Debates of May 2nd, 2014

Question No. 335

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the responsibility of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, or ECBC, for the former Cape Breton Development Corporation’s early retirement incentive program, or ERIP, and compassionate disability benefit, or CDB, with regard to (a), ECBC assumed responsibility for the Cape Breton Development Corporation’s assets and liabilities, including the ERIP and CDBs, on January 1, 2010.

With regard to (b)(i), from January 2010 to March 20, 2014, the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Board rendered 13 decisions. There were seven in 2011, five in 2012, and one in 2014. In all cases, ECBC’s appeal was denied. With regard to (b)(ii), the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, or WCAT, rendered only one decision regarding the ERIP, the Hogan decision, in 2012. ECBC’s appeal was denied. With regard to (b)(iii), no decisions have been rendered by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, given that WCAT decisions are appealed directly to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal pursuant to section 256 of the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Act.

With regard to (c)(i), from January 2010 to March 20, 2014, ECBC used third party legal services for all NSWCB cases related to ERIPs and CDBs, with the exception of two appeals that were completed in-house, one in 2012 and one in 2013. With regard to (c)(ii), ECBC used third party legal services for all cases related to the ERIP and CDBs at the WCAT. Question (c)(iii) is not applicable.

With regard to (d)(i), the total cost, including HST, for legal services from January 2010 to March 20, 2014, by year, for NSWCB cases is as follows: $18,987 in 2010; $39,202 in 2011; $19,204 in 2012; $1,515 in 2013; and $0 in 2014. With regard to (d)(ii), the total cost, including HST, for legal services from January 2010 to March 20, 2014, by year, for WCAT cases is as follows: $0 in 2010; $92,762 in 2011; $2,007 in 2012; $37,198 in 2013; and $11,537 to March 20, 2014. Question (d)(iii) is not applicable.

With regard to (e), ECBC does not have a specific fund or budget for legal services. Costs are covered by the corporation’s appropriation.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

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

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Malpeque on April 9, 2014, concerning amendments contained in the Third Report from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), presented in the House on April 2, 2014.

I would like to thank the member for Malpeque for having raised this important matter. I would also like to thank the government House leader and the House Leader of the Official Opposition for their contributions.

In raising his point of order, the member for Malpeque argued that the amendments adopted by the committee had significantly altered the intent of the bill and that these amendments were not in keeping with the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading. In making his argument, the member referred to the second reading debate, during which the sponsor of the bill had indicated its intent as being to provide the National Parole Board of Canada with the authority to grant or cancel escorted temporary absences for offenders convicted of first or second degree murder. The member asserted that the bill’s main purpose was to remove the ability of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences for such offenders.

It was the member's contention that the amendments adopted by the committee, specifically in allowing institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences once the Parole Board had granted an initial absence, were contrary to the principle of the bill. The member is asking the Chair to declare the amendments in question null and void and to direct that they no longer form part of the bill. The House Leader of the Official Opposition rose in support of the member's point of order.

In his intervention, the government House leader contended that the amendments in question were both consistent with the principle of the bill and within its scope. Several procedural authorities were cited to bolster this opinion. He also noted that the chair of the standing committee had ruled that the amendments were in order and that this ruling should be respected.

The government House leader pointed out that the intent of the bill was to involve the National Parole Board of Canada in granting the escorted temporary absences, which would, in turn, involve the victims by providing them with an opportunity to participate in the hearings during such a process. The new provision, in his view, meets that requirement.

Before addressing the particulars of this point of order, I would like to remind the House of the Speaker’s authority in dealing with a report on a bill containing inadmissible amendments. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 775:

The admissibility of...amendments...may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

I have examined the third report of the standing committee, as well as Bill C-483, both in its first reading version and in the reprint containing the committee's amendments. The intent of Bill C-483, as stated in the summary to the first reading copy of the bill, is as follows:

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to limit the authority of the institutional head to authorize the escorted temporary absence of an offender convicted of first or second degree murder.

The amendment to clause 1 of the bill restructures the bill so that the provisions with regard to the National Parole Board of Canada are removed and later inserted in the subsequent new clause 1.1.

New clause 1.1 of the bill provides that the National Parole Board of Canada is involved in the granting of the initial escorted temporary absence. This process would be very similar to the original provisions previously contained in clause 1. The key difference is a new paragraph that the amendment also added, which provides that:

If the Parole Board of Canada authorizes the temporary absence of an inmate under subsection (1) for community service, family contact, including parental responsibilities, or personal development for rehabilitative purposes and the temporary absence is not cancelled because the inmate has breached a condition, the institutional head may authorize that inmate’s subsequent temporary absences with escort...

This would mean that once the authority is granted by the National Parole Board of Canada for an escorted temporary absence, it remains in place unless it is cancelled. The institutional head may grant subsequent escorted temporary absences only if the original authority from the National Parole Board remains in place. If conditions are breached and the absence is cancelled, authority must be sought anew from the National Parole Board of Canada.

This appears to me to limit the authority of the institutional head in this regard. Escorted temporary absences must still be authorized by the National Parole Board of Canada. What appears to be different in this new provision is the frequency with which authorization must be sought. I can see nothing in the bill as amended by the committee which would alter the aims and intent of the bill, namely the limiting of the power of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences and providing a role for the National Parole Board in the granting of such absences. Therefore, I find that the amendments adopted by the committee are indeed in keeping with the scope and principle of the bill as adopted at second reading and are, therefore, admissible.

Accordingly, the House may proceed with its study of the bill as reported from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I thank the House for its attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are still three minutes available for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to aboriginal education, we have heard from people in my riding who want changes made to the aboriginal education bill. We have responded to those concerns.

What makes it interesting for me is the opposition has been asking for changes to aboriginal education in Canada, yet when it is changed, it is never good enough.

Would the hon. member tell us what the positives of the bill are?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians really want to know is if this makes the future better for our aboriginal kids. That is the bottom line.

I can go through the nooks and crannies of the bill. However, the nub of it is that this is an absolutely historic bill that gives first nations control over their own education. We are doing that as a government because first nations are ready for that control. They have magnificent models. Right now they have well-educated first nations people who run schools and who can bring other first nations along. They will deliver the kind of education their kids deserve.

Incidentally, this agreement is similar to something the Liberals brought forward. However, our bill, which they are not supporting, also gives them control over language and culture. Those are two very important new components that make this a truly historic bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why are the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the Anishinabek Nation, which is three dozen communities in northern Ontario, and the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador all opposing this bill? Why are first nations across the country opposing the bill?

Clearly, the answer is that there has not been the consultation that the government has pretended it did. The consultation has simply not been there. That is why first nation, after first nation is objecting strenuously to both the form and content of this bill and also this complete disregard of any adequate and thorough consultation with first nations.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite could not be more wrong. That is typical of the NDP, the protest party. Its members will look for any protester in any way that they can bring forward on any bill. I would urge them to look at what the bill would do and get behind first nations in Canada that want to move forward. They should not stay with the patriarchal old system of the past, but rather move ahead with the first nations educators who are ready, willing and able to take control of first nations. They have been waiting for this is an historic agreement for 40 years.

I urge the members opposite to look forward.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I have the brief opportunity on behalf of my caucus to speak on this bill. That is, of course, because of the closure that the government has brought in on this very important bill. This debate will end today and we will not hear any more about it.

The second reading of bills is to talk about the content of the bill and to come to grips with whether we support it or not.

I am also very pleased to be splitting my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Between the two of us, I think we have over 100 years of time in northern communities across this vast land. My colleague's knowledge and understanding of that should be of great interest to everyone in the House.

I want to speak a bit about my experience. I grew up in the north. My first school, at grade 1, was the Fort Smith Federal Day School, run by the Government of Canada. It had two residential schools attached to it, Breynat Hall and Grandin College. I grew up through the system with residential school survivors, and many who were not survivors. Many of my classmates came to untimely ends due to social conditions, and the residential apology that took place was a very emotional moment for me. I recognized that so much had happened to first nations people across the country, and it was very personal to me.

My experience also includes being the chair of a local school society, where over 50% of the students were aboriginal students. I was chair of the board of governors of NWT Aurora College. The college's great dedication is toward putting aboriginal students into career positions, and it is very successful at doing that.

I understand the systems that we have set up in the Northwest Territories to deal with education in small and remote communities.

I will move to the report of the national panel on first nation elementary and secondary education for students on reserve . I want to keep my remarks to funding, because it is an area that in my experience has always been very important to talk about when we talk about schools in remote and isolated communities. The report states:

Statutory funding that is needs-based, predictable, sustainable and used specifically for education purposes. [...]

First Nation education reform must be based on strong, positive education outcomes, not on an average cost per student approach. [...] Given the magnitude of barriers faced by First Nation learners, the level of resources and investment required per student will likely be substantially greater than the average level of expenditures provided in the public school system.

That is clearly the case in the Northwest Territories. We have 8,500 students in our schools in remote and isolated communities, as well as in large communities, like Yellowknife, Fort Smith, Hay River, and Inuvik. There the average expenditure per student is $22,000 a year. When I was the chair of our local education society, in 1985, the level of funding per student in the schools that I represented was equivalent to what the Conservative government is providing today for the students in first nations schools across the country.

We are talking about schools that require greater levels of funding in order to provide services. There is no question about that. There is no question that when we are dealing with a school in an isolated remote situation, where we have to work very hard to entice teachers to go there to teach, or pay the extraordinarily high costs of servicing schools, all of the costs of providing education to a very small number of students are very high. That is simply the case.

When we look at what is done in Canada, where we have 143,000 first nations children, in 2011-12, Aboriginal Affairs spent about $1.5 billion total. It sounds like a big number. For 8,500 students in the Northwest Territories, we spent in excess of $200 million a year.

When we look at what has happened in first nations education, we have to look at the dollars and ask how anyone can provide those services that are required across this country in remote locations, away from cities and from all the other things that allow the cost of providing those services to be reduced, and how that can be expected. We have schools that are chronically underfunded today. When we look at what the Conservatives are offering to put into the schools, starting in 2016 another $400 million per year on top of that, we see that the total amount provided in 2016 is far below what is really required to deal with those schools.

There are 515 on-reserve schools. Right now, there is a $200 million budget for repairs, maintenance, and infrastructure for schools and classrooms for 515 schools. No wonder these schools are failing apart. They simply cannot do that work. This has been going on since the Liberals. It has been going on for the last 20 or 30 years. Basically, we have never funded these schools properly. We have left them in a situation where schools are falling apart.

[An hon. member]

The member from Calgary said it did not matter.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well that is simply not the case, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about 515 schools and we have to replace a certain amount every 30 years. What does it cost to replace a school these days, especially in isolated, northern, and remote locations? I would refer members to some of the school replacements taking place in the Northwest Territories where the average replacement cost is between $30 million and $50 million for schools of 200 people. The average school on-reserve has around 200 students. This is the cost we are talking about.

If they are talking about a 30-year replacement plan, then those schools are going to eat up a heck of a lot more money that what they have in the budget here for operations, for maintenance, and for capital costs. What we have and will continue to have, unless we recognize that this is fundamentally underfunded, is having to add major dollars to it. There were the Liberals with their Kelowna Accord. This bill simply would not put the money where it is needed. We can spend billions of dollars a year updating our fighter fleet, but when it comes to upgrading our children's future we are not willing to put those kinds of dollars on the line.

This subject requires more debate and I know I have two minutes to talk about this very important topic and to talk about what we are actually doing with this bill. It is very difficult. I find it repugnant that the Conservatives have called closure on this subject where there is so much to say. There is so much to talk about that the couple of days of debate that we are taking at second reading is really ridiculous. I am in some ways outraged by it, but it is a pattern of the current government, when the Conservatives put forward in their way with all the lofty-sounding principles that they put forward here, and when we start to dig into this bill and realize that we are simply going to continue the situation that exists today. There is simply not enough effort put into this to make the change. What we need is a watershed of funding for these schools to bring them to a level that they can exist and can provide the services that first nations students require. My colleagues will talk about all the other aspects in the bill, and they would continue to talk about it if they had the chance. We do not have the chance to even get close to all the other subjects within this bill.

I appreciate this brief time here, and I appreciate that my colleague will come with some more statements very shortly, right after me, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Western Arctic for that very eloquent speech. The member has worked for many years on these matters, and I appreciate the perspective that he brings.

The member talked about the fact that the Conservatives have shut down debate on this particular piece of legislation. It seems ironic for a government that says that in developing this legislation it did all kinds of consultation. Yet, what we have now is overwhelming opposition, from coast to coast to coast, to their so-called first nations control of first nations education act.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that what we really need is fulsome debate here in the House, so that we do hear from first nations from coast to coast to coast. Then we need adequate time at committee to fully understand the implications of this piece of legislation that could have far-ranging impacts on first nations communities.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

The problem we have is that these issues are complex. When we talk about turning over control of education to first nations, it is a process that is expensive and time-consuming.

I think of the community of Deline, in my riding, which finally completed a self-government agreement. It took 20 years to get to the self-government agreement, let alone adding on the aspect of the agreement of taking over education, which is going to take another significant period of time. We are talking about processes that are complex and are going to take much time, and resources as well.

Do I see within this bill an indication that the government is going to put resources into the development of first nations regional education opportunities? Those are good ideas.

I fully agree that first nations taking over control of education is a good idea, but I do not see that the process has been fully outlined in this bill, or that it has been funded in a way that first nations could simply pick up on it.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my concern with the remarks by the member for Western Arctic, and even his responses to his colleagues, is that the NDP's typical approach here is to delay, suggest more talking, and not address the issues.

We are hearing from first nation leaders across Canada who like the idea of being empowered to provide education, and our government is also supplying the money to help them do that. Today, Regional Chief Roger Augustine described the bill as a “huge improvement” for first nations parents and communities across the country.

The bill would be giving power and funds to help improve education for first nation students, yet it appears that the member for Western Arctic and his colleagues just want more delay and study, when we all know that this power has been asked for.

I would ask the member to justify his delay of this provision.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would hardly call a 10-minute speech in the House a delay in the bill moving forward. That is simply ridiculous.

However, I would love to see the government put forward some details of its analysis on what it actually takes in terms of funding to bring aboriginal schools across this country up to the level that they should be.

If the member shows me the details that the Conservatives have put into understanding what it takes, that would be a big start toward supporting this type of legislation. However, they will not do it. They will not show us what it actually costs. They do not want to put the money forward.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Meegwetch.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, those were just words of thanks to my brothers and sisters of the Algonquin nation, because we must never forget that we are still on unceded Algonquin territory, and I just wanted to remind everybody in this room about that simple fact.

I am saddened to be taking the floor at this time, because I am speaking on this very important issue of first nations education in a context in which the Conservatives have yet again put time allocation on the debate on this important matter.

It is troubling, because it shows the disrespect this government has for aboriginal peoples in general. It shows disrespect by not allowing debate on this very important issue. It is disrespect because we all know in a way that our relations with aboriginal peoples in this country are broken, and the way that this particular legislation is being put forward will definitely not help in resolving that important issue.

I say education is an important issue, and I think everyone in this chamber agrees. Let me remind the House what the Supreme Court of Canada has said about important issues to aboriginal peoples. In the Haida Nation case, the Supreme Court said that at the high end of the spectrum of consultation, the consultation obligation and duty of the federal crown requires the consent of aboriginal peoples on very serious issues.

I do not think anybody in this chamber challenges the idea that the education of first nations children is a very serious issue and therefore requires the consent of aboriginal peoples on whatever we propose in terms of first nations education.

I was travelling on the day when the Prime Minister apologized on behalf of all Canadians for the residential schools in this country. Members may know that I attended one of these residential schools for almost a decade. I was pretty moved by the words that were used on that day in this chamber. I read them the same day. I saw hope in those words for healing. I saw hope in those words for reconciliation with aboriginal peoples in this country.

But it is not happening. One cannot say, on the one hand, “I am sorry”, while on the other continuing to deny the fundamental rights of first nations peoples. It seriously does not happen that way.

I want to quote what the Prime Minister said on that day. I pulled out the French version of his speech of apology to aboriginal peoples. I just want to quote a paragraph in that speech:

The government recognizes that the absence of an apology has been an impediment to healing and reconciliation.

Therefore, on behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians, I stand before you, in this chamber so central to our life as a country, to apologize to aboriginal peoples for Canada's role in the Indian residential schools system.

That is what the Prime Minister said that day. Once again, I would like to reiterate that we cannot say we are sorry on one hand and then, on the other, continue to deny the fundamental rights of first nations peoples in Canada.

Reconciliation is an important objective and process in this country, and in Canadian constitutional law and international law, as well. It is an important process. In the indigenous context, reconciliation refers to restoring harmony. That is what is meant by reconciliation in this context, between indigenous people and the Crown. There has been conflict for countless generations.

The UN declaration emphasizes that recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples will enhance harmonious and co-operative relations between the state and indigenous peoples.

As I said, in the Haida case the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted that reconciliation is not a final legal remedy in the usual sense:

Rather, it is a process flowing from the rights guaranteed by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

It continued:

This process of reconciliation flows from the Crown’s duty of honourable dealing toward Aboriginal peoples....

The court recognized the need to reconcile pre-existing aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty. Those are the words of the Supreme Court of Canada. And this is what is required in this process as well.

I know that a lot of time when legislation is tabled or presented in this House, one of the first complaints that we hear from first nations is that they have not been consulted. It is not just political vagary when they say that. They are talking about a constitutional obligation. They are talking about a constitutional duty of the Government of Canada to consult with aboriginal peoples and to accommodate the concerns that were expressed in the meaningful consultation that needs to happen.

If I listen to what the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador is saying, that did not happen. If I listen to what the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is saying, that did not happen. If I listen to the Chiefs of Ontario, that did not happen.

There is a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations being called next week, because there is serious concern with this legislation. They are calling an urgent meeting, that is how serious it is. It is important that we understand. The Assembly of First Nations is going to the extent of instituting legal proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada, because of that lack of consultation. The government has not respected its constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate first nations in this country.

I want to read what Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations said yesterday:

Bill C-33, as it stands, would create a system in which the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has authority but no responsibility. First Nations, on the other hand, would have responsibility since they deliver education services, but no authority. That is a completely unacceptable situation. There is no recognition of inherent or Treaty rights to education, no recognition of First Nations jurisdiction, and no recognition of First Nations as a third order of government. If the Government of Canada truly wants First Nations support, it is essential that it does not pass this Bill as it stands, but rather, engages in a democratic process that includes a meaningful consultation process.

Let me end by saying that throughout this short discussion and debate that we have had on this bill, I have heard many responses from the government side saying, “That is not important. Your constitutional rights are not important.” That is what I am being told here.

I will never accept that, not before, not today, and never in the future. That is why I am opposing this bill today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his impassioned defence of what is fundamental to what is wrong with this legislation. This gets to the heart of the relationship between the Crown and first nations from coast to coast to coast.

The member talked about the fact that there were inherent rights and treaty rights that had been established and recognized in the Canadian Constitution. Members earlier were talking about giving first nations education. Well, they cannot give first nations education. First nations are entitled to education under inherent rights and treaty rights. They are entitled to education under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They are entitled to education under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Could the member talk about a way forward? Could he inform the House that if we had a fair, reasonable and democratic process taking place here, what would be the way forward?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very important and interesting because it is something we need to discuss as well.

When aboriginal peoples, with their constitutional rights, talk about the need for meaningful consultation and accommodation, there are several examples we can take from the past to show that it is possible to sit down together with first nations and iron out legislation on education for our children. It is easy.

For example, in 1975, when the James Bay Cree signed the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement, section 9 of the agreement provided for local self-government. In the ensuing years, both the Cree and the Government of Canada sat together and drafted the self-government legislation related to that. It is called the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. It was adopted by the House in 1984. Therefore, that is possible. That is the most respectful way we can have to deal with this important and crucial matter for first nations children and throughout the communities.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that both the Liberals and the NDP are opposing constructive and necessary steps in supporting the goals expressed by the first nations for control for their respective treaty rights and aboriginal rights. Recognition of language and culture are a clear statutory guarantee for fair funding under education.

The Liberals had 13 long years to act, but instead they neglected the first nations and by opposing this bill, they are again signalling their willingness to allow another generation of first nations youth to fall through the cracks. Instead of doing what is best for first nations students, the Liberals have decided to hitch their wagon to the NDP message of partisanship and of the critics of the bill who would like nothing more than to disrupt Canada's economy.

I would urge the Liberals and the NDP to do as Chief Augustine suggests and do the right thing, to reconsider their position and stand up for first nations children.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate some of the points I just mentioned. It is important that whenever we deal with legislation in our country, we ensure that our constitutional obligations are respected. We ensure that the fundamental rights of first nations and aboriginal peoples are not violated. This is what is going on here. The government has not consulted with first nations.

A couple of them are saying yes, but the vast majority of first nations people and organizations have not been consulted, and that is a constitutional problem. Conservatives are not respecting our constitutional duties to consult and accommodate first nations concerns expressed vis-à-vis this bill and that needs to happen. I will not put aside my constitutional right for a moment to allow them to pass this legislation, because the future of my children is too important for that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Maurice Vellacott]

Because our time has gone beyond the five hours of debate, we will now go to 10 minutes per speaker.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development has the floor for 10 minutes.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill C-33, the first nations control of first nations education act.

The introduction of Bill C-33 follows years of discussions, dialogue, and studies reflecting the efforts of many people, both first nations and government officials, to arrive at this point.

All first nations across Canada were presented with numerous means of engaging in the consultation process and offered multiple opportunities to be a part of the dialogue and process leading to this legislation.

In 2011 the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations jointly launched a national panel on first nations elementary and secondary education, which recommended, in its final report, a first nations education act.

In December 2012 the Government of Canada launched a consultation process and released a discussion guide to help support open and meaningful consultation activities on the government's proposed legislative approach.

Between December 2012 and May 2013 the Government of Canada held face-to-face regional consultation sessions, video and teleconference sessions, and online consultation activities with first nations across Canada.

The government received various input on a variety of topics, including first nations control over first nations education, inherent rights and treaties, the transition of legislation, funding, language and culture, and parental involvement in education.

The legislation that we see before us today reflects the feedback that we received throughout the extensive consultation process.

Engagements with first nations did not end there. On October 22, 2013, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development released for public review the document “Working Together for First Nation Students: A Proposal for a Bill on First Nation Education”. This was the result of input and feedback received on the blueprint for legislation.

The draft legislative proposal was shared with more than 600 chiefs and band councils and every first nation community across Canada, as well as provincial governments, for further input prior to the proposed legislation being finalized. Parents, educators, and students were also encouraged to submit comments on the proposal to further influence the development of this bill.

In response, the Assembly of First Nations issued an open letter that listed five conditions that it felt were necessary in order to reach a successful agreement on this legislation. Members have heard many of their colleagues testify that our government has not only met but exceeded these five conditions.

If the first nations control of first nations education act is passed, the Government of Canada will continue working with first nations on the development of necessary regulations to implement this proposed legislation.

Of course we recognize that funding is necessary to support the implementation of Bill C-33 to support first nations and first nation education authorities as they take on roles and responsibilities established under the first nations control of first nations education act. The Government of Canada has invested through economic action plan 2014 an additional $1.252 billion over three years beginning in 2016-17 and statutory core funding on top of the existing $1.55 billion per year for elementary and secondary education on reserve. Even after the three-year period has ended, this funding would continue to increase at a rate of 4.5% each and every year. The funding would be stable and predictable, ensuring that schools have the resources necessary to help students meet their needs and prepare them to participate in Canada's labour market.

In addition, the Government of Canada would help to support the transition to legislation by creating an enhanced education fund that would provide $160 million over four years, beginning in 2015-16. This funding would help develop the partnerships and institutional structures required to implement the proposed legislation, including support for first nations education authorities.

Another important feature of Bill C-33 is the issue of ministerial oversight. Far from giving the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development more power or more control over first nations education, under this legislation the minister would have far less decision-making power than provincial ministers of education have in their jurisdictions and far less than he has today.

In addition, under Bill C-33 a joint council of educational professionals would be put in place to support the implementation of this legislation. The joint council would have a membership of up to nine members, including a chair. Half of these members would be appointed by the Assembly of First Nations, four would be nominated by the minister, and the chair would be jointly selected by the Assembly of First Nations and the minister.

The joint council would be made up of recognized educational experts and would have the role of supporting first nations and first nations education authorities in the improvement of their education system, as well as the oversight role of ensuring that the ministerial powers provided by the act are exercised with the benefit of the first nations' perspective and are used as a last resort. Indeed, the minister would not be able to create regulations or appoint temporary administrators without the advice of this joint council.

Under the act, first nations or first nation education authorities would have the sole authority to hire and manage school inspectors, oversee school operations, and deal with situations where an individual school is not providing quality education to students. Under exceptional circumstances, the minister could appoint a temporary administrator under clause 40, but only after seeking the advice of the joint council of education professionals. This provision would only be exercised in exceptional circumstances, such as where inspection reports have not been submitted, significant issues have been revealed, standards are not being met, or there is significant risk to student well-being and success. It should be noted that these are the same conditions that would trigger a similar response in provincially run schools.

Finally, I would like to touch briefly on the issue of language and culture. The Government of Canada and first nations believe that language and culture are essential to successful first nation education. Consistent with the Prime Minister's announcement on February 7, 2014, clause 21 of the first nations control of first nations education act would enable first nations to incorporate their languages and cultures into school curricula and offer language and culture programming. Clause 43 of the proposed legislation would also commit the Government of Canada to providing funding to support language and culture programming as part of its core funding.

The intent of the proposed legislation is to create a legislative framework within which first nations would exercise control over first nations education. First nation schools and education authorities would also have full decision-making powers in terms of curriculum choice, providing it meets education standards under the act and the establishment of school policies and school procedures.

In summary, Bill C-33 is an important piece of legislation. Developed in consultation with first nations, it is an essential and overdue step in ensuring that first nation students have the same quality of education and access to education as other students in Canada. I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-33.