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.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad the member opposite mentioned the survivors. We should never lose sight of the survivors when we are looking at Bill C-29. I think about so many of the survivors who have come to me in my community and said that what we really need to move forward are healing centres and healing for their communities. They have given me the example of wanting the trauma to stop with them.

I am wondering if the member opposite could speak to some of the people in her riding or in her nation who have inspired her in this journey of reconciliation. Could she talk a bit about the need for us to continue the journey of healing and investing in healing in indigenous communities and urban communities across Canada?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nunavut.

It is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act. We would not be here today without the stories of survivors who gifted us with stories so that people across Canada could learn the truth about Canada's history, that what happened in residential schools was an act of genocide, something that was acknowledged unanimously in October in the House, a recognition that what happened in these institutions against children was an act of genocide and the experiences of survivors' abuse and abhorrent human rights violations are no longer left up for debate. I want to share that I am so thankful for that. I lift up survivors, descendants and communities every day. Let us not lose sight of this while we debate this bill.

We must not lose sight of this. The voices of survivors must lead the path forward, not organizations and not government bureaucrats, but survivors and their descendants, elders. I am glad that this is reflected in the bill, but I am hoping that this is reflected in the debate we are having in the House as we move forward because we have to remember that we would not be debating this legislation today if it had not been for survivors who courageously shared their stories. We must not lose sight of that. Their voices must never ever be overshadowed, because they are the reason we are discussing how to move forward in a manner that achieves real justice while addressing ongoing injustices that continue to be perpetrated against indigenous peoples.

Progress is slow, which is one of the reasons that I keenly support implementing call to action 53 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to establish a national council for reconciliation through the establishment of federal legislation. Call to action 53 calls on the government to establish the council as an “independent, national, oversight body” that will monitor, evaluate and report to Parliament on the progress that is being made with regard to reconciliation.

The accountability mechanisms that have the potential to be provided by the council are crucial, because we know that without sufficient accountability, progress implementing the calls to actions has been unacceptably slow. Since the calls to action were released in 2015, only about 13 of the 94 have been implemented. For a government that has repeatedly identified reconciliation and the new relationship with indigenous people as a top priority, this is simply not good enough. One wonders if this legislation was introduced seven years ago whether we would be further along completing all of the calls to action.

Nevertheless, the fact that we are close to this bill becoming law is an important step forward. Enshrining this legislation into Canadian law is critical. Having this council act as a watchdog to ensure the effect of advancement of reconciliation is crucial and will make it more difficult for the government and all MPs to lose focus on the implementation of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

However, here is the reality. Monitoring is not enough. We need the government to do the work and put significant investments behind concrete acts of reconciliation, and there is so much more work that needs to be done. I have often said that we cannot have true reconciliation in the absence of justice. Across this country, indigenous peoples are denied justice each and every day in painful and humiliating ways.

We have a housing crisis that can only be described as dire. According to the 2021 census data, one in six indigenous people live in crowded housing unsuitable for the number of people who live there. To put this into perspective, that means indigenous people are almost twice as likely to live in crowded housing compared to non-indigenous people. This is shameful.

While I acknowledge that budget 2022 made new investments in indigenous housing, it does not come close to meeting the unmet needs in indigenous communities, in spite of the Conservatives' claim today of record spending on indigenous peoples. According to the AFN, $44 billion over 10 years would be required to meet current needs on first nations' communities. Budget 2022 allocates $2.4 billion over five years to address gaps in on-reserve housing.

We are also facing what the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged as a genocide against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. My own city of Winnipeg was described as “ground zero” for the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls by the former minister of crown-indigenous relations, yet since the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls issued its final report and calls for justice in 2019, we have not seen this ongoing genocide addressed with anything close to the level of respect and urgency required.

For example, in budget 2022, the Liberal government put in zero new dollars to help put an end to this crisis of violence. Worse yet, it was shocking to learn that hardly any of the federal government's $724.1-million violence prevention strategy, first announced in 2021, has been spent. Not a single new shelter has been built nor a single new unit of transitional housing.

While I do want to acknowledge the federal government’s recent announcement in my riding of $6.9 million to support the expansion of Velma’s House, which will operate as a low-barrier, 24-7 safe space in Winnipeg Centre, there are still so many indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people who do not have a safe place to go to in their community.

We also continue to see resource extraction projects imposed on indigenous communities without their free, prior and informed consent. An egregious example of this took place almost two years ago on Wet'suwet'en territory, where land defenders, women, were met with police dogs and snipers, and the RCMP used an axe and a chainsaw to cut down the door of a tiny house where two unarmed indigenous women were inside. This is the exact opposite of what reconciliation looks like.

I have become quite concerned about the Conservatives hyper focus on economic reconciliation with their history of opposing the right of free prior and informed consent, which is enshrined in Canadian law and articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous peoples have a right to make decisions free of intimidation, and to be informed about all aspects of projects prior to development occurring. This cannot happen down the barrel of a gun. It also is not acceptable to state that communities that choose to build economies outside of the resource extraction sector have no desire to improve their local economy. On these and so many other issues, including the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice and child welfare systems, and the fact that 27 communities still have boil water advisories, so much work must be done to overturn colonial policies and practices that are preventing us from achieving real reconciliation.

I am hoping that this legislation will help. I want to acknowledge the work of my wonderful colleague and MP for Nunavut in helping to strengthen this legislation at committee. We will be accompanied by a renewed focus from the government on what the Prime Minister has described as the “most important” relationship in Canada. I am confident that the council will do its job in ensuring that the government is accountable for progress being made on implementing the calls to action, but the onus is on the government to respond to accountability with real action.

To all the survivors who share their stories, to all survivors who did not tell their stories, I lift them up. May the bill assist in delivering them the justice that has been denied for far too long.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for her speech.

As the critic for seniors, I was touched that she mentioned them in her speech and that she addressed the issue of indigenous women and girls.

Bill C-29 deals with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. However, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. What is stopping the government from implementing them?

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from the Bloc at committee. We did get a lot of good work done.

My question is very simple. Bill C-29 originally came to the House without any concrete measurables, without anything to measure. We talked a lot about the fact that if we want to measure accountability, we must set some targets that determine success from failure.

Call to action 55 included a number of those quantifiable measurable items. Why does the member believe those measurable goals were excluded in the first place?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my party's critic for indigenous and northern affairs, I am pleased and proud to rise today to speak to Bill C‑29. Being critic for indigenous and northern affairs takes humility and perspective. Certainly the same goes for every portfolio, but I like to mention it.

I rise to summarize everything I heard from witnesses in committee and from people I have talked to about Bill C‑29. It is a bill that is important to indigenous peoples, meaning first nations, Inuit and Métis people. I want to talk about it as respectfully as possible, as I did during the committee study with my colleagues who are here today.

My thoughts are with the first nations living on the North Shore, the Innu and Naskapi. I send them my greetings. They know that I want to do my work very respectfully while keeping their wishes in mind. Even though sometimes first nations individuals and families do not all want exactly the same thing, there is a consensus, and that is what we tried to focus on when studying this bill in committee.

Having said that, I will divide my speech into several small components or several different subjects. These are the subjects that we discussed in committee and that, in my view, really stood out.

The purpose of the council that will be created by the bill will be to monitor the progress and advancement of work done as part of truth and reconciliation efforts. First, I would like to address something that was raised by several witnesses at the committee with regard to the word “reconciliation”. A few minutes ago, some of my colleagues spoke and tried to qualify the term “reconciliation”. They tried to categorize it and say that it must not be this or that.

I must say that, before all that, many indigenous people and members of indigenous communities said that they did not agree with the word “reconciliation”. If we stop and think about it even a little, we realize that that word basically implies that there is already some sort of conciliation and relationship, that something has already been created. However, we have been told that there was nothing at the start, that there was no “us”.

When we talk about reconciliation, we are starting off using a false term, one that I must point out is not even defined. We are working on a bill about truth and reconciliation, but the term “reconciliation” is not even accepted, because it is not considered the appropriate word for the situation and, on top of that, it has not even been defined. As legislators, when we study a bill, we also need to start from that point. At the very start, before we even begin, there is already a stumbling block, a problem, and we need to take that into account throughout our work. I spoke about the word “reconciliation”. That seems really simple, but it is the first principle.

I would like to move on to another subject, namely consultation.

I was surprised to learn that the Innu and Naskapi in my riding, along with members of other communities elsewhere, had no idea that consultations had taken place for this bill. They were not even aware that it existed. At committee, we learned that only a few communities had been consulted. Based on the information I have and my perception, which is not necessarily the truth, I get the impression that the consultations were hastily cobbled together. Clearly, not many people were consulted, but all the communities could have been systematically consulted to get a broader picture. That way, more people would have been consulted, not just those who are more informed than others or who have a network of contacts that allows them to be more aware of what is going on.

That came up in committee too. I will have more to say later about representativeness, because I see that as a very important part of the bill. I am not saying that the consultations were kept quiet, but not everybody was consulted. Only a very small percentage of people were consulted. Furthermore, it was not necessarily representative of what first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples want to see in the bill. For me, that was a concern. It was also a red flag about what else was in the bill, such as the issue of representativeness.

Actually, I want to talk about this right now. I do not mind skipping two or three points that I will come back to later, because this is definitely connected to the issue of representativeness.

The bill creates a board of directors. There was an interim board and a transitional committee, and now there will be a board of directors where positions are assigned to different entities, namely national organizations that represent indigenous people. The committee wanted to make the board more representative. We wanted to know why only three organizations were mentioned in the bill, when there are five that represent indigenous peoples nationally. That was a problem for us. I wanted to know why three were mentioned, when there are five. Not only did we not get a satisfactory answer, but we did not get one at all. We wanted those groups to be included.

People came to testify and said that they did not feel represented by such and such organization and that it was another organization that represented them.

Take the Native Women's Association of Canada, for example. Half the indigenous population is made up of women or people who identify as female. They should also be represented. They were not included. We often come back to the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women, and we are currently talking about the whole issue of violence, including sexual violence, but those were nowhere to be found in the bill either.

From the standpoint of equity and representativeness, I would be remiss if I did not say that this is part of the work the committee did. It was done as a team. Earlier, I heard comments about how people were antagonistic, but we really did have some very interesting discussions, including some with my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. There were some good discussions; it was remarkable.

There are other groups that were not represented. Although I am not an indigenous person myself—I am white—I do spend time with people, I have friends, I am aware and open, so I have absorbed some indigenous culture, including Innu-aimun and Innu-aitun in my riding.

Consider elders, for example. When we think about reconciliation and residential schools, elders were not automatically represented in the bill. That was the first thing that occurred to me. I did not stop there. I consulted people. Witnesses were also asked whether the bill ought to include elders, or rather survivors. They said that we were talking about elders, but that we should be calling them survivors of colonial practices and policies. This was also included in the bill.

I am talking about elders. I also talked about women. Basically, we wanted to ensure that membership on the board was not limited to certain groups selected by the minister himself from the outset.

This brings me to a point that I have not yet mentioned, but it is something that I do want to talk about: independence. I am not talking about Quebec independence. I am talking about the independence of the board. Independence is important to us.

Of course we need to start doing something, and we understand that the minister is involved, because this is his bill. Of course we want him to start the work, but we also want the board to eventually become autonomous and independent, with members appointed by the members of the transitional board. That is what we want, and we have talked about making the council more independent. The word “independent” was a key word in our discussions.

“Transparent” was another a key word. My Conservative Party colleague made a very worthwhile proposal that the Bloc Québécois completely agrees with, because we believe that the nations are nations unto themselves. The leaders are leaders of nations and should therefore be able to address their Quebec or Canadian government counterparts.

We wanted the Prime Minister himself to be required to respond to the report that will be tabled by the council every year. That was extremely important to most of us. There is talk of a nation-to-nation relationship, but such a relationship requires that the Prime Minister himself be held accountable for responding to the council's requests.

As we come to the end of the process, I must say that the opposition in particular has done a lot to strengthen Bill C‑29. It has improved representativeness by enabling more indigenous people and more indigenous groups from different backgrounds to add their own colours to the council.

Earlier, we talked about economic reconciliation. Yes, the Conservatives are talking about it, but some indigenous groups are also talking about it. We need to look at reconciliation from all angles. In short, sectoral committees may be struck at that time, and the council itself would be responsible. I really think we have improved the bill in terms of transparency, independence and representativeness.

I would really like everyone to keep in mind that everything can be improved. I hope that the voice of indigenous people will be heard through this new mechanism, which will have significant power because it will be able to monitor the government's progress.

Symbolism is something that comes up a lot. Previous speakers talked about it. Other people generally get the impression that actions vis-à-vis indigenous groups and individuals are merely symbolic. I said “other people”, because I was not thinking of myself as part of that group, but I could be part of it.

Symbolic gestures may cost money, but they do not cost the government anything. They do not have a negative impact on the government or force it to take more meaningful and nuanced action. Admitting wrongdoing is one thing, but making it right is another. Saying sorry is not enough.

All I want to say is that we really hope to see more action. We hope indigenous people themselves will get really involved in this. We hear talk of a nation-to-nation relationship on the one hand and “by indigenous people for indigenous people” on the other. They are the ones who will be able to assess, draw conclusions and make recommendations. That is what will enable us to go beyond symbolic gestures, which may confer a temporary halo upon the government but do not really change anything in the day-to-day lives of indigenous people. It may have an impact on those who are close by, but not on those who are far away.

I would like to invite all members of the House to visit my riding. Kawawachikamach, Matimekush‑Lac John or Unamen Shipu are far removed from statues and celebrations. I completely agree that we must celebrate indigenous cultures, but they face other difficulties. I used the word “difficulties”, but that is an understatement because these communities have major problems that must be resolved. Naturally, the council could speak to that.

In closing, I would like to again address my constituents to point out that even though it is quite simple, the testimony and the fact that consultations are held, and not just superficial consultations, really help improve bills.

I am thinking, for example, of Marjolaine Tshernish of the Institut Tshakapesh, an organization that promotes Innu culture across Quebec, but also in Labrador, because there are Innu communities there. She told me that it was difficult for her. She was concerned about what would happen next, for example with the council. For some, Innu is their first language, but for others living elsewhere, their first language may be French or English. She said that she did not yet have that information and that she was concerned that she did not have it. Innu is her language. She also speaks French, but she does not speak English. She said she wanted to ensure that there would be a francophone presence on the council.

I also worked to ensure a francophone presence on the council. For me, that is a big win in terms of representation. Some may say that I thought about French or francophone issues because I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, but that is not even the case. I must humbly admit that this idea did not come from me. It was the people at the Institut Tsakapesh who pointed it out to me. In short, it is thanks to them that we managed to amend the bill. I apologized to them for not thinking of it myself, but it is something that could have been brought to light through consultations with people and communities whose first, if not second, language is French.

I would like to close by telling you about a very witty Innu chief, Mr. Piétacho, from Ekuanitshit on the north shore. Mr. Piétacho has been a chief for over 30 years. I appreciated his quick wit when he appeared in committee. We all sometimes run into minor technical difficulties in committee. In short, he forgot to take himself off mute and, as soon as he began to speak, our chair told him that he could now speak. Chief Piétacho told the chair that he had been on mute for 500 years but not to worry, he was going to speak.

I hope that this council will give all indigenous people a chance to speak and that this will enable the government to respond and take real action.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and represent the people from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, and today as I speak to Bill C-29 and the creation of a national council for reconciliation, I suggest to this place that this is a continuation of a journey that all Canadians are to be part of as we create a better future.

Speaking previously, in September, I made it clear that it was important to use a consensus-building approach to improve the legislation. Bill C-29, in its formation, deserved a responsible look at areas where it needed improvement, and I have to admit we have heard much testimony today that this was the work that was done at committee with the help of everybody there.

At second reading I pointed out a few issues that I thought needed to be addressed. I talked about the transparency and independence in the selection process of the board of directors. I talked about some words that seemed purposely vague to avoid accountability. I talked about the lack of any measurable outcomes. I talked about the fact that it took over three years to bring the bill to the House in the first place. Finally, I spoke about how the Prime Minister should be the one responding to the council's annual report, as that was the direction in call to action number 56.

In response to those concerns and the testimony of witnesses, we brought forward reasonable amendments to strengthen Bill C-29, and I am very proud today to report that 17 of the 19 amendments we put forward were passed at committee. It is the job of the official opposition to improve legislation and to make it truly representative of all voices, and that is exactly what we did at that committee.

I must admit, however, that I am a bit disappointed today to realize that the government, and specifically the minister, would not accept the democratic will of the INAN committee on the amendment to add a seat at the table for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. This is a national indigenous organization that represents over 800,000 urban indigenous people.

A second concern I have coming out of that committee debate is that there was one amendment we proposed that was disappointingly voted down by all the other parties, and that is the one I want to spend a few minutes talking about.

As many of my colleagues have talked about today, we 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 the FNFMB, or the First Nations Financial Management Board, NACCA and the CCAB, there are many great organizations doing good work in this sphere, and finding a well-established organization that historically has done great work would have been very easy. It would not have been a barrier to find somebody to sit at that table.

However, 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 as part of this board. We did not advocate for that to be the only voice; it would have been only one voice at the table. To ignore these voices discredits the very process of reconciliation.

I have observed, over the last few years, Liberal and NDP MPs aggressively challenging indigenous leaders who have appeared as witnesses at the INAN committee to advocate for economic reconciliation. I often find myself questioning why. Why is there an aversion to even having this discussion? Something does not add up. What is it that they dislike about indigenous people being the masters of their own destiny? What is it that they dislike about the creation of a healthy, strong and vibrant community through prosperity? What is it that they dislike about using own-source revenue from true partnerships that address long-standing social issues? What is it that they dislike about leaving behind the destructive grip of poverty to offer hope and opportunity for future generations?

The sad answer is that they are more interested in political power and control. By imposing their own views rather than listening to indigenous voices, they create the same environment that indigenous people have lived under in this country for far too long.

It is time for a fundamental change to that approach. In fact, for those who are listening and watching closely, the change has already begun on the ground. Economic reconciliation plays such an important role in the overall discussion. Let me begin by sharing a few stories from my own riding in northern Saskatchewan.

As I returned home this September for this year's National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I spent time at Pelican Lake First Nation with Chief Peter Bill. As we arrived in the community, I was greeted by Chief Bill, a member of the RCMP and two of Pelican Lake's own community safety officers. With first nations policing being a very important topic the day after the tragedy at James Smith Cree Nation, I asked how their newly established community safety officer program was going. Chief Bill was happy to report to me that the community now has six full-time employees and its own fully equipped vehicles, and that they were in the process of hiring more officers. The RCMP officer explained to me how helpful the program had been in achieving safety in their community.

How did Pelican Lake first nation pay for this community safety officer program? They paid with their own sourced revenue. They invested profits to assist in the overall health and safety of their community instead of waiting for years for government and bureaucrats to plan and meet, develop frameworks, do benefit assessments and feasibility studies, or use the signing of MOUs for photo ops.

Later that day, I was at Flying Dust First Nation. After the formal speeches were done, we all left the hall and participated in a walk of solidarity with residential school survivors. On that walk, if I looked one way I could see a hockey rink that was built a few years ago and just beside that was their brand new 6,000-square foot sporting goods store and facility called “Snipe and Celly Sports Excellence”. If I looked the other way, out by the highway there was the brand new Petro-Canada gas station.

This was a visual reminder of what my friend Vice Chief Richard Derocher had mentioned earlier in the speeches when he spoke positively about reconciliation. He shared his wish that, when people were either visiting or driving through our communities, they would not be able to recognize when they were leaving Flying Dust First Nation and entering Meadow Lake or vice versa. How does that happen? It is by generating prosperity through economic development, which is something that Flying Dust First Nation and the Meadow Lake Tribal Council have a proud history of doing.

In northern Saskatchewan, there are many examples of these success stories. Whether it be Athabasca Basin Development group, the Des Nedhe Group of English River, Pinehouse Business North, Kitsaki Management Limited Partnership from Lac la Ronge, Sakitawak Development Corporation from the Métis village of Île-à-la-Crosse or the Peter Ballantyne Group of Companies, each is creating prosperity and capacity through the ownership and development of business opportunities. These opportunities give their people employment and a sense of pride.

These are groups on the ground that have already started the change. Their approach is the new way forward. It is their stories that the national council for reconciliation should also be reporting, along with many other things, and sharing with all Canadians.

Often Conservatives are labelled as only caring about the economy. Maybe that is our own fault because we do not explain the why. Let me try to do that. One of those community safety officers of Pelican Lake I talked about is named Dalton. I had the privilege of coaching Dalton when he played AA midget hockey in Meadow Lake. He was a sturdy, dependable defenceman who understood his role. He never missed a practice or a game. He was a player whom any coach would love to have on his team.

Dalton took those attributes and applied them to his first career choice to become a power engineer. He was supported in that choice by his mom and dad, and he would have had many options going forward in where he wanted to work, but something inside of him called him home to Pelican Lake. It was an opportunity to go home to get trained as a community safety officer and to be a leader in his own community, to be a driver of change and to set the example for the next generation.

I could not have been prouder of Dalton as I watched young kids come to him in his uniform and ask if he had any more tattoos. They felt comfortable around him. He provided them a sense of safety. He is a quality young man who is providing leadership within his community because the opportunity was there to take. That is the why. That is the outcome of economic reconciliation.

Conservatives promote and believe in economic reconciliation because it is the solution to eradicating poverty and with it the social ills that poverty creates. By putting control back in the hands of indigenous people, they get to begin to manage prosperity instead of poverty, and they get to take concrete steps toward healing through self-determination.

To conclude, I am proud of the work that our team did in making Bill C-29 a better version than when it originally came to the House in June. Many concerns that we expressed at second reading were addressed and have been improved. That is how we follow up words with action.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about reconciliation between the Crown and first nations people. I want to focus on the concept of economic reconciliation.

Canada is a wealthy nation, wealthy in natural resources, in human resources, in technological and industrial advances and in many other metrics that economists use to measure the wealth of nations. However, unfortunately this wealth is not shared by all people, and that is unjust.

Just to be clear, I am not here to promote the government's ill-conceived wealth redistribution tax plans involving the carbon tax, which it masks as an environmental plan, or its focus on the middle class and those striving to get into it despite tax policies that are pushing people out of the middle class. I am not talking about its ill-conceived housing policies, which apparently are designed to help people get into homes, even though those policies are driving first-time buyers out of the market while the dream of home ownership is evaporating for many young families. I am talking about the creation of wealth.

The former finance minister, Mr. Bill Morneau, after he left the government and was cut loose from the Liberal Party's talking points, pointed out what is obvious to many of us in the House: The problem with the government is that it is overly focused on wealth redistribution and not focused enough on wealth creation. I agree with that. That is obvious to me and to many others in the House.

There is no better way for a nation to create wealth than for all the people in the nation to work, to do what they are good at, to trade with each other and to enjoy the dignity that work brings. In pursuing their economic self-interest, the whole nation becomes wealthy.

Adam Smith did not invent that concept 250 years ago; it is an ancient concept. Just to prove that, I am going to quote from the ancient and wise King Solomon, who several thousand years ago had this to say about work and the dignity it brings: There is nothing more rewarding for people than to eat, drink and enjoy the fruits of their labour. That is what I want to talk about today as we talk about reconciliation. All people should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

That brings me to the topic of the day: the setting up of a national council for reconciliation, as called for in the 2015 truth and reconciliation report by the commission that the previous Conservative government appointed. We appointed that commission to tackle the ongoing and deeply embedded societal challenges plaguing our development as a nation caused by the ill-conceived government policies of previous decades. Those policies failed. Separating children from their families is indeed very bad public policy, and many people are still suffering today. This is Canada's shame. How do we fix it?

I have spoken with many people in my community of Langley, in Fort Langley to be specific, who are residential school survivors. The announcement coming out of Kamloops a couple of years ago triggered memories. The memories are fresh, the pain is real and the anger is just below the surface. The sad thing is that the news is not even news. We have known about this for a long time. As a matter of fact, six of the 94 calls to action of the truth and reconciliation report talk about unmarked graves under the heading “Missing Children and Burial Information”. The report is now seven years old and not enough progress has been made. It is time to get the job done.

Bill C-29, which is what we are debating today, is an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. It is a step in the right direction. This council will be tasked with monitoring and reporting on the government's post-apology progress on reconciliation.

I believe there is full agreement on both sides of the House that we need to correct and compensate for the misguided policies of the past, but we are not all agreed on how we get there. The Liberals like to make announcements and boast about how much money they are spending on programs. The Conservatives, on the other hand, want action. We want to get everyone to work. We want to remove barriers to the full participation of indigenous communities in all sectors of society.

That is why Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs put forward a motion to amend Bill C-29 to incorporate the concept of economic reconciliation. Inexplicably, members from the other parties on that committee voted against it. I hope that in debate today we can convince them otherwise, because without economic reconciliation, there is no reconciliation.

In British Columbia we have a very good example of what economic reconciliation can look like. The Coastal GasLink LNG project is a provincially regulated project that is going to link the very rich natural gas fields of northern British Columbia to the LNG Canada processing plant on the coast in Kitimat. The pipeline route runs through 20 first nations communities, and all 20 of them will benefit economically from this project.

The project has signed benefit agreements with all 20 nations. It has signed option agreements to sell at 10% equity interest in the project to those nations. It has issued many contracts to indigenous subcontractors, service providers and local businesses, and it is funding job training. This is a long-term economic benefit for first nations communities. That is what reconciliation looks like.

I want to end with a real-life example of what economic reconciliation looks like for first nations peoples. To do so, I am going to read testimony given by Mr. Ellis Ross, a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and a first nations person, when he appeared at the committee on indigenous and northern affairs last month. I will read from his testimony, which I think zeroes in on exactly what the issue is. He said:

A number of aboriginal leaders feel strongly that economic reconciliation not only lifts up first nations but also obviously lifts up the provinces and the country. The proof is out there.

In my community, for example, the economic reconciliation that we participated in...made us one of the wealthiest bands in B.C.

He continued:

[W]e have young aboriginals getting mortgages in their own right without depending on Indian Affairs or their band council. They're going on vacation. They're planning futures for their children.

In discussing previous governments' attempts of reconciliation, this is what Mr. Ross had to say:

Well, government, you can't; if you could fix it, it would have been fixed long ago. If you're going to do something, then do something in partnership with first nations that can make their band councils—and, more importantly, their band members—independent.

Mr. Ross ended with this invitation, which I believe is still an open invitation to anybody in the House who is interested. He said:

If you want an example, come to my village, Kitimaat Village, B.C. I'll show you around.

To sum up, we in Canadian society have made a lot of errors in the past. We can learn from our mistakes, but we can also learn from our successes, and there are a lot of successes. This is just one example that I raised. Let us learn from them. Let us move ahead with indigenous communities and reconciliation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this may be received as more of a comment than a question.

Quite frequently, due to motions passed before committees, I am able to go before committees instead of bringing up my amendments at report stage, which is what normally would occur. In the case of Bill C-29, I want to put on the record that I have never had a more collaborative, supportive and open process with the minister responsible and with the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. I felt that the first reading of Bill C-29 failed to deliver on the calls to action, particularly the specific information requirements set out in call to action 55. My amendment, with very few modifications, was accepted at committee, and I am very grateful for that.

I know the hon. member comes from the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy nation. I say to him wela'lin, and thank him and the minister for their openness to opposition amendments.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by acknowledging that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would like to continue the third reading debate on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Reconciliation is not a new idea or process. This is something that has been actively working its way through our country for the last 50 years: in 1982, through changes to recognize and affirm indigenous rights in the Constitution; in 1996, with the report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples; and in 2015, with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action.

Today, after careful consideration at second reading and through study by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, we are considering the national council for reconciliation in response to the TRC calls to action.

Although the INAN committee has made some important amendments to the legislation, this bill, at its core, remains much the same. Bill C-29 would establish a national council for reconciliation as an indigenous-led, permanent and independent non-partisan oversight body to monitor, evaluate and report on Canada's progress on reconciliation. This is significant.

It responds to calls to action 53 to 56, and it supports the Government of Canada's commitment to accelerate and implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Many of my hon. colleagues are familiar with origins of this legislation, but let me provide an overview.

Since the TRC released its final report, our government has responded to the calls to action through reconciliation efforts. We committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. We established a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. This year, we witnessed the Pope offer a historic apology to the residential school survivors in an indigenous community.

This is supplemented by the work done at the grassroots level. There are many encouraging initiatives under way across Canada and across many sectors, but no one is monitoring or reporting on that activity on a national scale.

As was pointed out in the committee study, thus far, we have not had the mechanism to share emerging best practices and create a dialogue to celebrate progress and provide recommendations for improvement. We lack a formal structure for monitoring reconciliation work at all levels of government and society in Canada. Such oversight is critically important for making progress and leaving a lasting and meaningful legacy. That is exactly what the national council for reconciliation would do.

As envisioned by the TRC, an indigenous-led, non-political, independent and permanent national council for reconciliation would provide a structure to monitor, evaluate and report on reconciliation efforts.

This was laid out in four of its calls to action: 53 and 54, which call for the creation of a national council for reconciliation through legislation and funding; and also in 55 and 56, which further clarify the expectations for the council in various levels of government on data and information sharing and reporting on the progress.

Since the TRC released the calls to action, we have been working with indigenous partners, leaders and communities to develop this proposed legislation. We have strived to uphold the principles set out by the commission. Keeping indigenous voices and survivors at the heart of our work is a key part of this legislation.

Front and centre in our process to establish a national council for reconciliation has been the leadership by the interim board and the transitional committee. Both independent bodies were composed of first nations, Inuit and Métis members who provided their advice on a path forward, taking into account a wide range of diverse voices and perspectives.

I will take a few minutes to outline the process we used to develop the bill and the engagement that was done at each stage.

Five years ago, we set the wheels in motion to establish the council with the creation of an interim board of directors. The board comprised six indigenous leaders representing first nations, Inuit and Métis, including the former truth and reconciliation commissioner, Dr. Wilton Littlechild.

Its mandate was to make recommendations on the creation of a national council for reconciliation. To formulate its recommendations, the interim board engaged with community members; academics; business, arts and health professionals; and other interested parties to gather their input.

In 2018, the board presented its final report to the minister, which contained 20 specific recommendations related to the name, vision, mission, mandate, structure, membership, funding, reporting and legislation of the national council of reconciliation. The interim board's recommendations formed the basis of the bill.

To continue this process, in December 2021, the transitional committee was appointed. It has done important work to date convening discussions on the council's functions, identifying key milestones and timelines, and proposing an engagement approach. It also reviewed a draft legislation framework developed by the Department of Justice based on the interim board's recommendations. It led preliminary engagements on the framework with indigenous partners and non-indigenous experts, including lawyers, data specialists and financial and reconciliation experts. It also gathered feedback and advice in areas such as reconciliation, law, data, organizational finance, information sharing, governance and accountability.

In March 2022, the committee provided its recommendations on how to strengthen the draft legislative framework. The committee also suggested that this proposed legislation be brought forward as quickly as possible, amplifying the wishes of survivors, who want to see this council become a reality during their lifetimes. This fall, it passed second reading and was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on October 6, which brings us to today.

I would encourage the swift passage of the bill. As hon. members here know, this is something that I am personally passionate about. We must do more when it comes to implementing the calls to action and advancing reconciliation. I am committed to doing everything in my power to ensure the council has the support it needs to do the work of monitoring the implementation of the calls to action. I hope that other levels of government across the country can commit to working with the council as we have committed to doing.

As we debate this bill at third reading, we cannot take our eyes off the end goal and what this legislation would truly accomplish, which is advancing reconciliation in this country. I encourage my hon. colleagues to consider how they can support the council once it is established and how they can connect the council with initiatives or community members at home.

Advancing reconciliation is something that must be done hand in hand with indigenous people across the country. Reconciliation is not linear and will not come easy, but in our work we will always strive to advance progress and address the existing gaps. This is the goal of Bill C-29.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to begin third reading debate on Bill C-29, an act that would provide the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

First, I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties in the House who supported this bill and expressed their comments and concerns about the bill at second reading. We heard their input.

Many of these comments were taken up in committee and amendments were adopted. In this regard, I would also like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for their thorough consideration of Bill C-29. In the past month and a half, during the seven meetings on this bill, the committee heard from 32 witnesses.

I would like to acknowledge all the witnesses who took the time to present their perspectives and answer the committee's questions. Every piece of testimony was critical. It allowed us to make important amendments to strengthen the bill before us today.

Following the advice of the transitional committee, on June 22, 2022, we introduced Bill C-29, which seeks to establish a national council for reconciliation.

The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs' study was extensive. It is worth noting once again that 32 witnesses provided testimony to the committee, including representatives of national, provincial and territorial indigenous organizations, councils and governments, a former commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, federal officials from the departments of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Justice Canada and four of the national council for reconciliation transitional committee members.

Through their testimonies, many witnesses proposed concrete suggestions on how we can strengthen this legislation.

Many of these amendments are now included in the version of the bill that is before Parliament today. I can say that these amendments are consistent with the general legal and policy objectives of Bill C-29, that they do not raise legal risks and that they do not have immediate financial implications.

I will explain some of the major changes we have made together.

First, we made several changes to ensure that the board promotes diversity and inclusion. One thing that was stressed to us on many occasions, as part of our engagement with indigenous peoples and organizations, and again when the committee reviewed the bill, was the importance of having a board that is representative of the realities of indigenous peoples in Canada.

The original bill provided that the board of directors should consist of 9 to 13 persons, two-thirds of whom would be indigenous. It also provided for the inclusion of individuals from the following groups: first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, as well as other peoples in Canada; Indigenous organizations, including a representative from the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council; youth, women, men and gender-diverse persons; and people from various regions of Canada, including urban, rural and remote regions.

Throughout the committee process, we worked with partners and committee members to increase the diversity of the board. We had to ensure the participation of additional voices, including those from the territories, elders and, very importantly, survivors of residential schools and other discriminatory policies, and their descendants.

There was also an amendment to ensure the board must ensure and equitably reflect gender diversity. Gender balance is vital for respecting the rights of women and making progress on issues faced by women and gender diverse peoples. Adding the Native Women's Association of Canada to the list of national indigenous organizations ensures women's voices will be centred and attention will be given to the MMIWG calls to justice.

While the bill already guarantees regional representation, more was needed to ensure the inclusion of a northern perspective based on the fact that indigenous peoples represent a higher percentage of territorial populations. The amended bill provides that at least two of the board's members must be from the north. This is a good development.

In all indigenous cultures, communities and organizations, elders are central figures. As such, an amendment has been made to ensure elders are included in the composition of the council.

Finally, reconciliation cannot happen without including the voices of survivors of residential schools and other discriminatory policies and their families. This ethos was central to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's work and needed to be reflected in the composition of this council, which is why we have made an amendment to guarantee their participation.

When I was in Winnipeg earlier this month, I had the opportunity to speak with survivors, elders and many indigenous peoples at the groundbreaking of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. Those I listened to reminded me of the importance of education for everyone in Canada about the truth of the residential school system. The council and Canada will benefit from hearing from a diversity of experiences, perspectives and voices. I truly think we have accomplished that with this bill, and I thank the House.

These amendments were put forward on the advice of opposition party members, committee members, and indigenous peoples themselves. Taken together, these amendments will ensure that the council's composition reflects regional, gender and cultural diversity.

We added key provisions about respecting, protecting and promoting indigenous languages. Our goal is to support the participation of all indigenous peoples in the council's work and the revitalization of indigenous languages.

This measure is consistent with the government's commitment to fully implement the Indigenous Languages Act in order to maintain, promote and revitalize indigenous languages in Canada. It contributes to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Protecting and promoting the rights of indigenous people, including indigenous language rights, is part of reconciliation. It is therefore a natural extension of the council's mandate.

As I mentioned earlier, the national council for reconciliation would provide a structure for advancing reconciliation in Canada. Inclusion of measurable outcomes will support the council by demonstrating progress. To ensure the council is as effective as possible at advancing reconciliation, we have clarified its core duties and functions, allowing the council to determine measurable outcomes and monitor and report on progress toward those outcomes.

Placing this responsibility on the council reinforces its autonomy and authority to choose the best indicators for measuring progress on reconciliation. Maintaining the autonomy of the council is a top priority, and the government supports the independence of the council as a foundational principle.

To uphold the autonomy and authority of the council, we have modified the selection process for the first board of directors. To remove some of my own authority, the board of directors will be jointly selected by the members of the transitional committee and myself in my role as Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

This change enhances the independence of the council by strengthening the role of the indigenous-led transitional committee. It also helps ensure the selection process to determine the council's first board of directors is open and fair.

As we strengthen the roles and responsibilities of the council, we must also ensure it has access to the information it needs to carry out its work. Even with the amendments we have proposed, I recognize this bill is not perfect. I would like to highlight something that was raised during the committee's study of this bill: More engagement with indigenous communities and Canadians will be done after the council is established as they build their action plan and goals for the council.

Throughout the development of this bill, our government has ensured that members of indigenous communities and political leaders have the opportunity to express their views on the creation of the council. However, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission made it clear in its final report that reconciliation does not just involve indigenous peoples, but all Canadians.

The responsibility for educating people like me often falls on indigenous people, but that should not be the case. There is still a lot of work to be done and a lot of ignorance to be fought. Reconciliation is something that all Canadians, including all levels of government and all areas of the country, must be involved in. The work must be done not just by indigenous people or the federal government, but by all of us.

During the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs' study of the bill, Michael DeGagné, a member of the National Council of Reconciliation Transitional Committee, stated that “reconciliation is not a political process. Certainly it involves politics, but it is not solely a political process. It's a way to engage both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians in a dialogue around going forward in a good way”.

That is what the council aims to achieve. It will open up lines of communication and connect various sectors of society. It will offer criticisms and make recommendations on ways to improve things. It will hold our government and future governments to account and ensure that the dialogue on reconciliation continues.

It has now been four years after the interim council's final report and eight years since the TRC released its final report and the 94 corresponding calls to action. Creating a national council for reconciliation is long overdue, but we are hoping it will happen now with this legislation.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-29.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The question is on Motion No. 1.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think it is worth noting, when we talk about the calls to action, that today's bill, Bill C-29, with its amendments, is a significant achievement in recognizing that there are in fact four calls that are addressed. Timing and politics aside, I think it is important for us to recognize the significance of this legislation. Would the member not agree?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

It is a pleasure to begin report stage debate on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We have concluded an in-depth, detailed study on Bill C-29 at the INAN committee. Over the past month, a total of 32 witnesses gave their testimony during seven meetings on Bill C-29. Witnesses included representatives from national indigenous organizations and indigenous groups. The members of the transitional committee were also invited as witnesses. We worked together in a collaborative spirit and listened to the many witnesses with open minds.

During clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, 41 amendments were proposed and 26 were adopted to strengthen the bill in terms of diversity, representation, transparency and accountability. These amendments respect the council as an independent indigenous-led organization. The vision of the council was set forth by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the interim board, and the transitional committee has been strengthened, not changed.

I would like to highlight some of the key amendments that were made by the committee to this bill.

Many of the amendments that have been adopted focused on strengthening the composition and representation of the board of directors of this council. The original bill outlined that the board should include first nations, Inuit and Métis, as well as other people here in this great nation; other indigenous organizations; youth, women, men and gender-diverse people; and people from various regions of Canada, including urban, rural and remote regions. Amendments have been adopted that include two directors from the territories to ensure representation of the north.

All parties submitted amendments to have the Native Women's Association of Canada nominate a director to the board in recognition of the need to respect women's voices, contributions to policy and research, and, more broadly, to respect reconciliation. This includes the implementation of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls calls for justice.

There was also broad consensus that the committee must include representation of elders and survivors of residential schools and their descendants, in recognition of the knowledge they carry and the origins of the National Council for Reconciliation, in the TRC calls to action. We know that elders are central figures in indigenous cultures and, equally as important, individual communities. Survivors and their descendants are important voices in the advancement of reconciliation.

Finally, the committee added representation for indigenous persons with French as their first or second language learned.

These amendments ensure that the board of directors is representative of the diversity and plurality of indigenous peoples.

The bill has also been updated to recognize that the revitalization and celebration of indigenous languages is part of reconciliation and, more importantly, the resurgence of reconciliation. The functions of the council now include protecting indigenous language rights. This includes supporting the participation of indigenous peoples in the work of the council through translation and interpretation services.

As members will recall, the House passed the Indigenous Languages Act to preserve, promote and revitalize indigenous languages throughout this great country. Ronald E. Ignace was appointed as the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages. These amendments align with our government's commitment to implementing the Indigenous Languages Act in order to reclaim and strengthen indigenous languages.

It would be the national council's work to monitor, to evaluate, to conduct research and to report on the progress being made toward reconciliation. To do so, it would need to access information from all levels of government as outlined in call to action number 55. The original bill included the development of an information-sharing protocol that would obligate the government to share with the council information that would be relevant to its purpose.

Establishing this protocol through legislation is an innovative tool to hold the Government of Canada accountable for supporting the council's needs to efficiently as well as effectively implement its mandate, while also preserving its independence from government. It would be developed within six months of incorporation of the council.

Another amendment has been adopted, which requires the government to provide the council with the information identified in the Truth and Reconciliation call to action 55, such as the number of indigenous children in care compared with non-indigenous children and data on comparative funding for education, health indicators and the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the justice and the correctional systems. Like other amendments adopted at INAN, this respects the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, the legislation would obligate the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to table the council's annual report in both Houses of Parliament and, as amended, the Prime Minister to formally respond to the council's report. This responds to call to action 56, which calls on the Prime Minister to formally respond to the report of the national council for reconciliation by issuing an annual state of aboriginal peoples report, which would outline the government's plans for advancing the cause of reconciliation.

It is important that the council's report leads to action. The Government of Canada is committed to reconciliation, but recognizes the important role of other levels of government and sectors in supporting this work.

Finally, I would like to discuss the amendment that was introduced today. As I previously mentioned, the bill now includes a provision to ensure inclusion of indigenous persons whose first or second language is French. The government is proposing revised wording to the amendment in clause 12 to remove the term “mother tongue” as it is a gendered term. This would ensure that the wording is clear so the council would know how to interpret and implement it.

Before I conclude, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and to express my sincere appreciation to the residential school survivors once again for sharing the truths of their experiences. Without them, we would not be where we are today.

I would encourage each and every member of this Parliament and our colleagues who worked together to bring this forward to move quickly to pass this important legislation and to move forward once again with reconciliation.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour and a privilege to stand in the House of Commons to represent my community of Peterborough—Kawartha.

Today I rise to speak to the report stage of Bill C-29, an act that would provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. If we are to show leadership, accountability and transparency in the House, there must be proper follow through on what has been promised.

After six and a half years under the Liberal government, Bill C-29 is the Liberals' attempt to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 through 56. I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage all Canadians, if they have not, to read the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There are 94 of them.

Calls to action 53 to 56 are: 53, the establishment of a national council for reconciliation; 54, providing multi-year funding for the national council for reconciliation to ensure it has the financial, human and technical resources required to conduct its work; 55, provide annual reports to show progress on reconciliation; and, finally, 56, the issuance of an annual “state of aboriginal peoples” report to outline the government's plans for advancing reconciliation.

If we are to work toward meaningful reconciliation with indigenous peoples, a robust and inclusive response to calls to action 53 to 56 is needed. We are the leaders in our country and it is important we do what we say we are going to do.

I had the privilege to debate this bill at second reading, when I outlined some of the issues Conservatives had with the bill. Specifically, we are concerned with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations hand-picking the board members who are to hold the same minister to account. Another concern is a lack of accountability for the expenditure of the $126.5 million in allocated funds. Most glaring is the lack of representation on the national council, ensuring that the voices of urban indigenous, advocates for women and girls, children, aboriginal business associations and native development offices have a seat at the table when it comes to meaningful reconciliation.

After meaningful consultation from community members and those most affected by Bill C-29, the Conservatives brought forward 19 amendments to the areas with the most issues. Our amendments included: strengthening the wording to add transparency, accountability and independence to the board of director appointment process; three amendments that would give the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and an indigenous economic national organization a seat at the table; and ensuring the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 56 would be honoured. In particular, we asked the Prime Minister, not the minister, to respond to the national council for reconciliation's annual report. We further asked that concrete, measurable targets be included in its annual report, to strengthen government accountability. Measurable targets are critical.

There were significant concerns after the second reading of this bill. Of the 19 amendments brought forth by the Conservatives in committee, 17 were adopted and passed with the support of the other parties in the House, but we have not reached consensus yet, hence we are here today.

The Liberals love to say, and I hear often in the committees I represent, which are the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, “nothing about us without us”, yet this morning, the Liberals repealed a key amendment brought forward by the Conservatives that would contradict their philosophy of including those most impacted by their decisions and policy.

The Conservatives know it is imperative to include CAP, or Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, on the board to support the voices of Métis, status and non-status Indians and southern Inuit indigenous people living off-reserve in Canada. The goal of CAP is to improve the socio-economic conditions in urban and rural communities.

I do not understand why the Liberals do not support having the voices of off-reserve indigenous people. One does not suddenly become non-indigenous when one moves off reserve. Why do the Liberals believe Métis, status and non-status Indians and southern Inuit indigenous people living off-reserve do not deserve a voice of their own at the table? Its shameful.

One of the biggest concerns that need to be addressed is the Liberals' refusal to acknowledge the critical role economic reconciliation plays in truth and reconciliation. This voice must be represented at the table. The Conservatives proposed an amendment that was put forward because of testimony heard during consultation that economic reconciliation is the solution to eradicating poverty, solving the social issues that poverty causes and ultimately being the path to self-determination for indigenous people.

Those who follow politics, primarily my mom and dad, as they watch CPAC a lot, know how imperative committee business is to democracy. It is a crucial process for listening to witnesses, and as elected officials in the House of Commons, it is our job to listen to Canadians and make the decisions that best serve them.

During consultation on the bill, committee members were heard loud and clear and listened to the importance of economic reconciliation. Karen Restoule stated, “Economic reconciliation is the vehicle forward in terms of setting our peoples or communities back on a path to prosperity—not only our nation, but the country as a whole. It really does lead to a strong social fabric.”

Manny Jules stated, “I recommend that Bill C-29 be amended so that the council's first board of directors also includes a member of the First Nations Fiscal Management Act institutions to ensure economic reconciliation is addressed as a foundation for reconciliation.” Ellis Ross said, “A number of aboriginal leaders feel strongly that economic reconciliation not only lifts up first nations but also obviously lifts up the provinces and the country. The proof is out there.” However, only the Conservatives felt it was important to give an indigenous economic national organization a seat at the table. Why?

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the current work happening in my community on economic reconciliation. Curve Lake First Nation is on a path toward self-sufficiency and economic autonomy with the construction of a 45,000 square foot facility on its reserve that will be home to both a fish farm and a greenhouse. About 19,000 square feet of the facility will be dedicated to fish production. Curve Lake First Nation plans to sell homegrown fish and vegetables at local farmers' markets and is in talks to form partnerships with grocery chains, with seafood markets also expressing interest.

The facility will bring 15 jobs to the reserve, with the project being a business owned and operated by Curve Lake First Nation that provides a revenue source for the community, alongside employment and educational opportunities. The development of the facility was born out of a common desire from community members and leaders to foster self-sustainability. Members of the House should be fostering more of these ideas and supporting their establishment as we look toward meaningful reconciliation.

As I mentioned earlier, economic prosperity of indigenous peoples is a key solution to eradicating poverty, solving the social issues that poverty causes and ultimately providing the path to self-determination for indigenous people. I look forward to a Conservative government that recognizes this work and advances it further.

Today, I would ask the Liberals to support our amendments and take meaningful action toward truth and reconciliation. They are only words if there is no action to follow.