Mr. Speaker, I rise today and first take note that today is May 1, the international day of solidarity, which is about the workers of the world. My colleagues on this side of the House take that day very seriously. I say this to remind members that “mayday” has a second meaning. Mayday is the international voice call of distress among mariners. That is precisely what we are hearing today from first nations across Canada, with the introduction of Bill C-33.
I put to the House, and I maintain, that Bill C-33 is pure Orwellian newspeak at work. In George Orwell's 1984, it was the minister of peace who waged war. It was the ministry of love that oversaw torture. It was the minister of plenty who oversaw rationing. Here we have the Conservative government introducing into Parliament a bill euphemistically called an act for first nations control of first nations education, which should more appropriately be called a bill to increase ministerial power over first nations education and to limit first nations' inherent rights.
Today, as we speak, the minister does not have the long list of powers that this bill is designed to give him by statute. Currently the minister has to rely on a not so genteel form of extortion, by which first nations must agree to sign a contribution agreement, which stipulates those powers to the minister in order to get money to educate their children. Bill C-33 would give the minister, who I would remind the House is a person of another culture, another background, and another language and history, all of those intrusive powers by law.
I have news for the minister. The right of first nations to control their education already exists. It is for this Parliament to recognize that right, an inherent right, a right confirmed by sacred treaties, a right recognized by international covenants. I argue that Bill C-33 would put limits on those rights by design.
First nations are demanding nothing more than what we already take for granted: the right to see that their children receive an education in accord with their own culture, language, and teaching of history and values. The right was not surrendered by first nations at treaty. It is not necessary to have an act of Parliament to confirm an existing right. All that is needed is a mechanism so that the right can be fulfilled and made manifest and realized by having the means provided to do it. In fact, letting Parliament give that right or afford that right makes it a legislated right and not an inherent right, which is one of the inherent flaws of this bill.
After the exercise in creative writing that is the title of this bill, I ask the House to consider the preamble. We all know that the preamble does not have the effect of committing Canada to doing anything, but I challenge members here today to read those lofty verses in the preamble and then to try to match them in any meaningful way with the real content of the bill.
I will give the House an example. The preamble states:
Whereas First Nations must receive support that enables them to exercise their rights and fulfil their responsibilities relating to the...education provided to their children;
All that sounds good, but compare that with the actual fact that we offer them a paltry 4.5% annual increase on the already miserly amount they receive now, which is half or less than what their provincial counterparts receive. It would take up to 22 years to catch up, without even considering population increases, inflation, and the increasing cost of education. Compare that with the lofty principles of the language in the preamble. What a cruel deception we are being asked to pass here with this legislation.
Another example in the preamble states:
Whereas First Nations education systems must receive adequate, stable, predictable and sustainable funding...
Then we give them a bill that makes this promise empty, which is an utterly cruel deception and Orwellian doublespeak, if I have ever seen it. These are inherent contradictions meant to deceive.
The minister is crowing that under the current system, there is no recognition of first nations languages and first nations culture, and he is giving them that by virtue of this bill. This is another example of the Eurocentric, paternalistic, colonial attitude of the government. It is not his to give, because that is already their inalienable, inherent right.
First nations can already teach language and culture if they choose to do so. The permission of the minister is not required. However, under Bill C-33, the minister can impose the regulations that would set out how that language and culture would be taught. He can impose the amount of money that can be spent for that purpose. He can impose who is qualified to teach the language and culture and whether the laws of the province apply to the teaching of that language and culture. The end result is that first nations would have less control over the teaching of language and culture than they have now. It is blatantly disingenuous or ignorant to imply otherwise.
Clause 43 is another example of contradictory Orwellian newspeak. It provides that the minister must pay to a first nation education authority an amount of money determined by a calculation, which is what it costs for a provincial public school in a similar location, per pupil, to provide educational services. On first reading, one would assume that by this legislation, they would get the same amount of money as provincial students do, except that reading further, on the very next page, clause 45 of the bill states that the minister will obtain an order in council limiting the amount of money in any fiscal year to whatever amount the minister wants to set, or whatever amount of money the minister can pry out of the hands of his minister of finance around the cabinet table. Presto, the obligation to provide equitable education has just completely vanished, because the reality is that clause 45 trumps, again, the lofty principle, the carrot dangled, by clause 43.
I know that members opposite will say that we have to be fiscally responsible, that we cannot do this all at once, and that it has to be phased in gradually. In actual fact, there are two problems with that argument. The first is that if a first nations school decides it can no longer deprive its children of the education they deserve and decides to send its children to a nearby provincial school, the minister will pay that full school tuition for those students, double the amount he planned to spend if those children stayed on reserve. The money will be there for that, so why is it not available as a first option for students to stay at the reserve school?
The second reason is a larger picture, perhaps, that we really have to address in the context of this kind of funding question. It is that first nations receive absolutely not one penny from the tens of billions of dollars from oil, minerals, forestry products, and natural resources taken from their lands. It is trillions of dollars over the years if we were to add it up. One cannot tell people that there is no money to provide for the basic needs of first nations children to realize their full potential when we are harvesting tens of billions of dollars per year from first nations lands and territories. In all good conscience, those of us in the House of Commons have to address that fundamental issue. First nations children are Canadian children, and all Canadian children deserve the right to realize their full potential through a quality education.
I want to take a moment to look at the international obligations the bill fails to acknowledge or recognize. The year 2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 28 recognizes the right of a child to equal opportunity to have an education.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that indigenous people must have access to schools consistent with language, culture, and values and that “indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages” and cultures.
Article 13 of that UN declaration states:
Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
Bill C-33 gives no recognition to any of these international instruments, nor does it acknowledge that Canada has any responsibilities and obligations in this regard. I believe that this is by design, not by any oversight.
We have also heard the minister say that Bill C-33 is a first step, a transition to something better and that this will evolve into something more acceptable in time.
That is exactly what they said about the act for the gradual civilization of the Indians 14 decades ago, and we still have the Indian Act today, an act best described as 140 years of social tragedy, an act unworthy of a western developed democracy. Instead of rising above that act, this piece of legislation is consistent with the Indian Act in that regard.
What is the purpose of this legislation? Clause 3 states:
The purpose of this Act is to provide for the control by First Nations of their education systems by enabling councils of First Nations to administer schools situated on their reserves
That, perhaps more than any one phrase, is the nutshell of the problem.
There is a considerable difference between control of education by first nations and enabling councils to administer the schools. The whole structure of Bill C-33 is to give control over first nations education to the minister and then to provide for the administration of the minister's will at the local level by the council. The boss gets to dictate the means of production, and the workers get to decide what colour to paint the lunchroom. That is what this boils down to, but then it would not be a vision of industrial democracy.
In the bill, first nations are finally going to be allowed to be their own Indian agents. Again, that is what this boils down to. They would be the administrators of regulations decided in Ottawa by the minister on their behalf.
The charade continues with clause 7:
The council of a First Nation must, in accordance with this Act, provide access to elementary and secondary education to any person who is ordinarily resident on a reserve
Thus Bill C-33 would impose an obligation on a first nation council to provide education, whether or not the resources were provided to do so, and neither is there freedom of the council in how it complies. It must do so in accordance with the bill.
The bill would expand the discretionary powers of the minister in more than one way. If we cannot see what is wrong with that mindset and world view, then we have no right to be addressing such an important subject today.
In clause 10, we come to the joint council of education professionals. Why does the government call it a joint council when all the appointments are made by cabinet, the chair is appointed by cabinet, and the minister can kick out anyone who does not toe the line? That is what a powerless group it would be. Essentially, it would sit and wait until the minister asked for its advice on certain matters, but the minister would be under no obligation to follow the advice or to explain why the advice was not followed. This is not self-determination under any sense of the word, nor does it meet the test of true implementation of authority over the system.
The minister would only be obliged to ask the council for its advice when he wished to do so. We would never know what that advice to the minister was or why it was being implemented, or not, because advice from a statutory body to a minister is considered a confidential cabinet confidence and is protected from release. The council would not be obligated to support first nations control of education.
The minister says that the council would provide oversight to the operation of the act, but unfortunately, Bill C-33 provides no oversight powers. Again, it is an inherent flaw in this legislation that is deliberate and not by accident.
When concerns like this are raised, the minister's response is, “trust me”. There will be political protocols, he has assured his doubters. I do not have to remind the House that Ottawa is a boneyard of discarded political protocols. Why does the minister want to wait until after the bill becomes law to offer a protocol? We all know the answer to that question.
In clause 20 of Bill C-33, we move into governance, and again we find what I believe is tricky and calculated deception. We have to read clause 21 with one eye focusing on what the bill says first nations can do and the other eye focusing on the power of the minister to make the regulations. For example, the council must establish policies and procedures; establish education programs, attendance policies,and success plans; monitor the quality of education; and provide the minister with an annual report. The minister says this is evidence of local control.
The bill goes on to provide the minister with the unilateral authority to impose regulations that set out the form and content of the budgets, the plans, the programs, and the policies. The minister may also impose provincial law to govern such matters.
Again, this bill has to be read in its totality, not as isolated clauses selected to make a certain case that local autonomy or local control is in fact a reality.
Clause 21 also provides that first nation language can be the language of instruction, but it has to be in addition to English or French. That clause pretty well wipes out the possibility of immersion instruction. Just imagine telling a French immersion school that it must also be providing parallel instruction in English.
Will there be any extra funding for instruction in a first nation language? Again, Bill C-33 is silent in this regard. Then, once again, the instruction of the indigenous language must be provided in accordance with the regulations unilaterally set out by the minister. “Trust me”, the minister says.
I am almost out of time, and I am not even halfway through this bill. It gives cause for us to reflect on just how pockmarked and potholed, with one-way streets, with arrows pointing both ways, this bill really is. I have not had time to mention how the provinces are going to react when the minister starts to force the provinces to pick up part of the tab, bit by bit, until, I would argue, the whole expense is going to be offloaded.
I have been assisted by comments and analysis that are starting to emerge from first nations, and I urge members opposite to do the same.
I will end my formal remarks by pointing out how appalling I find it that a bill of this nature has been subjected to time allocation and closure before the opinions of those first nations can be registered and made manifest before decision-makers and policy-makers.
I cannot imagine anything more contradictory to first nation culture than to shut down debate in a culture that values oral tradition, that values letting everyone's voice be heard until consensus is achieved.
I honestly did not think the Conservatives would have the gall to invoke closure on a bill of this nature, on this subject matter, but they have. They keep saying that the AFN is in favour of this bill, and that is why they are plowing ahead. We have heard from first nations. As of two hours ago, the executive council of the Assembly of First Nations has overridden the opinion of their leader. A resolution to that effect is coming forward.
On May 14, there is a confederacy scheduled for Ottawa where these first nations leaders are going to bring the true position of the affiliates of the Assembly of First Nations to convey their real opinion of this bill, which is unanimously opposed. No one can find a first nation constituency in the country that supports this bill.
To implement it now would be the height of hypocrisy and Eurocentric arrogance, colonial, Eurocentric arrogance. I say this looking at the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who I think knows better and who knows how offensive to the sensibilities of first nations and all Canadians it would be to continue this legacy of paternalistic colonialism and impose on them a piece of legislation that they are not in favour of.
Whether the Conservatives say their consultation met the test of true consultation or not, and I do not believe it did, the tables have turned as of today. As of two hours ago, this has all changed. Yet by May 14, will we even still be debating this bill, or will it have been rammed through the House of Commons and sent on to the Conservative-dominated Senate?
This bill warrants and deserves careful examination. First nations have a right to have input in the legislative process and to give testimony at committee. If there was ever a bill that should be taken on the road by committee for consultation in each region of the country, this is one.
I know it is not my job to ask them questions. They will ask me questions. However, how do the Conservatives justify clamping down debate on such an important piece of legislation, denying the opportunity for first nations to participate in the legislative process? It is beyond me.