Bill C-29

National Council for Reconciliation Act

An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation

This enactment provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and Indigenous-led organization whose purpose is to advance reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples.

Bilingual Documents in the House

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The second matter relates to the deliberation on the NDP opposition day motion that took place on Monday, March 18. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier alleges that his privileges were breached when the government House leader moved an amendment to the motion during the debate and the translation delays prevented members from considering the amendment in French.

I submit that there are two matters to be considered in this case. The first is that the events took place on Monday, March 18 and the member raised the argument two days later. This was not the first opportunity to raise the matter.

Second is the fact that the events of the debate of March 18 simply do not support the allegation raised by the member. The member did not raise his question of privilege at the first opportunity, as required.

Page 145 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

There was no requirement for the member to have time to marshal sophisticated arguments or to substantiate his allegation. If I were to speculate, the member either did not take the matter seriously or did wait to raise the argument on Wednesday for the simple objective of disrupting proceedings related to the consideration of Bill C-29 on that day.

There is no procedural limitation on when an amendment may be proposed to a motion before the House while it is under consideration. The House was under Government Orders when the amendment was proposed. It is a well-established practice that amendments may be moved in either official language.

Citation 552, subsection (3), of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms was addressed this matter. It states, “Every motion that is duly moved and seconded is placed before the House by the Speaker as a question for the decision of the House. All motions must be presented to the Speaker in writing in either of the two official languages.”

I will concede that the amendment was moved later in the day, but this was the result of good-faith discussions between members of Parliament that lasted until shortly before the motion was moved, which is why it was moved in one language.

That is how the House of Commons is supposed to work: rigorous debate and discussions to come to consensus.

It is always the practice of the government to provide all parties with information in both official languages. However, in this case, it was not possible to provide a written copy in both official languages in the time provided, which is why the members of the House were provided with simultaneous interpretation of the proceedings of the House in both official languages.

Third, while the House was suspended to the call of the Chair, the table officers circulated to all parties the text of the amendment in French to ensure that members could understand what had been proposed as an amendment and what they were voting on.

Finally, when the House resumed, after the amendment had been made available in both official languages, the Speaker entertained additional points of order on the admissibility of the motion, which would have offered the opportunity for any member to intervene on the amendment in either official language.

When the Speaker put the question to the House on the amendment, it included text of the motion in French, clearly demonstrating that the text was available in both official languages.

The government strongly believes in the importance of both official languages in the Parliament of Canada. To demonstrate this, the House passed amendments to the Official Languages Act in Bill C-13. Bill C-13 would implement a series of proposals that promote the progression toward the equality of status and the use of English and French. Several provisions of the enactment are therefore concrete illustrations of the constitutional principles set out in subsection 16(3) of the charter.

The facts contradict the assertion by the member that he did not have access to the text of the amendment in both official languages, nor did he meet the test that the matter must be raised at the first opportunity. Therefore, I submit that the matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

Bill C-29—Time Allocation Motion

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me just illustrate a point. On February 12, there was scheduled debate on Bill C-29. That day, the Conservative Party moved a concurrence motion meant to derail the debate and derail a vote on Bill C-29. That is what I am talking about.

This has been going on since September 2021, when we had the first debate on the bill. It is now closer to two years. It is time to move on. I do not think there is anything more to be added to the debate. Many aspects of it have been considered by committee. Very thoughtful conversations have been had in the Senate. It is back here for final approval.

I encourage my colleagues to reflect on what they have done to obstruct the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much. That is our time.

We will suspend briefly to change everything over.

Apparently we'll have bells in about six to 10 minutes on closure on Bill C-29. I will seek unanimous consent right now that we will continue as we did before and vote virtually as we did before.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I do think we need to make Parliament work better. I do think that certain things we do sometimes, like all-night voting for example, are not good for our health. Unfortunately the process we have right now, the one that is not working sometimes, is prolonging bills that are very important to Canadians.

Bill C-29 is such an example. We have had 58 hours of debate. This is almost unprecedented for legislation of this nature. I believe that everyone will be voting in favour. We have had multiple meetings at committee. At what point do we say that we have no other choice? I believe that point for me was on February 12, when it could have been disposed of with a vote. We had a concurrence motion, and it derailed the debate. There is definitely frustration on my end, but there is greater frustration for communities that have been waiting and have been demanding that we put forward and implement the TRC calls to action.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that the Liberals would impose time allocation on this.

One of the real challenges that has been highlighted time and time again in Bill C-29 is that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, although acknowledged as a national indigenous organization, has been left out of the proposed council. The organization has been very vocal about the disappointment in that regard.

While there have been continual calls to ensure that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is included in the council and the conversations surrounding Bill C-29, that organization has been specifically excluded. This means that many indigenous peoples across Canada, who are not necessarily represented by the other organizations that will have a seat at the table, are excluded.

To the minister, very specifically: Why has the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples been excluded?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, a national council for truth and reconciliation is an essential step forward. It is right in line with the calls to action.

I was very proud to have my first committee experience with the hon. minister, who was the parliamentary secretary at the time. We discussed the preambles to Bill C-29 in meetings. Actually, it is disappointing that we are still discussing it after four and a half years, when indigenous communities right across this country are relying on us for action.

The Conservatives will use attacks to say we cannot get this done, while they simultaneously delay. I want to ensure that Canadians are aware of the fact that there are members of the House of Commons who claim that the government cannot get things like this done but simultaneously extend and prolong debate, complaining when closure is the necessary next step in order to get it done.

Could my colleague, the hon. minister, speak to the importance of this for indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I question whether my friend opposite actually read either the TRC calls to action or Bill C-29. This is essentially about implementing four calls to action that speak to the establishment of a national council for truth and reconciliation.

The notion of economic reconciliation is something our government has been working on. In fact, the loan guarantee program in the fall economic statement, which the opposition voted against, is one of those elements. Therefore, I find it a little rich when colleagues are opposing the bill without even reading it, because we need to move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I have said before that there are two bloc parties in the House of Commons: the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party, which is the Conservatives. Over the course of the last few years, they have tried to block the dental care the NDP brought to Canadians. A million seniors have signed up for the dental care program, including thousands of people in each of the Conservative ridings.

Conservatives tried to deny dental care to seniors, pharmacare and affordable housing funding. All those good things that the NDP is forcing the Liberal government to do, Conservatives have been blocking.

Now we see the latest example of this with Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Conservatives are blocking it. They are refusing for the vote to be held on this legislation and for the bill to move forward. It is simply incomprehensible, I think, to most Canadians that Conservatives would be so mean-spirited as to block every piece of legislation, every bill and every law that is going to help Canadians.

To my colleague: Why do Conservatives seem to want to block everything?

Bill C‑29—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news today. We have announced a whole bunch more homes being built in Canada. We have reduced taxes on the middle class and increased them on the one per cent, and those guys voted against it. The budget is the best in the G7, and we have a great record on reducing poverty. All these things are well in hand without the bad track record of the previous government.

Later today, we will have the final vote on the motion regarding the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Tomorrow will be an allotted day.

When we return following the constituency weeks, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. On Wednesday of the same week, we will continue debate on the motion relating to the Senate amendments to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Tuesday, March 19, and Thursday, March 21, shall be allotted days.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to address the House on Bill C-29. My understanding of the schedule today is that I have about 12 minutes and then we will continue when we next come back to the bill. I know some members are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to ask questions or make comments, but they will sadly need to wait until this bill is next up for consideration.

It has been a pleasure for me to listen to many of the interesting and insightful speeches that have been given by my colleagues. There might have been a few less interesting and insightful speeches given, but I will not name any names.

I wanted to, first of all, identify some of the key aspects of this bill and then drill into a few specific areas around reconciliation. Bill C-29, for those just joining us, deals with the creation of a national council for reconciliation. This is a body that was called for in the calls to action associated with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and it now seeks to, through legislation, give life to that specific recommendation by creating a council that would be responsible for, in various fora, providing advice and recommendations around reconciliation. This specifically responds to calls to action 53 through 56.

I would just note out of interest that we do seem to see a number of these legislative proposals from the government for the creation of advisory councils or bodies that would be representative of some community of concern and provide advice to the government on specific issues. What I always look for in these kinds of proposals is whether these advisory bodies would have the capacity to authentically represent the people they are supposed to represent or whether these advisory bodies are subject to such a level of control by the government that they would be more limited in being able to be representative or operate independently.

I can think of a similar case of the creation of an advisory body on child care, where the government said it was going to create a child care advisory body. In every case, the impulse of the government is to say it is going to create this consultative advisory body that will be an important stakeholder that will inform it of situations on the ground, but then to, at the same time, create a system in which the power of creation of appointment, and maybe in some cases in an ongoing way and in other cases just in the first instance, is by a minister. This obviously creates challenges for that body to be authentically representative or to challenge the government with an alternative conception of how to proceed in a policy area that may be different from what the government is proposing.

If the government says it wants to have an independent body advising it that is going to be championing specific issues such as child care, reconciliation and some other issue and yet it is going to choose the people on that body, then to what extent is that body able to be a meaningful check on what the government is doing? This is an important area of caution in general. I would hope to see, and suspect the framers of the calls to action were more thinking of, a council for reconciliation that could provide that check on government.

I note the legislation, Bill C-29, does identify certain organizations that should be represented on the council. The problem with that is if the minister is still choosing the individual, that there must be someone from this group and someone from this group, or if the minister exercises a greater degree of discretion for a majority of those individuals, again that creates some obvious problems. It is something we need to be cautious about.

I note as well, as my colleagues have, there was no representation for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Members have pointed out in questions and comments it is possible the council might choose someone, in replacing a position, with an affiliation with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, but it is also possible it might not. The fact that there are protections for the inclusion of specific voices and not for the inclusion of the voice that represents indigenous people living off reserve is a problem as well, and one that Conservatives have highlighted.

We have also spoken about economic reconciliation, and I will come to that. However, I want to add to the conversation with some reflections on diversity in procurement and on the inclusion of indigenous businesses in procurement. This is something that has been on my mind and the minds of many members today, of course, with the release of the explosive arrive scam report from the Auditor General. This report contains a variety of findings that I know we have had an opportunity to discuss and will have more opportunity to discuss in the House. Basically, the Auditor General found multiple levels of incompetence and corruption in government procurement associated with the procurement of the arrive scam app, with $60 million spent, but no certainty about how much money was actually spent; a complete lack of documentation and tracking; a two-person company that was hired, with no IT experience, to do an IT application; and on and on. Why in the world was this company hired? Who made this decision? We are still asking these questions.

However, the Auditor General's report builds on work that was done by the procurement ombudsman, who identified aspects in the procurement system that are loaded towards insiders. This is important for the discussion that I want to have in the context of the bill before us, which is diversity and inclusion in the context of procurement.

For a long time, there have been asks from indigenous business owners. I have also met with leaders in the Black business community and representatives of other communities, who are saying that they want to see more inclusion of businesses from their community in the procurement system. Governments have talked about this. They have set targets, which they have not always achieved. There has been discussion about whether we should set quotas or targets, how we should do this, and all of that.

However, if we look at the existing system, and this was revealed through the procurement ombudsman's report, we have a situation where there is actually strong protection in place for incumbent businesses. Therefore, we had a situation with GC Strategies, which is not what we think of as an incumbent business. It is not massive; it is a two-person company with lots of close connections with government. It gets the work, it subcontracts and it makes a lot of money in the process. There are a lot of problems there. However, we have this incumbent business with close relationships to the government. Then we find out that GC Strategies sat down with the government to discuss what the terms of the contract were going to be. Therefore, this company has a significant advantage, because it is sitting down with people in government that it has a relationship with, and it says, “We think you should ask for these specifications in the contract.” I think that process is effectively rigged.

The government then puts requirements in, where it says, “You have to have a certain amount of experience of having procured with the government.” This is a structure that advantages existing incumbent businesses with a lot of privilege. If a company is part of a historically disadvantaged community, such as an indigenous business owner or a business owner from another community who does not have the same privilege of access or incumbency in the existing system, then it is disadvantaged. It is not a matter of saying that people who may not have the best product should be advantaged. No, it is actually saying that, if we took out the protections for insiders who are not providing a good product, which is clear in the case of ArriveCAN, then we would probably see more diversity in procurement. If we had a more open, democratic, accessible procurement process where we were not protecting incumbent bidders, I think we would see more indigenous-owned and minority-owned businesses being able to engage in the procurement process.

When we talk about this issue of economic reconciliation, providing jobs and opportunity for people of diverse backgrounds, one easy way to do that is, to coin a phrase, to remove the gatekeepers. We can break down the systems in place that are preventing people who are in a situation where they may not have generational money, privilege or access to government, but who have good ideas and who have started their own businesses, from being able to access government procurement.

Part of economic reconciliation is to authentically democratize procurement to allow the opportunity for more businesses in Canada that have not sold to the Government of Canada before to nonetheless pitch their product as the best product. The other thing we heard from the procurement ombudsman is that they actually had a system for disadvantaging those who present low prices. It is crazy. People who did not ask for enough money when they were selling their product to the government got cut out.

One can imagine how, for someone who has not sold to the government before, but who says that they know what they are doing, that they can build this app, that they have a great product and that they are going to charge less to try to get the business, to still make a decent return but to try to charge less, with the existing system that the government has put forward, that new entrant, who might be trying to pitch at a lower price, is actually disadvantaged in the evaluation system purely because of the low price he has charged.

We want to create jobs and opportunity for all Canadians. Part of how we do that is by removing the gatekeepers that prevent authentic diversity and inclusion in our procurement system.

I might be on the verge of being done. When I come back, I will have more to say about economic reconciliation, jobs and opportunity for indigenous Canadians and how Conservatives will remove the gatekeepers to help make that happen.

I know that there is some discussion of a possible UC motion to allow me to speak more, but I think I will save the surprise for when I come back.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really outstanding that we are still debating this bill. I consulted my notes from the last time I addressed the chamber to speak to the bill, which was November 30, 2022. At that time, I highlighted the fact that the bill was missing some important pieces. Specifically, it was missing economic reconciliation as a factor. Economic reconciliation was heard about throughout testimony on the bill. It is something I bring up because it went through and was brought forward by a number of witnesses, yet the bill still contains no actual piece on economic reconciliation. I believe strongly that economic reconciliation is going to be an integral part in how we go forward and move with these kinds of pieces.

The fact that the bill is still here, and that we are still in the process of debating it after having numerous amendments, speaks to the failure to do consultations in advance. I am very proud of my Conservative colleagues and all members of the INAN committee who worked hard to make the bill so much better in the committee process. Then the bill went to the Senate and was amended further. It was amended because the government failed to do adequate consultations before bringing it forward.

In my estimation, and from everything I have been able to ascertain, that tells me that the bill was not done properly to begin with. Typically, good bills with adequate consultation do not actually require that many amendments or need to be in the chamber for this length of time. This speaks to the government's overall failure to consult, and its having a very paternalistic approach to pieces. I am frustrated tonight that we are still here debating the bill. I am frustrated, on behalf of many indigenous people I have talked to in my riding, that economic reconciliation still has not come to pass.

I think this is an important piece because the track record on the legislation before us should be noteworthy. Even though there is cause for some congratulations, and indeed I truly believe this is an important step forward, it has been very frustrating that we brought forward indigenous partners and we brought forward stakeholders who highlighted a missing piece of economic reconciliation, and it was completely blindsided.

We also heard that a not-for-profit organization would be established to monitor, evaluate and report the progress being made toward reconciliation, and that it would respond to call to action number 53 made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is worth noting that during the entire year of 2023, the Liberal government that purports to be there for indigenous people and says that is its number one relationship, did not accomplish a single TRC call to action. In fact, there are 94 calls to action, and 81 are still unfulfilled. The piece of legislation before us, had the Liberals put the work in from the beginning, would have fulfilled one of the calls to action.

The problem was not stalling by the Conservatives; Conservatives worked quite collaboratively with many members of the House to ensure that things were going forward so the bill would be the best possible piece of legislation. It is just frustrating that we see there would be an oversight body, yet we are still missing the mark when it comes to some of the pieces. Conservatives have been supportive of the legislation and the very concept around it from the very beginning. I want to highlight that fact. My speaking poorly of this is in the hopes that at some point, when a future parliamentarian looks at this piece of the bill, they will see there were concerns being raised when it was first brought forward that highlight the missing piece.

I have had the great fortune, in my time as an elected official, to get to know Dr. Willie Littlechild. He was a chief. He is now a Companion of the Order of Canada. He was a member of Parliament for Wetaskiwin—Rimby. He is truly such an amazing, wonderful man. He is a great hockey player. He has pretty much done it all.

Dr. Wilton Littlechild, when this bill was first introduced in 2022, said the council will be an important tool for Indigenous Peoples to hold the government accountable to achieving meaningful change for our peoples.” He also said, “We need to know where we are today as far as reconciliation and how do we measure the advancement of reconciliation”.

As with almost all Liberal initiatives, the establishment of this council sounds like a very good thing. Indeed, in many respects it is, but now we come to the first problem with Bill C-29. The act stipulates that the first board of directors would be selected by the minister in collaboration with a transitional committee. However, the transitional committee was selected by the minister in December of 2021, so this raises some pretty serious questions about how independent the new council would be. I have seen the body of this council. It is made up of members such as Dr. Wilton Littlechild, so I do not have any concern with the members who have been put on this council. However, I believe the mechanism by which it was done was not right.

When I was a kid, my mum used to say the ends do not justify the means. One has to do things with the right intention along one's path for it to be ultimately good. I try, in every step I take, to remind myself of the important words of my mom that the ends do not justify the means. While I think that the committee and the composition of that council have some amazing, wonderful people who will really help our country move toward reconciliation, it was not done in a consultative way, in a way that would move us further toward reconciliation. That is problematic to me because the ends do not justify the means.

There have been so many concerns brought forward by my Conservative colleagues. I know the NDP brought forward many amendments when it went to committee, as did others. It seems to have been almost rushed. It is whatever is the most convenient for the government at the time.

I understand that this is complicated. Reconciliation is not static. One phrase Dr. Wilton Littlechild has used frequently has really stuck with me. He said that it is not reconciliation, but “reconciliaction”. It is the idea that we need action. We cannot just sit here and continue to consult, continue to get stuck in the bureaucratic processes and the red tape. We really need to reach past that. How can I make things better?

The fact that we are still here in this chamber more than a year after I gave my last speech on this, still having these conversations about how this bill is better than it was, but still not as good as I believe it could be, is very frustrating. If it is frustrating to me, it has to be intensely frustrating for those who have been working toward this.

One interesting piece about this bill is that it is very prescriptive. It sets aside three permanent seats, one for the Assembly of First Nations, one for the ITK and one for the MNC. They are three national organizations that the Liberal government has almost exclusively dealt with when it comes to indigenous issues in the country.

One thing that I have heard very clearly in my role as the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is that the AFN does not speak for the first nations, specifically in Treaty 8. They speak more broadly, but chiefs who I have chatted with, who I have had an opportunity to sit down with and have conversations with have told me that the AFN does not represent them, so consulting with the AFN is not consulting with them. They believe that is an issue when it comes to their inherent treaty rights. I believe this is indicative of the overall issue we are facing when it comes to how the government is approaching some of its dealings with indigenous people. It is going to some of these larger, umbrella organizations rather than having what could be sometimes some very tough conversations.

We have to do very difficult things as people, but people, I believe, are able to do tough things. I try to live in a space where, if I have something difficult ahead of me, I try not to kick it down the road. I try to deal with it in the moment because the faster I can deal with something difficult, the more likely I am going to learn and the more likely I am going to stop and live in that space of discomfort until I can find a space of magic.

The fact that the government is looking to these big national organizations rather than sitting down with each and every chief to have these conversations, to me, highlights perhaps a lack of reconciliation. I know that would require a whole bunch of work, and I do understand that there are some pragmatic challenges with this, but the fact that there is not representation of women or children designated on the council is problematic.

I have had an opportunity, through the years since I was elected and in my time just casually growing up in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, to have many important conversations with a variety of first nations elders and hear how important the relationship of women was in their society, how the matriarchs of the community help guide how the decision-making processes are, how sacred women are and how sacred the power of women is. The fact that there is no space for women specifically in this takes away from that sacred recognition that exists in many indigenous communities of the power of women, the power of children and the power of these positions.

It is really frustrating that there are not on-the-ground communities, because when someone is sitting there and making the decision from Ottawa, they do not necessarily understand the reality on the ground in a community like Fort McMurray or Thunder Bay or Timmins. They are a bit further insulated from those nitty-gritty minutia problems. It is often in the nitty-gritty minutia that we can find the simple solutions.

They failed to include them, despite the fact that Conservatives put forward many amendments trying to include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which represents the 800,000 off-reserve indigenous people in this country. That failure overlooks the important fact that indigenous people do not just live on reserves. Many have chosen to move off reserve, and many have not chosen to move off reserve but were forcibly removed from their reserves. The reality is that there are over 800,000 people in this country who are first nations who do not live on reserve. Through this process, their voices are not prescribed into this bill as being included, so it is very frustrating. In fact, Kim Beaudin, vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, noted, “Bill C-29 is really very, very disappointing...the federal government has ghosted the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.”

“Ghosted” is the term being used. That is a slang kind of comment meaning when someone just stops talking to a group. I do not understand how a government that is trying to move forward with reconciliation would leave aside the voices of people who are living off reserve because theirs perhaps are more difficult to include.

In fact, Kim Beaudin later said that exclusion from the council was more than just simple oversight by the government. He said it was part of an ongoing strategy to exclude off-reserve and non-treaty status people from the decision-making process. Again, I quote: “One thing that is really frustrating is that this is a divide and conquer policy that’s been around for hundreds of years by the federal government and these organizations—ITK, MNC, AFN—they’re playing right into that playbook.”

Those are not my words. Those are the words of the vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Kim Beaudin.

As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, Conservatives support this bill. We believe that reconciliation is critically important, but it is worth highlighting the fact that the ends do not justify the means. I believe that the means of preparing this legislation are part of why we are still here, more than a year later, still having these conversations and still in this space, because the work was not done before the legislation was brought forward.

They did not make it clean and neat, because it was easier not to. As was pointed out, it was divide and conquer. I do not know if that necessarily was the case, and I do not want to assume why members made certain decisions, but it is now pointed out. It has been pointed out many times by members of various parties in this House that voices were excluded.

I am just going to continue laying it down there, because it is important to highlight. Sometimes a mistake is not made intentionally. Sometimes it is an unintentional mistake. However, I was taught that if one has made a mistake, whether it was intentional or not, then one has to do better. When we know better, we do better. When something has been brought to our attention as not as good as it could be, we try to make it right. The fact that the government has failed to do what it can to make it right is frustrating. It is frustrating to a number of indigenous people who have brought forward their concerns to me on this bill. They feel like they have not been heard, that this is not their version of reconciliation.

As important as this bill is, it also highlights the failure of the Liberal government to listen to Canadians, and to listen meaningfully and to consult with indigenous peoples. This is, of course, not the first time we have spoke about the Liberals' inability to consult and listen.

Most recently, the Chiefs of Ontario and Attawapiskat First Nation filed a lawsuit against the federal government over what they allege is discriminatory and anti-reconciliatory application of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to first nations.

This is a troubling pattern that we have been seeing, over and over again, with the government, where it is not spending the time to understand what its jurisdictional space is. It steps over the line, and then instead of correcting it, it waits until it goes all the way to a court, the most expensive option. We are seeing increased costs. We are seeing a space where people are waiting in limbo for court decisions to be made, because the government went too far. It goes too far, time and time again.

In this particular case, while non-indigenous taxpayers get approximately 90% of charges refunded through tax rebates, this is not the case for first nations members, because property and income on reserve are tax exempt. Most indigenous people do not use the income tax system if they are living on reserve. Therefore, chiefs are now demanding a judicial review of the policy, something that they said would have been unnecessary if federal officials had bothered to engage with them to begin with.

We are in an expensive, costly court battle over something that probably could have been avoided had there been some actual meaningful consultation and dialogue. That is the difference. Consultation does not necessarily mean that everyone is going to get their way. It means that there is an understanding of the arguments, and perhaps someone can make a change to identify those concerns and prevent them from having to go to court, time and time again.

However, the Liberal government seems to be more keen on satisfying its agenda than sitting down and doing the tough work, and actually having those tough conversations.

In contrast to the Liberal government, Conservatives are listening to first nations. Last week, we announced support for an optional first nations resource charge that would enable first nations to take back control of their resources and their money. This is a first nations-led solution to a made-in-Ottawa problem. First nations and the First Nations Tax Commission developed the plan, brought it to the Conservatives, and we accepted.

Putting first nations back in control of their money and letting them bring home the benefits of their resources would help get local buy-in for good projects to get ahead. Only common-sense Conservatives would fight for real economic reconciliation by supporting first nations taking back control of their money and their lives.

Bill C-29 is deeply flawed, as I have pointed out. Conservatives have proposed numerous amendments to improve it. I am very proud of the work that my colleagues have done to improve this legislation. Many of the amendments have been rejected by the Liberal-NDP government, which continues to implement an “Ottawa knows best” policy, which generally fails to accomplish their goals, no matter how laudable they might be.

On this front, we will continue to support Bill C-29, but not without some very serious reservations on this very seriously flawed bill.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing out that the member did mention Winnipeg Centre. I assumed the comments were made toward me when he said my riding, but let us leave that.

Going back to what I was saying, the fact that he felt a need to defend himself in the middle of my speech is another example of what I had requested in my point of order, which was for him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to leave his white male privilege at the door and not to tell indigenous women what to talk about when they are talking about indigenous kids.

We are here today because of the violent kidnapping of our kids, which has had lasting impacts on our families. It goes back to the dark cloud our parents and families felt when they robbed our kids, leaving our communities silent. Can members imagine being in a community without laughter and without play? I cannot imagine that and not to have the privilege of being able to raise my son. For no reason other than who I am and where I was born, the government is able to steal my child and to have that legislated. That is why these amendments are so critical to legislation if we are going to reconcile and to honour this new bill, Bill C-29. That is why amending legislation so it is compatible, especially on matters impacting our children, is so critical. I would argue, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the government violating its own law and its own constitution by not ensuring legislation is compatible with Bill C-15, as we saw with the child care legislation in the last session that we managed to get through committee.

Now the government is going against amendments to make the legislation compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is trying to overturn it in the House. If the Liberal government is not willing to give our kids back when we have more kids in child welfare than we did at the height of residential schools and when we know that 90% of kids in care are indigenous and that all this new adoptive care legislation will probably not apply to 90% of parents, which once again will leave the financial burden on families to care for their children, then the government is not ready to reconcile.

The government took over 13 non-compliance orders in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling to let them know that it was intentionally racially discriminating against indigenous and first nations kids on reserve on matters impacting child welfare. It finally came up with a settlement that was $17 billion less than what was ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling. Then, I have to listen to the government talk all the time about how it wants reconciliation, when we constantly have to fight for the fact that our kids deserve the same as other kids in the country, and I have to go to committee and fight for the EI legislation.

I would like to, once again, read to the House the amendment that would allow us to uphold Canadian law and that was passed at committee, even though the Liberal members abstained from the vote and outright voted against it during the national child care legislation. They are now trying to overturn it in the House because it was passed at committee.

I will read the amendment, which states:

For greater certainty, in this Part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a claimant for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a claimant, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the claimant primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.

I will refer to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the NDP's attempt to make this legislation compatible. It says:

Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Article 20

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.

That would include equal benefits under EI.

It goes on to state:

Article 21

1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.

2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

Once again, like The Twilight Zone, I am here fighting to bring our kids home. I am here having to plead with the government as to whether it is really ready to reconcile or not. I have been told there is a bill, Bill C-54, that the government will put forward and that it wants to consult with indigenous people. My reply is for the government to find me one indigenous person who would argue against the right for them to raise their children in their own traditions and customs. The kinds of things we have to consult on, basic human rights, being used as a stalling mechanism is another form of institutional racism. I will provide a couple of examples.

How do indigenous people feel about clean drinking water? Let us consult on that for four years. How do indigenous people feel about toilets and how fire trucks are going to get to their communities so their houses do not burn down? The government asks them to say how they feel about that. Find me one indigenous person who feels they need to consult about human rights and life and death matters at every turn. I can provide a whole list. I can give an encyclopedia of them, in fact. I can point out the Indian Act that the government developed without the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

I can name a million resource extraction projects where militarized police are smashing in the doors of indigenous women, being called out by the United Nations where there was no consultation, yet when we ask to bring our kids home, when we say we want to uphold Canadian law so this new legislation is aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, something the government is obliged to do, what does it say? It thanks me for my work and says it needs to consult on it.

What do I call that? I call it systemic racism. What do I call child welfare? I call it a pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. What do I call that? A pipeline to the justice system. What do I call the sixties scoop? I call it a loss of identity, the disruption of our families that we will never get back and the ongoing genocide of our families.

This is shameful, and I am going to call out this shame unapologetically, because it is time for all governments, without excuse, to bring our kids home, period. It is time for our kids and our families to get the same resources that are afforded to other families in this country.

Do you know what I think the problem is, Mr. Speaker? I am going to be fully transparent here. It is money. Because 90% of kids in care are indigenous, the government is going to fight it every step of the way, like it did the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Do you know what that tells me? It tells me that we are less than, still, in this country. Our kids are not as valuable. Our women and our 2SLGBTQIA+ people will continue to go missing and be murdered. Why? It is because the government has completed zero calls for justice in 2023.

They finished 13 altogether out of the 81 that they are responsible for as the federal government, yet I had to hear a speech about the dark cloud that I place over their heads. I will tell you something. I will tell you a dark cloud.

I have a friend whose loved one was just murdered in an incident involving grotesque police brutality. That is a dark cloud. That is called systemic racism.

If that is dark, if people say, “Oh, you want your clip, Leah. There, you got your clip, I heard,” and if that is what they think it is about, I do not care. We are going to bring our kids home, and I am going to fight this government or any other government that comes in its place to give us the resources we need to bring our kids home.

I will not be questioned by a member whose riding has the highest number of kids in care in the whole country, justifying and celebrating how well his government is doing, when I am now, once again, fighting his government so that our families do not have to live in poverty. That is disgusting, and it is racist.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise today to talk about Bill C-29. I want to let the House know that the NDP wants the bill to pass. I am always very honoured to work with my good colleague, the member for Nunavut. She has put a lot of effort in to amend the legislation to make it much stronger.

If we want to reconcile in this country, we must focus on children and families. I say that because I want to go back to why we have to have these discussions in the House to begin with; it is for the country to try to reconcile, as was affirmed in the Haida Nation case, the sovereignty of indigenous people with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown. I share that because it was an assumed sovereignty that began a violent genocide of indigenous people in Canada, which began with the dispossession of lands and led to the dispossession and kidnapping of our children and taking them off to resident schools, where they experienced all kinds of abuses.

It is important to note that, as we sit here in the House debating the bill before us, there are more kids now in the child welfare system than there were at the height of residential schools. We will not reconcile in this country until all governments make a concerted effort to bring our kids home. However, I worked on the legislation in committee making amendments, and that does not happen in real time, even though in the last session the Liberal government passed Bill C-15.

I would like to read article 5 of Bill C-15, under the title “Consistency”. It says, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” I share that because at every turn on matters impacting children, the Liberal government continues to not support the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people to make decisions about our own children. I will give an example: The national child care strategy, until the NDP amendment, did not support the inclusion of honouring the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples to make decisions on matters impacting our children.

Why is this significant? First, it is because the government is now obliged to ensure that all legislation is compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Second, it is because one of the most serious violations that has reverberated in our communities and has had lasting impacts is when they robbed us of our children and shipped them off to residential schools. I have said in speeches before that, as a mother, I cannot even imagine the pain that reverberated in our communities when those communities fell silent each September when they stole our children, many of whom never returned home.

I share that because every day, even now, there is a growing movement of residential school denialism, where survivors and descendants have to confirm the fact that genocide did occur in residential schools and that many of our children did not in fact return home but are buried around schools around the country. What school needs a graveyard? What school is built with a graveyard attached?

There was nothing about the residential schools that was about education. I say that because although the government talks a good game of reconciliation, and although it passed Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, it is one thing to pass a bill but another thing to change colonial behaviour, a tradition of colonial violence in this place. That includes something I had to experience today, having the member for Winnipeg North lecture me about the dark cloud I place on this place when I talk about the ongoing genocide of indigenous women and girls, and when I complain about the fact that the government has not moved fast enough around the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise and speak to Bill C-29.

This flawed bill was the government's attempt, over nine years in office, to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 through 56. Indeed, since 2015, the Liberal government, for all its rhetoric on reconciliation, continues to ignore indigenous voices. It breaks promises and perpetuates the archaic, broken and paternalistic “Ottawa knows best” approach to indigenous issues.

We do not have to look very far to see this.

The Chiefs of Ontario, which represents more than 130 first nations in the province, filed for a judicial review because this Liberal coalition government refuses to listen to indigenous communities and axe the carbon tax. The first nations argue that the imposition of the price on carbon is leaving their communities worse off than others in Canada and breaching the principles of true reconciliation.

Abram Benedict, the Grand Chief for the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne said, “People feel that their rights are being violated.” The chiefs want the federal government to redevelop the policy with their communities by either exempting first nations people from the price on carbon or allowing them to recoup all the costs associated with the system.

Many first nations members cannot benefit from the rebates delivered under the pricing mechanism, because the payments are linked to income taxes, which are not collected from individuals working on reserves. The leadership also argues that the price on carbon places a burden on their constitutionally protected rights to hunt, harvest or fish on their traditional territory because of the added fuel costs for all-terrain vehicles, trucks, boats and snowmobiles.

Furthermore, with respect to the long-anticipated national loan guarantee program, the Liberal government has remained silent on the details. Indigenous leaders are very concerned that oil and gas will not be included, sidelining over $300 billion in projects over the next decade and $40 billion in LNG projects ready to go next year. Indigenous leaders are asking for details, but this government refuses to engage with them and give them the details they actually need to plan.

This is not reconciliation. This is alienation.

This leads me to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act. Speaking previously, I made it clear that it was important to use a consensus-building approach to improve this piece of legislation. Bill C-29 deserved, in its formation, a responsible look at areas where it needed improvement.

At second reading I pointed out that Bill C-29's foundation was cracked and would need some care and attention at committee if the government hopes to provide a workable council that is respected by all leaders, all communities and all organizations across Canada. I wanted to make sure that all five indigenous national organizations were represented, not just the three that were in the original bill, notably the Native Women's Association of Canada, NWAC, and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, both of which were ignored.

My colleague, the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, added that he wanted the following addressed: The transparency and independence in the selection process of the board of directors; words that were purposely vague to avoid accountability; the lack of any measurable outcomes; the fact that it took over four years to bring the bill to the House in the first place; and, of course, lastly, that the Prime Minister should be the one responding to the council's annual report, as was the direction in the call to action 56.

In 2015 the Prime Minister claimed that building a good relationship with indigenous peoples would be the government's top priority. I am not sure what the word “priority” means to the Liberal Prime Minister, but to me it does not mean tabling any indigenous-related legislation at the last possible minute. Bill C-38 was introduced December 14, 2022, the last sitting day of a House sitting session. Bill C-53 was introduced on June 21, 2023, the last day of a House sitting session. Bill C-29, of course, was introduced June 22, 2022, which was the last day of a session. I do not know about my colleagues, but the trend certainly does not scream “priority” to me. Indigenous people deserve more than a last-minute Liberal effort.

Need I say that, while the Prime Minister would love to take credit for being the first to advance reconciliation, it was actually the previous Conservative government that finally issued a formal apology on behalf of Canada to all indigenous people across the country? Actions speak louder than words, which is why I remind the House that 17 of the 19 amendments Conservatives put forward were passed at committee. It is the job of the official opposition to improve legislation where possible and to make it representative of all voices, and that is exactly what members on this side of the House did. Unfortunately, there was one amendment we proposed that was disproportionately voted down by the other parties, and that is what I would like to discuss for a few minutes.

One of the most glaring issues with Bill C-29 is the lack of representation on the national council for reconciliation. The bill sets aside three seats for the AFN, ITK and the MNC, three national organizations that the Liberal government deals with almost exclusively when it comes to indigenous issues across the country. It chose to ignore the other two major organizations, NWAC and CAP.

At committee, Conservatives got a motion passed to have both organizations recognized in the same manner as the AFN, ITK and the MNC, yet when the bill was reported back to the House, the Liberal-NDP coalition chose to deliberately vote against the will of its members on committee and remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from the bill. The Liberal-NDP coalition chose to ignore the voices of large swaths of urban and poor people. CAP represents over 800,000 off-reserve indigenous voices, yet it has no voice when it comes to reconciliation. It has been alienated by the government and its supporters.

The Conservative senators in the other place tried hard to rectify this, but again the Prime Minister made sure his Liberal senators defeated that amendment. I often hear in meetings with indigenous leaders about the importance of economic reconciliation, not just to address their own issues with their own resources but also to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour to a people who have had it stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act.

Conservatives also put forward an amendment to add a seat on the board of directors for someone from an indigenous organization that is focused on economic reconciliation. With many options available from a whole list of organizations that are all doing great work in this sphere, finding a well-established organization that has done historic work in creating economic opportunity for indigenous people would not have been a barrier. The lack of support for this amendment, it should be pointed out, came at the expense of not listening to multiple witnesses who clearly voiced their approval for the inclusion of an economic lens being a part of this board. To ignore these voices discredits the very process of reconciliation.

As the shadow minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, I hear regularly from indigenous groups and leaders across the country how important economic development and prosperity are to reconciliation. Having members with fiscal expertise on a commission directly focused on advancing reconciliation seems like a key component to ensuring an economic lens is at the forefront of their work.

Instead, obstruction comes from the Liberal-NDP coalition, which looks down upon Conservatives who encourage economic reconciliation. We need to establish an economic national dialogue with indigenous leadership and organizations to remove the bureaucratic barriers to economic prosperity that exist at Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, with a goal of phasing out these government bureaucracies altogether.

Conservatives are moving in this direction, with the recent announcement of the grassroots, indigenous-led first nations resource charge. Common-sense Conservatives are ready to dismantle the “Ottawa knows best” archaic and paternalistic way of doing things. For hundreds of years, first nations have suffered under a broken colonial system that takes power away from their communities and places it in the hands of politicians in Ottawa.

The Indian Act hands over all reserve lands and money to the federal government. This means that first nations must go to Ottawa to ask for the tax revenues collected from resource projects on their lands. This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists, not first nations. The direct results of this “Ottawa knows best” approach have been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, and unsafe drinking water.

The first nations resource charge is a signal to indigenous peoples that the Conservatives recognize the need to correct the fiscal imbalance between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. This would ensure that they receive stable, annual fiscal benefits and to advance reconciliation by promoting first nations self-determination and economic development.

We tried to do this with Bill C-29 as well, yet the Liberals were not interested in hearing the voices of off-reserve indigenous peoples or even considering economic reconciliation on a national committee tasked with reconciliation.

Conservatives continue to observe Liberal and NDP MPs aggressively challenging indigenous leaders who appear as witnesses at the indigenous and northern affairs committee, advocating for economic reconciliation. Unfortunately, I find myself asking why. It seems there is an aversion to even having a discussion on economic reconciliation. This tells me that something does not add up.

What is it about indigenous peoples being the creators of their own destiny that Liberal MPs dislike? What is it about empowering the creation of healthy, strong and vibrant communities through prosperity that they do not like? What is it about using own-source revenue from true partnerships to solve long-standing social issues that they dislike? What is it about leaving behind the destructive grip of poverty to offer hope and opportunity to future generations that they dislike? Why will the Liberal government not listen to what indigenous people are trying to tell them? Sadly, the answer is that they are more concerned with political power and control.

By imposing their own views, rather than listening to indigenous voices, they create the same environment that indigenous peoples have lived under for far too long in this country. One group's world views and political opinions are forced upon another group.

This past week, on many different occasions, I heard the Minister of Indigenous Services claim that her department is focused on co-development with first nations. The Prime Minister even stood in this House and used the term “co-develop” as well.

This sounds like another Liberal buzzword used to create the illusion of equal partnership between indigenous leaders and Canada. In fact, in response to the use of the term, first nations leaders have pushed back and said that they are not sure who the Liberal government is co-developing with, because it is sure not them.

We heard from the national chief, Chief Elmer St. Pierre, of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples that “Reconciliation must start with inclusion”. He added, “Despite the existence of five National Indigenous Organizations, the Liberal Government seems to be engaging in partisan politics by excluding CAP and the voices of urban Indigenous peoples.”

“The government's attempt to divide and conquer by selectively recognizing certain indigenous groups is deeply concerning,” stated Kim Beaudin, CAP national vice-chief. He went on: “Reconciliation cannot be confined to reserves alone, as the majority of Indigenous peoples now reside in urban and rural areas, demanding their voices to be heard.”

What an embarrassing indictment of the Liberal government this is. To make matters worse, one of the three original council members, the ITK, an organization that represents Inuit peoples, has withdrawn its support of Bill C-29. The ITK's president, Natan Obed, fears that the reconciliation body created by the bill could undermine ongoing Inuit work to build a direct relationship with the federal government and advance Inuit rights and interests. He says that the bill, as it stands, also does little to make the federal government accountable for fulfilling its obligations on reconciliation.

On this issue of “co-development”, which the Liberals insist is how they do business, President Obed said: “It has been debatable on the Inuit side on whether or not we would describe how we've interacted with the federal government as co-developed.... These terms are largely subjective and we wanted to make them more clear.”

Chief St. Pierre was much less forgiving, saying, “This extraordinary move by the Liberals is a slap in the face to thousands of survivors who live off-reserve.... For seven years now, the Liberals have trumpeted the importance of reconciliation, but this exclusion reveals their true colours.”

It is time to fundamentally change the approach. Much of my work on this file was shared by my colleague, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. In fact, it was that member who shepherded Bill C-29 through the House, and I wanted to take a moment to thank him for his work on this file.

Out of respect for his work, I would like to share a story from his riding, which really highlights the changes that are already happening on the ground in northern Saskatchewan. Having spent time with Pelican Lake First Nation's Chief Peter Bill, RCMP and two of Pelican Lake's own community safety officers, the member asked how the newly established community safety officer program was going. Chief Bill replied that the community now has six full-time employees and its own fully equipped vehicles, and it is in the process of training more officers. The RCMP also explained how helpful the program had been in the overall safety of the community.

How did Pelican Lake First Nation pay for this community service officer program? In fact, it was their own-source revenue, which was generated from their forestry business. They invested the profits to assist the overall health of the community, instead of waiting around for years while the government and the bureaucrats plan; meet; make frameworks, charts and graphs; do benefit assessments and feasibility studies; or use the signing of MOUs for photo ops.

Later that day, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River was at Flying Dust First Nation to participate in a walk of solidarity with residential school survivors. On that walk, he saw the hockey rink that was built a few years ago and, beside it, the newly built 6,000-square-foot sporting goods store and facility called Snipe and Celly. If one looks in the other direction, one finds the new Petro-Canada gas station located right on the highway. For the member, it was a stark reminder of what the MLTC Cree vice-chief, Richard Derocher, had mentioned to him earlier that day, when he spoke positively on reconciliation. He shared that his wish was that, one day, when people were either visiting or driving through the area, they would not be able to recognize when they were leaving Flying Dust First Nation and entering Meadow Lake.

Generating prosperity through economic development works. It is a shame that this was not recognized by the government. The existing model of federal public servants determining who is and who is not ready for self-governance needs to change. Reconciliation must be centred on the future of indigenous peoples, not what is in the best interest of the Liberal government. By modernizing our approach to indigenous partnerships, we will modernize Canada and usher in a new age of economic prosperity and equality of opportunity.

Conservatives promote and believe in economic reconciliation. It is the solution to eradicating poverty and, with it, the social ills that poverty creates. With control put back in their hands, indigenous peoples can begin to manage prosperity instead of poverty and take concrete steps toward healing through self-determination.

Conservatives support off-reserve and non-status indigenous peoples. Unlike the Liberals and the NDP, we have demonstrated this publicly with our support of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples' inclusion on the national council for reconciliation. The Liberals and their NDP coalition partners effectively silenced the voices of the 800,000 off-reserve and non-status indigenous peoples when they voted against amendments that would have included CAP on the council. Let the record show that it was the Liberal, NDP and Bloc members who stood against the addition of economic reconciliation to the national council, while Conservatives recognized the importance of consultation and of hearing from as many diverse indigenous voices as possible.

To conclude, I am proud of the work our Conservative team did in making Bill C-29 a better version than what originally came to the House.