Romeo Saganash

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 2nd, 2014]

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.

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 2nd, 2014]

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.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we are proud to stand alongside the aboriginal communities, families and teachers across the country who are calling for more from this government than partisan attacks from the minister. People who understand the reality of first nations communities can describe the deplorable conditions in the schools.

Why is the minister so determined to impose a bill that will force students to wait until the next election to receive new funding when they deserve it now, today?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the real question is: what are they afraid of?

A nation-to-nation relationship involves respect, partnership, listening and reconciliation. Clearly, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has a different definition. He uses his Facebook page to launch partisan attacks on anyone who dares disagree with him.

The minister should learn from his mistakes instead of imposing Ottawa's solutions. Why is he refusing to listen to communities, families and teachers so that he can really address their education needs?

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what was said about the obligation to consult, which is part of Canada's constitutional law. It is the rule of law in our country. We need to fulfill the constitutional obligation to consult first nations about any and all legislative measures that are being considered. That is the case with this bill.

What does the member have to say to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, for example, which is saying that it was not consulted and that, as a result, the government should reject this bill? What does he have to say to the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, which has taken this government to court because it was not consulted? What would he say to those groups?

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Churchill for her excellent speech and her excellent understanding of the situation we are dealing with today. Beyond the issue of the importance of first nations education, everyone agrees on the importance of children and youth in aboriginal communities.

It is troubling that, in this debate, members are accusing those who oppose this bill—as the parliamentary secretary did just a moment ago—of conspiring to bring the Canadian economy to its knees. That is completely false.

For example, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador has taken this government to court because it was not consulted about this bill. It is a constitutional obligation to consult with and accommodate the first nations, yet this was not done for the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador.

One of the basic rights in this country is the right to initiate court proceedings. However, the Conservatives are trying to intimidate us and prevent us from doing so. Does my colleague agree with me on that?

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague who spoke earlier, I too am saddened by this motion that the government has moved.

I am saddened because this really has nothing to do with the importance of education for first nations children. That is not the issue. I think that we all agree that aboriginal children should receive the best education possible. That is not what we are talking about.

What we are talking about are the government's constitutional obligations. I would like to hear the minister's comments on that. If there is one thing that should not be compromised, it is the constitutional rights of aboriginal peoples. One of the government's obligations is to consult with first nations and accommodate the concerns that are raised during those consultations. That is not what happened. I would like to hear the minister's comments on his understanding of the honour of the crown.

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, like my—

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his presentation. I am always immensely pleased to listen to his eloquent oratory in the House. I thank him for that.

The motion deals with a fundamental aspect of our democracy. It has to do with a constitutional right, the right to vote. It is important to consider the motion. As we have said, we support the motion. I do not know whether my colleague is as mystified by this as I am. The motion is rather limited in terms of what it seeks to do, especially with regard to the Canada Elections Act.

Can my colleague comment on the fact that other statutes are just as important, for example the Official Languages Act, which has a quasi-constitutional status, and the Supreme Court Act? The list goes on. I wonder whether my colleague can also say a few words about the fact that the motion has such a limited scope.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech, as usual. I have listened all morning to the discussions and questions in the House. We have a very straightforward motion. There is a tendency on the other side of the House, and in the corner with no one in it right now, to try to divert the conversation on the issues before us.

The issue before us is of great concern, of course. For a few years now, we have seen what I would call a very serious tendency by the Conservatives with respect to the kind of scandals we see day after day in Ottawa.

Could my colleague comment on that? We are not dealing with an isolated issue here with these trips for the Prime Minister's friends, but a very serious tendency on the other side.