Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to motion M-296 introduced by our colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan, British Columbia.
I will take the time to read the motion:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately adopt a child first principle, based on Jordan's principle, to resolve jurisdictional disputes involving the care of first nations children.
First and foremost, I want to assure all the members of the House of Commons that the Bloc Québécois supports our NDP colleague's motion in principle.
However, it is important to remember that Quebec and some provinces have already put in place legislation and assistance procedures. Still, we support this motion.
The federal government must therefore do its part by helping to fund services for first nations children.
The basic question is this: who will pay for child protection? Quebec's youth protection legislation includes a provision whereby first nations communities play an active role in youth protection.
I would also point out that Motion M-296 allows for the protection of children based on the child first principle, while waiting for the federal government and provincial governments to reach an official agreement on the various terms and conditions on services, and the payment of services, provided to children from first nations communities.
Jordan's principle is worth discussing. Jordan's principle is the name given to the child first principle, which puts the interest of the child before constitutional conflicts when it comes to access to services. The Canadian Constitution does not specify which level of government is responsible for providing services to first nations children. Thus, there are many legal conflicts concerning the protection of children.
Under the Constitution, who is financially and morally responsible for first nations children? The debate centres on this fundamental question. The answer to this question will have an impact on the availability of services and programs intended for aboriginal children.
I would like to share a statistic that illustrates the shortcomings of democracy in this country, when it comes to recognizing the rights of a minority made up of first nations peoples from Canada and Quebec. This statistic was taken from The Joint National Policy Review on First Nations Child and Family Services by McDonald and Ladd, published in 2000.
That report says:
The average Canadian gets services from federal, provincial and municipal governments at an amount that is almost two and a half times greater than that received by First Nations citizens.
This is one of my main reasons for being here today. We must put an end to such situations. This is unacceptable. According to several stakeholders, the best way to manage jurisdictional conflicts is to prevent them. Jordan's principle represents a provisional measure, while waiting for the federal and provincial governments to reach an agreement on jurisdictions.
The Bloc believes, and people will agree, that Quebec sovereignty is the best solution. Indeed, our position on first nations peoples began to change back in 1977, under the Lévesque government, which adopted provisions concerning first nations children within this large territory, the future sovereign country of Quebec.
We nevertheless wish to comment on jurisdictions and responsibility, and I continue in that direction.
We will present a brief overview of the jurisdictional difficulties that Motion no. 296 will not resolve. However, it will place first nations children and families on an equal footing with Quebec and Canadian children and families by enabling them to receive social and health services.
As stated in the report of the Joint National Policy Review on First Nations Child and Family Services, from which I quoted earlier, the different government levels are passing the buck with respect to jurisdiction.
The federal government has said that the provinces are responsible for providing child services to first nations, in accordance with Section 92 of the 1867 Constitution. Participation by the federal government in the provision of programs and services, in its view, is quite simply discretionary.
As for the provinces, they believe that the federal government is responsible for reserve Indians, pursuant to section 91(24) of the Constitution Act.
Thus, provincial and territorial governments are concerned that the federal government is offloading on them its responsibilities with respect to aboriginal peoples and argue that:
—the federal government has the constitutional, historical, and fiduciary responsibility arising from the treaties with aboriginals who live on and off reserves.
According to a report published in 2005 by the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada, the first nations have adopted the same position as the provinces.
The first nations are the only peoples to suffer from the lack of responsibility and accountability of the federal government and to ask that it maintain:
—its tutelage and its fiduciary duties towards the first nations, including its children, families and community services.
The federal government funds first nations child and family support agencies pursuant to Directive 20-1—hence a matter of administration— and not, in its view, because of its fiduciary responsibility. The federal government refuses to change its position and has stated that the delivery of programs and services to first nations is discretionary.
There is nevertheless an important vision to be presented here. First nations children are entitled to be treated with respect and Canada, in its current structure, must ensure that these children are respected, as requested by stakeholders, the chiefs and governments of the first nations and with the insight brought by the first nations and the provincial governments to a federal government that must assume its responsibilities in full.
Therefore, I hope and pray that Jordan's principle will be applied.