Debates of June 10th, 1998

Mi'Kmaq Education Act

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education. This bill would transfer jurisdiction for education of band members to nine Mi'kmaq bands in my home province of Nova Scotia.

Chief Lindsay Marshall of the Chapel Island Band, and chairman of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey/Education, stated to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:

Jurisdiction of education is a basic right that is enjoyed by all Canadians and a right that our Mi'kmaw nation has not exercised since the time of colonization of this country, 500 years ago.

This bill sets out to begin to undo that injustice and place far greater control over education at the community level.

I speak on behalf of the New Democratic caucus and our leader in support of Bill C-30.

While there are some concerns that need to be addressed, there is nothing compelling enough to prevent this transfer of authority from being supported by this House and becoming law.

I discussed this bill with many people in my home province of Nova Scotia, as well as with numerous witnesses appearing before the committee. I also have copies of letters of support for this historic legislation from the executive director of the Nova Scotia School Boards Association, the presidents of Saint Mary's, Mount Saint Vincent, and St. Francis Xavier universities, and from the University of King's College, as well as from the principal of the Nova Scotia Agricultural College and from the bishop of Antigonish.

This broad indication of support shows that we have come some distance indeed from the horrors of the residential school education that we are only beginning to confront and deal with today. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples described the premise of aboriginal education earlier this century as setting out to “kill the Indian in the child”.

Chief Marshall in his remarks went on to say:

For many years everyone, except aboriginal people themselves, have been making decisions about aboriginal education. This decision making process has had devastating effects in our communities. Some of these effects include social disintegration, loss of cultural identity and a lack of self-actualization. This proposed Bill C-30 will provide our leaders with the autonomy that is required to develop and implement culturally relevant curriculum that will promote the language, customs and traditions of the Mi'kmaq people.”

The chiefs of Eskasoni, Membertou, Chapel Island, Whycocomagh, Wagmatcook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Annapolis Valley and Acadia on February 14, 1997 signed an agreement to transfer jurisdiction for education on reserve. This bill set out to bring into law the intent and principles of that agreement.

Over seven years ago the Assembly of Nova Scotia Chiefs approached the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and proposed that a Mi'kmaq education authority be established to assume total program control of First Nation education in Nova Scotia.

As a Nova Scotian and as aboriginal affairs spokesperson for my party, I am pleased that this is not the first education related initiative taken by Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia. The band council of Chapel Island Potlotek moved last year to declare Mi'kmaq the official language of the reserve.

This bill represents not only a milestone in Mi'kmaq control over education in particular, but a step on the road to self-government. Bill C-30 sets out the powers, duties, functions and structures of the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, or Mi'kmaw education.

This agreement provides for these communities the ability to pass laws for primary, elementary and secondary education on reserve for band members only. However, the Mi'kmaq under this agreement are obligated to provide equivalent education for primary, elementary and secondary education to non-members.

One of the highlights of the agreement is that an education standard is transferable between the Mi'kmaq nation and any other education system in the country.

As vice-chief Rick Simon of the Assembly of First nations stated:

One of the important aspects of this agreement is that education standards are portable between the Mi'kmaq First Nation and any other education system in the country.

With the impending development of the territory of Nunavut, there have been many recent and disturbing reports of the difficulties faced by those who will be elected to steer our newest territory into being. While the national average of those 15 years of age or over who have completed less than grade 9 is 14%, for Nunavut it is 42%.

The more that education is made relevant to the life, culture, history and language of aboriginal peoples, the more that education will be pursued. Chief Simon notes that overall, aboriginal education levels achieved are roughly half that of the national average. These statistics are a testament to our history of using education, and I mean using in the most callous and exploitative sense, of using education to strip the cultural and spiritual being of aboriginal youth away.

Instead, it should be the reverse. Rather than stripping away the cultural identity of youth, education should be used to inspire, develop and feed youth on the strengths and lessons of their collective past in order to best achieve individual and community objectives in the future.

Bill C-30 is a step in ensuring that education instead of re-education becomes the norm.

For Mi'kmaq education is not a new idea, or a process that began with the negotiations early this decade. As Sister Dorothy Moore, acting director, Mi'kmaq Services Division of the Department of Education and Culture of Nova Scotia said to the committee:

Mi'kmaq education did not commence with the arrival of the European visitors on this continent. It had been going on for centuries. Education was the basis of survival for centuries for the Mi'kmaq people. In the 20th century, the countless formal education techniques utilized to integrate and assimilate the Mi'kmaq students have met with failure, because these techniques have ignored the culture, the language, the history and philosophy of our people.

I recognize that there are many issues related to this effort still requiring resolution. Mr. Don Julien, director of the Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs, raised several important concerns. In particular is the issue of what lies in the potential void beyond the five year term of the agreement. Mr. Julien notes:

There is no protection provided for a long term future of educational needs of the communities or the right of self-determination for the Mi'kmaq and the education of future generations. There is no commitment in an educational regime beyond the five year term of the agreement.

I supported an amendment that called for a conference three years after this legislation takes effect to determine whether this act would be converted into a treaty. As has been mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Saint-Jean, this amendment unfortunately did not receive government support at report stage.

Mr. Julien and others have pointed out that this legislation sets out geographic limitations of the reserve borders. Further, while there is no provision for covering Mi'kmaq off reserve, education must be provided under this bill to non-Mi'kmaq on reserves.

I spoke out earlier on this issue supporting an amendment that would extend the provisions of this bill to all members of the signatory First Nations whether they lived on or off reserve. Again that amendment, as has been mentioned already, did not receive government support at report stage.

While there are indeed issues that need continued effort, the provisions of this bill herald an important transfer of authority.

This government continues only to brush the surface of issues dealing with First Nations and other aboriginal peoples. If only this government would give a full response to the recommendations of the multiyear and multimillion dollar Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. If only it would address the host of recommendations and discussion outlined in that report on education issues.

While this Liberal government does a serious injustice to aboriginal peoples by refusing to respond to its own royal commission, Bill C-30, this initiative by Mi'kmaq leaders and community members in Nova Scotia deserves our support.

As I conclude, I would like to congratulate the Mi'kmaq elders, chiefs, band councils, activists, community members, leaders and negotiators who have been involved over the year in reclaiming education for Mi'kmaq. I would also like to commend those in government, both staff and elected officials, who have worked co-operatively to bring this effort this far.

All of those who made representations to the committee have played an essential role in drawing out the issues at hand related to this initiative. The staff of the committee and the Library of Parliament were invaluable in aiding with the process and research on this bill.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in this House to speak in favour of Bill C-30 concerning Mi'kmaq education in Nova Scotia.

As we move through this final legislative obstacle on the way to Mi'kmaq self-determination in the area of education, all I can say is finally.

Finally we are moving away from the repression of our ancestors who saw Mi'kmaq culture as a problem to be cured and not a heritage to be celebrated.

Finally we are turning self-government into a reality that will make lives better instead of words that make politicians feel better.

Finally this House can be proud of its contribution to the ongoing debate about the role of our First Nations in Canada's past and future.

Finally this is a bill limited in scope. It will influence less than 10,000 people in nine communities in one small province. In terms of the impact that the passage of this bill will make, I cannot overstate its importance.

This bill lays to rest once and for all the attitude expressed far too long by Ottawa, that we know what is best for aboriginal people, that we know how to provide the tools that they need to succeed. It is appropriate that that attitude be laid to rest for one simple reason. It was wrong. It was immoral and it failed.

Canada's policies toward the First Nations are a list of failures and crimes centuries long. More failures followed as we tried to correct previous mistakes: residential schools, and reserves that became ghettos. Even when we tried to do good it turned bad.

Is it any wonder that all of those great plans and schemes to civilize the aboriginal peoples, to integrate them with the mainstream of white western society collapsed. No, they collapsed because they suffered from one central and insurmountable flaw. They failed to involve the very people they were designed to help.

In many ways the Canadian government is still guilty of behaving in this fashion, of ignoring the concerns and ideas of aboriginal people as it creates policies which affect them.

Look at the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that submitted its huge and comprehensive report, only to see it shelved and ignored by the government. That was a report that had within it the voices of our First Nations and those voices have again been muzzled.

The choices that our governments have made bring shame on them and on the House. But Bill C-30 is a small light in the otherwise dark history of aboriginal Canadian relations. Here we see honest consultation among bands and among governments carried over several years, but with a definite goal in mind, the establishing of a uniquely Mi'kmaq education system for the bands of Nova Scotia.

My party's critic on aboriginal affairs has done an admirable job of presenting the New Democratic Party's position on the bill. He has walked the House through the legislation in a clear and concise manner, noting the flaws and the imperfections as well as the positive elements I have mentioned again here today.

What I would like to address are the broader issues that surround the package of Bill C-30, especially the often ill-tempered attacks made upon it by the official opposition.

The official opposition has made much of the word equality and painted a picture that has this bill as its focal point, a picture of special interest and hidden agendas that lurk darkly behind the facade of multiculturalism and fairness. Through coded words and oblique suggestion, the impression has been created by the opposition benches that Bill C-30 is a Trojan horse for some unspeakable invasion force that will soon be unleashed on the “Leave it to Beaver” world they would have us believe is Canada. This is shameful and reminds me of the bad old days I spoke of earlier. But worse than that, the impression it creates is wrong.

Chief Lindsay Marshall from the Chapel Island Pudletek Reserve located in my riding has been one of the principal aboriginal advocates for this bill and has worked tirelessly to promote it over the past years. In his testimony given to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development he stated the truth about Bill C-30 and the truth about the Reform Party's position.

The cornerstone policy of the Reform Party is equal treatment for all Canadians. There is concern that Bill C-30 will segregate the Mi'kmaq community from society. My response is that Bill C-30 will provide equal treatment to all Canadians, including Canada's aboriginal people.

For the first time since colonization, aboriginal people will have the right to make laws regarding the education of their children along with the rest of Canadian society. Furthermore, with the passage of the proposed Bill C-30 our education leaders will continue to work in close collaboration with the province of Nova Scotia to bridge the gaps that exist between First Nations schools and provincial school curriculum.

Significant milestones which contributed to the bridging of the gaps were achieved during the implementation period of this agreement. Among those milestones are: provincial legislation for the establishment of a Mi'kmaq education council; Mi'kmaq representation on provincial school boards; and the promotion of the Mi'kmaq language and culture in the public school program for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal students.

This is the truth of the origin and intention of Bill C-30. It is a bill that will create and enhance equality, not diminish or destroy it.

Perhaps the problem the Reform Party has with this legislation comes from the fact that this bill is grown from the very grassroots that party loves to talk about, from consultations with communities and individuals both inside and outside the reserves.

Instead of that grassroots generating negative and destructive impulses that divide instead of unite, this bill has proven the official opposition wrong. It proves that when we talk to people and respect their opinions they will often come up with solutions that are inclusive, not exclusive, that look to the welfare of communities and not simply the desire of individuals.

The strength of this bill can be seen in the diversity of the bands in Nova Scotia. There are 13 Mi'kmaq communities and only nine have signed on to the provisions that will be enacted by this bill. The other four are reserving their options, consulting closely with Chief Marshall and others who support the process. They will wait to see. If they like the results they will come aboard as equal partners with the other bands.

Again this speaks to the strength of the bill and the processes that created it. If only the hon. members of the Reform party could advocate such a system of tolerance and respect, if only they could acknowledge that decisions do not consist of stark blacks and whites, then the political culture of our country would be better off.

It is often said that we have much to learn from our aboriginal people. I hope some of the points I have raised will illustrate that truth.

Bill C-30 is a flexible document that allows an experiment in independence and justice that is long overdue. It is also an example of what can be achieved when communities and governments put aside their differences and work in the collective interest because it is only when the collective is healthy that individuals can thrive. Perhaps that is the ultimate lesson which this debate will teach this House.

It is a truism to say that it is easier to destroy than to create, but it is a truism worth restating. I hope that all members of this House will take inspiration from this small act of creation and take pride in having voted to create a better future for at least a few thousand citizens of this great country.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate here this evening and I thought it was fairly even-handed, except perhaps for a few points which were made by a couple of members. I would certainly like to congratulate the government for introducing this bill and for steering it through the Parliament of Canada.

I agree with the bill. As the Progressive Conservative critic for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, it has been a pleasure to support it.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize all of the members of parliament and the DIAND committee who worked on this bill and who participated in debate. I think most of them had valid points. Sometimes we do not always agree in committee, but hopefully instead of spending a lot of time trying to point out everyone else's mistakes in this House we can also recognize that because we do not agree it offers better debate and better answers at the end of the debate.

This bill, without question, will improve education on reserve in Nova Scotia. Without question there are a number of Mi'kmaq and First Nations people in Nova Scotia who should be recognized, but certainly above all Lindsay Marshall, the chief of Chapel Island, of Cape Breton Island, which is known in the Mi'kmaq language as Unama'ki. He certainly deserves recognition. He stands out in his field and deserves to be congratulated.

I have spoken several times on this issue. It is not my intent to stand here tonight and take the time of the House. I congratulate the Mi'kmaq people and the Mi'kmaq Nation in coming forth with this themselves, with pursuing this through parliament and with keeping the political pressure on the government and on all members of the opposition to support the bill. They deserve credit. It shows political leadership in the Mi'kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia. It shows their political leadership as citizens of this country.

The analogy that the hon. parliamentary secretary used when he was speaking tonight was interesting because I wrote down exactly the same analogy in my own words, except that I added a little more flavour to it than he did. He used the analogy of education being the key to success. I will read what I wrote down. I smiled when he was giving his analogy because I wrote: “If education is the key to the door of the future, then surely this 36th Parliament has helped to open that door for the Mi'kmaq people of Nova Scotia”. I think that is true.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise an issue which is very important.

I listened to the speech of the member of the NDP party and, very frankly, and I say this as gently as I can, it hurts me deeply when they make accusations against me which are not accurate. They accuse me of having attitudes toward natives which are just plain false. I do not like that.

The Conservative member just gave a good speech which was supportive of the legislation, and yet the Conservatives have on their website a bunch of stuff which is really very negative toward me as a Reformer and as a person. I wonder whether he would want to comment on that.

I think we need to come to the place where as Canadians we work together and we do the Canadian thing. We care for each other. We look after each other. We make sure that all of these issues are properly dealt with. I would like to see an end to this kind of shooting of arrows that is only meant to harm.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty it is very difficult for me to respond to those comments. I am not aware of what is on the Progressive Conservative website.

I think I can say with a clear conscience, knowing our party's positions, our stance, our reputation and our history for even-handed and clear policy, that I would hope the member is mistaken. I would assume that he is.

However, I would like to say that I noted that all members in the debate on the Mi'kmaq bill, which is what we are discussing, offered clear debate. We were not always in agreement and probably will not always be in agreement. However, we have to listen to other sides of the argument if we want to come up with an answer at the end of the debate.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

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.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely interesting to hear the views of the hon. member, views which represent the Reform Party's position on this bill.

I also found it very interesting that the hon. member mentioned other parties are supporting this bill because those other parties do not have the strong democratic beliefs Reform Party has. Yet the views expressed to me seem so contrary to democracy.

Here we have a situation in this bill where aboriginal people have spoken out as to what they want, what they would like to have, and yet we have a party saying “what we say is much better, it should not be your chiefs, as you have decided, it should be your populace in general”.

When we talk about democracy, we have nine bands agreeing to it and four that are not. We know one principle of democracy is that majority rules. I do not know what kind of votes the Reform Party takes when it exercises democracy, but certainly to me nine out of thirteen is a majority. The fact that the other four still have the option to opt in is a very important point as well. We have to question the views surrounding the objection to the bill.

We also hear questions and commentaries, and this is a commentary. The hon. member indicated that he was afraid this system would separate aboriginal people from the mainstream of society. How much more separated can aboriginal people become from the mainstream of society under their own system of education and their own sense of control than has been the case over the many years we have tried to make aboriginal people similar to everybody else?

We have tried to “civilize”. We have tried to “assimilate”. Efforts have been made by the Canadian government over the years to do what it felt was right for aboriginal people rather than allow aboriginal people to create for themselves what they know to be in their best interest.

Now the same attitudes are coming forward again: unless it is done our way it is not right. I find this to be very disturbing. I urge very strongly members who promote that view to stop and look in a mirror and have a second thought about what they are actually saying. I urge hon. members in the House not to be swayed by those arguments as we debate and as we consider the passage of what is truly historic and important legislation.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the name of the party of the hon. member who just spoke, we do not think it is as democratic as its name might imply.

I said that there did not seem to be the level of consultation necessary for a bill termed important and historic. Nobody is denying that we can move power down particularly from the government to the people. We want enough people to have a say and express their opinions to be sure that is the direction in which they want to go.

As to whether or not the current system has worked, in places it does and in places it does not. A number of chiefs, their executive assistants and education people appeared before us. They were well educated, well spoken individuals under the current system. To think that we could put all the people into a basket and say they are poorly educated because they were educated under a system that is foreign to what we experienced in our past is ridiculous. People will flourish under a multiplicity of systems.

This is one that may work very well for these people. When something is as important and historic as the bill—and it may well prove to be one of the more important ones when it comes to how an entire generation is raised—it is surely not too much to expect real consultation so that we are sure we have democracy.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Accordingly the vote stands deferred until tomorrow at approximately 1 p.m.

The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the late hour it is a pleasure to rise tonight to address the Senate amendments to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Before I get into the thrust of the Senate amendments I would like to address the process by which we find ourselves at this point this evening. I feel very strongly that it is a faulty process. We have seen that despite the pleas of western Canadian grain farmers upon which the bill will impact tremendously their concerns have largely gone unheeded by the government. The process by which the legislation has moved through parliament is very faulty.

If we look back to the early days of the 36th Parliament we find a commitment by the hon. minister for the Canadian Wheat Board and Natural Resources to bring forward the bill very early in the new mandate following the last election, and he did so. I think the bill came in, in early October. With the new process it moved directly to committee stage rather than having second reading debate, despite the fact that the majority of the opposition members in the House of Commons received a substantial amount of correspondence from western Canadian grain farmers about their concerns with the legislation. Despite that the government moved it directly to committee.

That process in itself is supposedly to allow more time at committee, more time in which to consider substantive amendments, more time in which to receive witnesses' testimony, more time in which members of all the various parties can cross-examine witnesses at committee stage. Yet what we found was an accelerated process even at committee.

The government with its majority on the standing committee for agriculture moved the bill very rapidly through the committee stage and back to the House for report stage. Sensing this, the opposition parties held back their amendments rather than put them forward at committee stage and see them voted down with very little attention paid to them and put forward at report stage.

Unbeknownst to us what we saw, unfortunately for western Canadian farmers, was that the government moved very quickly once it came back to the House for report stage and brought in time allocation to shut down further debate despite the fact that we had not had substantive debate at committee.

We see a process that is deeply flawed and the government is not listening to concerns of farmers. Despite the fact that there were some 48 amendments brought by the four opposition parties at report stage in the House of Commons, of which about 30 were from the official opposition, they were voted down. They received very little time in debate because of the government's move to bring in time allocation.

We saw very substantive amendments such as Motion No. 1 which would have amended the preamble to the bill to ensure that the newly structured Canadian Wheat Board would act and govern itself in the best interest of farmers. We saw amendments such as the one put forward that would have removed references to the president as a member of the board of directors so that the board of directors would have the power to hire and fire the president and CEO rather than that power resting with the minister as it currently does in the bill.

We saw amendments to make the 15 member board of directors fully elected rather than the existing 10 of 15 elected with the other 5 appointed by the minister voted down by the government. The list goes on. Substantive amendments were brought forward not only by the official opposition, by the Reform Party, but by all opposition parties. It was noted at the time during the abbreviated debate that probably nowhere else in the history of agricultural legislation had a government managed to anger everyone across the full spectrum dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board.

We saw people from every aspect who were deeply upset with the legislation and the fact that the government was not listening to the concerns of farmers and forging ahead with it despite their wish to see amendments brought forward. The amendments that were put forward by the opposition were in direct reply to the concerns we heard expressed both at committee and in correspondence and direct communication with farm groups.

During the presentation of the member for Brandon—Souris on Monday evening when Bill C-4 was before the House he expressed his opinion that the Reform Party and I had contradicted ourselves by criticizing the Senate amendments.

We have to look at what these amendments are to accomplish. The official opposition as well as all opposition members as soon as Bill C-4 went from the House of Commons to the Senate encouraged the Senate to hold hearings in western Canada to hear directly from western Canadian farmers about their concerns with the legislation. The Senate to its credit did that.

When I was criticizing the Senate for the end result I was not criticizing the fact that it undertook the process of at least going out to hear from farmers. Unfortunately it did not listen to them and bring forward the amendments that farmers are deeply seeking.

I come back to the single biggest flaw in the legislation over and over again. It is the lack of freedom of choice. Under Bill C-4 farmers will continue to be heavily fined or even thrown in jail if they cross the U.S. border to market their grain. This is unlike options that will soon be available to Ontario grain producers.

One must question why the double standard. Reformers have been doing that consistently and certainly western Canadian farmers have been doing that consistently. Why is there one set of rules for Ontario grain farmers and a totally different one for western grain farmers?

This fundamental flaw with this legislation and with the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board will result in the divisiveness continuing. The elections this bill will put in place for those 10 producer positions on the board of directors will end up simply in a battle between producers who are pro single desk selling, favour the present mandatory system, the status quo, and those producers who favour greater freedom of choice, democracy and a fully voluntary wheat board.

We will end up having elections whereby farmers probably will be casting their ballots not for the candidate they believe brings the greatest skills and expertise to managing a $6 billion a year enterprise but rather for a single issue. Are they in favour of maintaining the single desk selling structure of the Canadian Wheat Board or are they in favour of greater freedom of choice and looking at options that will allow farmers to market some or all their grain outside of the Canadian Wheat Board? I think it is unfortunate that farmers will have to make that choice when they go to the ballot boxes, likely this fall, and vote for these 10 producer positions.

The standing Senate committee on agriculture and forestry tabled its report on Bill C-4 on Thursday, May 21 after spending thousands of taxpayer dollars travelling across western Canada to hear what farmers thought of the legislation. I have referred to that and I actually applaud the Senate's initiative to get that feedback.

It became very clear throughout the hearings, even to some senators, that the majority of farmers were unhappy with the legislation. Farmers told senators they wanted more marketing options outside the Canadian Wheat Board and that the inclusion clause allowing for more grains to come under the Canadian Wheat Board's jurisdiction had to go.

While some farmers were optimistic that the Senate would propose substantial changes to reflect this testimony, the Senate proved yet again that it is simply a puppet controlled by the government.

I intend later in my presentation to move some subamendments to the five Senate amendments.

Of the Senate amendments brought forward the first amendment is consequential to the second and the second will really require that the minister consult with the board of directors on the appointment of the president and CEO. The minister still retains the power to arbitrarily appoint the president for the first year after the changes come into effect.

We believe, and we made these amendments when the bill was before the House before, that it should be the board of directors with total control of appointing or ultimately have the power to fire the CEO and president if that person is not doing their job.

I will be proposing a subamendment to this that would turn this thing around and ensure that it is the board of directors that has that power and that it must consult with the minister before it appoints the CEO, not the other way around.

The third Senate amendment deals with the auditor general. This too was an amendment brought forward by the Reform Party to open up the Canadian Wheat Board to audits by the auditor general and to the Access to Information Act.

We have repeatedly demanded that the Canadian Wheat Board open its books to the auditor general. We applaud this as a tentative first step. Here too there are some great deficiencies in what actually has taken place with the way this amendment is worded. This amendment does not stipulate that the auditor general must make his findings public. A report made simply to the minister is ineffective and inadequate. This is a one time opportunity. No further audits are stipulated. In addition, the amendment does not specify which year or years of the Canadian Wheat Board operations the auditor general is to audit. Conceivably the focus of the audit could be 20 years ago and nothing more recent.

When consulted by opposition MPs about this amendment the auditor general's office wrote a letter to the minister for the Canadian Wheat Board outlining his concerns with this amendment. Legal counsel at the auditor general's office were uncertain how this amendment would actually fit into the mandate and legislation governing the operations of the auditor general. The letter expressed concern that the apparent intent of the amendment as drafted would not provide a great deal of value for the money.

I too will be presenting a subamendment which will if passed ensure that the auditor general has an ongoing role to play in auditing the Canadian Wheat Board and ensure that he has the greatest amount of flexibility in how he conducts those audits, and ensure further that he reports as he should and as he does in other cases to parliament and not simply to the corporation and to the minister responsible.

The last two amendments the Senate brought forward deal with the exclusion and inclusion clauses. The fourth amendment is with the exclusion and the fifth the inclusion, and they are consequential with one another. Here too what we see is the Senate has merely reverted to basically the status quo and added one small hurdle where the minister would have to consult and hold a plebiscite were he to include any new grains.

We have already heard over and over again how farmers feel about this prospect, as slim as it might be, that there would be additional inclusion of other commodities under the Canadian Wheat Board's mandate. It is simply unacceptable. Once again I will be moving a subamendment.

I could go on to talk about some recommendations that the Senate made in addition to these amendments, but I do not have the time. Therefore I will get to my subamendments.

The recommendations are not binding whatsoever on the government or on the minister. That is a great flaw as well. I think some of the recommendations have some merit and I have said that publicly. But they are merely that, recommendations. They are not amendments. Farmers in particular in western Canada should clearly understand that. The recommendations dealing with the electoral process for dividing up the election of the directors is on a geographic basis and the amendments dealing with the contingency fund cap are just recommendations. They may or may not be acted on.

That brings me to moving my subamendments. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House agrees to amendments number 1 and 4, made by the Senate to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and this House agrees with the principles set out in amendments number 2, 3 and 5, but would propose the following amendment:

Amendment 2 be amended by replacing all the words in section 3.09(1) with the words “The president is appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of the board of the directors and holds office during pleasure for the term that the board of directors may determine.” and by replacing the word “Minister” in section 3.09(2) and 3.09(2)(a) with the word “board” and replace the word “board” in section 3.09(2)(a) with the word “Minister”;

Amendment 3 be amended by replacing all the words in the first paragraph with the words “Within two years after the day this section comes into force, the Auditor General of Canada shall commence auditing the accounts, financial transactions, information management systems and management practices of the corporation for such fiscal years as the auditor general considers appropriate and reports of those audits shall be made to the corporation, the minister and parliament”; and

Amendment 5 is amended by adding to section 5 the following: “(c) producer participation in the Canadian Wheat Board is voluntary”.

In other words, amendment No. 5 would not pass and it would not be allowed under any circumstances to include more commodities under the Canadian Wheat Board until such time as the Canadian Wheat Board is voluntary.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The amendment is in order.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously the silly season. The Liberals did not listen to the amendments initially when they were tabled by the official opposition, by me and by other members of the opposition. It seems they do not wish to listen to logical amendments at this point in the debate of Bill C-4.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would request that you instruct the Liberal members opposite to try to hold it down a little. I would be interested in hearing what the member for Brandon—Souris is saying as he adds to the debate on my subamendments.