over the past two years because our reputation has gone beyond our borders.

Europeans, who know a thing or two about this, decided to come take a look at what is going on with respect to education, housing and food.

I met two of those rapporteurs, so I know that Canada's human rights reputation is suffering worldwide. That is the subject of another debate.

Education is covered by this fiduciary relationship. The honour of the Crown and the Government of Canada are involved every time that appalling situations come to light. Just six days ago, I was in an Innu community in Pakuashipi where members mentioned that educational adaptation is necessary, given the distance, remoteness and cultural subtleties of aboriginal communities. Teachers had to adapt out of necessity. Sometimes, children are simply brought into the forest because it is nearby. It is culturally relevant and part of the nomadic cycle and life cycle of these communities. Therefore, adjustments need to be made.

The Government of Canada must consider these specific characteristics when it drafts bills like this. Moreover, when this kind of reform is put forward, stakeholders in the community must truly be involved. Otherwise, it remains an empty shell. In this case, I would go so far as to say that authoritarianism is at play here. I will come back to that later.

The substance of the bill submitted for our consideration today shows this desire to control and interfere that is oftentimes selective. The Conservative government is trying to intervene selectively in the things that might cast an unfavourable light on the situation internationally and on education. Given that the government was exposed, it is trying to intervene in a draconian way, just as it did in many other areas in recent years. I was able to gauge this desire to intervene. The Conservatives are cherry picking, meaning that they intervene in matters that expose them and that are somewhat comfortable to them.

Therefore, the legislative instrument submitted for the consideration of the House was to outline the obligations and responsibilities of the federal government in the provision of education services on reserves, rather than to exonerate the government of its obligations by transferring the horrible consequences of the chronic underfunding of educational institutions to the institutions' local administration.

The narrative presented so far by stakeholders, who are most often Conservative stakeholders, is that the communities and stakeholders are responsible for the quality of education, even though the chronic underfunding has now been calculated. Indeed, the chronic underfunding has been calculated at a rate of 35%. My boss, the Leader of the Opposition, announced that.

I would point out in passing that, under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, the Government of Canada is responsible for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. That is the first building block in our institution.

The government must provide education from kindergarten to grade 12 on reserve, and it must provide measures for post-secondary education. This must involve financial investments wherever they are needed. So far, this dynamic has received the most exposure.

There was tacit recognition in rather oblique language when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development announced recently, with a great deal of hype, that there would be a huge financial investment in either 2016 or 2017. Those funds are needed now, not in 2016, because there is a dire need.

Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that this is a step forward. There had been no such recognition up until now. The government therefore took a step forward and indicated that if $2.4 billion—if memory serves—needs to be invested in 2016, that means that this area is now drastically underfunded. Now the question is what other areas will it pilfer from to come up with that money, but that is not my problem.

The selective interventionism and punitive nature of the Conservative government's initiatives clearly illustrate the inadequacy of the “my way or the highway” approach to providing services to the public and meeting government obligations regarding basic rights. I am talking about the punitive nature and selective interventionism because I have seen them first-hand, since I travel around to communities that have asserted their rights and have taken a stand, and are now being punished for it.

This is punishment. The government is simply making cuts. The government finds that the number of students does not correspond to the list that dates back to who knows when, and for that reason it is cutting $460,000 from the budget. For a remote community, that is a lot of money. These are punitive measures. Make no mistake.

Now I will say a few words about the moves the Conservatives keep making to off-load their obligations and their responsibility for government inaction on education for first nations youth by shifting the blame onto local stakeholders who have to deal with difficult conditions and limited resources.

The current government is trying to off-load its obligations not only to Canada's aboriginal peoples, but also in terms of providing services. We saw that with Canada Post. It is trying to off-load its obligations. Service delivery is more or less favourable, more or less on this government's agenda. In any case, the government will have to change its position, what with the general election just around the corner. Soon we will likely see the government handing out goodies, if I may put it that way.

Let me read a subclause that was brought to my attention; it belongs to a different time. The last time I had to analyze a section of legislation that reads a contrario goes back at least 13 or 14 years, when I got into law school. That is certainly a different time, but here it is still: clause 41 of the bill before us today reads as follows:

41. (1) The director of education, the principal, the teachers and the other staff of a school must provide all reasonable assistance to enable the temporary administrator of the school to exercise their powers and perform their functions and must provide any information relevant to the administration of the school that the temporary administrator requires. They must also comply with any direction given by the temporary administrator relating to the administration of the school.

Subclause 2 is where the harm lies:

No proceedings lie against any person referred to in subsection (1) for having in good faith provided the temporary administrator with assistance or information or complied with their directions.

Strangely enough, the title of the subclause is “Immunity”. We know, of course, that the Conservatives often use a word to mean the opposite—they talk of transparency and the Fair Elections Act, even though there is actually nothing very fair about it—and this subclause is no exception. If you read it a contrario, it means that the director of education, the principal, the teachers and the other staff members of a school can be sued if they do not provide the administrator with assistance in good faith.

It remains to be seen what good faith is and what level of cooperation is adequate in the eyes of the Conservatives and the minister. Ultimately, I very much doubt that the minister will be the one making the assessment. This kind of not-so-veiled threat is really disgraceful. Circumstances will make the Conservatives see that they are not the only ones able to make threats like that. They may have to put up with some heat this summer.

I submit this respectfully.

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

Mr. Speaker, I once again want to turn to an analysis that was provided of Bill C-33 by the Assembly of First Nations which said that not only did it show how Bill C-33 met the five conditions laid out in the open letter by Shawn Atleo and by the resolution from the Chiefs Assembly, but it also said that Bill C-33:

—is a constructive and necessary step supportive of the goals expressed by First Nations for control, respect for treaty and Aboriginal rights, recognition of language and culture and a clear statutory guarantee for fair funding...

Shawn Atleo, the national chief, said:

What we are hearing the government commit to is a new way forward that we jointly design an approach to education that we have First Nations control and sustainable funding that has to be anchored in legislation.

Of course that is in the legislation. Therefore, I want to know this from the hon. member who is a member of the aboriginal affairs committee. If the Assembly of First Nations seems to think this legislation is meeting the goals it has set out, why is the NDP playing politics and opposing it?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

One person cannot be responsible for or represent the opinions of an entire people. The stakeholders who have come to meet with us so far have told a different story. It is up to Mr. Atleo to address that.

However, the lack of support is noticeable across the country, and the chiefs who came on behalf of the AFNQL two or three days ago said that they will oppose this bill as it stands, as it has been drafted and introduced in the House.

That is what we are going to have to contend with.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I previously have had the opportunity to express a concern related to the financing of education. It is an important issue for us. I was formerly an education critic in the Province of Manitoba where we dealt with the importance of providing a curriculum. It is so critically important that along with that we have to provide the funding that is necessary to implement the curriculum. There is no doubt a great deal of concern about how much money is going toward the actual education of the students. This is of critical importance.

Even though the legislation refers to education, there does not seem to be any sort of commitment going to that direct link to education dollars for the students. Would the member care to comment on the importance of that aspect of education in general?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

At times, funding is the best way to address a desperate situation. In this case, it has been clearly demonstrated that underfunding is the cause of education problems in these communities, particularly the ones that are remote and that have to deal with somewhat challenging conditions and the added challenge of recruiting qualified teachers and stakeholders.

When I went to Pakuashipi, I realized that they are in desperate need of a visit from a psychiatrist, someone who can talk with the youth about fetal alcohol syndrome and many other things. However, that would require massive funding. Those are excess costs that schools in downtown Montreal, for example, would not have to deal with, but that would be shouldered by stakeholders and local institutions.

Sometimes, it is easy to solve the puzzle. Funding levels should reflect the funding provided for all Canadian students. Students across the country should all have matching funding.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is doing a great job as the deputy critic for aboriginal affairs. I know so, because there are two Algonquin communities in my riding.

Those communities told me that they were scared of this bill. They are afraid that the bill will affect the control they have and they will not be able to meet the real educational needs of their people. This bill will create a lot of red tape at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development instead of actually helping the communities.

Does my hon. colleague agree with those communities? It is unfortunate that the government is just doing this without really caring about the actual needs of those communities.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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

I met with Chief Whiteduck from his riding just a couple of days ago. Chief Whiteduck holds a PhD in education. He is therefore well equipped to determine not only the relevance of the funding but also the relevance of the upgrading and the implementation of culturally appropriate programs in his own community.

This government interference and the idea of going back to a government agency that would supervise the schools and the quality of education could be counterproductive and raise hackles under the circumstances. That is the reason for this opposition and the assertive action that will be brought forward, and rightly so, based on my own experience.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about what the government said.

The government said that the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations agreed. However, the national chief also said that it was up to the first nations to decide whether or not it was a good bill. We are hearing more and more that it is not what first nations want. Patrick Madahbee, Grand Council Chief of the Union of Ontario Indians said:

“They just don’t get it, either that or they’re hell bent on legislating First Nations to death”.

In fact, Bill C-33 reminds a lot of people of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. Again, the government is putting in legislation that impacts first nations without providing money. With this first nation, we see that the government wants to provide money, but it is way later on when it is convenient for it, when it is election time.

Maybe my colleague can comment on what the impact of this education act will be on first nations, and how many more first nations are coming forward saying they do not see this as a bill but a way of putting another Indian agent in place through the legislation.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I believe that she provided two options. Under the circumstances, I think it is the second option. What I would say is that the government should have done it the other way, that is, it should have given the money first and then it should have looked at what to call it and how to frame all of this. At this time, the pressing needs concern the chronic underfunding that affects the quality of teaching, bearing in mind the additional challenges that the communities have to deal with. For example, they have to hire employees who often live in urban centres and have to move to isolated areas. These things have to be taken into consideration and are strong arguments for the massive injection of funds prior to the enactment of such measures.

In this case, they have done the opposite. The government has promised and announced funds for 2016, as though this government will still be in power in 2016. I submit this respectfully.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question that my colleague will surely be able to answer. The history of relations between aboriginal peoples and the Canadian government is littered with promises that have generally not been kept. My colleague has worked very hard to get an education and to become a brilliant lawyer. I would like him to describe what it means for a young aboriginal person to hear that the problem could perhaps start being fixed in two years.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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

I would say that this kind of message and reasoning was already at the forefront in my own community. Now that I am in Ottawa, I am in a position to pinpoint the types of things that are truly hindering the expansion, emancipation and self-determination of the peoples.

One of these things is that key players and first nations members are almost always left out of the process when these measures are introduced. There may be some Indians who come to testify in committee, but most often I would say that these measures are introduced and implemented behind closed doors. First nations members are rarely asked to participate. That is rather outrageous, but I am starting to get used it after three years.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Miramichi.

I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-33, the first nations control of first nations education act. I am proud to be a part of a government that supports first nations education success. Our government is proud of the deeply collaborative approach that has been taken on this important file and we are seeing the results.

From the outset, our government committed to working with first nations to develop a first nations education act. Consultations and engagement with first nation parents, students, leaders and educators, as well as the provinces, were integral to the development and drafting of this proposed legislation. I would like to highlight some important milestones.

In 2011, the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations jointly launched a national panel on first nation elementary and secondary education. Over the course of five months, the national panel held seven regional round tables and one national round table. Panel members visited 25 schools in 30 first nation communities across Canada, meeting with key individuals and organizations in each region.

In its final report, the national panel described education legislation as a fundamental part of an education system. In the words of the national panel:

—legislation...establishes and protects the rights of the child to a quality education, ensures predictable and sufficient funding, provides the framework for the implementation of education support structures and services, and sets out the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of all partners in the system.

Following this report, our government made a commitment in economic action plan 2012 to put in place first nation education legislation and launched an intensive consultation process in December 2012. The consultation process consisted of two stages.

. First, our government shared a discussion guide with all first nations across Canada. The discussion guide informed first nations of components which would be covered in proposed elementary and secondary education legislation for first nations on reserve. The guide was informed by years of studies, audits and reports, including the 2011 June Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada, the 2011 report by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and the 2012 report of the national panel.

From January to May 2013, our government engaged first nation parents, youth, educators, provincial partners and others with an interest or expertise in education through regional consultation sessions across the country. As well, more than 30 video and teleconferences were held and opportunities included email submissions and an online survey to make available and provide additional input.

Areas of interest and concern raised throughout these consultation activities included first nations control over first nations education, funding, the transition to a legislated system, parental involvement in education, language and culture, and aboriginal treaty and treaty rights.

After considering the findings from the national panel and feedback received through the consultation process, our government developed an annotated outline of the proposed legislation. The blueprint was released in July 2013. It was shared with first nations chiefs and councils, organizations, provincial governments, and others with an expertise or interest in first nation education for feedback.

In October 2013, following additional feedback and comments in response to the blueprint, the government released “Working Together for First Nation Students: A Proposal for a Bill on First Nation Education”. In addition to posting this draft legislative proposal on the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada website, our government shared the draft legislative proposal with more than 600 chiefs and band councils and every first nation community across the country, as well as provincial governments, for further input.

We have undertaken unprecedented and intensive consultations with first nations across this country, which have led to the exchange of open letters and dialogue between the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

In November 2013, the Assembly of First Nations released an open letter to the Government of Canada asking for collaboration on five issues. These included first nation control and respecting inherent and treaty rights, a statutory guarantee for funding for education, support for first nation languages and cultures, jointly determined oversight that respects first nation rights and responsibilities, and, finally, an ongoing process of meaningful engagement.

In December 2013, my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development responded in an open letter with a commitment to address the issues raised.

Our government worked with the Assembly of First Nations to address its five conditions for success. As a result, in February 2014, Canada and the Assembly of First Nations announced the first nations control of first nations education act.

The bill includes important changes, such as the creation of a joint council of education professionals to provide advice and support to first nations and the Government of Canada on the implementation and oversight of the first nations control of first nations education act; first nations control in incorporating language and culture programming in education curricula, and providing funding for language and culture programming within the statutory funding stream; third, a commitment by the government to work in collaboration with first nations to develop the bill's regulations; and last, adequate, stable, predictable, and sustainable funding.

It was a historic moment for Canada-first nations relations, and we must not lose this momentum. These changes responded in full to the AFN's five conditions for success.

Our government has taken an open, transparent, and iterative approach to legislative development, including, as I have mentioned, the unusual step of the online release of draft legislation ahead of time.

We have listened and responded to concerns. Throughout the consultation process, our government provided updates to all first nation chiefs and councils on next steps in the development of a proposed approach to legislation.

As demonstrated by the name, first nations control is the central principle upon which this proposed legislation is based. It would recognize the ability and responsibility of first nations to educate their students. It would recognize the importance of treaty and aboriginal rights, which are protected by the Constitution. It would not apply to first nations that are part of an existing comprehensive or sectoral self-government agreement that covers education.

When our government announced our intention to introduce legislation, we made it clear that the partnership does not end with the introduction of the bill. Going forward, through the creation of, and the role of, the joint council of education professionals as proposed in Bill C-33, Canada and the Assembly of First Nations will continue to explore ways to further engage first nations as part of the commitment to respecting first nations control over first nations education.

It is in this vein that the minister is committed to negotiating a political protocol with the AFN on the role and membership of the joint council. First nations and all Canadians will have the opportunity to continue engaging during the parliamentary process.

In addition, when this bill receives royal assent, our government will work with first nations to ensure that there is a smooth transition for communities and first nations education organizations, and it has committed funding to do so.

Given the importance of this issue, these discussions have sometimes raised passionate and differing points of view. What we all agree on is that every child in this country has a right to quality education, no matter where they live in Canada. We can also agree that despite the best efforts of countless parents, teachers, and communities, too many first nation children are being left behind.

The historic way forward with the Assembly of First Nations is reflective of a constructive exchange and consultation process with first nations. I am proud of the deeply collaborative approach we have taken on this file. Working closely with first nations, we have reached a historic agreement on giving first nations control of first nations education, something that has been desperately needed for generations.

Bill C-33 represents an important step forward together. Our government will continue to focus our energies to work even harder now to ensure improved outcomes for first nation students on reserve.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

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

Why did the Conservative government not consult or collaborate with the real partners, meaning the communities, educators, teachers and people who work in the education system in these communities? Why did the government not work with them?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact we have worked in collaboration with so many stakeholders. Years of discussion, dialogue, and studies have illustrated the point that consultation is such a high priority for this government.

The government took into consideration the views and perspectives that were shared during this consultation with first nation educators, first nation leaders, parents, and teachers. There were meetings and online meetings. There was a sneak preview for everyone of the legislation online ahead of time. These are the kinds of things that teachers and other educators had many opportunities to respond to during the course of the consultation process, which lasted a number of years.

I am proud to say that the minister took the advice that was given to him and to the government as part of the consultation and incorporated it into the new bill.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first nations control of first nations education act is a constructive and necessary step toward a better future for first nation students across the country.

I am both shocked and saddened that the NDP would stand in the way of improving the lives of first nation students for purely partisan reasons.

The NDP is opposing legislation that, for the first time in our history, would give first nation students the right to a quality education. NDP members are choosing to stand with those calling to bring Canada's economy to its knees and opposing an unprecedented investment of $1.9 billion for first nations' education. I am disturbed that they would play politics on the backs of first nations children.

Can the hon. member please elaborate on the benefits that would flow to first nation students across Canada?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Don Valley West for raising this important issue and allowing me to talk a little about the economic prosperity that I believe the bill would ultimately bring to this fast-growing segment of our population, first nation youth.

Frankly, it has been unfair to them that, through no fault of their own, they have not been able to share in the prosperity that other Canadian children have had as a result of a good education system. That is why we on this side of the House believe so strongly in this proposed legislation.

The goal is to improve educational outcomes with a view to improving the lives of children and their economic prospects. The bill would enable first nations to exercise control over their own education system.

There are other issues too that I did not have a chance to mention in my speech; for example, the funding formula. I was able to touch on it a little, but ultimately secure, stable funding would be provided. We are now replacing the 2% increase with a 4.5% escalator in funding. This would allow first nations to be assured for years to come that they will be able to fund a strong system for their children.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today in support of Bill C-33, the first nations control of first nations education act. I welcome this opportunity to outline the advantages of Bill C-33 and the many benefits it would bring to the first nations and all Canadians.

The proposed legislation would provide flexibility for each first nation, while establishing legislation that sets out standards to encourage students' success. For the first time ever, every first nation youth would have a guaranteed access to the high quality education that all Canadian students enjoy.

I want to speak about the need to improve the quality of education for first nation students and why it is a shared priority for our government and first nations. First, I want to acknowledge the first nation communities across Canada that have demonstrated commitment to improving education for their youth. We have seen the success these approaches can deliver, and we hope that Bill C-33 can empower other first nation communities to achieve similar results.

While first nations have worked hard with our government, provincial governments, and other partners to establish quality schools, the vast majority of first nation children do not have the same educational opportunity as other Canadian children do. Statistics show that this has a dire impact on their chances for success later in life.

There are numerous success stories, but we still have an urgent situation at the national level. According to the 2011 national household survey, only 38% of registered natives living on reserves, ages 18 to 24, had completed high school, compared to 87% of non-aboriginal Canadians. I am sure members will agree that this is a shocking and appalling number.

When we consider that aboriginal youth represent the fastest growing segment in the Canadian population, it becomes clear that steps must be taken to close this education gap. Currently, standards vary in on-reserve schools and, as a result, students have no guarantee of being able to transfer to a provincial system without academic penalty or to receive a diploma or certificate that is recognized by their university or employer of choice.

Recognizing that first nations are best placed to determine how to achieve the best results for their communities, the bill is informed by and built upon the fundamental principle of first nations control of first nations education. It gives first nations the same authority that is awarded to provincial school boards. The ability to set curriculum, hire and fire teachers, and set student and teacher evaluations are just a few examples that come to mind.

First nations would retain these authorities as long as they meet basic standards that are legislated in the act, and these would include requirements for teacher certification; requirements for minimum instruction days similar to provincial requirements; a recognized high school diploma; transferability between systems without penalty; and access to education for every first nation student.

These are basic requirements that every school off reserve must fulfill and are essential to ensuring a high quality of education. By setting standards, education legislation ensures that the features of a quality education system are there for our children every day.

In the rest of the country, legislation allows provinces to set standards for schools and school boards, like annual planning, health and safety, and requirements for daily operations. Legislation ensures that everyone involved knows their job and their responsibilities, from education directors and school principals to teachers and parent community committees.

Such legislation is in place in every province and territory in Canada except on first nation reserves. The proposed legislation would provide stable and predictable statutory funding consistent with provincial education funding models. This means the first nation would have the resources to determine the best means for educating its children, integrating language and culture, and developing policies and procedures for its school system.

Equally important is that first nations would be able to choose the governance model for their education system. First nations would get to decide whether they wanted to operate their own community school, whether they wanted to join a first nations education authority, or whether they wanted to participate in a provincial education system.

Supported by funding for governance and administration costs, first nations education authorities would be school-board-like organizations that would be run by first nations and would have the size and capacity to provide participating first nations with functions such as hiring teachers, setting policy, and purchasing supplies, as well as providing a wider range of support services for students. Whether first nations chose to enter into agreements with provinces or decided to form first nations education authorities, these organizations would provide support to schools to ensure they are meeting their requirements under the act and providing a quality education for students.

Let me emphasize again that the bill would establish first nations control over first nations education and would provide first nations with the flexibility to determine what is effective for their students' success. Parents, community members, and first nations leaders would be able to work with school administrators on the operations, planning, and reporting processes in their schools.

In addition to setting important standards, Bill C-33 would strengthen governance and accountability and provide mechanisms for stable, predictable, and sustainable funding.

We want to ensure that on-reserve schools provide the support services that are so important in achieving good educational outcomes and in ensuring that first nations children get the resources they need in order to succeed. We want all first nations students to have access to the quality and the quantity of the tools they need to learn: desks, textbooks, computers, sports equipment, and all the rest. We also want to ensure that first nations students are able to transfer seamlessly between schools on reserve and the provincial system if necessary.

First nations students and parents deserve to feel confident in their quality of education and confident that graduation comes with a recognized diploma or certificate so they are prepared to enter the labour force or continue their education.

We know that in order to provide the high quality of education that all other Canadian students enjoy, we need to ensure that first nations students are being taught by certified teachers and are spending a minimum number of days in class each year.

The proposed legislation would help turn the corner for first nations elementary and secondary education. That is why the historic announcement made in February by our Prime Minister with the Assembly of First Nations on first nations control over first nations education legislation included an unprecedented amount of money, $1.9 billion, to support it. When this bill passes, the funding would be guaranteed by law. It would also be subject to a 4.5% escalator, replacing the 2% funding cap that the Liberals put on first nations spending.

The proposed legislation and the new funding respond to the five conditions for success set out in a resolution by the Assembly of First Nations and endorsed by the Chiefs-in-Assembly in December 2013.

These are investments in the future of first nations children and in Canada's prosperity. Bill C-33 would establish first nations control over first nations education, with the flexibility for first nations to choose what works best in their communities. It is not about making all on-reserve schools the same; it is about making sure that every student has the same opportunity, no matter where he or she lives in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the government side is saying with respect to consultation, a lot of first nations across this country are saying they were not consulted.

I have a letter written by Chief Shining Turtle, dated May 1, 2014, that was sent to all members of Parliament. It discusses a resolution and it speaks about this legislation as infringement legislation, as opposed to first nations act legislation. It says, “These resolutions reject the unilateral imposition of these bills” in talking about their resolutions, and it goes on to say:

There has been no meaningful consultation and accommodation of First Nations interests in any of these documents (emphasis added)!! We have no record of any consultation with Whitefish River First Nation on this piece of legislation.

It also indicates, as the government should know:

We have the right to free, prior and informed consent on anything that would affect our rights.

The question I am asking on behalf of Chief Shining Turtle is this: can the hon. member explain how the government fulfilled its duty to inform Whitefish River about any of these pieces of legislation that have been passed by Parliament, including the first nations education act?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our government will keep fighting for first nations children and the Assembly of First Nations and will continue to move forward with this historic and necessary bill.

Reform of first nations education has been a topic of discussion for many years, including through dialogue in the National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education for Students on Reserve.

The way forward negotiated between the government and the Assembly of First Nations in February follows years and years of discussions, dialogue, and studies reflecting the efforts of many first nations and governments to arrive at this point of legislation that would recognize first nations control of first nations education.

If we followed the ideas of the opposition, the bill would be at a standstill and the money that our government is ready to put into the studies of aboriginal students for their benefit would be at a standstill. However, our government is ready to act and move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I need to correct my colleague across the way. Actually, we do not need legislation in order for the money to flow.

The money is very important to first nations education, and it should have been flowing immediately, if not a long time ago. Let us not forget that the 2% funding cap came from the Liberals.

On that note, the member did not answer the question I asked. I mention again that the government had a responsibility with this piece of legislation. The legislation should have been telling the government of its responsibilities and describing the government's responsibilities to first nations education. It does not do that. It actually legislates directions.

Again, the question from Chief Shining Turtle is this: can the member actually tell us how the government fulfilled its duty to inform Whitefish River First Nation about any of these pieces of legislation that have been passed by Parliament, including the first nations education act?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, from June to November of 2011, the national panel held seven regional round tables and one national round table, conducted site visits in 30 first nation communities and 25 schools, and held meetings with key individuals and organizations in each region.

The panel's final report, issued in February 2012, provided the government with valuable feedback and recommendations on the next steps to improve educational outcomes for first nations, including the development of legislation.

We have done our work and we are ready to move on.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North, Democratic Reform; the hon. member for Malpeque, Employment Insurance; and the hon. member for York South—Weston, Rail Transportation.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and first take note that today is May 1, the international day of solidarity, which is about the workers of the world. My colleagues on this side of the House take that day very seriously. I say this to remind members that “mayday” has a second meaning. Mayday is the international voice call of distress among mariners. That is precisely what we are hearing today from first nations across Canada, with the introduction of Bill C-33.

I put to the House, and I maintain, that Bill C-33 is pure Orwellian newspeak at work. In George Orwell's 1984, it was the minister of peace who waged war. It was the ministry of love that oversaw torture. It was the minister of plenty who oversaw rationing. Here we have the Conservative government introducing into Parliament a bill euphemistically called an act for first nations control of first nations education, which should more appropriately be called a bill to increase ministerial power over first nations education and to limit first nations' inherent rights.

Today, as we speak, the minister does not have the long list of powers that this bill is designed to give him by statute. Currently the minister has to rely on a not so genteel form of extortion, by which first nations must agree to sign a contribution agreement, which stipulates those powers to the minister in order to get money to educate their children. Bill C-33 would give the minister, who I would remind the House is a person of another culture, another background, and another language and history, all of those intrusive powers by law.

I have news for the minister. The right of first nations to control their education already exists. It is for this Parliament to recognize that right, an inherent right, a right confirmed by sacred treaties, a right recognized by international covenants. I argue that Bill C-33 would put limits on those rights by design.

First nations are demanding nothing more than what we already take for granted: the right to see that their children receive an education in accord with their own culture, language, and teaching of history and values. The right was not surrendered by first nations at treaty. It is not necessary to have an act of Parliament to confirm an existing right. All that is needed is a mechanism so that the right can be fulfilled and made manifest and realized by having the means provided to do it. In fact, letting Parliament give that right or afford that right makes it a legislated right and not an inherent right, which is one of the inherent flaws of this bill.

After the exercise in creative writing that is the title of this bill, I ask the House to consider the preamble. We all know that the preamble does not have the effect of committing Canada to doing anything, but I challenge members here today to read those lofty verses in the preamble and then to try to match them in any meaningful way with the real content of the bill.

I will give the House an example. The preamble states:

Whereas First Nations must receive support that enables them to exercise their rights and fulfil their responsibilities relating to the...education provided to their children;

All that sounds good, but compare that with the actual fact that we offer them a paltry 4.5% annual increase on the already miserly amount they receive now, which is half or less than what their provincial counterparts receive. It would take up to 22 years to catch up, without even considering population increases, inflation, and the increasing cost of education. Compare that with the lofty principles of the language in the preamble. What a cruel deception we are being asked to pass here with this legislation.

Another example in the preamble states:

Whereas First Nations education systems must receive adequate, stable, predictable and sustainable funding...

Then we give them a bill that makes this promise empty, which is an utterly cruel deception and Orwellian doublespeak, if I have ever seen it. These are inherent contradictions meant to deceive.

The minister is crowing that under the current system, there is no recognition of first nations languages and first nations culture, and he is giving them that by virtue of this bill. This is another example of the Eurocentric, paternalistic, colonial attitude of the government. It is not his to give, because that is already their inalienable, inherent right.

First nations can already teach language and culture if they choose to do so. The permission of the minister is not required. However, under Bill C-33, the minister can impose the regulations that would set out how that language and culture would be taught. He can impose the amount of money that can be spent for that purpose. He can impose who is qualified to teach the language and culture and whether the laws of the province apply to the teaching of that language and culture. The end result is that first nations would have less control over the teaching of language and culture than they have now. It is blatantly disingenuous or ignorant to imply otherwise.

Clause 43 is another example of contradictory Orwellian newspeak. It provides that the minister must pay to a first nation education authority an amount of money determined by a calculation, which is what it costs for a provincial public school in a similar location, per pupil, to provide educational services. On first reading, one would assume that by this legislation, they would get the same amount of money as provincial students do, except that reading further, on the very next page, clause 45 of the bill states that the minister will obtain an order in council limiting the amount of money in any fiscal year to whatever amount the minister wants to set, or whatever amount of money the minister can pry out of the hands of his minister of finance around the cabinet table. Presto, the obligation to provide equitable education has just completely vanished, because the reality is that clause 45 trumps, again, the lofty principle, the carrot dangled, by clause 43.

I know that members opposite will say that we have to be fiscally responsible, that we cannot do this all at once, and that it has to be phased in gradually. In actual fact, there are two problems with that argument. The first is that if a first nations school decides it can no longer deprive its children of the education they deserve and decides to send its children to a nearby provincial school, the minister will pay that full school tuition for those students, double the amount he planned to spend if those children stayed on reserve. The money will be there for that, so why is it not available as a first option for students to stay at the reserve school?

The second reason is a larger picture, perhaps, that we really have to address in the context of this kind of funding question. It is that first nations receive absolutely not one penny from the tens of billions of dollars from oil, minerals, forestry products, and natural resources taken from their lands. It is trillions of dollars over the years if we were to add it up. One cannot tell people that there is no money to provide for the basic needs of first nations children to realize their full potential when we are harvesting tens of billions of dollars per year from first nations lands and territories. In all good conscience, those of us in the House of Commons have to address that fundamental issue. First nations children are Canadian children, and all Canadian children deserve the right to realize their full potential through a quality education.

I want to take a moment to look at the international obligations the bill fails to acknowledge or recognize. The year 2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 28 recognizes the right of a child to equal opportunity to have an education.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that indigenous people must have access to schools consistent with language, culture, and values and that “indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages” and cultures.

Article 13 of that UN declaration states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.

Bill C-33 gives no recognition to any of these international instruments, nor does it acknowledge that Canada has any responsibilities and obligations in this regard. I believe that this is by design, not by any oversight.

We have also heard the minister say that Bill C-33 is a first step, a transition to something better and that this will evolve into something more acceptable in time.

That is exactly what they said about the act for the gradual civilization of the Indians 14 decades ago, and we still have the Indian Act today, an act best described as 140 years of social tragedy, an act unworthy of a western developed democracy. Instead of rising above that act, this piece of legislation is consistent with the Indian Act in that regard.

What is the purpose of this legislation? Clause 3 states:

The purpose of this Act is to provide for the control by First Nations of their education systems by enabling councils of First Nations to administer schools situated on their reserves

That, perhaps more than any one phrase, is the nutshell of the problem.

There is a considerable difference between control of education by first nations and enabling councils to administer the schools. The whole structure of Bill C-33 is to give control over first nations education to the minister and then to provide for the administration of the minister's will at the local level by the council. The boss gets to dictate the means of production, and the workers get to decide what colour to paint the lunchroom. That is what this boils down to, but then it would not be a vision of industrial democracy.

In the bill, first nations are finally going to be allowed to be their own Indian agents. Again, that is what this boils down to. They would be the administrators of regulations decided in Ottawa by the minister on their behalf.

The charade continues with clause 7:

The council of a First Nation must, in accordance with this Act, provide access to elementary and secondary education to any person who is ordinarily resident on a reserve

Thus Bill C-33 would impose an obligation on a first nation council to provide education, whether or not the resources were provided to do so, and neither is there freedom of the council in how it complies. It must do so in accordance with the bill.

The bill would expand the discretionary powers of the minister in more than one way. If we cannot see what is wrong with that mindset and world view, then we have no right to be addressing such an important subject today.

In clause 10, we come to the joint council of education professionals. Why does the government call it a joint council when all the appointments are made by cabinet, the chair is appointed by cabinet, and the minister can kick out anyone who does not toe the line? That is what a powerless group it would be. Essentially, it would sit and wait until the minister asked for its advice on certain matters, but the minister would be under no obligation to follow the advice or to explain why the advice was not followed. This is not self-determination under any sense of the word, nor does it meet the test of true implementation of authority over the system.

The minister would only be obliged to ask the council for its advice when he wished to do so. We would never know what that advice to the minister was or why it was being implemented, or not, because advice from a statutory body to a minister is considered a confidential cabinet confidence and is protected from release. The council would not be obligated to support first nations control of education.

The minister says that the council would provide oversight to the operation of the act, but unfortunately, Bill C-33 provides no oversight powers. Again, it is an inherent flaw in this legislation that is deliberate and not by accident.

When concerns like this are raised, the minister's response is, “trust me”. There will be political protocols, he has assured his doubters. I do not have to remind the House that Ottawa is a boneyard of discarded political protocols. Why does the minister want to wait until after the bill becomes law to offer a protocol? We all know the answer to that question.

In clause 20 of Bill C-33, we move into governance, and again we find what I believe is tricky and calculated deception. We have to read clause 21 with one eye focusing on what the bill says first nations can do and the other eye focusing on the power of the minister to make the regulations. For example, the council must establish policies and procedures; establish education programs, attendance policies,and success plans; monitor the quality of education; and provide the minister with an annual report. The minister says this is evidence of local control.

The bill goes on to provide the minister with the unilateral authority to impose regulations that set out the form and content of the budgets, the plans, the programs, and the policies. The minister may also impose provincial law to govern such matters.

Again, this bill has to be read in its totality, not as isolated clauses selected to make a certain case that local autonomy or local control is in fact a reality.

Clause 21 also provides that first nation language can be the language of instruction, but it has to be in addition to English or French. That clause pretty well wipes out the possibility of immersion instruction. Just imagine telling a French immersion school that it must also be providing parallel instruction in English.

Will there be any extra funding for instruction in a first nation language? Again, Bill C-33 is silent in this regard. Then, once again, the instruction of the indigenous language must be provided in accordance with the regulations unilaterally set out by the minister. “Trust me”, the minister says.

I am almost out of time, and I am not even halfway through this bill. It gives cause for us to reflect on just how pockmarked and potholed, with one-way streets, with arrows pointing both ways, this bill really is. I have not had time to mention how the provinces are going to react when the minister starts to force the provinces to pick up part of the tab, bit by bit, until, I would argue, the whole expense is going to be offloaded.

I have been assisted by comments and analysis that are starting to emerge from first nations, and I urge members opposite to do the same.

I will end my formal remarks by pointing out how appalling I find it that a bill of this nature has been subjected to time allocation and closure before the opinions of those first nations can be registered and made manifest before decision-makers and policy-makers.

I cannot imagine anything more contradictory to first nation culture than to shut down debate in a culture that values oral tradition, that values letting everyone's voice be heard until consensus is achieved.

I honestly did not think the Conservatives would have the gall to invoke closure on a bill of this nature, on this subject matter, but they have. They keep saying that the AFN is in favour of this bill, and that is why they are plowing ahead. We have heard from first nations. As of two hours ago, the executive council of the Assembly of First Nations has overridden the opinion of their leader. A resolution to that effect is coming forward.

On May 14, there is a confederacy scheduled for Ottawa where these first nations leaders are going to bring the true position of the affiliates of the Assembly of First Nations to convey their real opinion of this bill, which is unanimously opposed. No one can find a first nation constituency in the country that supports this bill.

To implement it now would be the height of hypocrisy and Eurocentric arrogance, colonial, Eurocentric arrogance. I say this looking at the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who I think knows better and who knows how offensive to the sensibilities of first nations and all Canadians it would be to continue this legacy of paternalistic colonialism and impose on them a piece of legislation that they are not in favour of.

Whether the Conservatives say their consultation met the test of true consultation or not, and I do not believe it did, the tables have turned as of today. As of two hours ago, this has all changed. Yet by May 14, will we even still be debating this bill, or will it have been rammed through the House of Commons and sent on to the Conservative-dominated Senate?

This bill warrants and deserves careful examination. First nations have a right to have input in the legislative process and to give testimony at committee. If there was ever a bill that should be taken on the road by committee for consultation in each region of the country, this is one.

I know it is not my job to ask them questions. They will ask me questions. However, how do the Conservatives justify clamping down debate on such an important piece of legislation, denying the opportunity for first nations to participate in the legislative process? It is beyond me.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to hear from one of Parliament's great storytellers. Unfortunately, a lot of his analysis of the bill was fiction when it comes to his conspiracy theories about the sinister plot of the minister to wrest control away from first nations by giving them more control, by denying them funding, by giving them more funding. He described as miserly the $1.55 billion per year that the government provides in funding, as well as the $1.9-billion increase that was proposed in the last budget, which, of course, he voted against.

Perhaps that is the reason why the member for Western Arctic, who has not been given an opportunity by his party to participate, mentioned in his question yesterday that he thought if every reserve in Canada, of which there are 600, got a new school, in his estimation, $50 million to $100 million per school would be needed. Therefore, according to the NDP, just $60 billion would do the job and meet the obligations.

The member for Western Arctic was the deputy critic for aboriginal affairs until very recently.

I would ask the member, is $60 billion what the NDP is proposing, or is that miserly as well?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need legislation to elevate the standards of contribution for first nations students to the provincial equivalent. The province of Manitoba is a good example. There are reserves near Thompson, Manitoba, where the funding per capita per student is $7,000 or $8,000 by the federal government. The province's funding per student in Thompson, Manitoba, right nearby, is $15,000. One could argue that the amount of money per capita in reserve schools could in fact be even higher than the provincial average because of the special needs and historical catching up that may need to be done in order for first nations students to achieve their full potential through education.

We do not need legislation to do that. It could have found its way into the 2014 budget, but even with implementation of this bill we will not see any improvement until 2016, conveniently just after the next federal election. I suppose the Conservatives will be dangling that as some kind of a carrot in front of the noses of aboriginal voters. This is the hypocrisy of it.

Then what the Conservatives contemplate is this paltry increase of 4.5% of the current 2% cap. It will be 22 years, by the NDP's calculation, before there is a catch-up to where first nations schools are funded to the same degree as their provincial counterparts, and that is without taking into account the increase in population and the increase in the cost of providing education. There is no built-in escalating formula in that model. He knows it is paltry. He knows it is cheap. I do not know what wild numbers he is pulling out of his hat now, but the total amount of money that goes to first nations people is paltry on a per capita basis. One might say it is not all about money. A lot of it is about money.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Winnipeg Centre started his eloquent speech, he rightly centred the concerns and approach in a rights-based approach. Unless we deal with education and other matters with regard to first nations from a rights-based approach, we are always going to get it wrong. This piece of legislation that is before the House should really be called the first nations administration of first nations education, not the first nations control of first nations education, because the bill would provide administrative functions for bands, administrative detail, and administrative reporting.

The other piece of this is that the government consistently says that first nations are consulted. The member for Winnipeg Centre referred to one part of the bill that is a really important indicator of how this is not consultation and referred to the regulations. What we have heard previous Conservative members talk about is that first nations will have control over how those regulations are going to be developed. Of course, those regulations are where all of the details are in terms of how this act is going to move forward. It says the joint council. That is not first nations. The minister has the overall authority in terms of appointment on that joint council and that joint council is made up of nine people.

I wonder if the member for Winnipeg Centre could comment on how the joint council simply does not constitute appropriate first nations engagement and involvement in the development of regulations.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her advocacy on behalf of first nations people during her long tenure as the official opposition's senior critic for aboriginal affairs.

The member is right, the joint council process would by no way give first nations control over their education. It would give them an obligation to administer carefully the directives dictated by the minister. The unilateral, discretionary authority of the minister has been enhanced and augmented. It is hard to believe that one could expand on the overwhelming powers that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has over first nations people, but the bill does. The bill contemplates an increase in support for first nations students but at the direction and control of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and not first nations people, and again, subject to what he is able to wrest from the Minister of Finance in any given year.

The Conservatives' model is not equal funding as it would be for provincial students, and then work backwards. Their model is to seek to achieve equal funding if the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has enough clout around the cabinet table to divide the pie to provide better resources to first nations people. That is a far cry from the rights-based approach that my colleague for Nanaimo—Cowichan says should be guiding and informing the development of this important public policy.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we set the record straight, because what my colleague had in his performance before was not necessarily reflective of what we are hearing from the AFN.

First of all, there are the five conditions that were set out by the AFN, which are in this piece of legislation.

The legislation, if passed, would not define nor alter aboriginal or treaty rights that exist. The member's comments on that are, of course, incorrect.

Clause 4 of the bill specifically notes that it does not “...abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”.

In fact, the AFN national chief said that this will serve as a bridge to self-government.

What disappoints me is that we are talking about $1.9 billion that would go to educating kids on reserve to give them the education and skill sets that they require to achieve in this great economy that is going on here in Canada, but the NDP members will not even let the bill go to committee. They would defeat it on second reading if they had their choice.

Of course, the NDP solution is to spend some $60 billion in trying to solve this. It is total hypocrisy in what they think is reasonable and what is required. It just shows that the NDP has no clue what first nations people really need and want.

My question for the member is: will he allow the passage of the bill to second reading so that it actually goes to committee, moves forward, and at least give these kids a chance to participate in the strong, booming economy and get the skill sets they need so that they can achieve and succeed?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the party the member represents have not only denied the ability of first nations to come forward and have their voices heard in the process of establishing this legislation, they have undermined the democratic institution that we are sitting in as we speak by repeatedly, and again, imposing closure.

How often does the Conservative Party invoke closure on bills? Every time, and on all of them. At every stage, the Conservatives shut down the ability for the voices of Canadians to be heard.

People on this side of the House represent the majority of Canadians, including many first nations whose voices deserve to be heard. The Conservatives have no concept of consultation and accommodating the legitimate concerns of all Canadians.

One thing the Conservatives never learned when they managed to achieve their majority government is that they have to be government to all the people and not just those who voted for them. There is a great section of the population who did not vote for them but who still have legitimate points of view. The Conservatives have an obligation to accommodate those legitimate points of view instead of shutting down debate like a bunch of goose-steppers. It is appalling.

For the member to characterize the speech I just gave as a “performance” just shows how truly ignorant he is perhaps of the issues facing first nations people and those who struggle on a daily basis to provide the best education possible for their people with the impossible funding mechanism that we have now.

We would support a bill that truly did lead towards equality of educational opportunities for first nations people. However, the bill before us does not do it, and the Conservatives will find very soon that there is not a first nation in the country that agrees with them. They will be trying to impose this legislation in their Eurocentric, colonial, paternalistic attitude that is an extension of the Indian Act.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with a fellow educator, the member for Palliser.

It was 40 years ago this week that I entered my first classroom as a teacher, fresh out of the University of Alberta. One of my instructors was J.W. Chalmers, a great historian on native education and advocate for aboriginal youth. I gained an insight and appreciation for native culture that has stayed with me over the years.

I was also honoured in 1976 to attend the centennial commemoration of the signing of Treaty No. 6 at the Saddle Lake Indian reserve with numerous provincial political leaders, including the former Alberta minister of education, Bob Clarke, premier Peter Lougheed, and NDP leader, Grant Notley. One of the mementoes that I brought back that day was a bumper sticker that not only commemorated the ceremony, but contained a very important message:

As long as the sun shines, the river flows and the grass grows.

That message was in my classroom for the rest of my career, and it is proudly displayed in my office here in Ottawa. It is in that context that I am so proud to be able to speak to this important legislation this afternoon.

There are many reasons to support Bill C-33. Among these, it must be said, are the accountability and governance measures contained in the legislation. They are vital to ensuring that the gap in educational outcomes is closed between first nations children and youth and other Canadian students, which is the ultimate goal of this legislation. The first nations control of first nations education act addresses the need for clarity regarding governance and accountability, one of the five priority issues identified by the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations and endorses in a resolution by the Assembly of First Nations of December 2013.

As the Prime Minister stated in February, when he and the national chief made this historic announcement:

The legislation will end Ottawa’s unilateral authority over First Nations education, while requiring First Nations communities and parents to assume responsibility and accountability for the education their children receive.

The fundamental principle on which this bill is founded is establishing first nations control of first nations education. While our Conservative government may be the first to take this important step and to bring this principle into legislation, the idea behind it is actually not something new.

The Government of Canada began the process of devolving control of first nations schools to first nations councils back in 1973. This was, in part, a response to the 1972 policy paper, entitled “Indian Control of Indian Education” and written by the National Indian Brotherhood, now known as the Assembly of First Nations. More recently, the call for legislation that gives control to first nations has been repeated in various reports, studies, and audits, including those done by the Auditor General and the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

While these may have led to small structural improvements, the major piece of legislation devolving control of education to first nations is the one before the House today. As a result of Bill C-33, first nations would, for the first time, have the ability to choose how they want to operate their schools.

They could choose to operate their own community schools, or they could choose to aggregate into a first nations education authority with other first nations in order to manage a number of schools. If such a body is formed, it would effectively serve as a first nations-led and operated school board. Alternatively, they could choose to enter into or continue an existing agreement with the provincial school board to manage a school on reserve.

Whatever the choice, first nations would be responsible for providing first nations students on reserve with access to an elementary and secondary education that would enable them to obtain a recognized high school diploma. Whether a first nation chooses to administer its community school or delegate this responsibility to a first nations education authority, the management of schools and the provision of educational services would need to meet basic conditions set out in regulations.

For example, students and their parents, elders, and community members would need to be consulted on school policies and education programs, including policies or programs that relate to aboriginal language and culture.

First nations councils would also need to report back to their community members. This would enable them to evaluate whether their needs and the needs of their students were being met under the arrangement that they were currently in. These changes would build more robust and responsive education systems for students on reserve. Equally important, they would establish a relationship of mutual accountability among governments, first nations and community members, which would contribute to long-term success in educational administration. In turn, this would improve educational outcomes for first nations, which is of course the overarching objective of Bill C-33.

It is important to understand that in addition to first nations having control over curriculum and the day-to-day management of reserve schools, provincial governments also carry responsibilities. Provinces are important partners in first nations education due to the high rate of student mobility between first nation-operated and provincially operated schools.

In 2011-12, approximately 39% of first nations students attended provincially operated schools subject to tuition agreements. It is important to remember that joining a provincial education system is one of the government's models available to first nations under Bill C-33. As well, provinces have expertise on curricula, criteria for high school graduation and standardized testing, all of which can be of interest to first nations-run schools.

Bill C-33 would clarify roles and responsibilities for education on reserve, acknowledging both the Government of Canada's ongoing obligation and the role of the provinces. Most important, however, it would provide a vehicle for first nations to take control of their own education systems.

For their part, first nations' responsibilities reflect the broad control they would have under the legislation, including choosing and implementing one of the three governance options to operate schools and delivery education services; determining appropriate measures for the inclusion of language and culture; developing bylaws to establish policies and procedures for their education systems; exercising responsibilities and accountability for the management of their education system; hiring and firing of teachers, principals and inspectors; developing curricula; developing the school calendar; and reporting on outcomes.

All the while, the federal government would be limited to providing funding for education, including $1.9 billion in core statutory funding transfers, infrastructure and capacity building. It would establish a joint council of education professionals with the Assembly of First Nations, developing regulations and collaborations with first nations and with the advice of the joint council; providing additional resources to aid in implementing the act, including capacity building and; and based on advice from the joint council, appointing interim administrators in exceptional circumstances and only in cases where the minister has received advice to do so from the joint council.

Partnerships with first nations and the provinces will be increasingly important under the act to ensure that all governments are working in the most coordinated manner possible.

Many of the details surrounding these issues will be addressed in the regulations and will be developed together with first nations. The regulations would set out provisions regarding the establishment and operation of first nations education authorities, including bylaw making powers and conditions, as well as governance agreements between first nations and first nations education authorities. Regulations would also elaborate on the functions of councils, first nations education authorities, directors of education and principals. The joint council would be required to consult with chiefs, parents and educators before working in partnership with a government to develop necessary regulations.

Those are details to be worked out collaboratively over time. For now, our objective is to move Bill C-33 forward so we can finally realize the shared goal of our government and first nations across the country, recognizing first nations control of first nations elementary and secondary education on reserve.

I urge members of all parties to support this worthy legislation, the product of consultation and years of collaboration, which will finally enable us to achieve our mutual objectives.

Since my first involvement as a university student and throughout my 34 years as an educator, I have always believed that parents of native children, because of their traditions, want the very best for their children. As such, this bill would give these children the opportunity to grow and flourish, “as long as the sun shines, the river flows and the grass grows”.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House on Tuesday night when we talked about the issues in South Sudan. I made the comment at the time that I had a daughter who was married to a man from Ghana and she was currently teaching in a grade 4-5 class. She has 72 students in her two classes. She is home for a bit of R & R between semesters, but she undertook a project with her students to write to the students at the school where she taught in Newmarket for the last two years.

I was going through those letters with her as she prepared them for the students to respond to the students back in Ghana. I was struck particularly by one comment in the letter of a young girl, who is nine years old in her class. The letter said, “I am glad to be in school because I want to be somebody in the future”.

I do not think there are any of us in the House who cannot think that it is not the plea and the call of every child both here in Canada and abroad, “I want to be somebody in the future”.

Could my colleague speak to how this legislation will help our young people in first nations and aboriginal communities be somebody in the future?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I started teaching again 40 years ago, my cousin ended up going to Botswana and was teaching at same time. Similar to the story that the member just mentioned was something he talked about. People would walk for miles and miles to classrooms of 50 people and it was the significance of the education they had.

If I go back to some of the earlier experiences I had as a teacher, I could see the excitement that young students had as they would come into school. However, as time would progress, they would find they were having some difficulties. I had many situations where people from first nation schools came back into the public school system and a lot of remedial work was required. However, they worked as hard as they possibly could to get back to a level where they could read and process , and from that point they did amazing things.

This is the second time I have been on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The first time we did a study in the territories and we had a chance to talk about different barriers to development. One of the key barriers that was mentioned was education. We had a chance to speak to various individuals there, and these were young people in their twenties and thirties. They had such amazing skills because they had learned it from the land and also from the education system, which they had been able to work through.

Therefore, if we give first nations the opportunity, the talents are certainly there and we will see some amazing things for our next generation of aboriginal students and for our country.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate with great interest.

I want to echo what my colleague said, that the Conservative government did not consult the first nations on this bill. We talked to a number of communities across the country and we found, in fact, that the communities are against this bill that, among other things, is not increasing funding for the first nations education system to an acceptable level.

I would like to ask my colleague why he thinks that it is acceptable not to consult the first nations on this bill. The Conservatives did that in the past with Bill S-2, which aboriginal women opposed.

Why does the government keep introducing bills that do not have the support of aboriginal communities across the country? Let us not forget that the government has a constitutional duty to consult the first nations.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we did. We went through consultations.

I would like to remind the hon. member that in 2011, the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations launched a national panel on first nations elementary and secondary education, which recommended in its final report a first nations education act. This would be the first level of consultation.

Then in December 2012, the government launched a consultation process and released a discussion guide to help support open and meaningful consultation activities on the government's proposed legislative approach.

Between December 2012 and May 2013, the Government of Canada held face-to-face regional consultation sessions, video, teleconferencing sessions and online consultation activities, including an online survey.

The government received input on a variety of topics, including first nations control over first nations education, inherent rights and treaties, the transition to legislative funding, language and culture, and parental involvement in education, which is what we see in this legislation.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I feel very privileged to stand today and talk about something near and dear to my heart, which is education. I had the opportunity, as a younger person, of spending 35 years in education, all the way from being a chemistry and algebra teacher to working in the department of education for the Province of Saskatchewan as director of provincial exams and student records. Also, I had the opportunity to serve a number of school divisions as their director of education. Therefore, I look upon this bill as a very worthwhile piece of literature, a document that says it is time to put some sort of structure around a program of education for aboriginal youth on and off reserves.

Let me just make a couple of general statements to start with. Aboriginal students have two choices really: going to school on a reserve or going to school in a town, a village, or a city. Most students who are not of aboriginal descent do not attend aboriginal schools. In the school structure there is a designed course of studies known as a curriculum. If one is going to be a student in a school in a town—for example, Whitewood—then one would follow the prescribed curriculum of K-12 there. Whitewood is a community in Saskatchewan, and Saskatchewan has a provincial K-12 curriculum. That is not a rare or isolated thing. That is the norm. When we look at schools in Saskatchewan and coast to coast to coast, we will find a provincial curriculum in place.

The bill we are looking at this afternoon says that aboriginal students, their parents, and their boards of education would have a right to choose a school in their community and follow a provincial curriculum, or follow a curriculum as designed and implemented by the first nations folks. That is quite different from a student going to school in a provincial elementary or high school. Parents do not design that curriculum. Curriculum writers design the curriculum. It is approved by the department of education, and that is the one that is followed. This difference alone would certainly assist aboriginal students in their learning programs, because it would be something near and dear to their hearts and they would be able to feel part of the design and presentation of that curriculum as they study things like mathematics, science, English, social studies, history, et cetera.

Those two big items are very worthwhile noting. The bill lays out the principles that say there are two ways to follow. It is very important for us to understand that, because if we are sincere about presenting a curriculum that would be acceptable to aboriginals and first nation folks, then we have to give them an avenue to implement that curriculum. With Bill C-33 we have put forward an opportunity for them to do just that.

This introduction of legislation comes after years of dialogue and consulting with first nations across the country and with the Assembly of First Nations who identified the need for a better education system for first nations. There was ample consultation across Canada, with various groups meeting to talk about what works for them in their educational programming at the K-12 level. It is interesting to note that British Columbia has a well-developed program. Other provinces are catching up to that. They lead the charge with developing their own curriculum, as well as implementing some curriculum from B.C.

In December 2013, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations set out the following five conditions for a successful first nations educational system.

The first is first nation control of education, so nation by nation control of their own education, which is a quantum leap of faith compared to one universal control of education called the curriculum. The second is guaranteed federal funding, which may not be as generous as it could be. In the regulations, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier today, we would find some dictation around the idea of funding.

The third is protection of language and culture. Many schools and educational opportunities extend the school day for specific instruction. For example, the folks in the Hutterite colonies speak German, and the German is taught outside of the regular school time, which in Saskatchewan is from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or 3:30 p.m. That is an option that aboriginal schools may look at, an extension of the school day, again, with their approval. The fourth is joint oversight of the new education system. Point five is meaningful consultation with first nations.

These are the things that happened that preceded the actual design and writing of the bill.

Carrying on with that, greater first nations oversight over education systems on reserve--this is the objective of the curriculum design; providing stable, predictable and sustainable funding; reinforcing first nations' ability to incorporate language and culture programming in the educational curriculum; and creating a joint council of educational professionals who would have a robust oversight and would serve as the mechanism for engaging with first nations on the development of regulations.

Here is a further example of the desire of the curriculum writers to bring in the first nations folk to address these issues, such as what should be the language and culture programming for the curriculum. This is consultation. This is what would happen throughout the implementation of the bill.

Let me speak for a minute or two on what we see happening with the bill. The bill would recognize first nations control of first nations education and create a joint council of education professionals to provide advice and support to Canada and to first nations on the implementation of the act.

Bill C-33 would put control of education on reserve squarely in the hands of first nations, specifically: first nations choose their governance options, which is their first choice, that they choose which way they want the governance; first nations develop their own curricula, which could include the incorporation of language and culture, if they choose, which is far from dictatorial when we see words like choose and choice and the assembly to design the curricula; first nations choose their own inspectors, control the hiring and firing of teachers, and determine how their students will be assessed, in other words, what kind of evaluation would be used; and first nations determine how the school calendar would be structured to meet a set number of days. There again, it is a committee meeting to decide how many days the school would run throughout the course of the calendar year.

The act would recognize the importance of language and culture as an essential element of first nation education and enable first nations to incorporate language and culture programming into the education curriculum, including the option of immersion in a first nation language. This is hardly dictatorial. This is very consultative.

It would establish a legislative framework that would set out minimum standards. For example, the proposed legislation would require that first nations schools teach a core curriculum that meets or exceeds provincial standards, that students meet minimum attendance requirements, that teachers are properly certified, and that first nations schools award recognized diplomas or certificates. That could be said for any school division across Canada from coast to coast to coast. There is nothing outlandish about that at all.

To conclude, Bill C-33 offers a transformative reform so that first nation youth can reach their full potential and become full participants in the Canadian economy. I strongly urge my hon. colleagues to support this important legislation for the economic and mental growth of young people on and off reserves.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in February 2014, the Prime Minister announced that the bill would be drafted. In April, the bill was introduced.

Aboriginal groups were not at all pleased with the way this was done. The first nations were not satisfied because they felt their concerns were not heard and that all the government had to do was simply change the draft bill to ensure it met the five conditions the hon. member talked about earlier. I will not repeat them.

Why did the Conservatives not do that?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I dropped my earphone. I am not sure why we did not do—what? I did not catch what it was we did not do. Perhaps the hon. member might repeat that, please.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be my pleasure.

The first nations asked that the draft bill be changed to meet the five stated objectives in accordance with their requests and desires.

Why was that not done?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that consultation was done and there was an opportunity for people across the country to give feedback. I am not quite sure what we are talking about here. As far as I know, the consultation covered off questions that arose.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2012, 72% of first nations members living off reserve who had completed high school had a job, compared to 47% without a high school diploma. The unemployment rate for Canadians age 25 to 29 without high school, the majority of whom are first nations, is almost double that of high school graduates, 16.4% versus 8.8%.

Could the member for Palliser say why our government believes that the current situation is neither acceptable nor sustainable?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that we said we were going to educate young people on reserve and then they would take their place in society. What we forgot to deal with was the fact that the curriculum that is offered in schools across Canada is not necessarily the curriculum that is offered on reserves.

We have to make sure we meld the two curricula together, so that both are captured and nothing is lost in the educational process for those students. That means bringing provincial curricula together with curricula for reserve schools.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill itself purports to give native groups the right to control their own education and yet it says, and I will read it aloud:

Subject to the regulations, the council of a First Nation is to offer English or French as the language of instruction and may, in addition, offer a First Nation language as a language of instruction.

My question for the member is this, would this then limit the ability of a first nation to offer native language as the only language of instruction for young children as a way of immersing them in their culture and language, as they do in several first nation schools around the country? This would therefore become illegal by this legislation.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada instruction occurs in either English or French. There are options for immersion programs in French. Hutterite colonies teach German in an immersion setting after the regular school year. Right now, most schools on reserve teach their own language in kind of an intermittent fashion without prescribed times of attendance, as a rule. It is something that has grown with the reserve.

Is there a better way to do it? There probably is if we all sit down with the chief and the council and design a program that could start in September and finish in June that would mesh with English and/or French. There are ways to combat that, but we simply have not addressed that. I really cannot believe that we get stopped and cannot move forward. I think we can. We just have to listen to each other and make sure that when we go back to the table, we are prepared to implement what we heard being asked for implementation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia, I will let him know there are about 13 minutes remaining before we wrap up debate on government orders. Of course, any unused time out of the 20 minutes he has will be taken up when the House next resumes debate on the bill.

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-33, First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act.

Bill C-33 is the product of decades of dialogue and study. It was shaped by the unprecedented and extensive consultations our government held over the past 15 months with hundreds of first nations leaders, educators, parents, and community members across the country. Our government heard the concerns raised about first nations education and responded with a commitment to work with the Assembly of First Nations and other first nations leaders to create a better education system for first nations students. First nations control of first nations education means that first nations have the mechanism that will help them to strengthen accountability for results for their students.

I want to talk specifically about the accountability tools and measures that the act would help provide to first nations parents and communities. Across Canada and around the world, parent involvement in education at home and in schools leads to higher academic performance and higher graduation rates. Parent and community involvement is a central feature of the long-standing call for first nations control over first nations education. In fact, parents and communities can play a large role in the success of the school and its students.

Clause 25 of the bill legislates a voice for parents and community members, in particular elders and youth, in the development of school policies and programs, particularly those related to first nations languages and cultures.

We know that children benefit when parents and communities participate in the decision-making of the overall management and daily operations of education systems. For first nations, encouraging formal and informal involvement in education is not only a way to support student success, a worthy goal in itself, but also to integrate culture and languages into curriculum and school activities. Our government has seen the benefit this brings to individual students and to the community as a whole.

The first nations of the Treaty 4 territory in southeastern Saskatchewan is just one example. Community development and participation are the starting point for every aspect of the Treaty Four student success program, which promotes literacy and numeracy, and encourages children to stay in school. Involving first nations elders, leaders, parents, educators, youth, culture, language, and traditional values are as fundamental to the program as reading and writing. Local involvement increases local control.

The first nations control of first nations education act would do exactly what its name suggests. It would provide authority to first nations leaders, elders, and parents where education is concerned. Under the proposed legislation, first nations would choose their governance models and control their systems of education with the benefit of stable and sustainable statutory funding.

On February 7 of this year, the Prime Minister announced the historic agreement between the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to proceed with the final drafting and introduction of the first nations control of first nations education act.

The Prime Minister stood with the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations and announced $1.9 billion in new funding through three streams: statutory funding with an unprecedented rate of growth, transitional funding to support the new legislative framework, and funding for long-term investments in on-reserve school infrastructure.

All of this funding would be in addition to the $1.55 billion that our government already provides to first nations for education on an annual basis.

Furthermore, the new funding would be subject to a 4.5% escalator that replaces the 2% funding cap that the Liberals put in place. This would ensure that funding for first nations education is stable, predictable, and sustainable for years to come.

These statutory funding provisions meet one of the five conditions for success outlined by the Assembly of First Nations for education systems that are grounded in first nations' languages and cultures. As indicated by the AFN in a recently published analysis, the rest of the bill meets all the other conditions.

In the words of the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, this act means getting the Minister of Indian Affairs “out of our lives” on education as well as having fair funding and oversight that first nations themselves design.

As the National Chief indicated, part of getting the minister out of first nations' lives when it comes to education means that it would be up to first nations to decide for themselves whether they want to operate their own schools, join a first nation-led education authority, or enter into an agreement with a provincial ministry of education. Each first nation would determine which governance option would best meet the educational needs of their students.

Regardless of the governance structure under which they operate, every school would be accountable to parents, communities, and students. This would be in contrast to the current approach, which burdens first nations with reporting requirements to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

Under this bill, the chosen educational authority would be ultimately accountable and would have the responsibility to ensure that the education provided to the students is in accordance with the standards and regulations outlined in this act.

The joint council of education professionals would be composed of professionals recognized for their knowledge and expertise in first nation education. It has been alleged that this council would be appointed solely by the minister and be used as a vehicle for unilateral control. On the contrary, half of the joint council membership would be made up of individuals selected by the AFN, and the minister would be required to seek its advice in a number of prescribed circumstances.

Our government has heard from parents and first nations that they need to participate in the development of regulations and standards. Our government and the Assembly of First nations have agreed to collaborate on the development of necessary regulations. In fact, the joint council would consult with first nations and provide important advice both to the minister and to first nations on regulations.

First nations would have the authority to build on the proposed minimum standards required for schools and students, with input from parents and communities. The act would establish five core standards: access to education, a recognized certificate or diploma, certified teachers, a minimum number of instructional hours and instructional days, and transferability of students between systems without penalty. All other decisions on standards would be made by first nations, which would control schools.

The rigour of the standards in this proposed legislation would ensure that first nation parents would know that their children were receiving a quality education, while the flexibility would reinforce first nation control and encourage incorporation of cultural and language teaching as each first nation sees best.

Going to school is an essential experience of childhood. It is important that parents and communities feel confident in the quality of education their child receives. That is why our Conservative government believes that parents and communities need to have a strong role in creating a school environment that respects and reflects community values.

Throughout the consultation to develop this proposed legislation, first nations youth and parents made it clear that education was more than a piece of paper or a path to a job. Education is fundamental to nationhood and identity. Students want to create a future where they can access the kind of education that leads to a successful life, not only for themselves but also to support their families and contribute to their communities.

This bill recognizes the ability and responsibility of first nations to educate their students. It recognizes the importance of treaty and aboriginal rights, which are protected by the Constitution of 1982. Bill C-33 would support accountability to parents and communities. This would contribute to more children and youth succeeding at school and in life.

In my constituency of Kootenay—Columbia, the Ktunaxa nation is a proud nation that has some of its education on reserve, starting with grades 1 to 6, and it is starting to reintegrate its language. That is one of the most important parts of this entire bill, for first nations to be able to integrate their own language and feel proud about their history and language, and to be able to pass that on from generation to generation. It is something that has been missed, and this bill would capture that important part of first nations education.

With that, I look forward to any questions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave those questions for another time. In fact, the hon. member will have precisely ten minutes available for questions and comments, should he wish it, when the House next resumes debate on this question.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-33, an act to establish a framework to enable first nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other acts.

In speaking to this bill, it is incumbent upon everyone to remember Shannen's Dream. I feel the emotion coming. Anybody in this place who has had the opportunity to meet with the family of Shannen Koostachin from Attawapiskat and experience the incredible energy and drive of the children from her community who have continued her campaign cannot help but feel a little emotional in discussing this legislation.

Those in the House are aware of Shannen's campaign. Shannen campaigned for every aboriginal child to have equal access to quality education in this country. It was a pretty reasonable campaign. Sadly, Shannen was killed in an accident driving from her community to high school, because she could not receive quality education in her own community.

Quotes from Shannen during her campaign that have led schoolchildren across this country for years toward the provision of funding and guarantees and the ability of first nations to deliver their own programs include these: She campaigned to “Help end the underfunding of First Nations Schools”, and, “School should be a time for dreams. Every kid deserves this”.

I have to share with members that when I had the privilege of being the aboriginal affairs critic for the NDP, I had the honour of receiving a cardboard schoolhouse made by elementary school children in this province. It was filled with letters they had written to the Prime Minister begging him to extend equal opportunities for quality education to aboriginal children so that they would have the same privileges as all other children in Canada. We actually managed to get approval and we delivered it to the Prime Minister's Office. It was an incredible moment in time. Since then, I have had the opportunity, with my colleagues, to attend many of the occasions when Canadian children have spoken out on behalf of extending equal rights to aboriginal children.

We have also often heard the statement by the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. It is a very sad commentary on the long-standing state of education for aboriginal children. It is that more aboriginal children are incarcerated than graduate from high school.

In speaking to Bill C-33, it is important at the outset to set the stage for assessing this bill and whether it respects critical overriding rights and responsibilities. I will be concentrating my comments on Bill C-33 on two factors. First is the extent to which the government has met its legal and constitutional duty to consult. Second are comments made by Alberta first nations that they shared with me and that they requested I share with this place.

I will concentrate my comments of first nations' overriding right to establish and deliver their own education programs, within their cultural and language traditions, for their children and their communities and to determine if those rights and opportunities have been accorded. My colleagues in the official opposition and I hold firm with the position that we must uphold the Constitution and international obligations and commitments as well as our personal commitment to first nations that we will respect their right to assert self-government and to plan and deliver their own education program for their own families.

It is our duty in this place, all of us who are duly elected, to ensure that aboriginal peoples have access to education, can determine their own education systems, and can practise their traditional and cultural beliefs. Those rights, and our obligations, are specified, as I mentioned, in a number of international conventions and UN treaties. For example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child states, in article 28:

States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all...

Article 29 states:

1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to: ...(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

We on this side of the House were delighted when the government finally came around and agreed to assent to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, in so doing, what has the government committed to undertake?

Article 14 states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.

2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination.

3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.

Article 15 states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information.

Articles 18 and 19 speak to the duty of the government and the right of aboriginal peoples to government their own matters.

Article 18 states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures...

Article 19 states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith...in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

It is pretty clear what the obligations of the government are, what commitments it has undertaken, and what the associated rights and opportunities are for first nations. Included among those is the duty of the federal government to consult and accommodate aboriginal people's views, perspectives, and interests.

In implementing the support of first nations education, the federal government has an overriding duty to advance consultation and to accommodate aboriginal rights and titles. This is required under the Canadian Constitution and under provisions of the historic and modern treaties. That duty applies to any federal policy, law, or regulation-making process that may potentially or directly impact the rights and titles of first nation peoples.

The matter to consider is this: do the substantive measures set forth in Bill C-33 actually deliver on the rights, principles, and duties ascribed to in the preamble of the act?

Well, what does the preamble hold out? I think it is very important for us to consider it and not just the substantive provisions. A preamble sets forth, to those who are affected by the law, exactly what the legislation intends to do. It states the intent.

It is noteworthy that the government, right at the outset, notes the failings in the establishment and running of the residential schools and the need to seek partnerships with first nations in the spirit of reconciliation.

I might share here that I had the privilege several times of participating in the truth and reconciliation proceedings. At the national conclusion assembly in Edmonton a few months back, I was struck very personally by the fact that in a residential school on the edge of my city, children from as far away as the Queen Charlotte Islands were transported by train and held in that school with no contact with their friends or families for up to a year and longer. That was while I was attending elementary school.

To hear first-hand of the abuses that went on has made me all the more dedicated to making sure that their rights are respected.

I will mention some of the provisions in the preamble. In doing so, I highly recommend to all the members of this place that it is absolutely critical that they carefully read this preamble. This is what the government is holding out that it is about to deliver on behalf of the first nations people of Canada.

For example:

Whereas First Nations education systems should be designed and implemented in accordance with the principle that First Nations have control of their children’s education;

Whereas First Nations must receive support that enables them to exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities relating to the elementary and secondary education provided to their children;

Whereas First Nations children attending schools on reserves must have access to education that is founded on First Nations history, culture and traditional values and enables them to participate fully in the social, economic, political and educational advancement of First Nations;

On it goes, making a variety of undertakings.

An equally important one is:

Whereas First Nations education systems must receive adequate, stable, predictable and sustainable funding that provides for the teaching of First Nations languages and cultures as well as for education support services;

Whereas elementary and secondary education is an essential part of lifelong learning;

Continuing my presentation, I will make reference to those specific undertakings by the government.

As I mentioned, I feel that in speaking to the bill, it not be my personal opinion; I am obligated to reach out to first nations to find out their views, both about the process of developing this legislation and about what actually would be delivered under this legislation. I have continued to dialogue with first nations in Alberta particularly as well as with those across the country, in co-operation with my colleagues.

I spoke only yesterday with Alberta regional chief Cameron Alexis and also with chiefs from Treaty 8, and I have reviewed materials they have prepared and letters they have submitted to the Government of Canada.

What views have they expressed about respect for first nations' determination of the education system, whether adequate funding is provided, and whether we are finally enabling their education system to incorporate first nation language, culture, and traditions?

I was advised by regional chief Alexis that he was directly in the process of continuing to consult Treaty 6, 7, and 8 first nations, who are still going through the process of trying to understand and review the bill for many of the chiefs in isolated communities and their community members. It is an extremely complex process. They are struggling to comprehend the implications of the provisions and whether they actual address their priorities.

What are the issues they have raised? The top issue, which has been raised by my colleagues in the House, is the lack of adequate consultation in the very drafting of the bill. This is coming from first nations themselves. It is not a determination I have made.

Chief Alexis shared that their remains considerable contention over whether the government has fully addressed the long-standing issue of first nations' access to quality education. First and foremost, he expressed strong concern that the first nations themselves were not accorded adequate opportunity for consultation and necessary accommodation, as is the duty of the crown.

Chief Alexis stated that the consultations were held only in major centres. I heard this a year back when I met with a number of the chiefs and councils. They are concerned that no consultations were held in any of the first nation communities themselves, with their membership, particularly in isolated communities.

Many first nations are still struggling with comprehending the bill. In many cases, there has been a change in leadership and council, and they feel responsible for ensuring that this legislation actually represents the rights and title of their members.

Regional chief Alexis is requesting that Bill C-33 not be tabled until after the summer break to provide a more reasonable time period for the individual first nation leaders to consult their communities on the provisions of the bill. He has already requested that Parliament take the bill out to the communities for consultation. I anticipate that the minister and the government will be hearing this message from the individual chiefs.

What have some of the individual chiefs said about this legislation? Grand Chief Kappo of Treaty 8 has stated:

We are looking for something that is developed in the true spirit of co-operation and co-development, we are willing to work with the Minister on anything that will be developed, from the ground up, into a system that will help our children meet our educational goals. The old way of including First Nations input as a footnote to the process hasn't been successful in the past and won't work moving into the future.

That statement was issued April 16 of this year, so clearly they are still very dissatisfied with the consultation process.

What are some of the substantive concerns that have been identified to date by the regional chief and the individual chiefs and councils from Treaties 6, 7, and 8? One of the critical concerns is around the transfer of governance. A key demand of these first nations, and all first nations, has been to gain back control of their educational programs from the federal government. There are substantial concerns expressed by the regional chief, the grand chief, and the individual chiefs, including Chief Rose Laboucan, who is the Treaty 8 chief responsible for education. They are concerned that the minister still retains substantial control.

I would like to share some of their comments. Chief Rose Laboucan has stated:

We already have a process in the works in Alberta and it has been in place for some time. Now that we have heard this announcement, we are wondering what this is going to mean for our children. It sounds promising but we hope that it is not another historic broken promise. Treaty 8 nations in Alberta have been working on a grassroots education process for years already.

Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta say that, “One of the concerns was to have First Nations control over First Nations Education”. On the matter of controlling their own system, Grand Chief Kappo said:

They have definitely changed the name [of the act] but the core of it remains the same as before. Ultimate authority to dissolve, change or transfer any entity that handles First Nation education still resides with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

He goes on to say, “While an oversight board has been created, they simply advise the Minister, he is still able to unilaterally do anything he wants in any given on-reserve school”.

Those are concerns of the first nations themselves.

I heard similar concerns from the regional chief regarding the joint council for education. The concern is that there is absolutely no assurance of who would be appointed to this advisory body, the power to appoint rests singularly with the minister and cabinet and there is absolutely no requirement that there be any first nations representatives sitting on the council.

The second concern goes to the issue of transfer of liability. The regional chief has expressed very strongly to me a deep concern that, similar to the Safe Drinking Water Act that was recently enacted, Bill C-33 transfers liability to first nations to deliver quality education programs and provide safe schools, absent any guarantees of future funding support from the federal government that has that mandate and responsibility to be financing those quality schools. He added that, while the bill mentions comparable programs, there is no specified criteria on how to determine that.

Third, there is great concern expressed by Treaties 6, 7, and 8 on the delay in the funding increases. The substantially less funding support for first nations education compared to provinces and territories has been long-standing and reprehensible. The government has promised increased funding, but on what basis is this figure calculated? Does the increase adequately consider and factor in the rapid increase in aboriginal population and the commitment in the preamble to lifelong learning, where first nations adults wish to go back to school and continue their education, or address the potential for the return of first nations members to their community to finish their education? What is the timeline for ensuring all first nations children would have access to quality education in safe schools and are accorded equal opportunity?

The Alberta first nations are raising a reasonable concern. They are asking why the increase in funding is being delayed until 2016, in other words, until after the next election. They stated additional annual funding is needed now. Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta say that, “Another outstanding concern is around statutory funding and funding to support Indigenous languages and cultures. However, the act, only states the portion of funding First Nations would already be receiving must go towards language and culture”.

I will close with a quote from Grand Chief Kappo. He stated:

It's not new support. We are getting the same amount of funding, still lower than our provincial counterparts, and all they have done is added a section to the act that says we have to spend part of that same funding to teach language and culture. They have just painted an old car a new colour.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I am listening this morning I am reminded that some of us are far more aware than others in this country of the havoc that the policies of the New Democrats continually wreak when they get a chance to implement them. Once again this morning we hear them being completely out of reality. I would argue that they are once again demonstrating that they do not have the capacity to govern responsibly.

On Wednesday, their aboriginal critic stated that they are opposing this bill. This is a bill that is aimed at lifting on-reserve high school graduation rates, which are less than half of those in the rest of Canada. Certainly, any reasonable Canadian cannot possibly agree that the status quo is acceptable or sustainable. I do not think we can do that.

Our government has brought forward a bill that would finally address this issue. It would give first nations control over their education, and it addresses the five conditions that the chiefs laid out in their special assembly in Vancouver, yet every step of the way the NDP members have chosen to oppose this bill.

I want to ask the opposition this. Why do they continue to support the status quo? How will they explain that to this next generation of first nations students who are trying to get through school?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble whatsoever standing by the comments that I have shared with the House today. It is my first and foremost obligation to represent the perspectives of the first nations peoples. I am obligated to do that by the Constitution. I am obligated to do that in keeping with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Perhaps the members on the other side do not feel that they actually have to comply with international obligations that they sign on to.

I have simply shared with the House today what the first nations leaders in my jurisdiction are saying. The members on the other side can either respect that perspective or choose to ignore that perspective. I am simply conveying it. I am being a voice for them until the time that they can fill more of the seats in this place, which is my personal desire.

I feel I am taking a very responsible position. The first nations have an absolute right to be consulted in advance and accommodated in how the system of education will be delivered. The government has held out in its preamble that it will do that. Regrettably, it is looking like the substantive provisions are not delivering on the preamble.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my friend from Edmonton for her comments. I think she based them both on her personal experience and the experience of this country in connecting the travesty and the tragedy of what happened with residential schools when governments acted unilaterally, imposing their will on first nations people and saying that they knew what was best for them.

We know that path has led us to great harm that has lasted generations. It is a shame upon this country. The Prime Minister did the right thing in offering the apology, but within weeks cancelled the aboriginal healing foundation program, which was established to help people deal with the effects of residential schools. Therefore, one could understand why first nations people in this country feel a certain amount of cynicism or dread when they see the Conservative government come up with a first nations act and say, “Trust us. This one is good for you. We know best.”

To the member's point about what is happening on the ground in terms of where the solutions lie, because they do not lie here in Ottawa, not with the minister and certainly not with the government, the solutions to the challenges faced by first nations people in Canada rest with first nations people in Canada, and those educators who are out there with minimal resources doing a remarkable job and in some places a job that has been noted by many groups.

I will ask my friend this question. The C.D. Howe Institute, not generally known for progressive analysis, had noted in its research on British Columbia that the programs that had been established in coordination with the B.C. government with first nations people had been producing results and were in the process of dramatically increasing those graduation rates and those success rates. The first nations education steering committee in B.C. just had the rug completely pulled out from under it by the government. All the funding is gone, all the work is gone, all the progress is gone.

I ask my friend from Edmonton what, from her experience, and that of the first nations people who she has spoken to, the chiefs and educators, the sentiment is like on the ground for those who have worked so hard to achieve results under difficult circumstances when they now look at this act and the way that this act is being brought in by the government, and the details in there, the unilateral control and power that rests with the minister, who has made himself the minister of first nations education that the panel established but without any true, joint consultative process? I am wondering what message she believes is being sent to first nations people and to first nations educators across this country when they look at this act, despite all the efforts they have been doing on behalf of the entire country.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very complicated question and I would love to have the opportunity to elaborate. That is exactly what we are supposed to be doing in this place. It is regrettable that the government has already cut down the opportunity for debate. I am hoping the government will actually deliver on the request by first nations that the bill be taken out to the communities so they can actually give their direct feedback, particularly the members of those communities.

It is really important to keep in mind that when the government is holding out that it would be providing equivalent education opportunities for first nations children and families, we are not at the same, equivalent starting place. As Chief Laboucan points out, “our children need better learning environments and quality lessons...Classrooms in furnace rooms and basements are appalling and unacceptable for anyone's children. Our teachers' salaries are below the Canadian average. There have been many inequities going on for years”.

While the government says it will give a greater supplement, I think 4.5% over time, that may well not be enough. The question they are asking is, how is that calculated? Is that considering the rising aboriginal population, the high percentage of youth, and how much money it will take to rebuild and provide safe schools, equivalent teaching and so forth?

It is a big task, but the first nations should have a direct voice.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to build on what my colleague from Edmonton has said. I have the honour of representing a constituency where 33 first nations all share major concerns when it comes to education funding.

Yesterday, I had the chance to rise in this House and talk about a school that does not have a fire alarm system. There are schools that have 69 students in a classroom, schools that have mould in them, schools that have portables that in -40° weather, freeze, and the students are cold.

The member talked about underpaid teachers and the lack of resources. There is a lack of books, a lack of paper, and a lack of pens. There is a clear indication that first nations students, because they are first nations, have unequal education in this country.

I would ask the member if she could comment. Why are the Conservatives not acting, fixing these schools, and dealing with the resources right away? Why did they not do that last year? Why did they not do that when they became government a number of years ago? Why these empty promises and, worst of all, this paternalistic approach that the minister knows best? Why did they not act earlier and why are they not listening to first nations in taking that action now?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Churchill has been a long-standing representative for these first nations since she was elected, and I commend her for that.

Indeed, as I mentioned, we are starting at a different place for first nations in the education system. It is not simply a case of, “We are going to give them supplemental funding so they can build up their library, they can buy equipment for their labs”. They do not have labs. They do not have libraries. In most cases, their schools are mould-ridden. I have been to those schools. It is a travesty.

The question is, what is the real amount of funding that is necessary, and why are we waiting until 2016? This is a false promise. There is no guarantee that the government of today will be the government of tomorrow. It is absolutely critical that the funding come forward now. We should not be reducing the deficit on the backs of aboriginal children.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-33, first nations control of first nations education act. I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

My hon. colleagues have spoken at length about the many important facets of this landmark legislation. These are facets, I would like to remind the House, that ensure that the control of first nations education is placed squarely in the hands of first nations.

I would like to confine my remarks today to how this bill addresses the five conditions for success as set out by the Assembly of First Nations, in December of last year.

As members may recall, this past winter, as part of the extensive consultation process that preceded this bill's introduction, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development released an early draft of the legislation. The purpose of this was to engage first nations and solicit their feedback.

In response, the AFN released an open letter that outlined five conditions they felt were essential to the success of any piece of legislation that reforms first nations education. I am proud to say that our government has accommodated each of these five conditions listed.

The first of these conditions was on respect and recognition of inherent rights and title, treaty rights, and first nation control of first nation education. To begin with, Bill C-33 explicitly meets this condition in the wording of the preamble of the bill. Furthermore, the text of the bill legally enables first nations control of first nations education in several specific ways.

First nations can choose their governance options, develop their own curricula, decide how they will incorporate language and culture into the curricula, choose their own education inspectors, control the hiring and firing of teachers, determine how their students will be assessed, and determine how the school calendar will be structured to meet a set number of days.

With respect to governance options, first nations can choose to continue to operate their schools directly, enter into a service delivery arrangement with a third party such as provincial governments, or they can choose to aggregate into a first nations education authority that would operate multiple schools.

These governance models are designed to respect existing education systems that have been built by first nations communities, which would be supported by, and funded under, Bill C-33. If they choose, first nations can also opt to pursue self-government arrangements in which they take on full jurisdiction over education.

It is important to remember that first nations who already have self-government agreements that cover education would be exempt from this bill and would be able to continue to educate their children exactly as they have in the past.

The second condition of success was the statutory guarantee of funding. Bill C-33 includes extensive and unprecedented statutory funding obligations on the part of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. In fact, subclauses 43(2) and 43(3) exceed the second condition set out by the Assembly of First Nations, by not only setting statutory guarantee of funding, but by taking the steps of legally requiring that federal funding be sufficient to support reasonably comparable service delivery to that offered in the provincial system.

In addition, the statutory funding is subject to a 4.5% escalator, which will replace and remove the 2% funding cap that the Liberal government placed on first nations spending. This will ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable funding for years to come.

The third of five conditions is funding to support first nations education systems that are grounded in indigenous languages and culture. Clause 43 speaks explicitly to funding for first nation language and culture instruction, as follows:

43(4) The amounts payable under subsection (1) must include an amount to support the study of a First Nation language or culture as part of an education program.

Meanwhile, other clauses ensure the option of incorporating first nation language and culture programming in the education curriculum. This includes immersion in a first nation language in a manner that ensures transferability of students between education systems and allows the students to obtain a recognized high school diploma.

As we can see, Bill C-33 sets out legislative supports and protections founded in the recognition that a culturally relevant learning environment is key to the success of first nation students and also key to achieving reconciliation more broadly.

The fourth condition stipulates mechanisms to ensure reciprocal accountability and no unilateral federal oversight or authority. Bill C-33 makes it clear that the powers of the minister with regard to the administration of first nation education are measures of last resort and can only be carried out with advice of the independent joint council of education professionals. It is important to note that these powers are more limited than those that lie with the provincial ministers of education.

Once Bill C-33 is passed, the minister will have significantly less authority over first nation education than he does today. The bill states that the oversight role of the joint council is to advise both the first nations and the minister on the implementation of the governance systems, which first nations will choose for themselves. It would also ensure that first nations' views and concerns are taken into account in the implementation of the legislation, by requiring that half of the joint council be comprised of representatives nominated by first nations. The joint council of education professionals would also serve as the body supporting the co-operative development of regulations and would be responsible for consulting with first nations on the development of regulations and providing this input to the minister as part of its advisory role.

Once the bill is passed, if a school is in compliance with the legislation and a first nation wants to continue to operate the school, it would be illegal for the minister to withhold funding for the operation of that school. In the event that a school has difficulty complying with the act, the legislation establishes a process through which the challenges can be addressed. Again, it would be illegal for the minister to withhold funding, and the process for addressing the challenges would likely include the assistance of a temporary administrator appointed only at the advice of the joint council. In the current context, the minister may withhold funding without seeking any additional advice whenever a first nation is in default under their funding agreement.

The fifth and final condition for success is ongoing meaningful dialogue and co-development of options. The mutual accountability structures included in Bill C-33 serve the role of entrenching the requirement for ongoing dialogue, not only between the federal government and first nations, but between all parties involved in the administration of education on reserve. First nations and the government will continue to work together to develop and confirm an enabling framework in law for the success of first nations schools and students. This includes collaborative development of mechanisms and regulations moving forward.

I am very pleased with the direct manner in which Bill C-33 responds to conditions of success, as expressed by first nations themselves through the Assembly of First Nations. This is legislation that has long been lacking and its time has come. I encourage all honourable members to support Bill C-33.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has suggested that this bill in fact gives control of education to the first nations, but I would like to read from the bill, which states:

Subject to the regulations, the council of a First Nation is to offer English or French as the language of instruction and may, in addition, offer a First Nation language as a language of instruction.

The community of Six Nations actually runs schools in Mohawk and Cayuga, not in English, so it would appear that its decision to do this would be made illegal by this bill and the first nations would not be in control of its own education. Would he like to confirm or deny whether that is the truth?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Grand Chief Shawn Atleo, of the Assembly of First Nations said:

What we are hearing the government commit to is a new way forward that we jointly design an approach to education that we have First Nations control and sustainable funding that has to be anchored in legislation.

This bill is about the children of first nations. It is about providing an education system that will give them a future and the ability to compete in an open job market, a labour market, as they choose. The control of this bill rests in first nations.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what was said about the obligation to consult, which is part of Canada's constitutional law. It is the rule of law in our country. We need to fulfill the constitutional obligation to consult first nations about any and all legislative measures that are being considered. That is the case with this bill.

What does the member have to say to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, for example, which is saying that it was not consulted and that, as a result, the government should reject this bill? What does he have to say to the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, which has taken this government to court because it was not consulted? What would he say to those groups?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate on this bill for the last day and a half, and clearly consultation has been the primary issue of debate and discussion. The introduction of the first nations control of first nations education act follows years of discussion, dialogue, and studies, reflecting the efforts of many people in first nations and in government to arrive at this point. All first nations were presented with numerous means of engaging in the consultation process.

For example, in 2011, the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations launched a national panel on first nations elementary and secondary school education, which recommended a first nations education act in its final report. In December 2012, the Government of Canada launched a consultation process that released a discussion guide to help support open and meaningful consultation activities on the government's proposed legislative approach. Between December and May of 2012 and 2013, the Government of Canada held face-to-face regional consultation sessions, video conference and teleconference sessions, and online consultation activities, including an online survey.

The government has provided, through the minister, online and all other forms of consultation that would allow lots of input, lots of opportunity for every first nations member to provide their to input into this.

To refer back to my earlier comment, it is about the children. We need to go beyond this discussion today and deliver a bill for the children that will ensure their appropriate education.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-33, first nations control of first nations education act.

I had an opportunity to travel to the Kainai First Nation in February. One morning there was an absolutely magnificent sunrise on the trip from Calgary to Kainai. It was so apt, because this really is a new dawn for our first nations. This is an historic agreement. It has been 41 years that they have been waiting for control over first nations education, and this is a bill that all opposition members should be fully behind. This changes the trajectory for our first nations people in giving them control over their own education. It really is a huge accomplishment. We on the government side of the House recognize the inherent value of working together with our first nations to achieve this kind of a breakthrough in first nations education.

The NDP in particular continues to perpetuate myths and distort the bill. I would like to take the opportunity today to set the record straight. I feel very passionately about this because I spoke to the leaders in education, people like Chief Charlie Weasel Head, who really believe that this is going to change the future for them.

I would like to examine each of these myths one by one.

Some are saying that first nations do not need the government to tell them how to educate their children and if the government would just give them funding without strings attached, first nations would be better off. In fact, as it stands now, first nation students are the only students in this entire country who do not benefit from minimum legislated standards for such things as teacher qualifications or attendance requirements. The result is that kids from these reserves have diplomas from first nation schools that are not recognized by post-secondary institutions.

Do the NDP and Liberals really want that? Do we want those kids to finish their schooling thinking that they can get into post-secondary institutions and then be denied that opportunity? No, we do not want that.

The bill, in consultation with our first nations, proposes five basic minimum standards that would ensure our first nation kids would have access to the same high-quality education as kids from the rest of the country. As well, it would allow for flexibility to incorporate first nations language and culture. Those are two things that are really key in the bill, including first nations language immersion.

Another misconception being spread about the bill is that it would not actually give first nations control over their education systems. Well, Chief Charlie Weasel Head, National Chief Shawn Atleo, the educators I spoke to, and the many other leaders who were there for that announcement on that day entirely disagree.

It has been claimed that the minister would have the ability to appoint temporary administrators to take back control of first nations education because the joint committee would also be appointed by the minister. Let me set the record straight on that too. The goal of the bill is to improve outcomes for first nation students on reserve, and both first nations and the government agree that this is best achieved through first nations control over education.

To this end, the bill has been structured to, one, allow first nations to choose their own governance model; two, develop and deliver their own curriculum; three, choose how they are going to incorporate language and culture if they wish to do so; four, choose their own inspectors; five, control the hiring and firing of their teachers; and six, determine how their students are going to be assessed and how the school calendar will be structured to meet a set number of days.

The joint council of education professionals would have five to nine members, all of whom would have to have knowledge of and/or experience in elementary or secondary education. Four of them would be nominated by the AFN, based on their own selection process. These are people who are very skilled in education. They have a strong track record and they want to mentor their own people to be able to deliver this kind of quality education.

The chair of the committee would be recommended by the minister in consultation with the Assembly of First Nations, and, further, the legislation would ensure that the minister must consult with the joint council on matters related to the creation of first nation education authorities, appointing temporary administrators, and creation of regulations.

This shows an unprecedented level of both trust and respect for the idea that first nations people will know how to deliver education that is going to meet the future needs of their first nations kids.

Another erroneous myth surrounds money. The NDP claims that the core funding is not enough. It says that $1.2 billion over three years does not go far enough and that the new funding supports have to begin immediately.

It does not surprise me that the NDP is mistaken again. The bill would establish a statutory funding obligation on the part of the minister not only to fund education but also to do this in a way that allows for quality services that are reasonably comparable to those off-reserve services in the provincial system, and that is key.

Economic action plan 2014 confirmed the new investments of $1.252 billion in core funding beginning in 2016, in addition to the $1.55 billion that we already spend on first nations education every year. These are big numbers, and they need to be there because education is so important.

We removed the 2% cap that was put in place by the Liberals and we replaced it with a 4.5% escalator that is going to ensure the sustainability of this funding. It is estimated that over the next five years we are going to spend $9.2 billion in core funding alone for first nations education. Our Conservative government has committed all along to the principle of investing in these reforms.

It is worth noting that the NDP voted against this much needed funding, which was included in economic action plan 2014. What else is new?

Members from the NDP also took issue with infrastructure investments, in one case even claiming that the government should be spending upward of $50 million per school in over 600 communities. We do believe that investments are needed in infrastructure, but we do not want all the money that should be spent on the education of these kids, our kids, on these reserves going into bricks and mortar. We have to do that efficiently and make sure that, yes, our first nations students have safe and proper facilities in which to learn, but, more importantly, that they also have funding for the teachers and the programming that are going to help them succeed in the future.

We will use $500 million to support new school projects and renovations to existing school infrastructure across the country in a way that ensures healthy, quality, safe environments for first nations students.

Another common refrain that we hear is that Bill C-33 is simply a cosmetic change from the draft legislative proposal released in November. Our first nations leaders certainly do not believe that. I would like to point out that the five conditions for success were set out in a resolution by the Assembly of First Nations at its Special Chiefs Assembly in December. Our Conservative government worked collaboratively to respond to these conditions in the first nations control of first nations education act. These conditions are now going to be entrenched in law.

This is truly amazing. This is one of the moments that all Canadians should be celebrating as absolutely historic.

We will establish, in legislation, control by first nations of their own elementary and secondary school systems, recognizing first nations treaty rights and respecting their inherent right to self-government. We will create an independent joint council of education professionals with a robust oversight role to ensure that ministerial powers are only used as a last resort. It would ensure in law the ability to incorporate first nations language and culture programming into the education curriculum, including immersion. It would establish in law, for the first time in history, a statutory funding obligation on the part of the minister for education on the reserves. It would establish in law the requirement for ongoing, meaningful engagement on first nations education by the Government of Canada, supported by the joint council.

Anyone who suggests that Bill C-33 did not take into account the input of first nations is simply wrong. I hope that I was able to reassure the House that the misconceptions being perpetuated by the NDP hold no water.

I call on all members to support this bill, including the NDP and the Liberals, who have been strangely silent on this bill despite the fact their own government proposed something very similar just before it fell in 2005. They have been silent on this bill. I call on all of them to support this bill.

As Shawn Atleo said:

This work is simply too important to walk away and abandon our students to the next round of discussions....

It is time to act. It is time to pass this historic legislation and give our kids on first nations reserves the education they deserve and first nations the ability to control that education.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by the hon. member for Calgary Centre and I have two questions for her.

First, in formulating her comments on Bill C-33, did she directly consult with the regional chief for Alberta? Did she consult with the grand chiefs from Treaties 6, 7, and 8? Did she consult with any of the chiefs or council or members of those first nations?

Second, while the member claims that there were intensive consultations on the bill, she will note that in the bill itself there is provision for zero consultation with first nations on promulgating the regulations that would actually implement the bill. Would she like to speak to that?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Edmonton—Strathcona asked that question, because it was historic that this legislation was announced in Alberta, her home province and mine.

The number of first nations leaders who were there, the chiefs who were there, the diversity of the chiefs from across the country, the quality of the educators who were there was positively phenomenal. We really do have a core of amazing leaders in first nations education who are ready to take on this mantle and do a tremendous job with it.

The member was asking about consultation. The national panel led by Chuck Strahl, who we all know did an amazing job as minister, visited 30 communities and 25 schools. There were seven round tables, telephone town halls, 30 teleconferences, and 600 chiefs and councils had this document shared with them. In every first nation in Canada, the joint council of education professionals will carry that forward.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will be about three minutes left for questions and comments after question period. Now we have to move on to statements by members.

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are still three minutes available for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to aboriginal education, we have heard from people in my riding who want changes made to the aboriginal education bill. We have responded to those concerns.

What makes it interesting for me is the opposition has been asking for changes to aboriginal education in Canada, yet when it is changed, it is never good enough.

Would the hon. member tell us what the positives of the bill are?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians really want to know is if this makes the future better for our aboriginal kids. That is the bottom line.

I can go through the nooks and crannies of the bill. However, the nub of it is that this is an absolutely historic bill that gives first nations control over their own education. We are doing that as a government because first nations are ready for that control. They have magnificent models. Right now they have well-educated first nations people who run schools and who can bring other first nations along. They will deliver the kind of education their kids deserve.

Incidentally, this agreement is similar to something the Liberals brought forward. However, our bill, which they are not supporting, also gives them control over language and culture. Those are two very important new components that make this a truly historic bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, why are the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the Anishinabek Nation, which is three dozen communities in northern Ontario, and the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador all opposing this bill? Why are first nations across the country opposing the bill?

Clearly, the answer is that there has not been the consultation that the government has pretended it did. The consultation has simply not been there. That is why first nation, after first nation is objecting strenuously to both the form and content of this bill and also this complete disregard of any adequate and thorough consultation with first nations.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite could not be more wrong. That is typical of the NDP, the protest party. Its members will look for any protester in any way that they can bring forward on any bill. I would urge them to look at what the bill would do and get behind first nations in Canada that want to move forward. They should not stay with the patriarchal old system of the past, but rather move ahead with the first nations educators who are ready, willing and able to take control of first nations. They have been waiting for this is an historic agreement for 40 years.

I urge the members opposite to look forward.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I have the brief opportunity on behalf of my caucus to speak on this bill. That is, of course, because of the closure that the government has brought in on this very important bill. This debate will end today and we will not hear any more about it.

The second reading of bills is to talk about the content of the bill and to come to grips with whether we support it or not.

I am also very pleased to be splitting my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Between the two of us, I think we have over 100 years of time in northern communities across this vast land. My colleague's knowledge and understanding of that should be of great interest to everyone in the House.

I want to speak a bit about my experience. I grew up in the north. My first school, at grade 1, was the Fort Smith Federal Day School, run by the Government of Canada. It had two residential schools attached to it, Breynat Hall and Grandin College. I grew up through the system with residential school survivors, and many who were not survivors. Many of my classmates came to untimely ends due to social conditions, and the residential apology that took place was a very emotional moment for me. I recognized that so much had happened to first nations people across the country, and it was very personal to me.

My experience also includes being the chair of a local school society, where over 50% of the students were aboriginal students. I was chair of the board of governors of NWT Aurora College. The college's great dedication is toward putting aboriginal students into career positions, and it is very successful at doing that.

I understand the systems that we have set up in the Northwest Territories to deal with education in small and remote communities.

I will move to the report of the national panel on first nation elementary and secondary education for students on reserve . I want to keep my remarks to funding, because it is an area that in my experience has always been very important to talk about when we talk about schools in remote and isolated communities. The report states:

Statutory funding that is needs-based, predictable, sustainable and used specifically for education purposes. [...]

First Nation education reform must be based on strong, positive education outcomes, not on an average cost per student approach. [...] Given the magnitude of barriers faced by First Nation learners, the level of resources and investment required per student will likely be substantially greater than the average level of expenditures provided in the public school system.

That is clearly the case in the Northwest Territories. We have 8,500 students in our schools in remote and isolated communities, as well as in large communities, like Yellowknife, Fort Smith, Hay River, and Inuvik. There the average expenditure per student is $22,000 a year. When I was the chair of our local education society, in 1985, the level of funding per student in the schools that I represented was equivalent to what the Conservative government is providing today for the students in first nations schools across the country.

We are talking about schools that require greater levels of funding in order to provide services. There is no question about that. There is no question that when we are dealing with a school in an isolated remote situation, where we have to work very hard to entice teachers to go there to teach, or pay the extraordinarily high costs of servicing schools, all of the costs of providing education to a very small number of students are very high. That is simply the case.

When we look at what is done in Canada, where we have 143,000 first nations children, in 2011-12, Aboriginal Affairs spent about $1.5 billion total. It sounds like a big number. For 8,500 students in the Northwest Territories, we spent in excess of $200 million a year.

When we look at what has happened in first nations education, we have to look at the dollars and ask how anyone can provide those services that are required across this country in remote locations, away from cities and from all the other things that allow the cost of providing those services to be reduced, and how that can be expected. We have schools that are chronically underfunded today. When we look at what the Conservatives are offering to put into the schools, starting in 2016 another $400 million per year on top of that, we see that the total amount provided in 2016 is far below what is really required to deal with those schools.

There are 515 on-reserve schools. Right now, there is a $200 million budget for repairs, maintenance, and infrastructure for schools and classrooms for 515 schools. No wonder these schools are failing apart. They simply cannot do that work. This has been going on since the Liberals. It has been going on for the last 20 or 30 years. Basically, we have never funded these schools properly. We have left them in a situation where schools are falling apart.

[An hon. member]

The member from Calgary said it did not matter.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well that is simply not the case, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about 515 schools and we have to replace a certain amount every 30 years. What does it cost to replace a school these days, especially in isolated, northern, and remote locations? I would refer members to some of the school replacements taking place in the Northwest Territories where the average replacement cost is between $30 million and $50 million for schools of 200 people. The average school on-reserve has around 200 students. This is the cost we are talking about.

If they are talking about a 30-year replacement plan, then those schools are going to eat up a heck of a lot more money that what they have in the budget here for operations, for maintenance, and for capital costs. What we have and will continue to have, unless we recognize that this is fundamentally underfunded, is having to add major dollars to it. There were the Liberals with their Kelowna Accord. This bill simply would not put the money where it is needed. We can spend billions of dollars a year updating our fighter fleet, but when it comes to upgrading our children's future we are not willing to put those kinds of dollars on the line.

This subject requires more debate and I know I have two minutes to talk about this very important topic and to talk about what we are actually doing with this bill. It is very difficult. I find it repugnant that the Conservatives have called closure on this subject where there is so much to say. There is so much to talk about that the couple of days of debate that we are taking at second reading is really ridiculous. I am in some ways outraged by it, but it is a pattern of the current government, when the Conservatives put forward in their way with all the lofty-sounding principles that they put forward here, and when we start to dig into this bill and realize that we are simply going to continue the situation that exists today. There is simply not enough effort put into this to make the change. What we need is a watershed of funding for these schools to bring them to a level that they can exist and can provide the services that first nations students require. My colleagues will talk about all the other aspects in the bill, and they would continue to talk about it if they had the chance. We do not have the chance to even get close to all the other subjects within this bill.

I appreciate this brief time here, and I appreciate that my colleague will come with some more statements very shortly, right after me, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Western Arctic for that very eloquent speech. The member has worked for many years on these matters, and I appreciate the perspective that he brings.

The member talked about the fact that the Conservatives have shut down debate on this particular piece of legislation. It seems ironic for a government that says that in developing this legislation it did all kinds of consultation. Yet, what we have now is overwhelming opposition, from coast to coast to coast, to their so-called first nations control of first nations education act.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that what we really need is fulsome debate here in the House, so that we do hear from first nations from coast to coast to coast. Then we need adequate time at committee to fully understand the implications of this piece of legislation that could have far-ranging impacts on first nations communities.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

The problem we have is that these issues are complex. When we talk about turning over control of education to first nations, it is a process that is expensive and time-consuming.

I think of the community of Deline, in my riding, which finally completed a self-government agreement. It took 20 years to get to the self-government agreement, let alone adding on the aspect of the agreement of taking over education, which is going to take another significant period of time. We are talking about processes that are complex and are going to take much time, and resources as well.

Do I see within this bill an indication that the government is going to put resources into the development of first nations regional education opportunities? Those are good ideas.

I fully agree that first nations taking over control of education is a good idea, but I do not see that the process has been fully outlined in this bill, or that it has been funded in a way that first nations could simply pick up on it.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my concern with the remarks by the member for Western Arctic, and even his responses to his colleagues, is that the NDP's typical approach here is to delay, suggest more talking, and not address the issues.

We are hearing from first nation leaders across Canada who like the idea of being empowered to provide education, and our government is also supplying the money to help them do that. Today, Regional Chief Roger Augustine described the bill as a “huge improvement” for first nations parents and communities across the country.

The bill would be giving power and funds to help improve education for first nation students, yet it appears that the member for Western Arctic and his colleagues just want more delay and study, when we all know that this power has been asked for.

I would ask the member to justify his delay of this provision.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would hardly call a 10-minute speech in the House a delay in the bill moving forward. That is simply ridiculous.

However, I would love to see the government put forward some details of its analysis on what it actually takes in terms of funding to bring aboriginal schools across this country up to the level that they should be.

If the member shows me the details that the Conservatives have put into understanding what it takes, that would be a big start toward supporting this type of legislation. However, they will not do it. They will not show us what it actually costs. They do not want to put the money forward.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Meegwetch.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, those were just words of thanks to my brothers and sisters of the Algonquin nation, because we must never forget that we are still on unceded Algonquin territory, and I just wanted to remind everybody in this room about that simple fact.

I am saddened to be taking the floor at this time, because I am speaking on this very important issue of first nations education in a context in which the Conservatives have yet again put time allocation on the debate on this important matter.

It is troubling, because it shows the disrespect this government has for aboriginal peoples in general. It shows disrespect by not allowing debate on this very important issue. It is disrespect because we all know in a way that our relations with aboriginal peoples in this country are broken, and the way that this particular legislation is being put forward will definitely not help in resolving that important issue.

I say education is an important issue, and I think everyone in this chamber agrees. Let me remind the House what the Supreme Court of Canada has said about important issues to aboriginal peoples. In the Haida Nation case, the Supreme Court said that at the high end of the spectrum of consultation, the consultation obligation and duty of the federal crown requires the consent of aboriginal peoples on very serious issues.

I do not think anybody in this chamber challenges the idea that the education of first nations children is a very serious issue and therefore requires the consent of aboriginal peoples on whatever we propose in terms of first nations education.

I was travelling on the day when the Prime Minister apologized on behalf of all Canadians for the residential schools in this country. Members may know that I attended one of these residential schools for almost a decade. I was pretty moved by the words that were used on that day in this chamber. I read them the same day. I saw hope in those words for healing. I saw hope in those words for reconciliation with aboriginal peoples in this country.

But it is not happening. One cannot say, on the one hand, “I am sorry”, while on the other continuing to deny the fundamental rights of first nations peoples. It seriously does not happen that way.

I want to quote what the Prime Minister said on that day. I pulled out the French version of his speech of apology to aboriginal peoples. I just want to quote a paragraph in that speech:

The government recognizes that the absence of an apology has been an impediment to healing and reconciliation.

Therefore, on behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians, I stand before you, in this chamber so central to our life as a country, to apologize to aboriginal peoples for Canada's role in the Indian residential schools system.

That is what the Prime Minister said that day. Once again, I would like to reiterate that we cannot say we are sorry on one hand and then, on the other, continue to deny the fundamental rights of first nations peoples in Canada.

Reconciliation is an important objective and process in this country, and in Canadian constitutional law and international law, as well. It is an important process. In the indigenous context, reconciliation refers to restoring harmony. That is what is meant by reconciliation in this context, between indigenous people and the Crown. There has been conflict for countless generations.

The UN declaration emphasizes that recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples will enhance harmonious and co-operative relations between the state and indigenous peoples.

As I said, in the Haida case the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted that reconciliation is not a final legal remedy in the usual sense:

Rather, it is a process flowing from the rights guaranteed by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

It continued:

This process of reconciliation flows from the Crown’s duty of honourable dealing toward Aboriginal peoples....

The court recognized the need to reconcile pre-existing aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty. Those are the words of the Supreme Court of Canada. And this is what is required in this process as well.

I know that a lot of time when legislation is tabled or presented in this House, one of the first complaints that we hear from first nations is that they have not been consulted. It is not just political vagary when they say that. They are talking about a constitutional obligation. They are talking about a constitutional duty of the Government of Canada to consult with aboriginal peoples and to accommodate the concerns that were expressed in the meaningful consultation that needs to happen.

If I listen to what the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador is saying, that did not happen. If I listen to what the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is saying, that did not happen. If I listen to the Chiefs of Ontario, that did not happen.

There is a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations being called next week, because there is serious concern with this legislation. They are calling an urgent meeting, that is how serious it is. It is important that we understand. The Assembly of First Nations is going to the extent of instituting legal proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada, because of that lack of consultation. The government has not respected its constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate first nations in this country.

I want to read what Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations said yesterday:

Bill C-33, as it stands, would create a system in which the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has authority but no responsibility. First Nations, on the other hand, would have responsibility since they deliver education services, but no authority. That is a completely unacceptable situation. There is no recognition of inherent or Treaty rights to education, no recognition of First Nations jurisdiction, and no recognition of First Nations as a third order of government. If the Government of Canada truly wants First Nations support, it is essential that it does not pass this Bill as it stands, but rather, engages in a democratic process that includes a meaningful consultation process.

Let me end by saying that throughout this short discussion and debate that we have had on this bill, I have heard many responses from the government side saying, “That is not important. Your constitutional rights are not important.” That is what I am being told here.

I will never accept that, not before, not today, and never in the future. That is why I am opposing this bill today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his impassioned defence of what is fundamental to what is wrong with this legislation. This gets to the heart of the relationship between the Crown and first nations from coast to coast to coast.

The member talked about the fact that there were inherent rights and treaty rights that had been established and recognized in the Canadian Constitution. Members earlier were talking about giving first nations education. Well, they cannot give first nations education. First nations are entitled to education under inherent rights and treaty rights. They are entitled to education under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They are entitled to education under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Could the member talk about a way forward? Could he inform the House that if we had a fair, reasonable and democratic process taking place here, what would be the way forward?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very important and interesting because it is something we need to discuss as well.

When aboriginal peoples, with their constitutional rights, talk about the need for meaningful consultation and accommodation, there are several examples we can take from the past to show that it is possible to sit down together with first nations and iron out legislation on education for our children. It is easy.

For example, in 1975, when the James Bay Cree signed the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement, section 9 of the agreement provided for local self-government. In the ensuing years, both the Cree and the Government of Canada sat together and drafted the self-government legislation related to that. It is called the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. It was adopted by the House in 1984. Therefore, that is possible. That is the most respectful way we can have to deal with this important and crucial matter for first nations children and throughout the communities.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that both the Liberals and the NDP are opposing constructive and necessary steps in supporting the goals expressed by the first nations for control for their respective treaty rights and aboriginal rights. Recognition of language and culture are a clear statutory guarantee for fair funding under education.

The Liberals had 13 long years to act, but instead they neglected the first nations and by opposing this bill, they are again signalling their willingness to allow another generation of first nations youth to fall through the cracks. Instead of doing what is best for first nations students, the Liberals have decided to hitch their wagon to the NDP message of partisanship and of the critics of the bill who would like nothing more than to disrupt Canada's economy.

I would urge the Liberals and the NDP to do as Chief Augustine suggests and do the right thing, to reconsider their position and stand up for first nations children.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate some of the points I just mentioned. It is important that whenever we deal with legislation in our country, we ensure that our constitutional obligations are respected. We ensure that the fundamental rights of first nations and aboriginal peoples are not violated. This is what is going on here. The government has not consulted with first nations.

A couple of them are saying yes, but the vast majority of first nations people and organizations have not been consulted, and that is a constitutional problem. Conservatives are not respecting our constitutional duties to consult and accommodate first nations concerns expressed vis-à-vis this bill and that needs to happen. I will not put aside my constitutional right for a moment to allow them to pass this legislation, because the future of my children is too important for that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Because our time has gone beyond the five hours of debate, we will now go to 10 minutes per speaker.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development has the floor for 10 minutes.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill C-33, the first nations control of first nations education act.

The introduction of Bill C-33 follows years of discussions, dialogue, and studies reflecting the efforts of many people, both first nations and government officials, to arrive at this point.

All first nations across Canada were presented with numerous means of engaging in the consultation process and offered multiple opportunities to be a part of the dialogue and process leading to this legislation.

In 2011 the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations jointly launched a national panel on first nations elementary and secondary education, which recommended, in its final report, a first nations education act.

In December 2012 the Government of Canada launched a consultation process and released a discussion guide to help support open and meaningful consultation activities on the government's proposed legislative approach.

Between December 2012 and May 2013 the Government of Canada held face-to-face regional consultation sessions, video and teleconference sessions, and online consultation activities with first nations across Canada.

The government received various input on a variety of topics, including first nations control over first nations education, inherent rights and treaties, the transition of legislation, funding, language and culture, and parental involvement in education.

The legislation that we see before us today reflects the feedback that we received throughout the extensive consultation process.

Engagements with first nations did not end there. On October 22, 2013, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development released for public review the document “Working Together for First Nation Students: A Proposal for a Bill on First Nation Education”. This was the result of input and feedback received on the blueprint for legislation.

The draft legislative proposal was shared with more than 600 chiefs and band councils and every first nation community across Canada, as well as provincial governments, for further input prior to the proposed legislation being finalized. Parents, educators, and students were also encouraged to submit comments on the proposal to further influence the development of this bill.

In response, the Assembly of First Nations issued an open letter that listed five conditions that it felt were necessary in order to reach a successful agreement on this legislation. Members have heard many of their colleagues testify that our government has not only met but exceeded these five conditions.

If the first nations control of first nations education act is passed, the Government of Canada will continue working with first nations on the development of necessary regulations to implement this proposed legislation.

Of course we recognize that funding is necessary to support the implementation of Bill C-33 to support first nations and first nation education authorities as they take on roles and responsibilities established under the first nations control of first nations education act. The Government of Canada has invested through economic action plan 2014 an additional $1.252 billion over three years beginning in 2016-17 and statutory core funding on top of the existing $1.55 billion per year for elementary and secondary education on reserve. Even after the three-year period has ended, this funding would continue to increase at a rate of 4.5% each and every year. The funding would be stable and predictable, ensuring that schools have the resources necessary to help students meet their needs and prepare them to participate in Canada's labour market.

In addition, the Government of Canada would help to support the transition to legislation by creating an enhanced education fund that would provide $160 million over four years, beginning in 2015-16. This funding would help develop the partnerships and institutional structures required to implement the proposed legislation, including support for first nations education authorities.

Another important feature of Bill C-33 is the issue of ministerial oversight. Far from giving the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development more power or more control over first nations education, under this legislation the minister would have far less decision-making power than provincial ministers of education have in their jurisdictions and far less than he has today.

In addition, under Bill C-33 a joint council of educational professionals would be put in place to support the implementation of this legislation. The joint council would have a membership of up to nine members, including a chair. Half of these members would be appointed by the Assembly of First Nations, four would be nominated by the minister, and the chair would be jointly selected by the Assembly of First Nations and the minister.

The joint council would be made up of recognized educational experts and would have the role of supporting first nations and first nations education authorities in the improvement of their education system, as well as the oversight role of ensuring that the ministerial powers provided by the act are exercised with the benefit of the first nations' perspective and are used as a last resort. Indeed, the minister would not be able to create regulations or appoint temporary administrators without the advice of this joint council.

Under the act, first nations or first nation education authorities would have the sole authority to hire and manage school inspectors, oversee school operations, and deal with situations where an individual school is not providing quality education to students. Under exceptional circumstances, the minister could appoint a temporary administrator under clause 40, but only after seeking the advice of the joint council of education professionals. This provision would only be exercised in exceptional circumstances, such as where inspection reports have not been submitted, significant issues have been revealed, standards are not being met, or there is significant risk to student well-being and success. It should be noted that these are the same conditions that would trigger a similar response in provincially run schools.

Finally, I would like to touch briefly on the issue of language and culture. The Government of Canada and first nations believe that language and culture are essential to successful first nation education. Consistent with the Prime Minister's announcement on February 7, 2014, clause 21 of the first nations control of first nations education act would enable first nations to incorporate their languages and cultures into school curricula and offer language and culture programming. Clause 43 of the proposed legislation would also commit the Government of Canada to providing funding to support language and culture programming as part of its core funding.

The intent of the proposed legislation is to create a legislative framework within which first nations would exercise control over first nations education. First nation schools and education authorities would also have full decision-making powers in terms of curriculum choice, providing it meets education standards under the act and the establishment of school policies and school procedures.

In summary, Bill C-33 is an important piece of legislation. Developed in consultation with first nations, it is an essential and overdue step in ensuring that first nation students have the same quality of education and access to education as other students in Canada. I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-33.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a part of Canada, northwestern British Columbia, that has a great number of first nations communities. There are villages, from the coast, all the way to the interior, the north, and the middle of the province.

There are a number of concerns and constraints that we have been raising with the current government and the previous government for many years. Generations of first nations people have suffered under a more patronizing form of governance in which Ottawa says it knows best.

One of the conditions set out that the member believes has been met is that there is no unilateral control kept by the minister. My question is this. With regard to this joint council being meant to advise the minister, on two parts, the unilateral control concerns me. One is that the minister does all the appointing and firing of that council. It is not done in consultation with anybody. He just chooses who the advisors are. They may be first nations or they may not. It does not matter. The minister, in this act, under what he is voting for, does this.

The second piece about this council is that if we are going to take the advice from this council, none of it is binding. The council can say that these are what the improvements need to be for first nations education, and the minister sitting in Ottawa, with the way that the act is drawn up right now, can say absolutely not, and there is no consequence.

I hear the member's words and the sincerity around wanting to put more control and determination in first nations communities, wherein the solutions lie, not in Ottawa. Yet, when I read the bill, I struggle with reconciling my friend's words and what the government has written in the text and the law. It gives the minister unilateral power to decide what happens with first nations education. That is the fundamental crux of the argument.

I would like my friend to respond.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in my earlier teaching career, when I began my education, I was actually a teacher and a school administrator in the member's riding. The background and the time that I spent there helped me develop my love and experience. Quite frankly, it was the core of my educational experience, particularly in teaching first nations students in that riding. I know that the member cares deeply about the community as well.

In terms of the appointment of this joint council, it would have nine members on it. Of these members, four would be appointed by the Assembly of First Nations and four would be appointed by the minister. The chair of the council would be jointly selected by the minister and the Assembly of First Nations. There would be great consultation with the aboriginal and first nations community on the membership of the council.

Later in my career, I also helped build a school that was, at that time, responsible for the education of elementary students from primary to grade 5 in my hometown of Truro. That school was built with the intent of being inclusive for everyone. It is a public school, but the first nations students on the reserve close by in Millbrook attend the school.

The involvement of the first nations community in Millbrook in this school is absolutely phenomenal. It invested capital money into the school for construction. It put staff from the reserve, appointed by the chief, into the school.

This bill would also provide $500 million to increase capital construction for schools across Canada and renovations in schools across Canada, current schools that need these renovation monies desperately. This is a bill that would put its money where its mouth is. It would almost double the amount of money that is invested, with an additional $1.25 billion. It would also have money allocated for school construction and school renovations.

I am very proud to support this bill. It also has the support of the chief of the reserve in my hometown. I am proud to stand here and support that on behalf of Millbrook, Chief Gloade, and the young people in my community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have to take exception to the member's comments regarding the appointments on the joint council. It is actually the case that four members would be recommended by a first nations entity, not by the Assembly of First Nations, as written in this piece of legislation. The minister and the Governor in Council would appoint the chair and four other members, so the minister would control the majority on the joint council.

How can the member say that the joint council would be representative of first nations?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, four of the nine members would be recommended by the first nations community, four would be recommended by the minister, and the chair would be jointly appointed by the minister and the AFN. There would be great consultation in the membership of this joint committee.

As I have talked about the actions of this joint committee, only in severe cases would this committee recommend to the minister and give him the power to replace the administration, or make direct changes within the schools, which would be under the control of the first nations authority. This joint council would be collaborative between both the minister and the government and the AFN.

It would be system of great collaboration.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the first point I want to raise is where I come from and represent in this House of Commons, which is northwestern British Columbia. People have heard me speak of it often as a beautiful and diverse place. It represents almost a quarter of British Columbia, the northwest quarter, and has within it 49 first nations communities, which are some of the proudest and strongest first nations communities anywhere in the world, such as the Haida, Tsimshian, Taku River Tlingit, Heiltsuk. I could go on to name more.

The pride that is held in these first nations communities is with respect in particular to these generational concepts that are at the very heart of the way that they conduct themselves in law, the way they operate on the land, and the respect they show to one another. As a federal representative, it has been an incredible privilege of mine these past 10 years to attempt to have true and sincere dialogue and consultation, because we have had far too many governments and politicians stand up and attempt to justify that they were speaking on behalf of first nations and then go about their way doing almost the exact opposite and acting in a paternalistic and belittling way toward first nations communities.

I must also contextualize what I am saying. There is broad disagreement in this House around this particular bill. New Democrats have found that it is wanting in some of the most fundamental aspects of what true consultation and collaboration would mean. We have also seen that it will not do what the government is promising. That is a great shame because where we do have agreement in Parliament across the party lines is with respect to the importance of education and skills training particularly for young first nations people. We do not need to repeat the statistics. By and large, young first nations people growing up in Canada suffer with fewer hopes and opportunities than non-aboriginal youth. That is an enormous problem, not just within those communities and those families but for us as a country because it inhibits a huge number of our people but it also inhibits our nation in being able to move forward.

I would also argue that in a place like northwestern British Columbia it inhibits opportunities for the country writ large when it comes to resource development because first nations stand as the gatekeepers, as the protectors of so much of what is important. When the government tries to push through a mining project, an oil pipeline or any such large-scale industrial project it has to understand that respect means respect. Unfortunately, up until this point in some cases the approach of the Conservative government has not been one of respect. It has ridiculed opponents of its plans, demonized them, and called them enemies and radicals. That is not what will carry the conversation forward. What we need is the conversation to move forward.

Let me return to how this day started in Parliament. I have not done this before, but it is important because I was struck by it this morning as you read out the prayer of the House of Commons of Canada, something that happens every morning as members gather. It was the very end of the prayer that the Speaker of the House recites that struck me as we were going to talk about this piece of legislation today, about something so important as first nations education.

The very end of the House of Commons prayer reads:

Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions.

I think about that as we are debating this particular piece of legislation, “Grant us the wisdom, knowledge, and understanding”. Has the government shown that when it is describing its vision for first nations education, where it maintains unilateral power and control by the federal minister of aboriginal affairs, where it maintains the old vestiges and old ideas that got us into so much trouble for so long, where it maintains this idea that Ottawa knows best about the problems of the first nations people and it will fix those problems?

The challenge for the government is that it puts a nice title on the bill and it has nice preambles in the bill that say all sorts of wonderful things, but if only wishing made it so. If what was said in the title and in the opening paragraphs were actually in the law, the parts of the bill that will be impacting the real world, not the nice words but the law, if it had only matched that lovely title and that wonderful preamble, then we would have a much more conducive Parliament and a much more helpful debate than what we have here. The cynical irony is that within hours of the debate starting on a first nations education bill, the government House leader got to his feet to shut down debate on first nations education. He then said that the government is very consultative and respectful and that what it wants to do is show respect for all people, when the first place it showed disrespect is in the very House of Commons that the people elected to represent them.

The audacity that the Conservatives maintain is unbelievable.

We have also suggested this. The Conservatives refused, on their unfair elections act, to have parliamentary hearings outside of Ottawa, because the Conservatives wanted to keep the conversation in the bubble as they were rigging our electoral process. We are now suggesting, with something so critical as first nations education, that certainly it would be the consultative and respectful thing to do to actually leave Ottawa. Heaven forbid that Conservative MPs had to leave Ottawa and go talk to Canadians, first nations, outside of Ottawa and understand what the impact on the ground would be of their legislation. More important, they would hear about all the incredible successes first nations educators and leaders and families are having in battling and dealing with the challenges that have faced first nations communities and families for so long. The successes are there, and the tragedy of this bill is that they are not incorporated.

We would think that the Conservatives would go out and look for the best-case examples, from coast to coast to coast, of people who are creating those innovative environments, having higher graduation rates and success rates, keeping kids in school for that amount of time, and seeing the success when they look for training to enter the workforce. Those successes are there in British Columbia and Alberta and right across to the east and up to the north. Instead, they do this. They impose this top-down model.

The time is limited, but on the very basic facets of what the government has proposed today, it is yet another chapter in the sad story of the way federal governments have dealt with first nations people in Canada. The only hope is that the power that rests in those communities, the bright lights that are working so hard with that right purpose and right mind, will know that they have allies in the New Democratic Party who will stand up for their rights, and that they will allow us one day, and that day cannot come too soon, to achieve some sort of fairness, dignity, and respect for all people in Canada.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 1:15, pursuant to an order made Thursday, May 1, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 5 at the ordinary hour of adjournment.

The hon. member for Oxford is rising on a point of order.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.