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.

Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty Act

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois clearly supports the principles of the bill. I commend the minister and thank her for her speech.

Bill C-21 implements the first modern treaty between Canada and a Métis government, which represents a historic milestone for the Red River Métis. Recently, in committee, the president of the Manitoba Métis Federation, David Chartrand, indicated that the treaty is more symbolic than anything else. The Métis people are not asking for funding or anything else from the federal government. They are simply asking for the right to have the recognition treaty that was promised to them a long time ago.

This bill corrects a historical injustice by making good on the promise of a treaty made to Louis Riel and his provisional government 150 years ago when Manitoba entered into Confederation. The bill addresses the shameful way in which Canada has treated the Métis in the past by marginalizing them, stripping away their rights, imposing military repression and making them invisible in the education system. The bill finally grants express legal and political recognition. It is consistent with the goal of nation-to-nation co-operation in that it formally recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis and establishes a lasting policy framework for intergovernmental relations.

The treaty clearly recognizes the political unity of the Red River Métis as a distinct indigenous community with a recognized democratic government, rather than merely a collection of scattered communities. It enshrines the right to self-determination and self-government for the Red River Métis, recognizing that this right is inherent and protected by the Constitution and is no longer dependent on the federal government's goodwill.

As for its contents, the treaty begins with the internal governance of the Red River Métis: citizenship, institutions, elections, accountability, government operations. It does not infringe on the areas of jurisdiction of other levels of government. It is the result of a process of co-development and ongoing negotiations between Canada and the Manitoba Métis Federation, where the Red River Métis defined their own governance priorities rather than having a unilateral model imposed on them.

This treaty is the culmination of a process that began formally in 2018, and unlike other initiatives like Bill C‑33, it meets the requirements of a truly modern treaty in terms of form and content. Those other bills were not the fruit of this type of negotiation and did not explicitly recognize self-government. Rather, they were intended to give the federal government a blank cheque in its negotiations with other nations that claimed to be Métis.

Bill C-21 is a government bill introduced by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who just addressed the House. Bill C-21 begins with the gradual political and legal recognition of the Manitoba Métis Federation, or MMF, as the government of the Red River Métis. As of 2018, Canada and the MMF began formal self-government negotiations under the authority of the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, with the aim of moving from a simple political agreement to a genuine modern treaty regulating governance institutions.

A key milestone came in 2021 when, under a recognition agreement, the Manitoba Métis Federation was recognized as the Métis government and Canada's interlocutor for the collective rights and interests of the Red River Métis. This agreement serves as the foundation for more ambitious work on self-government and paves the way for the recognition of broader internal legislative powers.

This process culminated on November 30, 2024, with the official signing of the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty. It was signed in Winnipeg by the president of the MMF, David Chartrand, and the federal minister currently responsible for public safety.

The government press release describes this treaty as “first-of-its-kind” and “the first Self-Government Treaty concluded with a Métis Government in Canada” reaffirming the right of the Red River Métis to self-determination and formally recognizing the Manitoba Métis Federation as their government, with powers to make laws on who their citizens are, how their leaders are selected and how their institutions operate. The press release points out that the treaty centres on governance rather than land or harvesting rights and that, once it takes effect under the act, it will be protected by the Constitution. The treaty will replace the recognition agreement signed in 2021, and it represents a major milestone toward reconciliation with this indigenous people.

After the treaty is signed, the relationship between Canada and the MMF enters into an implementation phase, during which the parties prepare the necessary legislation to give the treaty force of law within the Canadian legal system. The treaty itself provides for the negotiation of other self-government arrangements and a framework for collaboration and consultation with other indigenous groups, but its full entry into force depends on federal legislation that ratifies it and incorporates it into domestic law.

It is in this context that, on February 12, 2026, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations introduced in the House of Commons Bill C-21, an act to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty and to make consequential amendments to other acts, which we are discussing this afternoon.

The news release accompanying the introduction of the bill notes that this is the first self-government treaty concluded with a Métis government, described as the culmination of 156 years of effort on the part of the Red River Métis since 1870. It explains that the bill seeks to give force of law to the treaty, to recognize the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis and to clarify the legislative powers of that government in the internal matters covered by the treaty.

The purpose of the treaty is to recognize and implement the Red River Métis' right to self-determination and self-government as part of an approach to reconciliation that is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is specifically designated as a treaty within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, has the force of law, is binding on Canada, the Manitoba Métis Federation and all persons and bodies, and engages the honour of the Crown.

The treaty also goes over colonial history, the historical role of the Red River Métis—the Red River Resistance, the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia, the Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. Canada case—and Canada's responsibility to address the “unfinished business of reconciliation”, including in relation to section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870.

The treaty affirms that the Red River Métis are a distinct indigenous community that collectively holds rights protected under section 35, including the inherent right to self-government, and that the Manitoba Métis Federation is their democratic government and their exclusive representative for collective rights and interests, including section 35 rights and land claims.

In addition, the treaty confirms that the right to self-determination and the inherent right to self-government of the Red River Métis are not dependent on Canada's recognition or the implementation legislation. Rather, they are explicitly recognized and affirmed as section 35 rights, which are protected by section 25 of the charter. It clarifies that no section 35 right of the Red River Métis are extinguished or surrendered, that the governance rights listed are not comprehensive, and that other areas of self-government may be added through subsequent complementary self-government arrangements.

Chapter 4 identifies the particular Red River Métis jurisdictions, that is, the areas where the federation of the Red River Métis can enact legislation, with precedence over federal law in the event of conflict or inconsistency in the areas I will list.

With respect to the citizenship of the Red River Métis, the citizenship criteria, registration, renunciation, remedies, and the requirement of a demonstrable connection to the historic Red River Métis, the current register of the federation of the Red River Métis becomes the official register. In principle, a person cannot be both a Red River Métis citizen and a citizen of another recognized indigenous community, such as a first nation, other Métis group or modern treaty, unless that person is unable to give up that other standing. The treaty does not prevent individuals from choosing another indigenous body.

In terms of the method of selecting MMF representatives, the organization has full authority over its electoral processes and the appointment of its representatives, members, officers and others. With regard to the structure, operation, finances and accountability of the MMF, its internal organization, asset management, financial management and the rules governing civil liability and personal immunity of officers and employees, the privileges and immunity are comparable to those of parliamentarians. There is also a regime governing access to information and the protection of personal information within the MMF.

There is also democratic accountability: The Manitoba Métis Federation can adopt its own rules for accountability to Métis citizens, such as conflict of interest prevention rules, internal mechanisms and so on.

There is also administration, enforcement, prosecution and adjudication. The MMF can establish institutions to administer its laws. It can impose sanctions such as fines, restitution and imprisonment within certain limits. It can incorporate proportionate traditional sanctions and put in place mechanisms for enforcing and prosecuting its laws. In all of these areas, if there is an inconsistency or conflict between a Métis law and a federal law, the Red River Métis law prevails, to the extent of the conflict, for matters that are clearly covered by the treaty.

There is also taxation and financing. The treaty defines the concept of “expenditure need” and the “fiscal arrangements” that are meant to provide the MMF with a fiscal capacity comparable to that of other governments or public bodies performing similar functions. These fiscal arrangements are negotiated between the parties and specify the federal contributions and the responsibilities of the MMF. They are not part of the treaty within the meaning of sections 25 and 35, but they are governed by the treaty.

The treaty establishes the MMF's authority in matters related to access to information and the protection of personal information held by its institutions, along much the same lines as existing government systems but adapted to the Métis reality. It also acknowledges the specific role of the Manitoba Métis Federation in the areas of Red River Métis culture and language, as well as child and family services, particularly in relation to An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. The treaty specifies that it has no effect on the Constitution of Canada, does not abrogate or derogate from the other rights of indigenous peoples, and does not preclude the existence of other distinct Métis collectivities that may also hold section 35 rights. It states that nothing in the treaty limits the future rights of the Red River Métis or the possibility of recognizing new governance jurisdictions through negotiations. The treaty must be interpreted in a manner that upholds their section 35 rights without diminishing them.

The Manitoba Métis Federation was established in 1967 to provide democratic, responsible and accountable governance on behalf of the Red River Métis using the constitutional authorities delegated by its citizens. It subsequently incorporated as a legal entity to meet a federal government requirement in order to apply for programming.

The Red River Métis are defined as an indigenous collective made up of its citizens and individuals entitled to be citizens located within Manitoba, as well as elsewhere inside and outside of Canada. In terms of identity, the Manitoba Métis Federation states that it uses the 2002 Métis Nation definition resolution of the Métis National Council and presents itself as the continuation of the “one and only Métis Nation” rooted in its Red River origins. Its mission is to protect the Red River Métis “beyond borders” throughout their homeland and wherever its citizens live, including outside Manitoba. It describes itself as the protector of the Métis Nation and national definition.

The MMF places this mission within the context of the legacy of colonialism, emphasizing that provincial borders and other institutional boundaries have cut up traditional Métis territory and fractured Métis governance. It states that, since 2014, it has taken steps to unite the Red River Métis, and it clarifies that MMF citizens do not have to be residents of Manitoba. The organization also views its evolution as part of a longer historical arc: Since the ethnogenesis of the Métis people, they have had three governance institutions—the president, the council or cabinet, and the assembly—which it traces back to the collective decision-making structures of the time of the buffalo hunt.

These institutions are described as a hard-won and constantly evolving legacy formed in the crucible of a unique history of cultural practices, military campaigns and political arenas. As they are currently configured, MMF president Mr. Chartrand and a cabinet of 22 ministers provide reports to the assembly and seek its guidance. The assembly is described as integral to providing open, accountable and democratic governance. Finally, the MMF administers a wide range of programs and services, including child and family protection, justice, housing, youth, education, human resources, economic development and natural resources. To do so, it relies on a network of affiliated corporations, authorities and agencies with more than 1,100 employees.

I would also like to remind the House that, in the 19th century, the Red River Métis formed a society descended from indigenous people, especially members of the Plains First Nations, and Europeans linked to the fur trade. They lived primarily in the Red River Colony area in the heart of modern-day Manitoba.

From the turn of the century, they played a central role in the northwest economy as buffalo hunters, pemmican suppliers and middlemen in the fur trade, while developing a distinct culture that was both Catholic and largely francophone, but also anglophone and Protestant, with collective practices such as big hunts organized according to democratic rules.

The Red River Colony was founded in 1812 under the auspices of the Hudson's Bay Company and Lord Selkirk and gradually grew into an important population centre, with francophone and anglophone Métis making up a significant proportion of the population. They had their own leaders, including Cuthbert Grant and later Louis Riel.

Starting in the 1860s, the context changed dramatically as Canada sought to expand its sovereignty westward. In 1869, the Hudson's Bay Company sold Rupert's Land to the Dominion of Canada without consulting the Métis settlers, raising fears that their land, language and religion would be jeopardized, especially as Canadian surveyors entered the colony without clear land title guarantees.

In October 1869, the Métis disrupted survey work and, under the leadership of Louis Riel and other leaders, took control of Upper Fort Garry, the company's main outpost, to force Ottawa into negotiating terms for the region's entry into Confederation. They created the National Métis Committee and a provisional government composed of francophone and anglophone Métis who developed a list of rights that would serve as the basis for the Manitoba Act.

The negotiations led by the provisional government resulted in the Manitoba Act, 1870, which created the province, recognized bilingual institutions and denominational schools, and granted 1.4 million acres of land to the children of Métis families in settlement of their “Indian land title”. That was the terminology used at the time.

However, the fulfillment of these promises was chaotic and delayed, and the fact that a Métis court executed Orangeman Thomas Scott in March 1870 sparked violent anti-Métis hostility in Ontario, leading to the dispatch of an expeditionary force that carried out reprisals and acts of violence against the Métis population. In this climate of fear, a significant proportion of the Métis left the region. They migrated westwards, to the present-day provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, or southwards, and the Métis gradually lost their majority status in Manitoba. By the 1880s, they accounted for only a small proportion of Manitoba's population.

The Northwest Rebellion of 1885 was the second major uprising led by the Métis and certain first nations allies against the Canadian federal government, building on the events of Red River.

In the 1870s and 1880s, the Métis living in the Northwest Territories denounced the lack of clear title to their lands, the government's inaction in response to their petitions, and the deterioration of their economic conditions following the collapse of the buffalo population, all of which fuelled a sense of marginalization and injustice.

In 1884, Métis delegates brought Louis Riel back from exile in Montana to help them formulate demands. They drafted a new list of grievances, and when Ottawa did not give them a satisfactory response, the movement shifted to an armed confrontation. In the spring of 1885, a provisional government was established in Batoche, under the political authority of Riel and the military leadership of Gabriel Dumont. After some initial successes, the Métis and their allies were ultimately defeated at the Battle of Batoche in May 1885 by British Major-General Frederick Middleton, his Northwest Mounted Police paramilitary troops and the volunteer militias, mostly Orangemen. Major-General Middleton was already a master at suppressing indigenous uprisings, having earned his stripes fighting the Maori in New Zealand.

I see that I am running out of time. I had more to say about the history and evolution of these events. For example, on November 22, Quebec premier Honoré Mercier told a huge crowd gathered on the Champ-de-Mars in Montreal that “[Louis] Riel, our brother, is dead”. Riel's surrender, his trial for high treason and his execution in November 1885, as well as the sanctions imposed on several indigenous leaders, marked a major political and military defeat for the Métis.

Today, we have an important role to play in repairing the injustice inflicted on this nation over these many decades, for over one and a half centuries. I sincerely applaud this bill and I want them to know that the Bloc Québécois and I are with them wholeheartedly.

Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Chair, a few years ago, I toured the Kent maximum security prison, which was in my riding at the time, and I was struck by two things. I was expecting to see a bunch of old men, people who were serving out long life sentences. In fact, I found a bunch of very young men, and I was told by the people there trying to provide some training to those inmates that none of them had graduated from high school. Most of them, if they were lucky, had a grade 8 or grade 9 education.

I wonder if the member can talk about the importance of education across all demographics, but specifically for indigenous Canadians. Our previous government tried, with Bill C-33, to work out a system so that no matter where people lived in Canada, whether on reserve or off reserve, they could get the same level of education. That effort did not bear fruit. It fell through, but I wonder if she could talk about the importance of education in giving hope and opportunity to indigenous people and all Canadians.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a number of statistics, very troubling and alarming statistics, and unfortunately, as he said, they are statistics we have heard before. I think he would agree with me that one statistic that crosses all cultures, all groups of people in Canada, is that the lower the level of education, the more likely people are to have interactions with the criminal justice system.

Our previous government tried. Bill C-33 was our effort in the previous Parliament to try to improve first nations education, recognizing the difficulty of education in first nations communities, given the history of residential schools. We are talking about the criminal justice system, but I want to get the member's thoughts on the importance of a quality education for first nations and indigenous students, one that is the same as for non-indigenous students, as well as how we can work together to get there so that more indigenous students have a good education, have better options, and are able to make the choices many of us take for granted in non-indigenous communities.

Indian Affairs and Northern Development--Main Estimates, 2015-2016

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Chair, I also wanted to touch on the first nations control of first nations education act. Last year, our government introduced Bill C-33. This bill would have established a framework for first nations education. It would have created minimum standards for educators on reserve, ensured that students spent a minimum number of days in classes and ensured that first nations schools on reserve offered diplomas recognized by universities off reserve. Moreover, it would have provided a nearly $2 billion increase for first nations education funding. Some $500 million of that would have been specifically earmarked for education infrastructure. This was critical.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain to our government what has been achieved on this front in the time since Bill C-33 was put on hold?

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

Mr. Chair, we have been very clear that funding would not replace reform. Since the decision by AFN and the Assembly of Chiefs to reject and ask the government to abandon Bill C-33, we are working with stakeholders in the region to try to find a way to reform this non-system to ensure that at the end of the day the first nations' children can enjoy a good education system that produces good outcomes and results. We are talking with several stakeholders and trying to find a way to ensure that those objectives are met.

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

Mr. Chair, that $1.25 billion over three years, increasing annually at the rate of 4.5%, is statutory funding that would follow Bill C-33, which is still before the House. If, for example, tomorrow morning we had a special meeting of the chiefs and assembly, and they decided to support Bill C-33, the money would be there.

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

Mr. Chair, the money attached to the implementation of Bill C-33, just like Bill C-33, is on hold. The $200 million, which is not reflected in the estimates, because it is an economic action plan 2015 measure, will have to be accessed through supplementary estimates.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are failing another generation of aboriginal children with their latest budget.

Every child in Canada, regardless of where they live or where they come from, deserves a high-quality education. However, instead of being part of the solution, the Conservatives would rather be part of the problem, by blaming aboriginal communities for their own failure with Bill C-33.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to honour his pledge to invest $1.9 billion to address the underfunding of aboriginal education?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that is failing another generation of first nations, Métis and Inuit children with inadequate funding for basic services like child welfare, education and health.

We should all know that no matter where children live in Canada, they should have access to quality education, but the Conservatives are more focused on blaming indigenous communities for their own failure with Bill C-33.

Why is the Prime Minister not honouring his pledge to invest $1.9 billion to bridge the education gap that first nations in Canada tragically face?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the proposed private member's bill put forward by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, which seeks to ensure that all Canadian laws are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, also known as UNDRIP.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I have had the pleasure of interacting with aboriginal leaders across our country. This has given me a deep and real appreciation of aboriginal rights and interests and the current issues aboriginal Canadians are facing today.

It must be said at the outset that our government is dedicated to protecting aboriginal rights in Canada. Indeed, Canada already boasts a unique and robust legal framework through which aboriginal rights are protected. It is against this backdrop that I have no choice but to reject Bill C-641 and to urge all members in the House to do so as well.

More than just lip service, we have enshrined the rights of aboriginal peoples in our Constitution, one of the only countries in the world to do so. As my hon. colleagues will know, aboriginal and treaty rights are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act and reaffirmed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover, our government has also issued a statement of support for the principles of the very document at the core of this bill, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which are consistent with our own commitment to continue working in partnership with aboriginal peoples to improve the well-being of aboriginal Canadians.

However, we have also been clear from the outset that while we support the general principles behind the declaration, there are several portions of the document with which our government has grave concerns, and we have articulated those concerns clearly to Canadians and to the international community, particularly as they relate to the concept of free, prior, and informed consent found in Article 19 of the declaration, which reads as follows:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

While we continue to support the principles of UNDRIP, the problem is that the member from the New Democratic Party is asking the House to take an aspirational, non-legally binding document and enshrine it in Canadian law. Beyond practical concerns, which I will get to momentarily, this proposal is simply impossible to support in view of Canada's existing legal and constitutional framework. Our government is working to achieve the ends of UNDRIP, honouring aboriginal rights, within the structure of Canada's unique constitutional framework. The fact of the matter is that we have made more strides in this than any government in Canadian history.

I remind the House that in July 2013, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples released a report following his visit to Canada. In it, he said, “Canada’s relationship with the indigenous peoples within its borders is governed by a well-developed legal framework...that in many respects are protective of indigenous peoples’ rights”.

I could spend the rest of my remarks highlighting our accomplishments as they relate to the protection of aboriginal rights and interests, and there are many—the number of treaties our government has passed, legislation with respect to human rights, and the protection of women on reserve—but for the benefit of the House, I would like to spend the remainder of my time today explaining why the passage of this bill should be opposed.

At its core, the legislation seeks to ensure that the contents of UNDRIP are enshrined in Canadian law. As mentioned earlier, our government has significant concerns with certain aspects of UNDRIP, particularly Article 19. As I am sure you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, our government has several fundamental issues with both the principle and the wording of this clause.

To begin with, aboriginal rights in Canada, entrenched in section 35 of the Constitution and further defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, identify a duty to consult for government and industry. The passage of this bill would effectively replace this duty to consult with a duty to seek free, prior, and informed consent. This means, despite what the member has said, that this would provide first nations with a veto over any sort of legislation or development that concerns them. This would have a significant impact on legislative initiatives as well as on Canada's economy.

In the strongest terms, our government rejects this notion. Unlike the NDP, our government believes that it was elected to serve the interests of all Canadians and that we should develop and pass legislation and initiatives that are in the public interest of and would benefit all Canadians.

Despite efforts from the opposition, our government will continue to act to fulfill the honour of the Crown and our constitutional obligations. However, it would be irresponsible to give any one group in Canada a veto over these decisions. Moreover, article 19 is not even clear in its implementation. While it would demand that our government seek consent from aboriginal Canadians through their own “representative institutions”, it provides no direction on who that is in reference to.

We know from the circumstances surrounding Bill C-33, the first nations control of first nations education act, last year that the Assembly of First Nations, or any other aboriginal representative organization for that matter, cannot claim to speak on behalf of or in the interests of all first nations peoples. It is clear that many first nations chiefs believe they have the sole authority to make decisions, be consulted and provide consent on behalf of their band of first nations. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that what is being proposed here is to provide a de facto veto over government legislation to each one of the 633 first nations chiefs in the country, not to mention the fact that Inuit and Métis leaders would presumably be required to provide their consent as well.

It is difficult enough to find agreement on what exactly it means to fulfill the duty to consult, and I have difficulty imagining what it would take to reach agreement on which parties would have the right to provide their consent. I submit that it would be nearly impossible. Not only is it unclear who needs to provide the consent, it is unclear what they would need to provide consent on. According to the language in the bill, aboriginal Canadians would have a veto over any piece of legislation brought forward by a Canadian government. To be clear, through this initiative, the NDP wants to provide that veto to all first nations across the country on any law or bill that this government wants to implement.

We can look at examples of where there is broad agreement where change should be made even from first nations. I think of the Indian Act as a prime example. Everyone agrees that this is patriarchal legislation that is holding first nations back from achieving their full potential, but no one agrees on how or the process by which we should reform and repeal this act. As a result, nearly 140 years later we are still stuck with it.

Unfortunately, it is not just the New Democrats who support this idea of a veto. At their 2014 biannual convention, the Liberal Party adopted a resolution that urged a next Liberal government to implement UNDRIP. Furthermore, former Liberal leader Bob Rae was recently quoted as saying that it would require consent, not just consultation, for mining projects in the Ring of Fire to proceed.

In the lead-up to the next election, the contrast has never been clearer. Our government supports jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, while the opposition parties support policies that have the potential to cripple our economy. While we acknowledge and uphold aboriginal rights, our government understands, unlike the Liberals and the NDP, that these rights must be balanced against the rights of other Canadians.

As long as the Conservative Party is in power, our government will continue to govern in the interests of all Canadians, and we will reject giving a veto to any group as is proposed by Bill C-641. It is for these reasons our government cannot support this bill.

Digital Privacy Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support the motion to refer Bill S-4 to a committee before second reading.

Bill S-4 amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I will talk a little more about that, but first I want to take a moment to talk about the motion itself, which aims to send the bill to committee before second reading. This is somewhat strange; this is the first time the current government has done this in recent memory.

It is rather interesting and makes me wonder. Why this measure right now? Why did the government decide to do this, when there were other bills? Is it because the government has its doubts about Bill S-4 and wants to send it to committee, we hope, to solve the problems in the bill? That is what I am wondering.

Although we requested that some highly contested bills be sent to committee before second reading, such as Bill C-23 on election reform, Bill C-33 on first nations education and Bill C-3 on transporting oil along our coasts, the government refused. I have to wonder why it refused to do so and why it is now making the rather unusual—or at least uncommon, in recent history—move to send Bill S-4, a bill that comes not from the government, but from the Senate, to committee before second reading.

Procedure is not one of my strong suits, but there are experts here who can clear this up for us. I find it rather interesting that when we send a bill to committee before second reading, as this motion would do, the scope of the proposed amendments can be much broader. In other words, we could make more extensive amendments since the study in committee is not restricted by the principle of the bill, which has not yet been approved by the House. That is interesting. We can hope that Bill S-4 will be amended and that we will end up with a more polished product, if I can call it that, so that it will be more acceptable as we go into second reading.

Bill S-4 makes a pretty significant change to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. I took a look at this act, which received royal assent in April 2000. As members know, 14 years is an eternity in the digital world. A lot of things have happened in the past 14 years. This act was the result of an extensive consultation with a wide range of experts at all levels.

This work was accomplished through broad consultation in 2000. It is clear that since 2006, with this government, consultations are restricted to very specific groups. It is interesting to see that in 2000, there was a broad consultation that culminated with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Here is what that legislation does:

An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

That is the legislation that is being amended now. Another interesting part of this law is schedule 1. Certain principles were set out in the legislation about to be amended, and they are particularly interesting because they were set out in the National Standard of Canada entitled Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information. The 10 principles are as follows: accountability; identifying purposes; consent; limiting collection; limiting use, disclosure, and retention; accuracy; safeguards; openness; individual access; and challenging compliance.

I went to the trouble of reading those principles. I found them very interesting and I urge all members to read them. Like it or not, as members, we receive personal and confidential information in our riding offices. That is why we too have a responsibility to respect these principles of personal information and electronic document protection.

Right now, we are talking about a motion to refer Bill S-4 to committee before second reading. I mentioned that this has not happened often in recent parliamentary history. In the time I have left, I would like to take a quick look at what Bill S-4 will change.

This bill will make major changes to to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which I just mentioned, by allowing personal information to be shared without the knowledge of the person concerned or without their consent under some circumstances. To me, that is a questionable way of protecting personal information. Companies would be allowed to share personal information under certain conditions.

As I read the bill, I really thought that there needed to be a better explanation of these conditions and some examples. For example, in a business transaction, when should personal information be shared without clients' consent?

Some aspects of the bill are positive, such as requiring organizations to take various measures when a data breach occurs. Even the current government has some transparency problems in this regard. The third aspect seeks to create offences in relation to the contravention of certain obligations respecting breaches of security safeguards. The fourth aspect would allow the the Privacy Commissioner, in certain circumstances, to enter into a compliance agreement with an organization.

Those are the four main aspects of Bill S-4 that raise concerns. Other aspects of the bill are positive and constitute a step in the right direction. That is why I support the motion to send Bill S-4 to committee to resolve the problems it contains that could result in a breach of privacy.

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined, and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.”

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined.” At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously.”

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function.” He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principal duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our Constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously.”

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about first nations chiefs from coast to coast to coast who have legitimate concerns about education. If they thought their concerns were being addressed, they would not be requesting this meeting with the minister.

Bill C-33 was supposed to provide first nations' control over education. Instead, it will only serve to extend the reach of the minister.

The Confederacy of Nations wants to talk about real first nations' control of education, where first nations have the necessary resources to provide a modern education for their children. Will the minister meet with these chiefs?

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

Mr. Speaker, today, for the first time since 2004, the Confederacy of Nations is meeting. Fifty first nations delegates from all over over Canada will discuss their concerns about the education act, Bill C-33. They want to sit down with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and discuss fair and equitable funding for first nations' education.

Will the minister agree to meet with the Confederacy of Nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has made first nations education reform a priority. We feel that first nations are in the best position to know what their children need. That is why Bill C-33 will ensure that first nations are responsible and accountable for administering their own education systems on reserves.

This debate has been going on for decades. Still today, the NDP is opposed to investing nearly $2 billion more in the system.