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.

[Michael Schintz]

One of the points I want to touch on.... You referred to the 2023 agreements. If you were to do a word search in that agreement, you would note the only reference to an indigenous governing body is in the section dealing with Bill C-92. That's the singular reference.

In this instance, one of the challenges in the drafting is that there's an accepted definition of an indigenous governing body as our counsel has noted. That definition is somewhat broader, because it contemplates, for example, that there is an indigenous governing body that might represent a band. In this instance, we're not speaking about bands; we're speaking about these Métis governments. To include a definition, one of the challenges would be that there would be a reluctance to want to depart from the accepted definition found in Bill C-92.

What we're looking to suggest with clause 8 here is that these are indigenous governments. They've been authorized to represent rights holders, those who hold section 35 rights. Those are the two key components of the definition of an indigenous governing body as found in Bill C-92. I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with Bill C-29 offhand.

I'm trying to answer your question, Mr. Vidal. I don't know if that does or doesn't. Please let me know.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I'm sorry. Why add the term, then? It already says “Métis government”. Why add the term? Why add the addition that it's an...?

My sense is that there's no definition in the bill, or there's nothing in the definitions section—I think that's in clause 2 of the bill, which has the definitions that we're going to talk about later—that defines “Indigenous governing body” differently from what I would accept.

In fact, the exact same definition that you talk about in Bill C-92 or Bill C-29, which is intended to have a broader purpose, is the same definition that is in the February 2023 agreements for both MNA and MN-S, although it's not in the agreement for MNO.

Why include the term in the first place?

Where I'm going with this is.... We've heard concerns from people from all three provinces—very much less so in Saskatchewan, I must admit—that they're being included in something without their choice. We talked about the definition of communities, peoples and collectivities. Further down that road, in the agreements, there are definitions of citizenship, for example. Maybe if we use citizenship as a definition in some of these things, we could alleviate some of....

My concern is that, with this broader definition, by adding the words “Indigenous governing body”, we're broadening the definition of Métis government to include groups of people who don't necessarily want to....

There was discussion with Mr. Viersen and some of the witnesses who were here about both the Métis communities and the locals within the provinces. They feel they're being included in this without their consent, knowledge or willingness. Is this why they're feeling that? Is it because of this broader definition?

I don't get how you can argue that it's a narrower definition here, when it's exactly the same term and there is no definition that differentiates that.

Does that make sense? Maybe somewhere along the way, we should add a definition that then clarifies that.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Would you make the same argument about what the Senate is proposing on Bill C-29? Should what it's coming back to us with in this definition be included? That would be broader than the intent in this piece of legislation.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have a couple questions for the officials today around clause 8 that I think are very legitimate. I want to start by reading the part that I want to flesh out a little bit. The clause itself starts:

The Government of Canada recognizes that a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule is an Indigenous governing body that is authorized to act on behalf of the Métis collectivity set out in column 2 opposite that Métis government

If you go to the schedule, it's pretty obvious what that means. The question I have is around the use or definition of the term “Indigenous governing body”. There's no definition of “Indigenous governing body” in this piece of legislation.

Over the weekend, I did some digging and some research. To be honest with you, what triggered my digging on this was that I got the notice of the Senate amendments to Bill C-29. One of the amendments that the Senate proposed for Bill C-29—which I believe is going to be on the agenda sometime this week, but those are moving targets as well—is an amendment to include under “governments” the connection to “Indigenous governing bodies”. That caused me to look a little further for whether there is an accepted definition of that, what it means and how it expands what we're thinking about in clause 8 here. I went further to try to figure out what these definitions mean.

I went to the Métis National Council website, where it has an “Indigenous Governing Body” definition in reference to Bill C-92. That took me to Bill C-92, and there's a definition added in Bill C-92 that defines that—so there are so many other examples.

I said, “Okay, so where do we get the definition, and what do we accept as that definition for this bill?” I thought, “Okay, let's go back to the agreements,” because this legislation is driven by the February agreements with each of the three bodies. Interestingly enough, there is a definition of “Indigenous governing body” in two of those three agreements but not in the third. If we flesh out that definition that Bill....

By the way, these definitions across all these other places are identical. I think they're the same. I want to read one of those definitions. On the Métis National Council website, it says:

An Indigenous Governing Body, is defined in the federal Act, as

“A council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community, or people that hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (section 1).”

I'm trying to understand why this term has been added in this clause when the schedule very clearly talks about Métis governments and the collectivities that they represent. Now we're saying that they're also an indigenous governing body, which is a much broader definition, if I read these definitions. It includes other groups. It includes people. It includes communities. It doesn't anywhere in the definition talk about collectivities. It talks about....

Could you clarify for me and this committee the purpose of adding “Indigenous governing body” in clause 8? I did a word search, and that's the only place in the legislation where that term is used. In fact, the word “Indigenous” is only used, I think, five times in the legislation. Two of the times are in the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations' title, and two of them are in the title of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The only other place in the legislation where “Indigenous” appears is in clause 8 in “Indigenous governing body”.

I would open it up to our experts here to try to explain to me why that term is there. Then, that'll probably lead me to try to flesh this out on my own a little bit, if you don't mind.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, with amendments, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you.

I'm going to interject, because I am seriously running out of time. I want to ask one more question before they kick me out of this place today.

This has taken a long time to get here. In my office, we've monitored some indigenous legislation over the last couple of years. You talked about Bill C-29, which was introduced on the last day before the summer break. Bill C-38, which we finally debated last Friday, was introduced on the last day before last Christmas, and 11 months later we're actually debating it in the House of Commons. Bill C-53 was finally introduced on the last day before the summer break in June 2022.

This has taken a long time. I think there were several promises, dates and expectations created for your leaderships by the government.

I'm going to start with you, Michelle. You keep getting cut off by being last, so I'm going to start with you.

Do you want to comment at all on what you think took so long, why it took so long, or why it took until the very last minute, when I know this was promised several times in advance of that?

[Michelle LeClair]

I can add to that.

Thank you for the question, Lori.

We have been a self-governing people for hundreds of years. We have fought and fought. From Louis Riel losing his life to my own uncle dying on the last day of the Battle of Batoche, our people have gone through a lot.

When we talk about scattered communities.... In Saskatchewan, to get families off road allowance, they had this scheme whereby they could send them up north to a particular community of Green Lake. As those people got into the trains, their villages and their communities were burned. They watched that happen.

This is not something that we're fighting for all of a sudden. We've been fighting this for since the Battle of Seven Oaks in the early 1800s. We have been left out again and again. We've been treated like the poor cousins of somebody.

How does it affect our children and our grandchildren? It affects them in the same way as it has affected us, our grandparents and our great-grandparents in the way that they were treated. It doesn't speak to the intent of what section 25 and section 35 are supposed to do.

This is the beginning of a bill. This is just talking about governing ourselves and moving to where we need to in order get to a treaty. If we can't pass this bill, then we're not respecting the Canadian Constitution. We're picking and choosing which nations Canada wants to deal with. We're saying to Métis people, “I'm sorry; you're not quite as important as somebody else.”

That's not right. I hope that when we talk about reconciliation.... I just testified at an APPA meeting on Bill C-29, which is on reconciliation. This is reconciliation in action. Not only does it deal with reconciliation; it also deals with the UNDRIP. It deals with constitutional obligations that Canada has to us. If this bill fails, I believe it would be a tremendous black mark on this beautiful country we call Canada.

You can't pick and choose.

Indian Act

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important piece of legislation.

I would like to identify some of the time frames we see around indigenous legislation. Let us go back a couple of years to when Bill C-29 was introduced on June 22, the second-last day of the parliamentary session in 2022. Bill C-38, which we are talking about today, was introduced on December 14. We are now 11 months down the road and are finally starting to debate this very important piece of legislation. Bill C-53 was introduced on June 21, 2023, the very last day of the parliamentary session. In our office, we have a running comment about how we address indigenous legislation from the government: It is the “last-minute Liberals”. They are doing it at the last minute all the time.

The parliamentary secretary identified that there are some issues that still need to be dealt with. She identified the second-generation cut. There are several others that are identified in the engagement kit presented by this bill. If it was going to take 11 months to actually get this bill to the floor to debate, can she identify why we did not solve some of the other issues at the same time so we could speed up this process and solve some of the challenges she identified?

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Historic Places of Canada Act

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as the Bloc Québécois critic on indigenous affairs to shed some light on the bill currently before us, namely Bill C‑23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage.

I will not talk about everything in the bill. It is an update and a reworking of an act from 1985. As the indigenous affairs critic, I would like to draw specific attention to its reference to indigenous peoples. It is in the bill's preamble, in fact. It is one of the biggest changes to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I forgot to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my invaluable colleague, as my leader would say, the member for Terrebonne. Now back to my speech.

As I was saying, one of the major changes in the bill is the voice given to indigenous peoples. There is a reference to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, in the bill's preamble.

More specifically, the bill refers to call to action 79, which is quite long. To paraphrase, the idea is to work more and more with first nations so that they feel like they are active participants in everything that has to do with heritage. We are talking about parks and all the historic sites of commemoration or national interest.

There is also a reference to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The preamble is meant to respond to articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the declaration, which should, in theory, be implemented in the next few months. I know that the consultation process is over. This is a first step.

There are structural changes in the bill, for example, on the issue of powers and on the legislative framework for offences. I would like to focus on the issue of structure for the sake of consistency and out of respect. This still relates to what I just mentioned, specifically, the TRC's call to action 79 and articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That said, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill. The perfect is the enemy of the good, but we can improve it. In any event, that is the purpose of second reading and referring the bill to committee, where changes can be made. Even though we are in favour of the bill, I would like to raise a few points about its structure.

I want to clarify that I will be talking about two major changes. One of them is representation. Previously, the act did not give first nations representatives a seat at the table. Three positions are now being added to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Three new members will sit on the board. That is the first thing. It is in subclause 9(2) of the bill, which reads as follows:

Representatives for First Nations, Inuit and Métis

(2) The representatives appointed under paragraph 8(2)(b) are to be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister made after the Minister has consulted with a variety of Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of entities that represent the interests of Indigenous groups and their members.

That is the first thing. We are seeing some progress. I will come back to it later to suggest improvements that could be made with respect to representation.

Then there is also the issue of tenure of office. The relevant clause reads as follows:

10 (1) A member appointed by the Governor in Council holds office during pleasure for a term fixed by the Governor and Council of up to five years, but they continue to hold office until their successor is appointed.

Reappointment

(2) A member may be reappointed.

As I interpret it, a reappointed member would have no time limit or term limit.

Clearly, the fact that the board will have first nations, Métis and Inuit representatives is in itself an important change. Of course there are places of interest to them that they wish to preserve and that are meaningful for them and the population at large. We must also identify these places, learn about them and recognize their existence and importance.

That said, I worked on Bill C‑29, which provides for the establishment of a council whose purpose is to monitor the progress of reconciliation efforts. I thought that Bill C‑29 went much further than Bill C-23. Obviously, Bill C‑29 also stated that indigenous representatives needed a seat at the table, but first nations, Métis and Inuit communities were guaranteed a seat too. This bill mentions first nations, Métis and Inuit representatives, but the wording of subclause 9(2) does not guarantee that the Inuit, Métis and first nations will be represented. It is a possibility, but there is no indication that everyone will be at the table. That is something I wanted to raise.

There is also the issue of the process. Will all due respect, I find that the process is unclear. Of course, the Governor in Council will be able to take part in the recommendation, but we still do not know which indigenous governing bodies will be consulted. Once again, does this mean that the Métis, Inuit and first nations peoples will all be consulted, or just a few groups chosen at random? The same applies to the question of indigenous interest groups. We have no idea how inclusive this will be. The preamble says that one of the aims of the bill is inclusivity. Yes, there is some opportunity for inclusivity, but there is no guarantee that each of the various indigenous interest groups or governing bodies will be represented.

Then, there is the tenure of office. Individuals will be appointed rather than elected. In my view, the fact that there may be changes and that the deck may be shuffled at some point is a good thing, it could create new energy and at least give the impression of greater representativeness. In this respect, I would like to make a comparison with the clauses of the current version of Bill C-29 regarding nominations. It is not exactly the same thing, but there is a guarantee that a member of the board may be elected only after being nominated by the Assembly of First Nations, by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, therefore the Inuit, by the Métis National Council, and by the Native Women’s Association of Canada.

In Bill C-29, there is an attempt at representativeness, and there is also a guarantee that specific groups will be consulted. Nothing is left to chance. I am not saying that it is perfect, because it is not up to me to say whether indigenous groups feel represented or not. It is up to them to decide. However, here we are at least trying to cast the widest net possible, and we are offering guarantees to all three groups. That is something.

The same applies to the term of office. Bill C-29 allows for a maximum of two terms. After that, there will be changes to the board. I feel that Bill C-23 might be stronger if it was modeled on Bill C-29. This is only a small part of the bill, but I wanted to mention it because of the whole issue of consultation, which is crucial for the first nations. Out of respect for the first nations, and for the sake of inclusivity and transparency, I think that, when it comes to Bill C-23, we would be wise to look at the work done on Bill C-29 to ensure a fair and diverse representation of all three groups of indigenous peoples.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

If you could do that, that would be great for us as we do our report, just to see where that money is being spent. Then we can account for some of the comments made by other people in the program.

You talked about the bill being passed in June 2019. We just heard from the commissioner of indigenous languages here, in the hour prior. He hopes to be fully up and running this summer. I believe that was his target. Back when we looked at Bill C-29, one of the patterns or one of the things that we were challenged with was the time frame on getting the work done.

This was approved in June 2019. We are now in February 2023, and he's still.... I think that in his words he called it “setting up shop”. He's still working at setting up shop. I guess my question for you is, do you feel that's an appropriate time frame? If we're going to place importance on reconciliation and if we're going to place importance on languages, that seems like a long time to get the aspects of the bill that seem very important up and running.

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this context, independent oversight is absolutely key. I welcome the House's support of Bill C-29 to create a national council for reconciliation, which would be able to monitor, in particular, the TRC calls to action.

The government is also open to appointing an ombudsperson, in the right context, to monitor specifically the calls for justice from the final report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. This work will have to be done in partnership. The Government of Canada cannot single-handedly impose that ombudsman without doing the engagement that is necessary. I think people's patience is quite thin in making sure that there are independent mechanisms to verify what we are doing as a government, but we would welcome that initiative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you for the suggestion. That was the case with Bill C-29, by the way, so good.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

There are just a number of factors here. On the proposed amendment, I owe it to you to read out the following, because it is a substantive amendment. You can then react to that.

There are two things I want to say.

First of all, whether it was the original NDP-1 or the proposed change, the amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements in the preamble. In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, the following is stated on page 774:

In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble

—you'll recall this from Bill C-29—

—is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure the uniformity of the English and French versions.

Based on that, in the opinion of the chair—I'm doing what conventional chairs will do—the proposed amendment is substantive and has not been rendered necessary by amendments to the bill itself. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible. That would apply to the proposed change as well.

You can react now, but first let me finish one other point that I would like to make.

Just so you know, if we make an amendment, it will of course have to go through the House of Commons to report stage and then to third reading, and then it goes to the Senate. It will have to go back to the Senate, because it's an amendment. Even though it originally came from the Senate, it has to go back to the Senate. An amendment has been made to it. Just be cognizant of the fact that January 4 is not very far away.

With that, the floor is open.

Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer.