Gordon Earle

[Petitions, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition pursuant to Standing Order 26.

This petition signed by over 100 people deals with the provocation defence currently used in femicide, wife slaughter cases.

The petitioners point out that such a defence unjustly focuses the criminal trial from the behaviour of the accused to the behaviour of the victim. The petitioners indicate that the defence is not consistent with community values and with the requirement that males take responsibility for violent behaviour toward women.

The petitioners request that parliament review and change relevant provisions of the Criminal Code to ensure that men who act violently toward women take responsibilities for their actions.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, residential schools operated with the philosophy of “killing the Indian in the child ”. It is time the government showed leadership by directly addressing the multitude of court cases launched by survivors.

In light of the recent B.C. court decision assessing responsibility to both government and the churches, will this government instigate formal talks involving survivors and the churches to try to arrive at a speedy and satisfactory solution, or will the government allow the pain and frustration of the survivors to be drawn out over years of court battles?

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, June 10th, 1998]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, June 10th, 1998]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chief Marshall in his remarks went on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Bras D'Or.

[Information Commissioner, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned during his speech the impartial nature of the information commissioner's job. As a former ombudsman and as a person who was involved with responsibilities for freedom of information, I would certainly concur that is one of the most important elements of the information commissioner's job.

The information commissioner must not only be impartial, but must be seen as being impartial. That is very important. I would echo the concerns that were expressed by our House leader in terms of the background of the individual being chosen. It is crucial that the individual must be able to show very clearly impartiality in dealing with these matters.

As a former colleague of Mr. John Grace, I would like to add my words of commendation in terms of the job that he performed in his role as information commissioner.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition.

This petition concerns an event on which many petitions were presented previously. It relates to the call for a public inquiry into the events at Ipperwash provincial park where over 200 armed officers were sent to control 25 unarmed men and women. There are many questions that have not been answered around that particular incident which culminated in the shooting death of Anthony Dudley George.

The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons for a public inquiry to be held into the events surrounding the fatal shooting of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995 to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about government, the OPP and the Stoney Point people.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government has stated it will act responsibly toward the Dene of Deline and the terrible legacy inflicted on them.

Members of this community still watch loved ones die from these, to quote the government's words, deadly and insidious substances radium and uranium.

Will this government commit to immediate crisis assistance, the first step of the community's 14 point essential response and redress plan, yes or no?

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, June 8th, 1998]

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

Chief Lindsay Marshall of the Chapel Island Band and chairman of Mi'kmaq Kina'matnewey education stated to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development: “Jurisdiction of education is a basic right that is enjoyed by all Canadians and a right that our Mi'kmaq nation has not exercised since the time of colonization of this country, 500 years ago”.

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

Motion No. 1 reads, in part, as follows:

A community shall, as far as possible, provide or make provisions for primary, elementary and secondary educational programs and services for members of the community, wherever they reside in Nova Scotia.

This is an attempt to make sure that Mi'kmaq people, regardless of where they reside in Nova Scotia, will benefit from this transfer of educational jurisdiction.

As my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois mentioned, we did hear concerns expressed by some Mi'kmaq presenters who appeared before the committee about this concept of dividing the community.

One presenter made a very clear presentation around the fact that quite often certain members of the community may not live right on the reserve, either because of housing, as has been mentioned, or perhaps because of job opportunities or other reasons beyond their control. Yet they are as much Mi'kmaq off reserve as they are on reserve. It was felt that the bill in its present format tended to divide the community and that therefore this kind of amendment would go a long way in showing that there is cohesion among the Mi'kmaq people and that, regardless of where the person resides, they should have access to the opportunities to maintain their culture, to have control over their education and to benefit from the educational system which would apply with this transfer of jurisdiction.

Members opposite have mentioned that there is some concern about moving ahead with this motion because there is now great support among the aboriginal people of Nova Scotia for this bill. Indeed there is. There is a lot of excitement in the air. There is a lot of anticipation and people want to get on with the job. We certainly do not want to hold up the legislation.

However, by the same token it is very important to consider the fact that a community must not be divided artificially, and we should not become overly concerned about the cost and the jurisdictional question because this has been a longstanding problem that aboriginal people have faced for years, the question of whether they can have access to a certain service.

Quite often they have found themselves bounced back and forth between federal and provincial jurisdiction. Some people have been told “You are aboriginal and that comes under the federal government”. Then they go to the federal government and hear “You are living off reserve and that service comes under the province. You should go there”. Quite often aboriginal people have found themselves in no man's land in terms of getting the same benefits that other Canadians would normally access.

We should not become overly concerned about that because reasonable people can work out ways of resolving those issues. I am sure the federal and provincial governments could work out a way whereby if aboriginals living off reserve want to access a program that is on reserve there could be a way of working that out to everyone's satisfaction. Where there is a will there is a way.

I am very supportive of this motion because I feel that it gives the bill the kind of thrust the aboriginal people want to have in terms of providing a unified community.

We have heard a lot of talk from the Reform Party about setting up a separate educational system being undesirable. I find it quite astonishing to hear that kind of talk because when we look at it, this is in fact what has been done from the time the federal government first created the Indian Act. It set up a system that has failed. The residential schools are a prime example of the failure of the non-aboriginal society to deal appropriately and fairly with our aboriginal citizens.

Why now, all of a sudden when aboriginal people would like to take charge of their own destiny, is there some great concern that we are setting up something separate and something different that is going to cause some harm? Certainly no more harm can be done than the harm that was caused over the years.

Now it is time, I would submit, for a positive change. We are on the brink of that change. We ought not to let any fearmongering and concern about this difference deter us from the goal of allowing people to take charge of their own destiny and their own future.

We hear talk about the cost. The hon. member from the Reform Party mentioned that it is costing three times as much to educate an aboriginal child in the current system than it is for someone in the public school system. He said that something is wrong, and I agree that something is wrong. What is wrong is that with the figures he is using and the comparison he is making, he is talking about the management of the educational system by the department of Indian affairs.

In Nova Scotia we are talking about something different. We are talking about transferring the ownership and the authority and the responsibility to the Mi'kmaq people themselves. We are not talking about continuing the department of Indian affairs administration.

The hon. member and the Reform Party has made a very strong argument in favour of the bill because they can see the mess that has been made by the department over the years. Now we want to move ahead to something more positive.

We should look at this in a very positive way. Certainly if the hon. members in this House want to move ahead on a new dawn in terms of what can happen for aboriginal people in Canada, we would support this bill wholeheartedly. We would look seriously at supporting the amendment to enable communities to remain together, undivided, so that they can overcome whatever difficulties they have in terms of living on the reserve or off the reserve.

This is a very important piece of legislation. We must not be sidetracked by any erroneous arguments around cost. I have said before in the House that many times we get sidetracked when we start looking at cost. We should be looking at what is right to do for our fellow human beings, for our fellow citizens and move ahead on that premise and not be sidetracked by drawing figures and comparisons here, there and everywhere.

Let us look at the reality of what this means to the people, to the children. We are talking more about culture. We are talking about maintaining language. We see that over the years the aboriginal people have been robbed of their language. They have been robbed of their culture. They have been robbed of their identity. Hence the reason for the low self-esteem and lack of achievement.

This bill can move people forward with a sense of self-worth, a sense of control of their destiny. It can give them the meaningful life they need to move ahead in the future. This is what we should be working toward.

I am pleased to support the motion by my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.

[Motions For Papers, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on May 1 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development responded to my question on the New Brunswick forestry crisis. He said “We are working with New Brunswick”. Well, nice words but empty words it seems.

Early last month the minister said “We have always said we will assist the province and the First Nations”. The truth of the matter is that the active federal government involvement should have happened a long time ago. Just like other actions taken on aboriginal issues by this Liberal government, it is a matter of too little way too late.

Does the minister expect First Nations peoples of New Brunswick will easily leave the forest and reduce their logging ambitions? Does she expect that they will easily part with productive jobs and incomes to return to social assistance in many cases? I expect not.

Why then has the minister abjectly refused to issue a reply to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples tabled over 600 days ago? This report outlined a number of initiatives in forestry which may have helped prevent the current crisis. However, this government continues to hide its head in the sand when it comes to aboriginal forestry.

When issuing the landmark Delgamuukw decision last December, Chief Justice Antonio Lamer stated “Let us face it, we are all here to stay”. By refusing to provide leadership, this Liberal government appears to be hoping the aboriginal people will simply go away.

Early last month Elizabeth Weir was quoted as saying “The province should be using this time to actively request the federal government get involved”. She is right. But this government should have been actively involved long ago. It appears that this government is so deep in the pockets of the Irvings and the other logging mega corporations that it refuses to act on the recommendations of the aboriginal peoples commission.

Six years ago the national forestry strategy called to increase “the involvement of aboriginal peoples in forest land management”. Six years later there is precious little except maybe a real crisis in the forests of New Brunswick to show for this government's efforts.

The government has a responsibility to explain what it has done on each of the following 10 points, or why it has consistently refused to act. These 10 points are based on the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

This federal government should already have taken steps to: one, work with other governments and aboriginal communities to improve aboriginal access to forest resources on crown lands; two, promote aboriginal involvement in provincial forest management; three, give continuing support to aboriginal peoples forest resource associations; four, encourage the provinces to work with their large timber licensees, like the Irvings, to promote forest management partnerships with aboriginal firms; five, encourage joint ventures between aboriginal forest operating companies and other firms with wood processing facilities; six, promote less intensive aboriginal forest management practices and traditional land use activities; seven, work to provide for special roles for aboriginal governments in reviewing forest management and operating plans within their traditional territories; eight, work toward ensuring that aboriginal land use studies are a requirement for all forest management plans; nine, ensure that forest management expertise is available to First Nations; and ten, consult with aboriginal governments to develop a joint policy statement delineating their respective responsibilities in relation to Indian forest reserves.

Each and every day that this government refuses to actively pursue these recommendations of its own royal commission it shoulders a greater part of the responsibility for the current logging crisis in New Brunswick and for other crises that might develop elsewhere.

Just this morning there was news about a potential crisis brewing in B.C. Maybe now this government—