Debates of April 30th, 2014

Health of Animals and Meat Inspection

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of my bill, Bill C-571 that comes under here as Bill C-322 to prohibit the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption, as well as horsemeat products for human consumption.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Remarks by Minister of State for Democratic Reform—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 10, 2014, by the House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding alleged misleading statements made by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform during oral questions.

I would like to thank the House Leader of the Official Opposition for raising this matter, as well as the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for their comments.

The House Leader of the Official Opposition claimed that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform had deliberately misled the House when, in providing answers during question period on April 2, 2014, with respect to why voter information cards were being removed as possible forms of identification for voters, he stated that, “There are regular reports of people receiving multiple cards and using them to vote multiple times”. The House Leader of the Official Opposition alleged that this was an answer based on reports that the minister of state knew made no such claim as evidenced by the minister altering his response the following day when he spoke only of “[...] cases where people received multiple voter information cards”. This, argued the opposition House leader, constituted ample proof that the minister of state offered misleading statements to the House knowingly and with the intent to mislead members.

The Minister of State for Democratic Reform countered those allegations, citing examples from the Elections Canada website of voters having received multiple voter information cards and voting multiple times. These he offered as proof of the accuracy of his original comments.

In raising this issue, the House Leader of the Official Opposition has again asked the Chair to determine the degree of accuracy or truthfulness of an answer to see if, on the face of it, it constitutes an instance in which the House was misled.

Members must recognize that there are limits as to what the Chair is authorized to do in this respect. As I reminded the House as recently as January 28, 2014, at page 2204 of Debates:

Successive speakers in our House have maintained our tradition of not intervening in respect of answers to questions, and I do not intend to change that.

As Speaker Milliken stated on December 6, 2004, at page 2319 of the House of Commons Debates:

Disagreements about facts and how the facts should be interpreted form the basis of debate in this place.

Thus, it is not sufficient for members to simply make allegations based on their perceptions of what is or is not factually correct. Members must recognize and accept the existence of differences of fact and interpretation, which have always been a part of the normal cut and thrust of debate and question period.

As Speaker Jerome put it so well on June 4, 1975, at page 6431 of Debates:

...a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 145, goes further when it recognizes that:

In the vast majority of cases, the Chair decides that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made.

Given this last citation, the Chair finds itself in the position of having to point out to the House Leader of the Official Opposition that in citing certain cases as precedents, he may have left an erroneous impression about the frequency of such incidents. In fact, most if not all of the precedents referred to were simply disputes as to fact, as is overwhelmingly the case.

The Chair has carefully considered the current case and the usual wisdom prevails here as well. There is no evidence to suggest that this situation is anything more than a dispute as to facts or that the opposition House leader has in any way been impeded in the performance of his duties as a parliamentarian.

Thus, I cannot conclude that this qualifies as a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank honourable members for their attention.

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression, in fact, we had been advised that the Chair would be delivering a ruling on my point of order raised in the House on April 10 with respect to the amendments passed by the agriculture committee regarding Bill C-30.

The Chair is not in a position to offer a ruling now, but I was curious if you might be able to advise the House when that ruling might be forthcoming. As you can appreciate, I, the government House leader and, I suspect, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food are very anxious to hear your ruling.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I appreciate the hon. member's interest, and I can understand many members would have an interest. I will assure him it will be delivered to the House without too much more delay, but it will not be today.

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the minister referred to the five conditions. I want to specifically make reference to the one on meaningful dialogue, which says:

Ensures a meaningfully support process to address these conditions through a commitment to working together through co-development, fully reflective of First Nations rights and jurisdiction.

It goes on to say that Canada must commit to direct dialogue.

I know that there was a letter sent on April 11 to the minister and to the Prime Minister from Vice-Chief Bobby Cameron from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. Part of the basis for the letter is that the trust is broken, and that is not a partisan remark. This is a trust that has been broken over a number of years. What Vice-Chief Bobby Cameron asked for was confirmation that the new legislation will ensure first nations jurisdiction over education. The letter quotes Vice-Chief Cameron:

“We asked the federal government to make a commitment and to confirm in writing, by signing a confirmation letter, that First Nations will have jurisdiction and control over our education systems, and that First Nations will have the authority to design education systems that reflect the Inherent and Treaty Right to Education”, says Vice Chief Cameron.

Given the fact that the minister seems convinced that this is going to give first nations control over first nations education and that he says he honours that commitment to dialogue and a joint process, will he commit to signing that letter as a gesture of good faith that the government will fulfill those conditions?

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about education as an issue, often we equate it with opportunities.

The minister made reference to the issue of financing. I used to be a critic for education in the Province of Manitoba. A great number of challenges face educators and student bodies, including the issues of curricula and so forth, but one of the greatest challenges is making sure that the resources necessary to provide quality of education are second to no other in terms of performance.

A big challenge has been to try to get the government to recognize that the financial resources need to follow to support an educational infrastructure that would benefit our children and to enable the leadership within the first nations, such as the Assembly of First Nations, to ensure a quality educational product. In other words, Ottawa needs to pony up with some financial resources.

I am wondering if the minister can add further comment as to what he envisions in terms of the financial support that would ultimately follow legislation.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister outlined a bit of the unprecedented level of consultation and collaboration with first nations that came with the development of the bill. A draft piece of legislation was discussed last fall, and it was after that draft that we saw the letter from the National Chief and the resolution of the Chiefs-in-Assembly.

I am wondering if the minister can outline for the House some of the differences between the first nations control of first nations education act and that earlier draft.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good and pertinent question. Indeed, we had circulated a draft of what the bill could be, but after the first nations, through the Chiefs-in-Assembly, passed the resolution outlining those five conditions, we had to go back to the table and redo our work.

To ensure that the legislation addresses the issues raised by the Assembly of First Nations through the Chiefs-in-Assembly, the following changes are included in the bill.

First, there is the recognition of the ability and responsibility of first nations to manage their education system. That is now in the bill.

On the question of unilateral oversight of the federal government, the bill proposes the creation of a joint council of education professionals to provide advice and support to the Government of Canada and first nations on the implementation and oversight of the bill. Additionally, the mandate of the joint council would also be to review the act after five years.

In the bill is a commitment to legislate adequate, stable, predictable, and sustainable funding, taking into account the inclusion of language and culture. That is now in the bill, in section 43. There would also be support for the incorporation of language and culture into the curriculum. Again, that is clear in the bill. The bill says that the funding to be provided by the minister must include support for language and culture in the curriculum. That is in the bill.

Finally, the bill includes the collaborative development of the act's regulation. That would be done through the joint council and the first nations. As I indicated, I have offered the AFN the opportunity to conclude a political protocol whereby we can work out the details of how we could best create this joint council to ensure first nations have input in the development of the regulation.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I share her thoughts and prayers for the victims of the tragedy in Nanaimo today. I know that is in her area. Certainly our thoughts are with everyone involved in that situation.

I am disappointed that the hon. member and her party are choosing to oppose this legislation.

I noticed throughout her speech she quoted from a lot of individuals, but avoided certainly quoting a fellow British Columbian, the National Chief Shawn Atleo, who has said quite clearly that the first nations control of first nations education act is necessary for first nations students living on reserve, that it is an improvement and that it meets the five conditions that the AFN and the Chiefs-in-Assembly have laid out. Therefore, I wonder why she is avoiding talking about the AFN and its strong support for this direction.

However, I would like to know why she is opposed specifically. The legislation is very clear that it provides first nations with the power to choose their own government options, develop their own curriculum, choose how they will incorporate language and culture into their curriculum, choose their own education inspectors, control the hiring and firing of teachers, determine how their students will be assessed, determine how the school calendar will be structured, et cetera.

That is control of the education system. It is given to first nations for them to finally have control over their education system. I wonder why the NDP opposes that when the AFN and many first nations have been calling for it for decades.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary. I think he is very well aware who will be responsible for delivery of education in first nations communities is not the Assembly of First Nations. Who will be responsible is duly elected people in those communities, the chiefs and councils, and community members will bear the brunt of whatever decisions their chiefs and councils make. Therefore, the treaty holders, the inherent rights holders are the people who are being directly affected by whatever legislation comes before the House.

What is interesting is I talked a little earlier about trust. That comes to the heart of the matter that is before us. That truly is the issue before us. We are hearing from first nations leaders and first nations community members that they do not trust the government. They do not trust it to have their interests at heart.

I earlier asked if the minister would be prepared to sign a letter of commitment and I did not get an answer.

What I think would give people a bigger degree of comfort around this is if there was evidence that this bill was co-created by first nations from coast to coast to coast, that they were at the table from the beginning of the process to the end of the process, that their feedback was heard and reflected back to them in some way, that they had an opportunity to provide input, and that we would have a fulsome debate here and at committee to ensure all of those views would be heard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to talk a great deal about first nation concerns.

One of the things we recognize as a very important issue is that of quality education. I posed the question to the minister in regard to the whole issue of financing. Financial resources is of critical importance moving forward. It is very difficult to provide quality education, if the necessary resources are not available.

I wonder if the member might comment on the degree to which the Government of Canada needs to play a stronger leadership role to ensure that there is adequate financial resources necessary for our children on first nations reserves to be provided the same sort of quality public education that our children have in our cities and municipalities.

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

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, a 2% funding cap has been in place since 1995-96. The population in first nations communities has grown, overall, by approximately 11%.

One does not need to be a mathematical genius to figure out that from 1995-96 to this day and age that first nations schools consistently have been seriously underfunded. We hear horror stories all the time about schools that are falling apart, that are cold, and that they are full of mice and all kinds of things.

If there is roughly an 11% population growth and a funding cap is still being imposed with a 4.5% escalator, then first nations schools will not have an opportunity to catch up to a comparable level with other schools off reserve.

Part of the issue that is raising concerns is, as the First Nations Education Council says, there is no way to affirm that the funding will match the needs or that it will be adequate.

It also does not recognize the fact that schools and the school system are seriously behind off reserve schools. The amount of money needed to play catch-up is not well-defined at this point in time.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's presentation on the bill was very thorough. Overriding, what is most troubling, as the member has pointed out, is the lack of consultation.

To my horror, going through the bill, I am discovering that not only has the government not consulted on the drafting of this bill, but most of the content of this bill is going to be formulated by regulations. The regulation does not provide a requirement to consult with first nations in the promulgation of the regulation under this law, which is supposed to be in the interest of the first nations.

Then, five years after the act is promulgated and the regulations are in place, there will be review, but it is by the joint council which is appointed by the cabinet.

I wonder if the member would like to speak to this. It seems the so-called separation from government control of how first nation education will be run seems to be rife throughout the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the language around the regulations, it says, “After seeking the advice of the Joint Council, the Minister may make any regulations that are necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act...”.

The amount of activity that will be regulated by these regulations is of major concern. Of course, as parliamentarians know, regulations do not come back before the House when they are being developed.

When we come back to one of the five conditions that talked about meaningful co-creation and meaningful involvement, I would argue that the joint council is not the body that represents that meaningful co-creation. The joint council is made up of nine people, four are appointed by the government, four are recommended by first nations, but the minister still gets to do the appointments so the minister still makes the decision, and the minister appoints the chair of the joint council.

The government will have control of the majority of the joint council. That, again, does not fulfill the duty to consult in terms of first nations selecting their own representatives, and they get to determine who should sit on that joint council. This is just one small aspect of how it is a smoke-and-mirrors game about control being within first nations. It is still largely controlled by the minister.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some foreboding to the speaker's discussion on education, because I think she has lost sight of the act as it is today. With some reservation, and when all is said and done, it is a pretty good act.

Let us take a minute to look at education in the provinces compared to education for the first nations. Both educational systems have a minister. The minister has a lot of power in those educational systems. If members doubt that, just check through all of the educational systems of Canada from coast to coast to coast, and they will find that the ministerial position is exceedingly strong.

The minister then has power to work with and suggest what the curriculum should be for students in K-12 programs. The amount of money that goes to those programs is decided by a pupil allowance. Is the money sufficient? For the most part. Can more money be used in education? Always.

When we look at the first nations and say that it is underfunded, the first thing we have to do is say what the reasonable length of funding is, in terms of commitments for two years, three years, or five years. We then have to justify what it is that we are going to do with those monies.

The hon. member has kind of jumped into the middle of the act and not thought about what goes before the act, because all of the time spent—