Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues to address the Mi'kmaq education bill. We are now at third reading and still I find myself in the position of being unable to support the bill.
As was pointed out, all members in committee made positive contributions in the spirit of co-operation and respectfully hearing one another out. There was not this bitter attitude that seems to creep into this place all the time.
The fact that we did not manage to have the important amendment adopted that my party and I thought was necessary to offer support to the bill, which we would have liked to have supported had our amendment been adopted, is regrettable, but that is the way it is.
This bill would implement an agreement signed by the Government of Canada and 9 of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia.
Its purpose is to set up a corporation that has no share capital called Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey. It exercises control over primary and secondary education. It is in effect more or less a school board.
The purpose of the corporation is to support delivery of educational programs and services under the proposed act. The members of the board will be the chiefs of the nine participating communities and are elected ex officio by virtue of their office.
They together will constitute the board of directors and will ultimately be responsible for management and conduct of the corporation.
The Reform Party cannot put its support behind this bill because we have one major problem with the bill. The chiefs themselves are automatically the members of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey established by this bill.
In my previous speech on this I explained that we wanted to see the bill changed in order that we may offer our support to it. We wanted it amended so rather than the chiefs of the nine signatory communities ex officio members of the board, they would be nominated and possibly elected if that was the purpose of the members of those communities. We wanted to open it up to other people as well.
We have no problem with the view that chiefs are politicians. It is their job to be visionaries, to see a position they can push to improve the life of their communities. In this case control of education for their communities was their vision. For that we commend them, that they should want to move control over education into the community. After all, it is their job to promote, to protect and to provide a legislative framework for things to happen.
It is my view also that politicians themselves probably should not be involved in the daily delivery of programs, the delivery of their own product. It just does not work that way in other areas. Why in this one?
We feel this board could be consisting of qualified professionals, experienced people who want to run for the board who have an interest in education, who want to make a positive contribution to their communities. This would be one way of doing it.
It may be housewives, businessmen or workers who want to make a positive contribution as grassroots people in their communities. They are denied unless they run for chief with all the additional responsibilities that being a chief implies.
For the chiefs being ex officio members, because they are dealing with millions and millions of dollars to manage the affairs of the board, it is another paycheque. We want to see economic activity spread around. There is concentration of paycheque. There is concentration of responsibilities on top of an already busy job and in an area in which the chiefs maybe are not necessarily expert. They will be involved in the delivery of educational products and services.
This may result in overall poor management and results even if the chiefs put in good will and hard work. It also makes sense that the members of the education board should have to be dealt with at the polls on the matter of education only and not on a wide variety of topics unrelated to education.
Why should the voter have to decide on an issue that is unrelated to their performance as chief whether or not they are returned? Certainly the chiefs I met are good people.
I must say when we got to this standing committee meeting we had quite a chorus of leaders from the participating communities. They were all chiefs or people who worked with chiefs.
An elected board dedicated to one purpose we believe is in the best interests of the people, in this case the people of the community themselves. They would want to deal with education boards on the basis of education.
The chief's have a broader outlook. It was their vision, as those people elected to lead their bands, that developed a police force and the education board. They should raise their sights to other things important to their communities and maintain contact with people on those issues. They should leave behind the management of the things which they have established by their hard work, initiative and vision.
We feel that it concentrates too much power and too much work in the hands of the chiefs. That is why we want to see this bill amended. Obviously it is not going to be amended but that was our desire.
Our support on this bill was contingent on having this basic and fundamental amendment passed. We know what happened in committee. The Liberals voted it down. They lined up against it, as did members of other parties who do not have the strong democratic tradition the Reform Party is developing in this country and which is attracting voters from coast to coast.
We asked why would they vote against such a common sense amendment. They do not have the democratic and accountability tradition that comes with being a Reformer and growing a party based on those principles that the Reform Party is based on and grew from. They would like things to continue the way they are.
We have a number of other problems with the bill. It does not have the full backing of all the communities. Four of the thirteen bands in the province did not sign on to the agreement. During the committee stage these people came forward as witnesses and expressed some serious concerns regarding this bill. It was the grassroots people from the communities who expressed reservations.
The chiefs and their people who were fully on side. There was a major concern with the Nova Scotia board of education. It would have liked to see this amendment.
Band members who are not in leadership in a band gave a much different point of view. There was a concern with consultation. People did not understand the implications of the bill that was being put forward to them. Their concern also was too much power in the hands of a small group of people.
Is that not what democracy is about, giving power to the people, the people at the bottom end, the people who require and receive the services on a daily basis for their quality of life? The people who are affected are not certain they will receive the benefits of the education programs the board will administer. They do not want to see the chiefs constitute the members of the board.
We have seen these cases before. Funding is put in at the top but it does not seem to get down to the people who need it. We do not have to look very far to see that happen. I am not saying it will happen in this case but the potential is there because of the concentration of power.
We think it would be wise for the government to pull back on pushing this bill through and take time to investigate properly some democratic amendments and see if they cannot be made to work. The issue was raised in the House and in committee that people will not listen to an elected person who does not happen to be a chief. But we all know that if a chief did not seek re-election or did not get elected he would not lose all his standing in the community by that one simple election. He would be considered an elder in his community forever. He would have a lot of standing and a lot of status and people would look to him for leadership, although not in a legislative sense.
We reject the premise that the people would not listen or care what was said by an elected board. We believe there are enough people in these communities who can provide leadership and are willing to provide leadership, capable people who could take up the leadership available to them if this bill is amended to provide for an elected board of education.
In this party we are great advocates of the equality of all citizens and our ultimate goal is that all aboriginal people fully participate in society, their own included, that they would not be denied because they were not chiefs of a band.
Our party regretfully does not support this bill because it grants special powers and rights to the chiefs rather than spreading it out throughout the band. We have expressed concern that the people who are served by the bill could be separated further from mainstream Canadian society by retreating into an education system set up particularly for native people.
We think all Nova Scotians should have the opportunity to hear how the Mi'kmaq governed themselves, how they lived before we came here, how they live now, how they have evolved in their society, their governing structures, their families. All the things that matter to Canadians and to Nova Scotians and to the Mi'kmaq should be available to them through the regular school system.
We are not opposed to the entire concept of the Mi'kmaq's having control over their education. We just want to see that control diffused a bit, not so concentrated in one group.
The bill has been referred to on occasions by the department of Indian affairs and the Assembly of First Nations as important and historic. Those words are important to burn into our consciousness, this important and historic piece of legislation that will establish a new relationship between aboriginal people and the federal government.
When it is brand new there cannot be any excuse for rushing it through to royal assent. We need to take the full time and if people are raising legitimate concerns, we need to hear them. If they said they had not properly involved themselves in the consultation process, it is their responsibility to get there but it is our responsibility to ensure they get there and that they raise their concerns.
The reason this is important and historic is this is a blueprint for further action by other bands. It will not be the end of the road for this bill. While it was stated that this bill is sure to increase educational opportunities for Mi'kmaq, it is really only as we have concrete evidence that it makes a difference, that we will be able to make those assertions. Otherwise they are merely educated guesses at best and the proof will be found out only when we have gone several years down this road. It is a road that we cannot come back from, so I urge the government to put some more thought into this thing and not rush ahead.
Let us get it right the first time and not have to go back and try to figure out a way to amend a bill that we see is flawed in such a fundamental way.