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.

[George E. Lafond, Strategic Development Advisor, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Peter.

Thank you very much, Delbert.

Good morning, Madam Chair and everybody.

Jessie, welcome to Ottawa. There's a lot of snow here.

I've been involved in public service for about 40 years. I came out of high school, went to university and became a high school teacher. I taught at Bedford Road Collegiate, in Saskatoon. One of my most recent assignments was to work with the University of Saskatchewan. I'm quite familiar with what the northern Ontario medical team is doing here.

All my life, my public service has been in the field of education in some way or another. When I was looking at issues in terms of how I would capstone my career, Delbert came to me and asked me if I could assist in his community because he was the chief on this education file. We were looking at ways to become more engaged in K to 12 and post-secondary. I thought this would be a capstone opportunity for me to get one project, because I was part of the national panel that went across Canada to take a look at first nations education.

We had Bill C-33 fail in the Harper government, where we would've had education out of the Indian Act and the opportunity for indigenous communities to have control over this. That failed, so I felt this was an opportunity for me to be part of a stand-alone band that had an opportunity to take on something very special and dear to all of us in the first nations community, which is the education of our children.

I had an opportunity to meet with Peter and his associates and saw that they wanted to have a true partnership where we had to work together. This agreement was signed. It's good to see our friend Don Rusnak, who is from Treaty No. 3 territory in Ontario, I believe. He came out and signed that partnership on behalf of the federal government. We're a year and a half into it. We have another year and a half.

What we're looking for.... You'll understand this if you understand how indigenous community schools are funded. We're not looking for funding per capita; we're looking for funding per success. We believe that in the next number of years we will show—and we will show you through your questions—that by doing it right and having the right capacity inside a school system we can have success.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to continue on first nations education. The estimates request an allocation of $244 million in grants and contributions for additional investment in first nations elementary and secondary education. This is interesting, as in budget 2016, investments for K to 12 education were $800 million, less than what was promised during the campaign. If you look at the numbers from previous years, previous government numbers, the Liberals would be delivering less over the next three years than the Conservatives' plan to invest in Bill C-33, and you remember that debate we had in the House.

Why is this K to 12 education money only being voted on and allocated well after the school year has started? They'll have to spend the money from now until April. Is that correct?

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

Thank you.

Mr. Nolan, it's good to see you again. I recall you more from your role with PDAC.

I wanted to pick up on some of the comments you made. In the previous government, I was the parliamentary secretary for aboriginal affairs, and I'd say the best day of my time in that role and in government was the day we announced Bill C-33, the first nations control of first nations education act and the $1.9 billion to transform that. The worst day was when it all fell apart due to a variety of factors, including infighting at the AFN.

I was at a Indian Resource Council meeting in Calgary where they talked about how communities are no longer looking for, I think the term was, “pick and shovel work”. They want to be partners, they want to be engineers, and they want to be fully engaged, in this case with oil and gas, but I think we've heard certainly from mining companies that this is consistent in that sector, as well.

I don't have much time, but perhaps you can give a recommendation. If you could recommend an action that government could take or that this committee could recommend to government, how can we help first nations communities get to that level of partnership with the mining sector? You have one minute probably to answer that.

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.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

To us, it's obviously tied to our position with regard to Bill C-33, first nations control of first nations education. That's been really what I would call the dialogue of the deaf since the spring, in the sense that there has been no communication whatsoever except our expressing our interest to engage government based on terms that we could also define as first nations.

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 principle 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.

[Michael Wernick]

It would be nice to have 10-year funding commitments. I've never had 10-year funding commitments. We would have had a long-term statutory funding commitment to K-to-12 education in Bill C-33.

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

Mr. Chair, let me know when I have used up five minutes, because I'm going to turn the last two minutes over to Ms. Hughes.

Thank you, Minister, for coming before the committee. I appreciate your time today. Most of my comments are going to focus on the main estimates.

On page 34, in the plans and priorities document, it shows elementary and secondary education and planned spending for the coming fiscal year. Given the recent collapse of the negotiations around Bill C-33 and government statements around a commitment to put in future funding, what plans do you have to address the gap between what first nations on reserve receive versus provincial governments, since those schools are clearly underfunded?

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?

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-33.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 2 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.

[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.

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.

Aboriginal Affairs

[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.

First Nations Education

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, our government has made reforming first nations education a priority. This is a goal that we share with first nations parents, teachers, students, and communities across the country.

I am pleased that the Assembly of First Nations has confirmed that Bill C-33 is a constructive and necessary step forward. This morning, Regional Chief Roger Augustine, said, “this is a huge improvement on what we as First Nations parents have had to force our children to suffer under the Indian Act..”. That is why we have been engaged in consultation on the education file for years.

This act would provide stable funding and the structures to help first nations students reach their potential and participate fully in our economy. As a government, we must provide leadership, and with our partners we are making progress to remove the long-standing barriers to success. I challenge the entire opposition to support this transformative bill.

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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”.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me acknowledge my colleagues', and I say that in the plural, co-operation with respect to both Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, and Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act, today. We appreciate that co-operation.

This afternoon, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill C-33, First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act. That debate will conclude tomorrow and we will then proceed with a committee study of this important legislation this spring.

Monday shall be the fourth allotted day. We will debate a proposal from the New Democrats.

The Liberals will then get their turn on Tuesday, which shall be the fifth allotted day. I am still waiting to see a proposal from the Liberal leader on the economy. Maybe he is still finessing his newest definition of the middle class. I recommend to him the recent study from the U.S.A., the one that has been widely reported, which demonstrated that the Canadian middle class, according to his recent definition, that is the median income, is doing better than ever in history. For the first time, the Canadian middle class is doing better than its American counterpart. Perhaps we will see that on Tuesday as the subject of debate in the Liberal motion, since they claim that the middle class is their priority.

On Wednesday, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act. I want to take this time to acknowledge the hard work of the members of the procedure and House affairs committee. My friend was just talking about the hard work they have been undertaking and the difficult pressure they are under. Largely, it should be said, it is a result of the lengthy filibuster, of which the New Democrats were so proud, at the start, whereby the committee lost many days, when it could have heard witnesses.

Notwithstanding that loss of work, those delay tactics, and the obstruction by the New Democrats, the committee has got on with its work. It heard from almost 70 witnesses. It had over 30 hours of meetings. Now it has gone on to complete about a dozen or so hours of detailed study of the clauses of the bill and the government's reasonable and common-sense amendments to the bill. I expect that it will complete that work shortly.

Despite the long hours the committee members are putting in, I know that they will be keenly anticipating the appearance, before the next constituency week, of the Leader of the Opposition at that same committee. That will, of course, be in compliance with the House order adopted on March 27 respecting the allegations of inappropriate spending and the use of House of Commons resources by the New Democratic Party. There the hon. member for Outremont will have the opportunity to answer many important questions of interest to all Canadians, including, I am sure, some questions from his own caucus members, who have been dragged into the scheme the NDP leader has put in place.

Finally, on Thursday morning, we will consider Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, at report stage and third reading. After question period, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-8.

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Bill C-33—Time Allocation Motion

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)