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.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Kwe kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour.

I want to start by acknowledging that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

I'm glad to be back at this committee with my colleagues and departmental officials.

I want to thank the former chair for the work he has done, not only as chair but also as a member of Parliament.

I want to congratulate you, Chair, Patrick Weiler. I look forward to seeing the work of this committee under your leadership.

I will start by reiterating something I've said before. Reconciliation is not a destination; it's a multi-generational journey and requires a long-term commitment. That includes sustained and ongoing investments, which we'll talk about today through the main estimates.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action, including the recently passed National Council for Reconciliation Act, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, continue to support our journey toward an era of renewed relations with indigenous peoples, one that is characterized by recognizing and supporting indigenous peoples in advancing their goals and resolving historical injustices, including through financial settlements.

We're gaining momentum down a future equitable path of hope and prosperity. The investments for indigenous peoples announced in the budget will help us move forward on this path.

As you know, the main estimates are the first step in the fiscal cycle and do not include funding from budget 2024 investments. Those will happen through future estimates.

This year CIRNAC's main estimates total $10.9 billion, which reflects a net increase of $1.8 billion compared to last year. This increase is primarily attributed to a higher level of funding received for the settlement of claims and litigation. We can't undo the wrongs of the past, but we seek to address the harms that were caused by Canada's colonial legacy.

This is key, in my opinion, to rebuilding trust in order to move forward on such very important issues as land being given back, agricultural benefits and advanced economic reconciliation by investing in indigenous-led solutions. We plan to use these funds to settle claims more quickly, as with the agricultural benefit claims under our expedited resolution strategy. Last year alone we settled nine of these claims, for a total settlement of $975.4 million for such communities as Pine Creek First Nation and English River First Nation.

As we make amends for the past, we must stay focused on the future, where the rights of indigenous peoples are respected and they have control over their governance and self-determination, their lands, their waters and their children. In that sense, I've seen how modern treaties have the power to deliver results. Contributing to this, $2.2 billion will go towards managing and implementing agreements and treaties, targeting 93 additional arrangements by March 2025.

I think of the modern treaties we are hoping to sign in the very near future in British Columbia, which will tangibly make life better for people in those communities. However, signing agreements alone won't build trust. For 20 years, partners have called for independent oversight to make sure we keep our modern treaty promises. On May 2 we took a step forward in fixing that when the Prime Minister announced that the commissioner for modern treaty implementation will be established. Like the national council for reconciliation, it's another step to hold the government accountable as we continue on this path.

I'd like to take a moment to go over some of the new budget 2024 investments that are not captured in the main estimates. They will contribute to our nation-to-nation work with communities.

There is $918 million for housing and infrastructure, including $62 million for self-governing and modern treaty first nations, $370 million for Inuit communities and $60 million for Métis.

There is $96 million to document, locate and memorialize burial sites at former residential schools and to combat the harmful effects of denialism. There is over $21 million for initiatives related to missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, including the development of a red dress alert system. There is more than $12 million to empower indigenous youth, meeting call to action 66.

There is a $5-billion loan guarantee program to support the participation of indigenous communities in energy and natural resource projects.

From the place we are right now, there is only one way we can go, which is forward. Reconciliation is a one-way street. That means sustaining this action and sustaining these increased investments. Since 2015 investments in indigenous priorities have increased threefold. Since 2015 indigenous people have a partner in the federal government, one that takes their meetings and helps advance their priorities, such as finding their missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and two-spirit individuals, and seeking justice for those lives stolen.

I look forward to the conversation today.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi. Thank you. Merci.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-29.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the member will actually be voting in favour of Bill C-29. I believe it is a commitment that is being fulfilled as one of the 94 calls for action. I have found it quite pleasing to know, as a government, that the member cannot cite any other leader of a political party who has done more to move in a substantive way than the Prime Minister of Canada has over the last nine years.

I know the moment I sit down, she is going to continue to be critical of the government, and that is what she is allowed to do. The reality is that, on the calls for action, we see 80% of them being acted on and many of them have been completed, and this is a government that, from day one, has made a commitment, with first nations, to ensure that we move forward on the calls for action.

Will she confirm she is supporting the bill?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. If enacted, this would ensure a non-partisan, arm's-length organization that would hold the government of the day to its commitments to reconciliation. This is needed, because the government shows less of a commitment to reconciliation every year. Let us look at the Liberal record.

Last year, not one Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendation was implemented. Out of the 94 calls to action, only 13 have been accomplished. The government promised to end long-term boil water advisories more than three years ago, but there is still no end in sight. This year is looking even worse.

What has happened with the government’s most important relationship, we might ask? We can just look at this past week. The Minister of Finance could not even bring herself to utter the word “indigenous” or “reconciliation” in her speech introducing the budget. However, given her rhetoric over the last year, why would she?

Indigenous peoples spent months hearing the government threaten sunsetting and cuts to the services that they and their communities rely on. Programs, services and grants that people rely on were threatened, including Jordan’s principle and dealing with the harmful legacy of residential schools. It took NDP pressure to reverse many of those cuts.

This is how low the bar is set with the government, opposing cuts in the face of a $350-billion infrastructure gap. Instead of proposing a wealth tax or an excess profit tax on people such as Mirko Bibic, Galen Weston or Arthur Irving, the government consciously chose to spend less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis on first nations.

Despite all their bluster, big oil does not need to beg the government for handouts. Galen Weston certainly does not. Bell gets all the money it needs to give away in fat bonuses and shareholder dividends while laying off thousands of workers. However, first nations are treated as an afterthought in this budget. It really boggles the mind.

The government recently co-authored a report that made clear how badly federal governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, have just fundamentally failed first nations. If one doubled the number of homes in first nations communities, the report said, there would still not be enough to meet the housing demand. Upon releasing the report with the AFN, the Liberals decided to completely ignore it.

The Liberals know that they will not hit the 2030 goal to end the housing crisis for first nations. Their department officials have admitted as much, but the Liberal MPs will not admit it, nor will the ministers responsible or the Prime Minister.

Communities such as the ones here in northern Manitoba live this reality every day. They know it well. That is why Grand Chief Cathy Merrick said, in response to this budget, that it will be a cold day in hell before the infrastructure gap facing first nations is ended. That is why the AFN National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak is calling for a first ministers meeting this year to discuss a path forward on reconciliation, because the government is just not getting the work done.

Let us be honest about what a $350-billion infrastructure gap looks like. There is Shamattawa First Nation, where the housing crisis is so bad, the community has had to deal with tuberculosis outbreaks. In fact, here in northern Manitoba, over the last number of years, we have had higher rates of tuberculosis than have some parts of sub-Saharan Africa. There is Tataskweyak Cree Nation, where the government so fundamentally failed in delivering clean water that it had to fight the first nation in court.

There is Pimicikamak Cree Nation, which has a 2,000-family wait-list for homes. There is also the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, which has a 700-family wait-list for homes.

There is Wasagamack, one of the most isolated communities in the country. It is still waiting for the federal government to step up and work with the community and the province to build a desperately needed airport.

Communities on the east side of Manitoba, on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, are paying the price for climate change. They have no choice but to rely on ice roads, which are increasingly unreliable because of the shortened winter season. They have made it clear to the federal government that they need all-weather roads but the federal government has made no commitment to working with them to help build the roads.

There is the Island Lake region, where the population is similar to that of my hometown of Thompson. Thousands of people live in the region; they still do not have a hospital or an all-weather road.

The housing infrastructure gap, which I would call a crisis, is pervasive in first nations here in Manitoba and for many first nations across the country. Communities need housing, elders' care homes, day cares, health centres, water treatment plants and emergency preparedness-related infrastructure. They need to improve existing roads and build new ones so they can fight to survive climate change.

Many of these stories are rooted here in my constituency in northern Manitoba, on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, but we know they are repeated across the country. Indigenous peoples are almost three times more likely to live in a home in need of major repair. More than half of first nations do not have regular access to high-speed Internet, and roughly 15% have none at all.

We need to be honest with ourselves. This is keeping indigenous communities poor, and it is a choice by the federal government. Every time the government looks the other way on a tax loophole, every time we buy fridges for Galen Weston or give billions of dollars to big oil, that is money we are not spending on the people and communities most in need. The sad reality is that the government only steps up when it is court-ordered to do so. In fact, budget 2024 outlined $57 billion in settlement money, as if it were a huge success by the government and not a situation where it fought first nations, Inuit and Métis people every step of the way to deny them justice.

To be honest, it is clear that the government is laying the groundwork for future class-action lawsuits against it. One can only imagine what is coming on the housing front. The Auditor General recently released a report on the housing crisis on reserve, and it came out that Indigenous Services has been using the wrong census data, data from 2001. This has effectively robbed first nations, particularly in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, of the housing dollars they deserve, for up to a quarter of a billion dollars.

Did the Minister of Indigenous Services or the Prime Minister rush to right that wrong, to get that money into the hands of communities that had a right to it? No, when he was asked about it, the Prime Minister instead refused to even entertain the idea that they ever would. That is another example of the government fundamentally failing first nations and one that will likely end in a class-action lawsuit, something it deeply deserves.

In contrast, we have a Conservative Party that never saw a tax break for billionaires it did not love. The last time the leader of the official opposition was in government, the Conservatives gave away $60 billion in corporate tax cuts.

On the day the previous prime minister delivered a public apology to survivors of residential schools, years ago, the current Conservative leader, the leader of the official opposition, said that he was not sure Canada was “getting value for all of this money”. It was money being spent to compensate survivors, and his view was that “we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self-reliance. That's the solution in the long run—more money will not solve it”.

I challenge the leader of the official opposition to come to first nations like the ones I represent, where kids were abused, where kids died and where families are still dealing with the poisonous and destructive legacy of the residential school system. I challenge the leader of the official opposition to look people in the face and to say that Canada is the victim here and that Canada is the one that did not get its value. Shame on him.

However, it is not just him who does not understand the harmful legacy of residential schools. The reality is that we are now approaching three years since Canadians learned what first nations across the country already knew: the existence of mass grave sites near residential schools. However, the government is still not supporting communities with the resources they need to bring their children home.

Communities like Cross Lake and others wanted to work with the International Commission on Missing Persons. The work has already begun. However, before it could move forward, the government ended the contract, and now Cross Lake and other communities are forced to start over; it is justice delayed.

Despite his claims that he wants to support communities, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has done virtually nothing to assist first nations that want to work with the ICMP, a global leader when it comes to uncovering mass graves. He has done virtually nothing to assist first nations that desperately want to work to uncover the truth and to bring their children home.

In Sagkeeng First Nation, an employee recently found bones while digging a trench for a water pipe to a church addition. The area was not part of any known cemetery. The community wants to work with the International Commission on Missing Persons. They have asked CIRNAC for support, but have not received any.

People across our north see through the government's empty use of the word “reconciliation”. People across our north want to see action. The NDP will continue to call out the government when it fails indigenous peoples and when it talks a good talk, especially on reconciliation, while refusing to follow through in terms of action. We are proud to support this bill, Bill C-29, but recognize that the monitoring process, or lack thereof, will not create the change indigenous peoples need to see.

Here, in our part of the country, people are clear. Indigenous leaders, elders, youth and advocates are clear that what they need to see is action: an end to third-world living conditions, true change in the face of the climate emergency, and real investment to make life better. They deserve action. They deserve justice, and we should recognize and act on nothing less.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that there is a very large community of indigenous youth, status and non-status youth, living off reserve and within the urban centres, as well as families who live off reserve. Our family is one of them.

The government has chosen to leave out the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, an organization that represents over 800,000 status and non-status indigenous peoples, as well as the Native Women's Association of Canada, an organization that represents women and children on and off reserve. That is par for the course. We have seen time and time again with the government that it has chosen to pick winners and losers. They have done the same with Bill C-29, and it is disappointing.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that we get these questions from the Bloc and others talking about the past when we are looking forward to the future. We are here today to talk about a bill, Bill C-29, which we all agree is important and needed. Unfortunately, we have parties who just want to continue to point fingers. They are doing everything to try to take a very non-partisan piece of legislation and turn it into a partisan hit job.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for the empathy and goodwill toward indigenous people that were so evident in his speech. I think it is important to do the work required to move closer to reconciliation. We learned that he is going to vote in favour of Bill C‑29, which can only be a positive thing.

Obviously, the Conservatives are not the government. They are the opposition. However, there are things they could do right now to help with reconciliation. Not so long ago, for example, their leader held a big celebration of the well-known John A. Macdonald, who created residential schools, had Louis Riel hanged and came up with a strategy to cause famine among indigenous peoples.

Does my colleague think that celebrations like this are appropriate against a backdrop of reconciliation?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

What does the word “reconciliation” mean? After nine years of the current government, what we have seen is that it has become a buzzword. Reconciliation is about walking shoulder to shoulder, listening, learning and being open to admitting that wrongs were done.

Bill C-29 is a response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 to 56. I will remind the House that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was founded by our former prime minister, Stephen Harper, in the former Conservative government. Throughout these conversations, there is always finger pointing that goes on, but I would hazard that there is enough blame to go around on all sides.

We have seen, in the last nine years, the government picking winners and losers, pitting first nations against first nations, first nations against non-first nations, Métis against Métis, and Métis against non-Métis. We have seen our Prime Minister thank indigenous protesters who were simply protesting the fact that the boil water advisories in their communities are ongoing. What did he do when he was at his fancy function? He thanked them for their donation. We have seen him cast away the first indigenous female Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould. She spoke truth to power and was cast aside.

We have seen the Prime Minister stand there with his hand on his heart, dabbing away a fake tear with a tissue, saying that this is his most important relationship. However, as we just heard, the government has launched its ninth budget without any mention of reconciliation for indigenous peoples, so members will have to pardon me if I seem a bit skeptical about what the government is planning with Bill C-29.

Over the time of my being elected, whether with my current file on mental health and suicide prevention or my previous files on transportation or fisheries, the government likes to say that it has consulted. However, is it truly consultation and engagement, or is it merely putting a checkmark in a box on a sheet that says what they had to do and complete? True engagement means sitting at the table and fully understanding all sides.

What has brought us to this point? In recent years, we heard about the horrors of the residential school program, but the world is just waking up to what some of us have been hearing for many years. The residential school program was designed to drive the Indian out of the children, and thousands upon thousands of first nations, Inuit and Métis children were taken from their homes and never returned.

Sitting with residential school survivors and listening to their stories is horrible. The start of the ground sonar search in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George was at the former St. Joseph's Mission Residential School in my hometown of Williams Lake. I am on record saying that I grew up just down the road from this school, yet I had no idea of the horrors that were going on at that school.

These were kids that I played with. I know many of them to this day. They are my friends and family. My family is first nations as well. Watching a residential school survivor come to the lands for a ceremony marking the start of the ground sonar search and watching them shake and become so emotional as those memories come flooding back is absolutely heartbreaking.

In nine years of the government, it has only fully implemented 11 of the 94 calls to action, and only eight of the 76 calls that are the federal government's responsibility. Why did it take four years for the Liberals to implement this after the Prime Minister made the announcement about it in 2018? Why are they still not bringing in or listening to all of the indigenous groups that want to be a part of this?

There is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, an organization that represents over 800 status and non-status, off-reserve, urban indigenous peoples, and the Native Women's Association of Canada, an organization that represents women and children on and off reserve. At committee, our Conservative team, the Bloc and NDP members passed a motion to include these two national organizations. However, when the rubber hit the road, when it came time to make sure they were part of it, our NDP colleagues sided with their Liberal friends and voted to exclude the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, effectively silencing the voices of 800,000 off-reserve indigenous peoples. Why?

Reconciliation is about inclusion. Reconciliation is about recognizing economic prosperity, allowing indigenous individuals and communities to recognize their full potential. It is unbelievable that we are still debating this bill. The fact that this bill is still here, the fact that we are still in the process of debating it after having numerous amendments and speeches, speaks to the government's failure to meaningfully consult and advance this issue.

Now the Liberals are going to stand up and I guarantee that at one point we are going to hear that the bill has been blocked and there have been lots of dilatory motions from this side, but they have the majority. If the Liberals want to push something through, with their NDP colleagues they can push it through.

Our Conservative colleagues worked diligently at the committee to improve the bill. Is that not the message we always give? Just let it pass, let it get to committee and we will make it better there. However, again, we have heard that they blocked and left out two important groups.

The Liberals talk about consultation. Does Bill C-29 truly represent the work and consultation they have done? Does it truly represent all the indigenous people, or does it just simply reflect the views of those who are friends of the Liberal government?

We know that recently there are about 113 indigenous groups in Ontario that are taking the federal government to court over boil water advisories. The government talks a good game, but the truth is in its actions. As important as the bill is, it also highlights the failure of the Liberal government to listen to Canadians, to listen meaningfully and to consult with indigenous peoples.

This is, of course, not the first time we have spoken about the Liberals' inability to consult and listen. They always seem to go down the path of just ticking the boxes of the groups that are in agreement with them. They use that as their record of consultation, yet they have left a whole community of indigenous peoples out when it pertains to Bill C-29.

A concern we have is that, time and again, we see these bills that come forth, and they are not perfect, and then the consequences are faced afterwards. We will hear comments from the other side, saying that we should never let perfection get in the way of getting something done.

I have talked about winners and losers with the government. I have talked about my friend Chief Willie Sellars in Williams Lake. He is the chief of his community who, in all senses of the word, is leading by example. He is not waiting for the government to provide handouts. He has done everything to lead his nation and his community to economic prosperity.

Ellis Ross, a provincial MLA in British Columbia, walks the walk. I remember sitting at a presentation with him about 10 years ago, and he said that we do not need all these fancy words and we don't need to listen to an unelected group, the United Nations, with the calls to action. What we need, he said, is the government to get out of the way, to allow us to chart our own path forward.

Is this council going to be just another arm of the minister of the day? These are the questions we have. Will the government even listen to the national council? It has spent the last nine years over-promising and under-delivering on indigenous issues. How many communities still have the boil water advisories? It is unbelievable.

I remember the speeches we did in the House during one of the first emergency debates we had. It was on the suicide epidemic on Attawapiskat First Nation. It was heartbreaking for me to hear the stories we were hearing.

Sadly, I ask if things have gotten better for indigenous peoples in the last nine years under the current government. In 2015, the Prime Minister stood and promised that this was his most important relationship.

It is complex, I will give the Liberals that, but if this was truly the Prime Minister's most important relationship, why have they just announced so much spending in a budget in which we would spend more money servicing our debt than we do on health care? When the books were open, the safe was open, and they were throwing money at everything, yet there was not a mention of indigenous peoples or reconciliation. It is frustrating. What would be measured with this council? What gets measured, gets done.

Conservatives will be supporting this bill because we believe in the premise that we have to have everyone around the table. True reconciliation begins with understanding and, as I said earlier, listening with open hearts, open ears and open eyes. My concern with the government is that this is just here to placate. There is no real meaning or value behind doing this.

It is frustrating, as I already said earlier in my speech, that we are debating this today, when it could have been done previously. It has been nine years.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the legislation that provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. It would be an independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization with a purpose to advance efforts for reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This council would track our progress on implementing the calls to action, a road map for reconciliation.

I wish to reiterate that we are committed to implementing the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, advancing reconciliation and working in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis. We will implement all the calls to action and advance reconciliation in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis.

We recognize the crucial role played by the Senate of Canada, which is often referred to as the chamber of sober second thought. This body serves as a vital check on the legislative process, ensuring that laws enacted by the House of Commons receive thorough review and consideration.

The Senate's recent amendments to a key piece of legislation exemplify its essential function. By refining terms, clarifying language and specifying functions, the Senate has enhanced not only the clarity of the law but also its effectiveness in serving the diverse needs of Canadians, particularly emphasizing respect and precision in matters involving indigenous governing bodies.

The amendments, such as the explicit use of the terms “first nations”, “Inuit” and “Métis” in the preamble, focus on inclusivity and the acknowledgement of Canada's indigenous peoples. They also improve governance by defining the scope and functions of the new council and by ensuring transparency with the tabling of an annual report.

These adjustments are crucial for meaningful consultation and co-operation with indigenous communities. Let us value and respect the Senate's diligent work. Its amendments contribute significantly to making legislation more just, more precise and better suited to serving our society's needs. The Senate's thoughtful revisions ensure our laws reflect the voices and rights of all Canadians.

Indigenous peoples in Canada, comprising first nations, Métis and Inuit communities, represent diverse and vibrant cultures with distinct traditions, languages and histories. Today these groups face a complex set of challenges and opportunities. Socially and economically, indigenous people often experience higher rates of poverty, lower educational attainment, health disparities and limited access to essential services compared with non-indigenous Canadians. These issues are rooted in historical injustices, such as colonization and the residential school system.

However, there is ongoing progress in addressing these challenges. Recent years have seen increased governmental and public recognition of indigenous rights and sovereignty. Efforts towards reconciliation are evident in initiatives such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, which aim to rectify historical wrongs. Indigenous political and cultural resurgence is also notable, with indigenous leaders playing key roles in national dialogues about environmental protection, economic development and cultural preservation.

We can imagine a Canada where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action are fully realized, a nation defined by understanding, justice and mutual respect. The impact of implementing these calls is profound, promising a future where all Canadians, including first nations, Métis and Inuit, share equally in the prosperity and cultural richness of our country. By acknowledging and correcting the historical and systemic injustices faced by indigenous peoples, we foster a national spirit of genuine reconciliation. This means not only recognizing past wrongs but also actively working to rectify them.

Education systems would teach the true history of indigenous peoples, fostering understanding and respect from a young age. Meanwhile, health and justice systems would be reformed to eliminate systemic biases, ensuring that indigenous communities receive equitable treatment.

The economic impact would be significant as well. By supporting indigenous businesses and integrating traditional knowledge into our economic practices, we unlock new opportunities for innovation and sustainability. Socially, as barriers are dismantled, we would see stronger, more inclusive communities across Canada, enriched by the diverse cultures and traditions of indigenous peoples. This is an investment in the future not only of indigenous communities but of all Canadians, creating a society that truly reflects our values of fairness and equality.

These are the reasons I stand here to discuss the imperative of fully implementing the calls to action of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

This comprehensive report is not merely a document. It is a blueprint for healing and partnership, aimed at righting the historical injustices faced by indigenous peoples in Canada.

For too long, the voices of first nations, Métis and Inuit communities have been marginalized. The residential school system stripped away language, culture and identity and stands as a dark chapter in our national history. The calls to action provide us with a path to acknowledge these painful truths, to learn from them and to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Implementing these calls to action is not just a moral obligation but also a vital step towards building a just society in which the rights and cultures of indigenous peoples are respected. It is about creating educational programs that reflect the true history of Canada, reforming the justice system to be equitable and ensuring that health and child welfare services meet the needs of indigenous communities.

Let us embrace this opportunity to foster reconciliation, to build bridges and to work hand in hand with indigenous communities toward a shared and equitable future. The path is laid out before us. It is time for action, commitment and perseverance. Let us move forward together, not as separate entities but as united Canadians, honouring every chapter of our shared history.

The council, as outlined in Bill C-29, would be an independent, non-partisan body dedicated to overseeing the ongoing efforts towards reconciliation. It marks a profound shift toward ensuring that these efforts are led by those who understand them deeply, our indigenous peoples.

Notably, the board of directors, primarily composed of indigenous members—

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-29 is fully in line with what the Bloc Québécois has been advocating for a long time, namely the nation-to-nation relationship between indigenous nations, the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation. This resonates perfectly with us. We encourage it and value it enormously. I would just like to mention the agreement reached by Premier Bernard Landry known as Paix des Braves, or peace of the braves. That was a big step for Quebec.

That said, I simply want to take this opportunity to remind the government that there is still a law called the Indian Act. It is 2024. The Indian Act is totally unacceptable, unfair and discriminatory. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nepean.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the ancestral unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Our collective journey on the path of reconciliation, healing and understanding is not merely a path we choose to walk; it is an essential step toward a better future and an acknowledgement of past wrongs. This is about acknowledging that while we cannot change the past, we have the power and, indeed, the responsibility to shape a better future, which is exactly what Bill C-29, the piece of legislation we are debating today, is all about. Simply put, it would establish a national council for reconciliation.

In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was chaired by the hon. Murray Sinclair, investigated the history and the legacy of residential schools and released its final report. It came after six years of hearings and testimonies of more than 6,000 residential school survivors and their loved ones. The report included 94 calls to action to address the legacy of residential schools and to achieve true reconciliation based on the experiences and recommendations of survivors. Our government is committed to implementing each and every one of those calls to action.

This legislation responds to call to action numbers 53 to 56. The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that “all levels of government must make a new commitment to reconciliation and accountability.” The Truth and Reconciliation Commission further noted that Indigenous peoples and Canadians will benefit from the establishment of an oversight body to evaluate and to report on progress made toward fulfilling commitments and to ensure that the necessary educational resources to advance reconciliation are available to all Canadians.

On this journey, it is crucial that we listen, truly listen, to the stories of those who have been affected by our history. These stories, though often fraught with pain and injustice, are vital in understanding the depth of the hurt that has been caused. They remind us that behind every call to action, there are human faces and stories that deserve to be heard and to be acknowledged.

To that end, this bill was brought forward after extensive engagement with Indigenous peoples and organizations. Our government as well as parliamentarians in both chambers have worked tirelessly to ensure that the bill before us today is at the heart of what indigenous people have been asking for in this country. Parliamentarians have made important amendments, and the government accepts all of them.

Walking the path of reconciliation requires consistent action and a desire to forge a new relationship based on mutual respect, trust and nation-to-nation recognition, to which indigenous peoples are entitled. This work is vital, complex and long term. That is why it is crucial that we have systems to measure the progress we are making as a country as we work toward reconciliation and that we hold the government accountable to its obligations. The council would do just that.

Reconciliation requires more than just words. It demands action. It challenges us to move beyond the mere acknowledgement of past injustices to the implementation of concrete steps that address these wrongs. While the Leader of the Opposition offers platitudes on the necessity of reconciliation, there remains a stark contrast between his rhetoric and the actions, or lack thereof, taken by his party.

That is why the National Council for Reconciliation is so important. It would be an independent, permanent body that would oversee the progress of reconciliation efforts in Canada. It aims to promote respect, dialogue and understanding between Canadian and indigenous peoples. The council would provide oversight and would hold the government accountable for advancing reconciliation with indigenous communities, including monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

We know progress has been made, but I hope that everyone in this place would agree that there is more to do. As amended, this bill strengthens the accountability of governments to respond to council concerns in terms of measuring progress. The establishment of such a council reflects a commitment to creating mechanisms for ongoing dialogue, for respect for Indigenous rights and for a concerted effort to address historical injustices and the legacy of colonialism. It signifies a step forward in the journey toward reconciliation, aiming to ensure that the actions and the policies of the future are informed by a comprehensive understanding of the past and present realities faced by indigenous peoples in Canada.

I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, as amended, as it represents a critical step toward bridging the gap between words and action.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the different results we hope for are for Conservatives to stop voting against the series of measures we put in place to solve the very problems the member professes to care about. In particular, it would be great if we could pass the doubling of the top-up of the rebate on the price on carbon, so that rural residents in this country from one coast to another could benefit from that additional affordability measure as we continue our fight against climate change, which is affecting them, it must be said, disproportionately. I assure my hon. friend we are very committed to passing what is an exceptionally good, aggressive and helpful budget for all Canadians.

We will continue debate on the budget this afternoon.

Tomorrow, we will conclude debate on the motion concerning the amendments proposed by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Upon our return from the constituency week, and I wish all members a good week of work in their constituencies, we will deal with the budget debate on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, with whom we have, of course, ongoing co-operation and good work.

I can assure the hon. member that we will continue today with the report stage of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, despite the 20,000 automated, AI-generated robo-amendments that the Conservatives put up to obstruct this bill. We will take up third reading debate on that bill on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.

The budget presentation will take place later that afternoon, at 4 p.m., with the first day of debate on the budget taking place on Thursday of next week.

On Wednesday, we hope to resume debate on second reading of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Lastly, on Friday, we will resume debate on the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

I thank all members for their co-operation.

Bilingual Documents in the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-29—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much. That is our time.

We will suspend briefly to change everything over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C‑29—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will read the amendment, which states:

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

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

Article 19

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

Article 20

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

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

That would include equal benefits under EI.

It goes on to state:

Article 21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not reconciliation. This is alienation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the matter we are debating today is a good, positive story. There are indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast that have worked alongside and in many ways led the initiative with the Government of Canada in bringing forward the national council for reconciliation.

I emphasize the importance of the recommendations in all the calls to action because that is one of the issues the council will continue to monitor. Everything I have talked about, the council itself will be looking at. Ultimately, it will hold governments of whatever political stripe to some sense of accountability with respect to indigenous-led reconciliation and issues. I believe that is a positive thing.

I believe this government has been very progressive in moving forward with good intent, often following the leadership of indigenous people, in dealing with the calls to action.

Today, we are looking at call to action number 53, which states:

We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members. Its mandate would include, but not be limited to, the following:

i. Monitor, evaluate, and report annually to Parliament and the people of Canada on the Government of Canada’s post-apology progress on reconciliation to ensure that government accountability for reconciling the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown is maintained in the coming years;

ii. Monitor, evaluate, and report to Parliament and the people of Canada on reconciliation progress across all levels and sectors of Canadian society, including the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action.

iii. Develop and implement a multi-year National Action Plan for Reconciliation, which includes research and policy development, public education programs, and resources;

iv. Promote public dialogue, public/private partnerships, and public initiatives for reconciliation.

Although that is call to action number 53, it also deals with calls to action 54, 55 and 56, if not in entirety in good part. I believe that that has been driven through indigenous leadership, which is why we are at the point we are today.

There were amendments brought forward by the Senate to further enhance Bill C-29. I will quickly highlight them. They are as follows: the use of the term “indigenous governing body”; the purpose of the council; narrowing and defining the scope of the council's functions; clarifying English and French; indigenous governing bodies and duty to consult; bilateral mechanisms; tabling of the annual report; functions of the council; disclosure of information by the Government of Canada; and the preamble to use first nations, Inuit and Métis. There has been a great deal of effort that has gone far beyond any one individual or political party.

As I have said in my comments thus far, this has been led and driven by indigenous community leaders. What we are debating today are the results of that. Not only did the House hear the legislation, review it, debate it, have it go to committee and then ultimately pass it, but also the Senate of Canada has recognized, through its process, how this legislation could be further enhanced. I believe that the Senate has done a wonderful service in working with indigenous people and making sure that the legislation is healthier as a direct result.

There are many members in the chamber, including myself, who would like to see this legislation pass sooner as opposed to later. We recognize that the legislative agenda is fairly packed. There are a lot of things on the government agenda. We have called this legislation and, even though we have had debates on it, hopefully we will get some sense from all members of its general support.

Once all is said and done, there is a lot more we can do. I believe the location of the office has yet to be determined. I would like to see it in the city of Winnipeg. I suggest that because, as a government, we have committed just under $60 million to a permanent home for the national centre. That is something that I believe will be a great resource going forward.

I have had the opportunity to take a look at how all of us can play a role in reconciliation. I was really quite impressed when one of the local schools, just recently, in Seven Oaks School Division, decided that it wanted to fly an indigenous flag alongside the Canadian flag at the front of the school. This was actually driven by children. Children started that campaign and wrote to the school superintendent. The superintendent first came back, as is my understanding, saying that they could maybe just put up a flag stand, attached to the school.

The children of this elementary school said that, no, they would like to have a permanent pole. The superintendent ultimately took it to the school division as an idea that came out of the classroom, out of the school. That flag is flying there today, alongside the Canadian flag.

There was a wonderful feeling in that gymnasium, within the elementary school. They brought back a couple of the students who were in grade 6 when they initiated the letter campaign. Throughout the individuals speaking, I felt that the most touching part was when children going up to the mic talked about reconciliation and why it was important.

For me, education is an important aspect of reconciliation. All people of all backgrounds need to be engaged in the process, like on the statutory holiday when I walk along with indigenous people and others and when I go to the St. John's Park in recognition of indigenous reconciliation. It is more than indigenous people who are there. I think that is an important component to this.

We see that in the makeup of the proposed council itself. There would be the opportunity to recognize, through education, accountability and transparency, how we can continue to move forward, no matter what political entity is in power. I would like to think that we all have a role to play.

I look forward to continuing the debate, whether it is on the national council, children, language, the statutory holiday I just made reference to, or the murdered indigenous women and children. There are still indigenous women and children who are going missing and who are being murdered. These are issues that I would like to think most, if not all, members of the House give serious thought to, and by doing that, they can get behind positive legislation such as what we are debating today.

I hope the legislation passes quickly and passes with unanimous support.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Nunavut for providing me with a chance to speak to Bill C-29.

This is a bit of an explanation and background, and a bit of mea culpa, because when Bill C-29 came forward, I recognized it of course as being in response to one of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, specifically found in paragraphs 53, 54 and 55. I compared Bill C-29 at first reading to the language in the TRC report and found it quite lacking. It was quite thin, so I made amendments.

As members know, when one goes into committee and one is not a member of the committee, but one tries to make amendments, it is very difficult. However, I took the language from the TRC call to action that was missing and brought forward an amendment, which got widespread support, to add in all the words that were in paragraphs 53, 54 and 55 of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the Green Party amendments were accepted. However, I then came to find out, from indigenous peoples in my community of Saanich—Gulf Islands, from first nations, that it seemed to them I had participated in approving a bill that had not been properly consulted with indigenous peoples before first reading. Therefore, I am grateful to the Senate for the additional amendments as outlined by my friend, the hon. member for Nunavut. It is very important—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji , I am not too familiar about the work that was done before. I am aware that it was led by my colleague, the former NDP MP, Romeo Saganash. I very much always appreciated his leadership because he is also a former residential school student and one of the people that I very much look up to, being able to be a leader despite all the atrocities he experienced.

I learned from him that partnerships are so important between indigenous peoples and settler governments. We need to make sure that focusing on those partnerships are for the overall well-being of all. If that is the focus, then that is why there is always going to be better success.

I think the national council for reconciliation is not supervising what Canada is doing; it is making sure that Canada will be accountable. It will be reporting on what Canada is not doing. I think there is a huge difference between those, so I do look forward to Canada's accountability toward indigenous peoples improving. That is why I support Bill C-29 so wholeheartedly.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before I begin, I would like to thank the member for Kings—Hants for his apology; I accept it, as he is correct that I abstained. Just to clarify, I abstained, along with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, with the full support of the whole NDP caucus, because we felt quite strongly that the Liberal government had been failing on indigenous peoples' issues and that we need to keep fighting hard for indigenous peoples.

Representing Nunavut in the House has been a huge honour. I have learned so much more about first nations and Métis in Canada.

I acknowledge that we are on unceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory, and I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, for doing more land acknowledgements, because what they mean are that, before Ottawa, first nations thrived on these lands for thousands of years before these Parliament buildings were ever built. Acknowledging that we are on unceded territories also means that first nations still exist, despite government and religious efforts to erase them. I am thankful for the strength of first nations that continue to host and welcome us.

I thank the former minister of Crown-indigenous relations, who is now the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, for tabling Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, in June 2022. The introduction of the bill had been anticipated by indigenous peoples for years.

Before speaking to the bill, I am compelled to retell some of the experiences of indigenous peoples, in order to form the context of what would become the national council for reconciliation. Once I complete some of the context, I will speak to Bill C-29 and the amendments from the other place and conclude with remarks about the greater sense of hope I have for Inuit, first nations and Métis.

I recognize the strength and courage of first nations, Métis and Inuit, who have been waiting far too long for the bill's passage. I am guided by indigenous voices in my support for Bill C-29. I honour the survivors of residential schools. I honour their parents, who were robbed of raising their children. I honour the students who died in residential schools.

First nations, Métis and Inuit children who suffered from genocidal policies continue to ensure that Canada reconciles with indigenous peoples. Canada must do its part. Inuit, first nations and Métis experienced child sexual abuse and physical, emotional and spiritual abuses. These traumas continue to show in the form of intergenerational traumas suffered by children and youth today.

Just last week, I had conversations regarding education. Despite having explained what education was used for, genocide, I was expected to be okay with how it was described. I repeat: Western education was used as a genocidal tool against indigenous peoples. It is still used to keep indigenous peoples at the fringes of Canadian society. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls gathered important evidence. I implore all Canadians to read these reports, to incorporate them into school curricula and to ensure that all work in all of Canada is trauma-informed. These are important ways that Canadians can reconcile with indigenous peoples.

The national council for reconciliation was part of the 94 calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to action 53, 54 and 55, specifically, call on the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with aboriginal peoples, to establish the national council for reconciliation.

The Liberal government not only took seven years to table the legislation but also failed to collaborate with indigenous peoples. I recall specifically the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami dropped support for Bill C-29 based on the concerns not addressed by Parliament.

Call to action 53 will have been implemented when there is monitoring, evaluating and reporting on Parliament's responses. Call to action 54 will have been implemented when multi-year funding is sustained for the national council for reconciliation so it has the financial, human and technical resources to function appropriately, and when an endowment of a national reconciliation trust is created. Call to action 55 will have been implemented when progress on closing the gaps in indigenous peoples' health indicators, on eliminating overrepresentation in the justice system, and on other areas is reported.

The important work of the national council for reconciliation would ensure a non-partisan approach to hearing what the issues are and the changes that need to be made. It would fulfill an important role in monitoring government programs and policies. I think all members of the House can agree on the merits of this work and the pressing need for the establishment of the national council.

Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people continue to go missing. Families on and off reserve live in overcrowded, mouldy homes that make us sick. Communities lack access to fresh water and affordable, healthy food. Suicide rates, especially among youth in Nunavut, remain among the highest in the world. The scars of residential schools and other sinister tools of assimilation persist through intergenerational trauma. Too often the government stands by. I have hope that the national council would help pressure the government to end these injustices and many others.

Reconciliation is an important process that demands the highest standards of implementation. When the Liberals tabled the original Bill C-29, it required some work. This is evidenced by the many amendments that were passed at committee stage and now by the Senate.

I am proud of the NPD's amendments that were passed at committee. We ensured the inclusion of important advice to be drawn from survivors, elders and indigenous legal professionals. We fought for language that would ensure that the national council would use a rights-based approach to its work on advancing reconciliation. These amendments would make the national council stronger.

I thank the committee in the other place, which took great care in its deliberations on Bill C-29, some of which I will outline. The inclusion of the word “post-contact” in the preamble differentiates Métis from first nations and Inuit. This acknowledges the fact that first nations and Inuit existed before the arrival of settlers. It is an important and welcome change. Next, adding a definition for “indigenous governing body” keeps Bill C-29 more consistent with other legislation. It is more accurate language than the previous use of “government”, as not all indigenous groups are considered governments.

Senate amendment 3 expands on whom reconciliation may be with. It would not be just between government and indigenous peoples but would also be expanded to between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples. Senate amendment 4 provides greater clarity on what the national council for reconciliation would monitor and report, including education.

Amendment 5 clarifies the importance of the federal government's obligations with respect to the duty to consult. It clearly outlines that the duty to consult, which is owed to first nations, Inuit and Métis, would remain, and that consulting with the national council for reconciliation would not mean that indigenous peoples were consulted. This is an important distinction that would ensure that the national council for reconciliation would remain arm's-length and non-partisan. It reaffirms the section 35 rights of indigenous peoples. New Democrats agree, looking to amplifying the rights of indigenous peoples at every possible opportunity.

Amendment 6 is particularly important as it would enable the national council for reconciliation to seek clarification if the minister fails to comply with obligations set out in the act. Senate amendment 7 changes what the minister would be required to do, from a one-time activity six months after the national council is established to annually. This would be important for keeping the minister accountable always. One of the main flaws of the original bill was that it was overly vague. I am glad that the other place agreed and has added more prescriptive language around the national action plan that helps clarify the national council's research scope and follow-up actions. I am hopeful this would ensure more robust work and reporting.

Senate amendment 8 makes a small but meaningful change. The government's progress towards reconciliation would be reported, and progress by all levels of government and society would be reported separately. This would give the national council more flexibility in its reporting by not lumping the two together.

Overall, as I said, the amendments are welcome additions that would help strengthen Bill C-29. I remind parliamentarians that much work is still required in order for indigenous peoples to acknowledge government efforts in reconciliation. Reconciliation must remain at the core of our work. The passage of Bill C-29 would be another step. So long as indigenous peoples are deprived of their right to self-determination, their right to housing and so much more, reconciliation must continue. I am encouraged by the amendments that were made by the other place and I am encouraged to see the strength they would add to the national council for reconciliation.

To the future board members of the national council for reconciliation, expectations will be high. Inuit, first nations and Métis all across Canada will look to them to keep the governments accountable. It is not easy to challenge the established colonial structures and to hold the government to account on injustices. If anyone will be able to do it, it can be the national council for reconciliation. I urge all parties to support the Senate amendments so the national council for reconciliation can be established.

Finally, as I said in the beginning, I will conclude by sharing the hope I have for the future. I express my gratitude to the Supreme Court of Canada, which has upheld indigenous peoples' right to self-govern over children, youth and families. Indeed, prior to the damages caused by Canada's genocidal policies, Inuit and first nations, and later the Métis, exercised their own laws in areas that include well-being for children, youth and families.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Bill C-92 is an important milestone in Canada. It has acknowledged that indigenous peoples can make our own laws. It has affirmed the importance of implementing UNDRIP. I thank the 42nd Parliament for having tabled Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier I referred to the 94 recommendations, the calls to action, and Bill C-29 addresses a very important call to action. We recognize that the federal government plays a very important lead role, but there are other jurisdictions, provinces and others, that also play a role. We have seen a significant percentage, I believe it is well over 80%, that have been acted upon or are in process, from a federal government perspective.

I would ask the member to provide his thoughts on overall reconciliation and the calls to action.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. This council will monitor progress being made towards reconciliation across all sectors of Canada and support the sustainable implementation of measures to foster long-term reconciliation. I believe these elements are important, particularly in the context of the ruling that has been handed down, which somewhat neglects the long-term aspect.

There is no question that the current government has adopted a reckless strategy. One could argue that it has gotten off to a rocky start. Bill C‑29 still suffers from a serious flaw: The national reconciliation council is woefully lacking in representation. In its current form, three seats are reserved for national organizations, and this Liberal government collaborates with them almost exclusively on indigenous issues. That is not enough. Other voices, notably those of urban and disadvantaged populations, are being left out. Reconciliation cannot move forward if we continue to divide and exclude certain groups of people. The government should not play the role of judge and jury in deciding who is indigenous and who is not. The Supreme Court already ruled on that issue in the 2016 Daniels decision.

This government, which claims to be committed to a reconciliation process, only recognizes persons affiliated with the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami or the Métis National Council as indigenous. By placing indigenous peoples in an order of priority, the Canadian government is openly pursuing a divide and conquer strategy. It is fuelling internal discord by favouring some groups over others. This deplorable approach stands in stark contrast to the spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect that we aspire to achieve as a society. When most murdered and missing women come from urban centres, why is the government relegating crucial entities like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to the back burner?

As we know, members of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples were prevented from participating in the summit. They had to fight for it. I joined them in the same room yesterday so that they could attend via Zoom. Both the summit and the Zoom meeting took place in the same building, the Shaw Centre. People went there to mourn, yet had the doors to an event organized by the federal department shut on them. Where are the voices that should be representing the full scope of Métis and indigenous interests?

Of course, funding is always an important issue. However, when it comes to Bill C‑29 in particular, it is clear that this is about more than just money. It is about representing all women and giving them a voice, especially those who are marginalized and experience violence in urban centres. They deserve not only to be heard, but also to have justice served. The same goes for young people, seniors and two-spirit people. It is ironic to talk about reconciliation while actively excluding certain individuals. This approach reinforces the hierarchy of groups that is not only unfair, but also profoundly destructive to our social fabric. As observers of this situation, it is our duty to denounce these practices and to promote a true spirit of justice and reconciliation. We must remain vigilant and never lose sight of our common goal, which is to create a society in which every individual is respected and included.

As I was saying earlier, there was unanimity on Bill C‑29 when it was passed. Again, there should be consensus on what the Senate brought to it. I am having a hard time figuring out the Conservatives' position. They have become very critical of the government regarding a bill that they supported roughly a year ago. The amendment, which was adopted in the Senate by a vote of 36 to 32, with six abstentions, provides that Bill C‑29, as amended, be amended again in the preamble, at page 1, by replacing lines 2 and 3 with the following: “Whereas, since time immemorial, Indigenous peoples—and, post-contact, the Métis Nation—have thrived on...their Indigenous lands”. The text continues unchanged from its previous version.

Essentially, this amendment modifies the preamble by setting out the timeline of when the Métis nation appeared, which was later than the first nations and Inuit in America. This amendment has no legislative impact in itself. However, it is interesting to see that it is important for certain first nations who seem to want to emphasize the fact that they were here first, as though the Métis are a little less legitimate. That said, it is still a form of inclusion, and the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this amendment.

I want to reiterate the principles behind our support for Bill C‑29. The Bloc Québécois is a strong advocate of a nation-to-nation relationship between Quebec, Ottawa and indigenous nations. Giving indigenous peoples an additional voice in the reconciliation process is entirely consistent with the Bloc's position. The Bloc Québécois works with indigenous nations on the federal level to strengthen and guarantee their inherent rights. The Bloc Québécois is committed to ensuring that the federal government fully implements the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in areas of federal responsibility.

The Bloc Québécois has also come out in support of indigenous nations receiving their due, and we will continue to put pressure on the federal government to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. On June 21, 2021, the Bloc Québécois secured the unanimous passage of a motion to ensure that indigenous communities have all the resources needed to lift the veil on the historical reality of residential schools and to force the churches to open their archives. This bill is a step forward in that regard. The Bloc Québécois also announced that we want to ensure that there will be predictable and sustainable funding for programs to help residential school survivors heal, such as the health support program that was specially designed for that purpose. This bill would establish a council to provide ongoing follow-up for this file. Since the bill proposes the creation of a council that can only make recommendations, there is nothing binding in this bill. Supporting this bill only confirms our position as an ally with the indigenous nations of Quebec and Canada.

As far as matters regarding truth and reconciliation are concerned, I want to note that there are different groups that are interested in those, including back home in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. A committee made up primarily of university researchers and people from civil society was formed to independently document the implementation of these calls to action. The committee specifically focused on the Viens commission, which was held in Quebec because a discussion was needed in order to understand what had happened. There have been several defining events, including what happened to Ms. Echaquan.

That committee is based at the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and I applaud the university's leadership. Not only is it our very own university, but it is one of the first in the world to adopt a decolonial vision of relations with indigenous peoples. I think this very forward-thinking approach is definitely part of the solution in the context of reconciliation.

Yes, I have only recently taken on this responsibility, but I contacted my university to make sure I understood all the nuances and subtleties well enough to play this role. I feel this is also about being a facilitator or intermediary. Our role as elected members of the House of Commons is important, especially when it comes to relations with indigenous peoples. Right now, reconciliation is an issue that should matter to us all, regardless of where we are or where we come from. I commend the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue for its leadership.

I am sure there will be recommendations we will have to take into account. For this bill, we will support the government on this amendment and its inclusion. However, I urge the government to be open about its next steps so we can all be as inclusive as possible within our own territory while respecting the jurisdiction of the governments of Quebec, the provinces and Canada, as well as the indigenous communities themselves, which aspire to greater autonomy within their territory.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 2022, the Conservatives joined all members of the House in voting in favour of Bill C‑29. Perhaps it is the member for Carleton's appointment as the Leader of the Opposition that has changed the dynamic in the House since then.

It is certainly not the amendment that says that we recognize “since time immemorial, First Nations and Inuit peoples — and, post-contact, the Métis Nation — have thrived on and managed and governed”. That is basically the amendment that was presented.

Now, the Conservative member—

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I feel like we are a bit of a broken record in this House, because we constantly come back to the issues that Canadians are facing every single day. Those are, of course, the cost of living and its challenges. The ineffectiveness of the Liberal government makes life more difficult.

I have to say Bill C-29 is just another example of a government that is interested in window dressing. It is interested in the photo ops. It is interested in sounding good. However, we have already heard from some of its coalition partners about how long this is taking. This was talked about seven years ago and we are just now finally getting to it.

There are a number of first nations organizations that certainly our side has encouraged the government to include in this process that were not included. Here we are, debating yet another example of a Liberal government that has come up with half-measures, a day late and a dollar short.

When I speak to issues of the Liberal government, I think back to my own experience when I was a mayor. I, like many Canadians, did not really know a lot about the Truth and Reconciliation report at that time. It was brand new and fresh. During the process of getting ready to take over the new administration, at the inaugural one of the staff came to me said that she would like me to read something at the beginning of my speech. I read it, and I did not understand it. I asked what it was. She explained to me that it was a land acknowledgement statement. I asked her to tell me more about it. She said it was from the Truth and Reconciliation report and some of its recommendations. I said that I needed to learn more about it.

I, of course, read lots. I read about all of the recommendations. I was so moved by it, frankly, I realized that in her effort to encourage me to adopt these recommendations, I felt like we had missed an opportunity. I went back to her and said that I thought maybe, if we were going to have a land acknowledgement statement for the Corporation of the Town of Huntsville, we should try to write that collaboratively with the first peoples who live on this land.

We reached out to the Chief of Wasauksing First Nation in Parry Sound and the Chief of Shawanaga First Nation, both on Georgian Bay, and the Chief of Rama First Nation. We invited them to come and meet with us. We arranged that, and it was an amazing visit. We had lunch. I basically sat there as a new mayor and learned. It was incredible, probably one of the most incredible lessons I have ever had. Those three chiefs have become friends, and we continue to talk today. In fact Chief Tabobondung from Wasauksing First Nation and I chat most frequently. I see him here in Ottawa regularly.

The reason I tell that story is because reconciliation is about relationships. It is about listening, hearing and understanding. My sense is that, once again, we have a government that says it is listening. It promised the moon. We see all kinds of examples where it has failed, because it just keeps adding to the bureaucracy. It keeps adding and spending more and achieving less. There are lots of examples of it.

We look back to when the government first came in and said it was going to eliminate all boil water advisories, and it has made some progress. However, we have found out that the departments are actually not very effective at it. In fact, in 2017, when the Liberal government made that promise, the Parliamentary Budget Officer actually laid out a plan to get the job done by 2020. Of course the Liberals ignored the plan and came up with their own. As we all know, it has not eliminated all boil water advisories. There are still many first nations that do not have potable drinking water.

Instead of working with indigenous leaders to tackle these systemic inequalities that hold first nations back from achieving prosperity and their own destiny, the Liberals continue down this “Ottawa knows best” approach. This is something that has gone on forever in this country, the “Ottawa knows best”, top-down approach. As a case in point, there are 6,600 employees in Indigenous Services. The government divided it up into two ministries, and now, of course, we have even more bureaucrats. That is about 10 bureaucrats for every first nation in the country, and we are still not listening.

Even the Auditor General has reported that these departments are ineffective and we have a Liberal government that just keeps spending money and keeps coming up with its “Ottawa knows best” approach and not listening to all first nations.

Maybe one of the reasons that the government changed the agenda today and put this up is that its members are aware of a pretty intelligent idea that first nations themselves came up with and presented to the Conservative Party and to the leader of the Conservative Party, and that is true reconciliation in action: economic reconciliation. Just yesterday, the leader of the Conservative Party announced a new program where we would take the situation of the Indian Act that handed over all reserve land and money to the federal government to be dealt with, and when first nations wanted their money they had to come to Ottawa and ask for it. This outdated system put power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists here in Ottawa, not in the hands of first nations. The direct result of this “Ottawa knows best” approach, as we know, is continued poverty, substandard infrastructure, substandard housing, unsafe drinking water and continued despair in too many first nations.

Therefore, the leader announced support for a first nations resource charge. It is a great idea that first nations themselves came up with that would enable first nations to take back control of their resources and their money. Putting first nations in control of their money instead of this “Ottawa knows best” approach, this top-down approach from Ottawa, lets the first nations keep that resource money. It allows them to master their destiny and take control of their own lives. This is an example of how a Conservative government would actually achieve reconciliation, by listening and by giving control and power back to first nations as opposed to building bigger and bigger bureaucracies here in Ottawa that have this “Ottawa knows best”, paternalistic, top-down approach to how it deals with everything, including first nations and the housing crisis.

The current government has generally believed that the bigger the bureaucracy, the better the solution. What we have learned, of course, is that while the Liberals have grown the bureaucracy some 30%, they have spent $20 billion on consultants and outside consulting firms and the results continue to be worse and worse. It is no different in first nations. It is no different in any first nations community. The Conservative Party believes that this is just more window dressing from a party that is out of ideas. Frankly, every idea the Liberals have come up with has just made the situation worse, from dealing with the true need for reconciliation with first nations to the housing crisis to the opioid epidemic. We hear it all over the country.

I know that the minister was offended to hear about the carbon tax, but there are a number of first nations that are suing the government over the carbon tax because they recognize that this “Ottawa knows best”, top-down approach of bigger government and tax-more government thinks that is going to solve the climate crisis. However, it is a tax plan; it is not an environmental plan. First nations know this. Conservatives know this. We believe in listening, working collaboratively, building relationships and getting Ottawa out of the way. We wish the Liberal government understood that too.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope my silence reflected the need for me to not answer that question. It is a deeply offensive question when we are talking about the passage of Bill C-29, which is meant to establish a national centre for truth and reconciliation.

I cannot believe that we cannot have a non-partisan discussion about an important issue without the Conservative Party bringing up the carbon tax, which it seems to be so embroiled in.

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

Mr. Speaker, we cannot go back to those days.

This brings me to the legislation at hand. Bill C-29, which we are here to discuss today, represents another crucial step in this ongoing, sustained effort. Despite this effort, the road to reconciliation is sometimes a winding road. Today's government and every single government that comes after it need to be held accountable to indigenous people along that path.

This bill would establish a national council for reconciliation to provide oversight and monitor progress on reconciliation across Canada in all sectors. As members may recall from when we previously discussed this bill in the House, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission envisioned an indigenous-led, independent and permanent national council for reconciliation to ensure long-term progress on reconciliation in Canada.

The role of the council would include overseeing progress towards implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

I thank my hon. colleagues for their past work on Bill C-29; today, I would like to invite them to pass the amendments from the other place, which I will present now. In doing so, I would like to thank the senators for their care and diligence in reviewing this legislation.

I would also like to thank members of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples for their work. They came from the position of wanting to support the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, and all members were very engaged in truly understanding and reflecting on the legislation. They introduced amendments they believed would strengthen the bill, and I thank them for their hard work.

I will start with the amendment whereby the national council for reconciliation would not impact permanent bilateral mechanisms between rights holders and the Government of Canada. In 2017, we created these mechanisms for levels of formal engagement never seen before. These bodies are vital to ensuring a productive working relationship with rights holders. They support the direct nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown and government-to-government relationships that section 35 rights holders expect.

To quote the committee's report, “The Council should not interfere with these mechanisms; bilateral mechanisms, however, could be complemented by the work of the Council.” This is a valuable amendment, and I would like to thank many national indigenous organizations and senators for working together and bringing forward this clarification.

Other Senate amendments include better alignment in terminology on how legislation is evolving to reflect the different government arrangements of indigenous organizations and communities and a strengthening of the Government of Canada's accountability. We welcome these amendments. In the study of the bill, senators underscored the importance of the council being able to receive information from the government in a timely way.

We agree that it is vital for the council to be able to fulfill its mandate to monitor and conduct research on the advancement of reconciliation within Canada. To impress this point upon us, the other place included an amendment whereby, should the Government of Canada not meet the obligations set out in a joint information-sharing protocol with the council, the council could have recourse to the federal court. We support this amendment.

Finally, to ensure greater clarity on when the minister would submit the required report to council, a reference to March 31 and not the end of fiscal year was introduced to prevent confusion on timing.

In closing, as amended, this bill would strengthen the accountability of governments to respond to council concerns in terms of measuring progress. This bill would ensure that indigenous peoples would lead discussions on what reconciliation should look like now and in the years ahead. The council would spark new ideas, foster meaningful conversations and encourage proactive steps forward. It would also connect the people across Canada to further reconciliation.

The calls to action fundamentally recognize that residential school survivors and their descendants are integral to the governance of the council. They have been waiting for this moment for so many years. Elders, youth and all indigenous peoples have been waiting. Let us embrace this historic moment and move forward by passing this bill with the Senate amendments. In this way, survivors, their descendants and indigenous peoples can finally see the realization of this long-awaited change without further delay.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, kwe kwe. Ulaakut. Tansi.

I would first like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

This has been a very important week for reconciliation in Canada. I want to begin by acknowledging and recognizing the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that came out this morning. In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that Bill C-29, as a whole, is constitutionally valid.

The essential matter addressed by the act involves protecting the well-being of indigenous children, youth and families by promoting the delivery of culturally appropriate child and family services and, in so doing, advancing the process of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. The Supreme Court decision represents a significant step in that direction, because it clearly affirms that principle. I want to thank many colleagues, particularly the Minister of Indigenous Services, for advancing this.

Yesterday morning, we had the opportunity to meet with indigenous business leaders, as well as the major financial institutions in Canada and other major corporations, to discuss the notion of economic reconciliation. Once again, the meeting was convened by the Minister of Indigenous Services. It was a very moving engagement that really spoke to the need to move forward in advancing economic reconciliation, and we look forward to working with those who were at the table, as well as those who continue to work to advance this issue.

Yesterday and the day before, we hosted the second indigenous federal-provincial-territorial meeting on missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people. This is a very important gathering of voices of families, survivors and people who are on the front lines of this crisis; they are at the centre of everything we do.

We must put the voices of families, survivors and people on the front lines of this crisis at the centre of everything we do.

We invited them to Ottawa, and we listened, we learned and we pledged to redouble our drive toward solutions.

What is important is that the provinces and territories were represented, and we are very pleased that they participated. The Province of British Columbia, the Province of Alberta and the Government of Yukon made presentations on what they have done to advance this work in their respective jurisdictions. We are making progress.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to be in the gallery of the Senate, as the president of the Council of the Haida Nation, for the introduction of a new bill, Bill S-16. This bill would recognize the Haida's inherent right to self-governance and self-determination. Bill S-16 is grounded on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or, as I sometimes call it, the road map to reconciliation.

The Haida people did not wait for the Government of Canada to wake up and realize that they have the right to govern themselves. They have been doing so for years, and it is time we enact legislation to recognize that inherent right.

These are a few small steps we made just this week alone, but they are indicative of a much larger charge towards redressing the past and repairing our relationship with indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have a government on this side of the chamber that is listening to them and wants to advance their priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time giving my speech. I would really encourage my colleagues to—

Business of the House

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

I would first like to thank my hon. colleague and his colleagues in the official opposition for finally letting Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, come to a final vote. That is good news for Canada and our Ukrainian friends, with whom we stand in solidarity.

As for the business of the House, we will continue to have ongoing discussions that would see us dealing with Bill C-62, medical assistance in dying, next week. We are, of course, well aware of the deadlines that are looming. I remind all members of this House that there is a March 17 deadline attached to this very important legislation.

I would remind the House that we wanted to allow all parties in the House, as well as in the Senate, to participate in a process that could guide the government's choices on medical assistance in dying. We produced a report that resembled a consensus, and the bill reflects that consensus.

We will also give priority to bills that have been examined and amended by the Senate and are therefore now in the final stage of debate in the House. These include Bill C-29, which would create a national council for reconciliation, and Bill C-35 on early learning and child care in Canada.

As I said at the outset, we will continue to consult with the opposition parties. My door is always open. If necessary, we will make adjustments so that the House can continue to work in an orderly fashion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To your last comment, I agree with Gary here. The issue is this: If we move off clause 8 without a final landing point, some clauses later on could get a little tricky and might not go as smoothly.

I'll give credit to Gary and Arnold. Arnold, through his line of questioning about the definitions, and Gary, through his work with Bill C-29, came to the fact that it's missing the definition. The definition and recognition are key to a lot of this, including when you talk about membership. That's something Arnold brought up very early on. If we think back to the conversations we had with the first nations that were here, even about the settlements, a lot of them were around the membership. If, in this conversation, we can arrive at something....

As he pointed out, Gary had an amendment he was working on, which I hope will be acceptable to the committee. I think he is trying to get that translated, from what I last heard. He's nodding yes. That is correct. Once that gets translated, we could have, potentially, a winning formula.

It is also challenging on our side. The government has thousands of people in the department who can help them. We're working with our limited staff and the resources we have at our disposal trying to address the concerns we heard in testimony while also respecting the spirit of what this piece of legislation is supposed to do and will hopefully do. We're trying to strike that balance. As Gary alluded to, we are doing this with the limited resources we have, but we're also drawing on the expertise and knowledge our partners have, which we are able to take from them and hopefully replicate in this bill in the form of an amendment to clause 8—or rewording, however you want to put it—so it addresses concerns.

I would hope it wasn't the government's intention to divide indigenous communities the way they have—first nations versus Métis and Métis versus other Métis. It's not the coming together many had hoped for. That's unfortunate. I trust the government came forward with good intentions. Unfortunately, the process was not followed through the way it probably should have been. I think through testimony we were able to uncover some of the concerns out there that could have been addressed had proper consultation been done in the first place.

Having said that, I recognize it is a piece of legislation that involves the governing bodies, if you will, of three organizations in order to solidify the job they are already doing—which is an amazing job—and give them the recognition they rightfully deserve. As we go through this process, we'll hopefully come to an agreement that can address a lot of those concerns.

We have the membership, which we're going to address. We have the definitions. We had a long discussion not too long ago about collective, community and individual—what makes up this, what makes up that and how they play together.

Now we are dealing with the next issue, which is “Indigenous governing body”. It isn't defined in this piece of legislation; however, in Bill C-29 and other bills it is. If we are able to not only define it but also define the membership part—in addition to clause 8.1, which I believe is the non-derogation clause—we can hopefully at least ease the concerns that the Métis settlements had, for example, or even some of the first nations had. We are able to do this based on the limited resources we have, and because we were all able to work together across party lines, I think we may have achieved something pretty remarkable here, amending this piece of legislation to the point where it is improved and where we are able to come together.

Had this passed in its current form with the wording the way it was, I think the possibility for court action later on would have been, I would say, quite high, based on the feedback we've had from indigenous leaders. Something we're trying to avoid is the fact that indigenous leaders continually have to take the government to court.

It doesn't matter what stripe we are; I think it's the fundamental issue we're trying to fix. A lot of the concern is about consultation. If we don't get the consultation right or if we don't get the legislation right, we're spending more money than is necessary. We're not caring about or looking after the people these governing bodies are elected—or however it's structured—to be responsible for. It potentially falls through and causes bigger problems down the road.

I keep going back to the fact that Parliament and the committee did not define what free, prior and informed consent was at the time. We as the opposition brought it forward as a potential issue we should have addressed as legislators, rather than having the courts potentially doing it in the future. It may have served us well to have that road map right now.

As we get to this, hopefully we will have that amendment ready to go very soon. That way we can have a discussion on it and hopefully a vote on it. Then, as you said, Chair, we can move on from clause 8 and move through this.

I don't know if Ms. Idlout is ready to speak or not. She might have a few concerns she wants to raise. I will cede the floor and potentially come back based on what Ms. Idlout has to say.

Indigenous Services

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

Mr. Chair, Bill C-29 was introduced on the last day of the June 2022 session, which was about the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Bill C-38 was introduced on December 14, 2022, and not revisited until 11 months later, again on the last day of a session. Bill C-53 was introduced on the last day of the session in June of 2023, and today we have the introduction of water legislation, not on the last day but the last week of a session.

Does the member believe that the government is serious about its promise to indigenous people when, at the last moment and at the end of the last four sessions of Parliament, the government chooses to introduce indigenous legislation?

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

Yes. I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to beat something. Why couldn't the terminology just be that it's a Métis government that is authorized to act on behalf of a Métis collectivity? Why do we have to specifically add that terminology? Why are we not just taking that out? If there's no accepted definition, if there's no understanding of what that means, and it's only a definition that applies to Bill C-92 or Bill C-29, or even in the February agreements.... There's a definition in the agreements, and you're saying the only reason it needs to be defined there is that there are references to Bill C-92 in the agreements.

Why are we including this in clause 8? I don't think I've heard an answer to that question.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

We are back in session for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-219.

I have here a page of reminders about how we do clause-by-clause study, but given that we have recently gone through Bill C-29, is it okay if I dispense with that? Does everybody sufficiently remember how it's done? I have a feeling that is the case. Therefore, we will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

As you know, pursuant to standing order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title and the preamble, is postponed.

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Shall the short title carry?

This is clause 1, the short title. I don't see any objections. Therefore clause 1 is carried.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

For the preamble, we have a proposed NDP amendment. I will turn to Ms. Idlout and invite her to move her amendment and describe it as she wishes.

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

Thank you.

When you say you wanted to lean in, I'm going to go back to a couple of quotes of yours from the last couple of weeks. In the House of Commons last week, you said that Indigenous Services Canada is doing a great job and that the Auditor General said that. Then, in the Senate earlier this week, you said that, in fact, the Auditor General found that the department was extraordinarily responsive to helping communities in times of crisis.

I asked the Auditor General last week if those words were anywhere in the report or if you had some other information that we didn't get. She said they were not, so I guess my challenge is that we've been talking a lot this week about Bill C-29 and truth and reconciliation. If we're going to have reconciliation, we need to start with the truth. The truth needs to matter, or there is no trust.

You talked about trust in your comments as well. This is a relationship that all governments of the past have been challenged with, having trust in this relationship. We need to build trust if we're going to have true reconciliation.

Based on the comments you made in the House and in the Senate, my question is simply, how do you think the people who are affected by this report or the people on the ground who are experiencing these repeated disasters feel when they hear you publicly defending the department on these reports?

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:11 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 motion at third reading stage of Bill C-29.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from November 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, be read the third time and passed.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, a fundamental core principle that I believe in is respecting provincial jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of provincial governments. Therefore, I will leave that conversation to Albertans and to the Government of Alberta.

I suggest that what the member should do is focus on our work here in the House of Commons and the changes that he can directly impact as a federal member of Parliament. I would hope to see his focus on improving this bill, Bill C-29, establishing this national council for reconciliation, which is an aspiration that I know the member and I both share. I look forward to seeing the member bring the exact same passion and dedication and steadfast advocacy here to the House of Commons on federal legislation and federal issues in his federal role as a member of Parliament, and maybe actually hold the Liberals to account instead of being in partnership with them and propping them up.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to speak today in support of Bill C-29, which would establish a national council for reconciliation.

It was, of course, the previous Conservative government that first launched the TRC, along with other measures that sought to better the outcomes and the lives of indigenous Canadians, especially indigenous youth, the fastest-growing group of young people in Canada.

Unfortunately, it must be said that the Liberals took far too long to bring in this bill, given they have been in power for seven years and that the Prime Minister claims the relationship with indigenous people is the most important to him.

That is why Conservatives pushed an amendment to ensure that it is the Prime Minister who will respond to the national council’s annual report, as the TRC’s call to action says, unlike the Liberals’ original draft, which delegated this responsibility to a minister.

That was just one improvement of the 19 substantial amendments from Conservatives to uphold the principles of transparency and independence, to increase accountability and accelerate the timelines for government responses, and, most importantly, to implement concrete, measurable targets and outcomes.

What is crucial is ensuring that good intentions and well-meaning words deliver actions and better outcomes. It is a testament to the good will, spirit of collaboration and shared aspirations that all parties supported 16 of the 19 Conservative amendments.

I am proud to represent nine indigenous communities in Lakeland, just as I am proud to represent every Canadian in the 52 communities across the region. As always, those people and those communities are foremost on my mind, so, like my neighbour from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I will address an extremely consequential Conservative amendment that was inexplicably rejected by the MPs of all the other parties. Conservatives wanted to ensure that one seat on the board of directors of the national council would be filled by an indigenous economic national organization.

It makes little sense to talk about mutual commitments between governments and citizens to tell the truth about historical, systemic and paternalistic injustices for societal reconciliation but to also simultaneously reject entrenching economic reconciliation as a priority so communities can move from managing poverty to generating prosperity. There are so many ways that can help resolve the disproportionate socio-economic challenges that indigenous people and communities face as a consequence of generations of oppressive and discriminatory government policies and programs.

This especially matters when it comes to ongoing challenges for indigenous leaders and entrepreneurs who want to secure jobs and create jobs, equity ownership, mutual benefit agreements and other economic opportunities in natural resources development. These are a main source of employment, and often the only source, for communities in rural and remote regions. It also matters in the public policy debates and duties around definitions of decision-makers, roles in consultation, consent and consensus, identity and local impacts.

In Lakeland, four of the nine indigenous communities are Métis settlements, half of all the settlements in Canada. They are unique to Alberta, with legislated Métis land bases, local governments and infrastructure costs, like water treatment facilities, roads and schools. They pay taxes, including carbon taxes.

For years I have pushed for their recognition, and I was finally able to get an indigenous and northern affairs committee report to cite them as “distinct entities with unique needs”.

In September I urged the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to include the settlements in Bill C-29, because it is an obvious hindrance to reconciliation if they are excluded from meaningful participation in the council, but I am still waiting for a response.

Representatives of the settlements in Lakeland often tell me they feel abandoned and forgotten by the government. Lee Thom, a Kikino Métis Settlement councillor, says that the Métis settlements must have a seat at that table to advocate for their indigenous communities, which are stand-alone and not a part of existing Métis nations in Alberta and nationally.

Still, the settlements have never been mentioned in a federal budget and are often excluded from federal initiatives. To me, this remains a glaring omission.

It is particularly relevant to the pursuit of economic reconciliation because the Métis settlements in Lakeland, along with most of the first nations, are currently, and have been, heavily involved in energy and natural resources development for decades. Many have previously met all their community needs with their own source revenue from their businesses and contracts.

The NDP's and Liberals' anti-energy agenda and aim to phase out oil and gas, which have already driven away investment, cost over $150 billion in lost projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs, have hit indigenous communities as hard as everyone else.

Last year, the indigenous and northern affairs committee tackled barriers to indigenous economic development. We heard from dozens of witnesses and one thing was clear: Empowering indigenous communities to set up businesses, develop their natural resources and create wealth for their communities and surrounding areas is crucial.

In later work, witnesses said that housing, health care, governance, infrastructure and emergency preparedness challenges all come back to the core concept of economic reconciliation. Several elected leaders from Lakeland participated.

Chief Gregory Desjarlais, of Frog Lake first nation, talked about the importance of access to capital to get projects built, like the carbon capture proposal led by Frog Lake and Kehewin, both in Lakeland. Frog Lake is heavily involved and invested in energy operations, whether through jobs or their community-owned Frog Lake Energy Resources Corp.

The benefits of indigenous-owned businesses are many. As Chief Desjarlais put it:

Look at these projects.... Look at indigenous ownership. If you involve the first nations, you allow them to build homes. You allow them to send kids to school. You allow them to send people to treatment. You allow them to deliver water to these homes. You allow them to remove mould. That's problem-solving. That's a takeaway, instead of all the money leaving Canada and still having poorer first nations living on CFAs and begging for handouts.

These benefits were echoed by Stan Delorme, chair of the Buffalo Lake Métis Settlement, as they would help to meet their major infrastructure needs for the disproportionate number of unemployed youth and to lift Buffalo Lake’s average annual income of $27,000 a year.

The ever-increasing carbon tax hurts them even more, as the cost of lumber, fuel, and home heating skyrockets, and the accessible oil and gas jobs that used to exist for them have disappeared because of the Liberals’ anti-energy agenda. Lee Thom says, “Our settlements are communities—living, breathing—with roads, schools and water, with everything that comes with a small municipality and are in dire need of funding.”

Those are three of the nine indigenous communities in Lakeland who are now part of the 23 communities that are now all proud owners of over a billion dollars' worth of pipelines in the Athabasca region.

Many other indigenous-led and indigenous-owned projects and partnership projects have been outright killed by this anti-energy government, like the Prime Minister’s unilateral veto of the northern gateway pipeline, which destroyed the aspirations of and all the work of 31 communities, which had mutual benefit agreements, and he did that without consultation, or all of the projects that are at risk by anti-energy policies and activists who threaten projects and are often not even from the locally impacted area.

The outright cancellation or the deliberate policy-driven delays to force private sector proponents to abandon major natural resources development and infrastructure projects have all been major concerns, and often totally devastating to numerous indigenous communities, leaders and business groups.

Those projects are opportunities for economic reconciliation. They are tools for indigenous communities to meet their core social and economic needs, invest in their cultures, and preserve and nurture their heritage and their languages for future generations.

For example, Chief Councillor Crystal Smith from Haisla Nation opposes Bill C-48, the shipping and export ban, and supports Coastal GasLink as a way to bring her community out of poverty.

Last week, Calvin Helin, an indigenous author and entrepreneur, said that what really irks indigenous Canadians involved in responsible resource development is the meddling and interference from “eco-colonialists”, these groups whose only interest is in stopping projects, and government interference where the government is only listening to the side of the project that supports their politics.

There are countless examples of the Liberal government trampling on indigenous Canadians’ work and hope, roadblocking their pursuit of self-determination, including Eva Clayton of the Nisga’a, whose LNG export facility is on hold because of Liberal red tape; Natural Law Energy, 20 prairie first nations who lost a billion-dollar investment opportunity when Keystone XL was cancelled due to Liberal inaction; the Lax Kw’alaams, who are litigating against the Liberals’ Bill C-48 export ban, which violated their rights and title and ruined their plans for a deep-water port and oil export facility without consulting them; and the 35 indigenous communities with the Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor proposal, whose work and hopes for economic benefits were quashed by Bill C-69, the no more pipelines act.

The Liberals and the anti-energy activists’ anti-resource, anti-business and anti-energy agenda, usually outside and far away from the local indigenous communities, sabotages all their efforts to benefit from natural resources development and to participate in their local economies.

These actions look a lot like those of a centralist, colonialist government imposing its views against the goals and priorities of the majority of directly impacted indigenous people and leaders, like those in Lakeland.

While Conservatives will support this bill, the Liberals still need to fix their own paternalism that prevents economic reconciliation to ensure that indigenous voices, not just those that align with Liberal political priorities, are all represented in reconciliation efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to such important legislation.

Before us, we have what I believe has been a priority not only for me personally but also for the Prime Minister, as has been demonstrated time and time again when he has talked about how important our nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous people is today and will be in the future. It is in the best interests of all.

Truth and reconciliation is so important. That is why shortly after the commission's report was tabled back in 2015, the Prime Minister, who was leader of the third party at the time, made it very clear that if we were in government, we would be in favour of enacting and encouraging in any way we can all 94 calls to action.

Today, we are talking about a piece of legislation that creates the national council for reconciliation. It would be an important, powerful and influential council. The minister responsible has put forward an interim board, or a committee, if I can put it that way, to make sure that the the council we are creating today gets off on the right foot.

I am a little concerned regarding what we do as legislators, what takes place in the House of Commons and how information is disseminated in our communities, especially on the issue of reconciliation. Members will try to marginalize the types of things we are doing inside the House, as if the government is not responding to the calls to action. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When members go outside of this chamber and start saying that the government is not acting on the calls to action or has only done 14 of 94, that is misrepresentation at its worst. It is misrepresentation because at the end of the day, many of the 94 recommendations are not even federal responsibility. Many of the recommendations are a joint responsibility between the federal government and provincial governments. Most of the recommendations are a work in progress, just like Bill C-29, which has been worked on for years and will, once passed, incorporate four calls to action.

Let us look at the idea that every child matters and at residential schools. The people of Winnipeg North, and I believe Canadians as a whole, recognize how important that theme, idea and reality is. If we look at it, we see the government has been actively working on that file. We are working with different indigenous people to ensure they have the financial resources to do the things that are so critically important. Those are calls to action 72 to 76 and they are in progress.

If members are trying to give a false impression to get Canadians and, in particular, indigenous people to believe that the government is not working on the calls to action, I would suggest that is exceptionally misleading, because the numbers clearly demonstrate that.

I am going to give members an example. Today is about Bill C-29. I remember debating the child welfare bill, which was, in fact, on call to action number four and was completed quite a while back. That was Ottawa's sole responsibility and we completed that call to action.

One call to action associated with that is the first one. Call to action number one deals with child welfare, which is not just for Ottawa. It includes the provinces.

To understand why I feel so passionate about this particular issue, take a look at the province I represent. Back in June 2010, I was inside the Manitoba legislature raising the fact that the child advocate was saying Manitoba was in a child care crisis situation. Children in the province of Manitoba were in a very serious situation. That was after many, many years of a government run by a political party that I will not mention. Members can look it up with a Google search.

At the end of the day, child welfare, the number one recommendation, is not just a federal responsibility. Ottawa is working with its provincial partners, setting up a council and working with indigenous leaders to deal with children. I would like to say that the recommendation in call to action number one has been achieved, but I think it would be extremely optimistic to see it achieved in the next number of weeks or months. It might take a while. It took the province and Ottawa many years to cause the problems we have there today. Thousands of children were displaced from their birth parents, and these are the types of issues that are going to take a while.

When a member goes into the community and starts espousing that we are not acting on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, it gives a false impression to people who are looking for hope. Imagine an indigenous community looking for leadership. It is looking for people to be apolitical on such an important file. In fact, for over 80% of the calls to action, there has been significant progress when the federal government has been involved. A dozen or more have been completed, and today we will pass four more when the legislation passes.

We have to take into consideration that this goes beyond the people in this room and take a look at others. It was great to see the Pope come to Canada. That was one of the calls to action. Yes, the federal government and maybe members in the opposition benches played a role, but do not let there be any doubt that it was the indigenous community that was ultimately successful at convincing the Pope to come, do the right thing and provide a formal apology. The federal government does not get the credit and the provinces do not get the credit. It was about the indigenous community working with the Pope and the Pope doing the right thing. That is how that call to action was resolved.

This is about the people in our communities, such as Diane Redsky, the executive director of Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata, who is retiring after many years of running that organization. It is at the ground level dealing with indigenous health care and social and justice issues. I wish her the very best.

At the end of the day, this is about communities, organizations like Ma Mawi and many others, and indigenous leaders. They are the ones who will hopefully be able to ensure that we continue to be held accountable. A big part of that is going to be done through the national council for reconciliation, something we are creating today.

Time does not permit me to go through all the things I would like to highlight, but I can tell members about a few others.

I like how we have responded to the statutory holiday and like what it has turned into. In my home city of Winnipeg, in year one, we had a wonderful gathering and a walk from The Forks to St. John's Park. This year, it was from The Forks to the convention centre. Thousands of Winnipeggers and Manitobans as a whole, and I suspect many from outside the province, showed up, recognizing how important it is that we achieve reconciliation.

To me, that is the essence of what we should be striving to achieve. Truth and reconciliation is not just for politicians inside this chamber, the Manitoba legislature or any other legislature. I would even dare say it is not just for indigenous leaders. It is for everyone. That is one of the reasons that I think the legislation we passed to recognize it and see how it evolves will make all of us as a nation better, because this heightens the level of awareness and recognizes the truth.

I will conclude my remarks with that in the hope that at some point today, we might see the collapse of debate so we can get the bill passed through third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are 94 calls to action, as every member of Parliament understands and appreciates. What I like about Bill C-29 is that it deals with four calls to action. We need to recognize that not all of the calls to action can be done overnight. It is a work in progress.

I am wondering if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts on the fact that for many of them, we have to work with other jurisdictions and stakeholders to accomplish a call to action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to start my speech again. I meant the Prime Minister and his party. However, I would reference that the parliamentary secretary was using a prop in his speech yesterday, and I did not call him out for that. I will simply leave that there.

I also note that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague for the constituency of Louis-Saint-Laurent.

There was one conversation that I found somewhat troubling here yesterday. In that conversation there seemed to be some fairly significant opposition to the idea of economic reconciliation. I have a whole host of quotes from committee testimony. The conversation led to not only addressing past wrongs and not only addressing how we deal with those today. It was also about how to truly address the future so that indigenous people in this country have everything that is required to prosper, to succeed and to see that reconciliation that is so absolutely essential.

I find it concerning that this seems to have become a hang-up with some on the left in this country. I pose a very general question to all those who are listening: Why is there so much opposition by certain political entities in this country to the idea of ensuring that indigenous peoples in this country are given every tool necessary to succeed and to prosper?

I hope it would be the goal of every single member of this place. I am so pleased that in my home province of Alberta there are many examples where first nations and band councils have partnered in resource development, whether that be traditional oil and gas or not. It was wrongly suggested yesterday that Conservatives only talk about resource partnerships when it comes to oil and gas. However, I had the opportunity to meet with a band that is not in my constituency, but just a little way to the south. It is in the process of going through significant red tape and unfortunate barriers that exist in building a solar farm.

There are some incredible innovations and advancements being brought about through indigenous creativity, ensuring indigenous people are truly a part of Canada's economic future. I note the importance of that meaningful reconciliation.

When it comes specifically to Bill C-29, which addresses calls to action 53 through 56 in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, we have highlighted through the course of Bill C-29 the importance of the democratic process. I highlighted a number of concerns, and many of my colleagues did likewise, over the course of debate at second reading. We fulsomely debated it then and sent that bill to committee.

What we saw at committee was truly the parliamentary process at work. I believe the Conservatives brought forward about 20 amendments, including one on what I hope was an oversight in addressing call to action 56. Instead of having the Prime Minister respond to the council recommendations, it would have been the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. The TRC was very clear one way. The bill mistakenly, I hope, referred that responsibility to someone else.

However, Conservatives were very productive and saw, if I remember correctly, 17 of the 20 amendments passed at committee. They are amendments that would make the bill stronger, to help address some of the concerns we heard from stakeholders and to help ensure that meaningful reconciliation can take place.

There are certainly some things that can continue to be worked on, and I dare to challenge anyone who says we have everything perfect as it stands now. However, I was incredibly disappointed yesterday when one particular amendment was passed at committee, including with the support of one member of the Liberal party. The Liberals passed an amendment yesterday at report stage of the bill that removed a national indigenous organization, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

There are members who may not be aware of some of the history surrounding why this is important. Specifically, there is the Daniels decision and a long court case between groups of indigenous people, including non-status Indians. That is important, because often the conversation circles around those who have status, but there is a whole host of indigenous peoples in this country who do not necessarily have that status card from the government. However, yesterday, the Liberals specifically included an amendment, which passed at committee, to have the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples removed from this council.

I will highlight why that is concerning. Liberals often, including today, say how important it is to have a diversity of voices at the table. However, the Liberals may find some of the positions that CAP holds to be inconvenient, along with some of the things its members say in regard to being critical about the government. However, just because they are critical about the government does not mean that they should not have their voices included. I believe it was the Native Women's Association that was also included through a Conservative amendment.

I am very disappointed to see that move against a whole host of indigenous peoples from this country. That includes many who do not fit the typical stereotype associated with those who may live on reserves and have that card from the government that suggests they are a particular member of a band or not. It is that “or not” that is absolutely key.

We have heard from so many across the country, especially since our Conservative Party leader has done a huge amount of outreach into indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast. They have a sense of hope and opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, sees and articulates the potential that truly exists for Canada's indigenous people. I am excited to be a member of a party that looks for those opportunities for meaningful reconciliation and would ensure that Canada's indigenous peoples are truly given every opportunity afforded to them to succeed and prosper in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate in this place and address some of the most pressing issues facing our nation.

First, I would like to start off by saying how important it is to ensure that, as we have discussions in this place, we do so under the pretext and with the understanding that meaningful reconciliation is so absolutely essential to the conversation we must have within this place and the work we all do as parliamentarians.

I find so often we see its importance when it comes to indigenous concerns and the issues faced, whether it be the tragedies that quite often make headlines, the host of other concerns we deal with through our offices with Indigenous and Northern Affairs or Crown-Indigenous Relations, or simply the concerns that come across our desks and come up in conversation as regular Canadians.

Indigenous people in this country deserve more than photo ops. They deserve more than just words. They deserve that meaningful reconciliation. As we have talked about Bill C-29, and specifically addressing calls to action 53 through 56, we see how absolutely essential that conversation around meaningful reconciliation is.

I am going to repeat a statement shared with me when I addressed this bill at second reading, which is that indigenous peoples in this country deserve to not simply be stakeholders, but shareholders. Whether it is with respect to the specifics around this conversation, and I will get into some examples of that here in a moment, they deserve to be shareholders in the future prosperity of everything that Canada is.

I think that meaningfulness in everything we do is so absolutely essential, and I have been concerned as I have watched since being elected first in 2019, but also since the Trudeau Liberals took office with grand platitudes to address so many of the concerns that—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-29 at third reading.

This is quite critical legislation and I will start with some preparatory comments. Our government is committed wholeheartedly to pursuing all avenues possible in the advancement of reconciliation in this country. It goes without saying that when we speak about reconciliation, a cornerstone of this concept is the idea about accountability, that the government, the country, needs to be held accountable for historical wrongs that have been perpetrated against indigenous peoples for literally centuries on this land.

Residents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto have spoken to me regularly over the past seven years about the importance of reconciliation, the need to advance it and to address the TRC calls to actions. I am very pleased to note that the TRC calls to action, five of them in particular, are really at the heart of this legislation.

What my constituents and people around the country have told me is that we need to ensure we are doing everything in our power as a government and as a Parliament to remedy the wrongs that were inflicted upon generations of indigenous people, particularly indigenous children who, through the residential schools program, were robbed of their families, their culture, oftentimes their language and, indeed, their history.

Going back seven years to 2015 before we came into power as government, we campaigned on a platform that called for a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples, one that would be based on the recognition of rights based on respect, co-operation and partnership. An important cornerstone of any nation-to-nation relationship as it is being advanced is basic respect for the autonomy and self-determination of the various indigenous peoples that we engage with, being first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This is important on the international stage, but it is also important right here in Canada.

The reconciliation process that I am speaking of has to be guided by the active participation and leadership of indigenous peoples. I will digress for a moment. We had an example of that in the legislation I was privileged to work on, which, if memory serves, was either Bill C-91 or Bill C-92 two Parliaments ago. However, the important piece is not the number of the bill that we advanced at the time, but the indigenous languages legislation that we advanced and passed in this Parliament, which is now firmly part of Canadian law.

In that context, we co-developed the legislation in that spirit of reconciliation, in terms of giving full participation and leadership in the development role to indigenous communities, first nations, Inuit and Métis. That is an important aspect of reconciliation and how it manifests, but so too is this bill. With this bill, we would put in place institutional mechanisms that are called for in the TRC calls to action for indigenous peoples, so they can hold Canada and the Canadian government to account for meeting goals on the path toward reconciliation.

What is Bill C-29 about? It is called “an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation” and, like the indigenous languages bill that I was privileged to work on two Parliaments ago, it has been driven by the active participation of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, organizations and individuals right across the country. What it would do is establish a permanent, indigenous-led, independent council with a mandate to monitor and support the progress of reconciliation in this country, including progress toward the full implementation of the TRC calls to action.

Let us talk about those calls to action. I mentioned them at the outset of my comments. The calls to action call on the government to create a non-partisan body that would hold the Government of Canada to account on the journey toward reconciliation. Specifically, calls to action 53 and 54 call for the establishment of this national council for reconciliation and for permanence of funding, which is very critical. We need to not only create the body, but adequately resource it.

Call to action 55 calls on the government to provide relevant information to the council in support of its mandate, providing it with the tools so it can execute its functions. Call to action 56 calls on the government to publish an annual report in response to the national council's annual report covering what the government is doing in terms of advancing reconciliation, another key component.

I will digress for a moment. I know there were some very useful amendments proposed at the committee stage, which I believe were universally adopted and it was unanimous coming out of committee. One of the components was for the government's response to be led by the Prime Minister himself, which is really critical in terms of emphasizing the prioritization and importance of this issue about advancing reconciliation. It is critical to not underestimate the impact that this kind of council will have on fostering the type of relationship with indigenous peoples I mentioned at the outset of my comments.

Through the annual response report, Canada would be consistently required to account for progress being made and also progress that has not yet been made, including identifying challenges, hurdles and obstacles.

It would be the people most impacted by such policies, the first nations, Inuit and Métis people on this land, who would have the power and wield that power to hold the government of the day to account.

That is really important. This is not about partisanship. This is not about what the Liberal government will be held to account for. This is what any government in the country would be held to account to do, going forward, with respect to advancing reconciliation, which is very critical in terms of such a pressing matter.

It is clearly only the beginning of some of the work we need to be doing. We know that, in Ontario, in my province, the median income of an indigenous household is 80% of that of a non-indigenous household. We know that the life expectancy of an indigenous person is over nine years shorter than a non-indigenous person on this land.

We know that while fewer than 5% of Canadians are indigenous, indigenous women represent over half of the inmate population in federal penitentiaries. We know that when we account for male participants, while indigenous men represent 5% of the population, they represent 30% of the prison population. Those are really chilling statistics.

I can say, parenthetically, that TRC call to action 55 has several subcategories. Two of the subcategories, and I will just cite from them, talk about the council ensuring that it reports on the progress on “reducing the rate of criminal victimization of Aboriginal people” as well as, in call to action 55, subsection vii, “Progress on reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the justice and correctional systems.”

I think one important facet of what the council will be doing, and also how the government will be responding, is highlighting some of the initiatives we have already started to take.

I am very pleased to say that, about two weeks ago, we secured passage and royal assent of Bill C-5. The bill addresses mandatory minimum penalties in the country, which have been in place for far too long, and how those mandatory minimum penalties served to take low-risk, first-time offenders and overly incarcerate them, disproportionately impacting indigenous men and Black men in Canada.

That is an important facet, in terms of how we advance this fight for reconciliation and how we advance some of these terms that are specifically itemized in the calls to action. That is exactly the type of thing I would like to see reported on by the council and included in the responses by the Canadian government, as to what further steps we can take to cure such instances, such as overrepresentation.

There are lasting effects. All of these statistics I have been citing demonstrate the lasting effects of the intergenerational trauma in Canada that has been inflicted upon first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. They are the result of enduring systemic discrimination and systemic racism in this country. That is critical to underline. It should be an issue that is really incontrovertible in the chamber.

We cannot begin to address such serious issues until we put into law a mechanism for holding the government of the day accountable, consistently accountable, for the actions, both past and present, and for what we are doing to remedy these historical injustices.

I was quite pleased to see this bill get the support of all parties at second reading. I am very confident that, hopefully, it will get support, once again, of all of the parties in the chamber.

I note, again, some of the important amendments that were made. I mentioned one of them right at the start of my comments. Other useful amendments presented by a multi-party group at committee included having elders and residential school survivors and their descendants populate the board of directors for this council. That would be a really critical feature.

I will say, somewhat subjectively, that I was quite pleased to see the fact that the importance of revitalizing, restoring and ensuring the non-extinction of indigenous languages also forms part of the amendments that were suggested by the committee, something we have wholeheartedly adopted already in Parliament.

As I mentioned earlier, the response to the annual report will be led by the Prime Minister himself.

That being said, this bill would do more than place obligations on the government. It would compel the government to continuously hold a mirror to itself, to urge us to never stop striving to do the best job we can vis-à-vis reconciliation. It would urge us to take ownership of the wrongdoings of the past and of the challenges of the present, and to work toward a commitment to do better going forward.

I think this type of honesty and accountability has been long sought after, and Bill C-29 is a step in the right direction.

I commend the bill and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same and ensure its passage.

The House resumed from November 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, be read the third time and passed.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize that I am participating virtually from the traditional territories of the Musqueam and Coast Salish peoples. I would also like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I would like to thank the interim board of directors and the transitional committee for the council, which carried out extensive consultations to develop the framework for Bill C-29. I would also like to thank the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and all the MPs who support this important legislation, in particular, the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and the witnesses who gave testimony on Bill C-29. Their thoughtful amendments have strengthened this legislation while respecting the council's independence.

With Bill C-29, Canada takes another step on our multi-generational journey towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Of the 94 calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, three of them call upon the government to establish a national council for reconciliation. The council would be a permanent, independent and indigenous-led organization monitoring and supporting the progress of reconciliation in Canada, including the full implementation of the TRC's calls to action.

As the member of Parliament for Steveston—Richmond East and a lifelong resident of metro Vancouver, reconciliation with indigenous peoples is a moral imperative. Unearthing and celebrating indigenous peoples' history is a key step as we begin to make amends and build a more inclusive history for Canada.

In the spring, Richmond dedicated a new street in honour of B.C.'s first indigenous lieutenant governor, Steven L. Point, who chaired the Stó:lo Nation and sat as a provincial court judge before his 2007 to 2012 term at Government House.

In April, I attended the unveiling of a new plaque in downtown Vancouver celebrating the rediscovered indigenous Métis heritage of one of Canada's most inspiring heroes, Terry Fox.

Embracing indigenous stories and history is an essential step to building a more inclusive Canada.

On the road to reconciliation, these symbolic steps are necessary but insufficient unless they are accompanied by meaningful economic partnerships and improvements to the quality of life for indigenous people. That is why my community of Steveston partnered with the Musqueam and Squamish first nations, and have since established the largest craft fishing harbour in Canada.

In the spring, to ensure the B.C. fisheries remain sustainable and to restore salmon populations, the federal and B.C. governments came together and announced the doubling of funding contributions for the British Columbia salmon restoration and innovation fund. Salmon is an essential part of the traditional diet of our local indigenous communities. Protecting this vital food source is crucial to advancing the cause of reconciliation in British Columbia.

We cannot have reconciliation without addressing the serious housing crisis indigenous peoples face both on and off reserve. This September, Vancouverites and the Salish people welcomed the Prime Minister to their traditional territory where the Prime Minister committed to providing $1.4 billion to create nearly 3,000 homes on traditional lands in Vancouver's Kitsilano neighbourhood.

Settling long-disputed land claims is perhaps one of the most important steps on our multi-generational journey to reconciliation. This year, the Prime Minister and the chief of the Siksika Nation signed a historic land claim settlement, which is one of the largest agreements of its kind in Canada. The deal provides $1.3 billion in compensation to the Siksika Nation to resolve outstanding land claims over 46,500 hectares of the Siksika's reserve.

In July, the Government of Canada and the Shuswap First Nation announced a negotiated settlement agreement of a 100-year-old claim, including a settlement of $21 million.

Although these settlements inch us closer to reconciliation, we know that change is not happening fast enough. Creating a national council for reconciliation would do more than fulfill 30 of the TRC's 94 calls to action. The council would be able to conduct comprehensive studies and provide advice on how to overcome systemic injustices within Canada that impede us on the path to reconciliation.

Last week, at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs provided testimony about its experience and concerns with Canada's information system. It informed our committee that data sovereignty is an integral part of article 28 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which affirms the right to just, fair and equitable compensation for confiscated traditional lands. The union pointed out that to receive the documents necessary to establish its cases, it has no alternative but to use the access to information process. In other words, indigenous nations must rely on the party they are in dispute with to produce documents and must pay for each ATIP submission.

Bureaucratic pain points such as accessing information and systemic and social injustices are obstacles on our path to reconciliation. A national council for reconciliation, as provided for in Bill C-29, would go a long way to identifying these concerns and holding governments accountable for them.

As part of the accountability process, the council would compile an annual report that would be presented to the minister and tabled in Parliament. It would outline the progress of reconciliation and offer recommendations for change within government and throughout Canadian society. The legislation would require the government of the day to respond to the report and outline its plans to advance reconciliation.

Every level of government, and indeed every Canadian, is responsible for advancing the cause of reconciliation, but the federal government must lead from the front and be a government that works for everyone. Bill C-29 is about moving forward as a government, but also moving forward as nation. In the words of Chief Dr. Robert Joseph, “Let us find a way to belong to this time and place together. Our future, and the well-being of all our children rests with the kind of relationships we build today.”

A national council for reconciliation is about more than redressing old grievances. It is about founding a new relationship with indigenous peoples, a relationship built upon respect, a dialogue and a new-found sense of partnership. I look forward to seeing the work of the council and its future recommendations to bring about reconciliation in Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, it has been interesting to participate in the debate on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We have heard from all parties their positions and questions regarding the disparities, they say, of indigenous peoples. While the New Democrats have focused on highlighting the ongoing violations of indigenous peoples' rights, others have chosen to focus on the potential composition of the national council for reconciliation.

In my final speech on this matter, I will clarify the position stated by the New Democrats. This party has been guided by advocacy from indigenous peoples in making its position, and we stand by it.

First, on clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-29, about the composition and nominating bodies, clause 9 states the board would consist of nine to 13 directors and clause 10 only names four nominating bodies. This creates opportunities for five to nine directors who could come from other indigenous groups. I think it is important that there is representation from many nations across Canada with the independence that is necessary for this council.

I remind all indigenous peoples and groups that, if they feel the bill does not ensure their voices would be heard through the composition of the board, there would be opportunities to be heard, be it through nominating to the board through the nomination process, providing advice through advisory councils or, as outlined in the bill, reaching out to the council directly.

I thank key witnesses who spoke at committee. Zebedee Nungak spoke passionately about how decolonization needs to be the end goal of this process. Okalik Eegeesiak emphasized, “Reconciliation must come from a balanced approach, mindset and foundation, with mutual respect and equitable resources.” Karen Restoule highlighted the importance of revitalizing indigenous laws and the importance of upholding indigenous rights.

The Native Women's Association of Canada plays an important role to advise and support indigenous women across the country. Indigenous women continue to fight for their rights, and with high rates of violence toward them, reconciliation should address the multiple concerns these communities have.

An amendment the New Democrats made was to ensure the inclusion of important advice to be drawn from survivors, elders and indigenous legal professionals. We have heard in this debate that it is important to ensure that survivors and elders are the centre of this work. The amendments by the New Democrats assure this. Currently, across the nation the rights of indigenous persons are violated, infringed upon and attacked. Often indigenous peoples are deprived of their rights, including basic rights such as housing.

We saw recently, in the Auditor General's report on the government's responses to emergency preparedness, that indigenous families in the Peguis first nations have been evacuees for 10 years after a flood.

Indigenous peoples are often deprived of the right to self-determination, accessible housing, educational opportunities and access to their own lands. This council will lead the conversation on what nations want to see and need from the government to move reconciliation forward. For the council to do its job effectively, it will need access to information on both a provincial and federal level. It is important that it is granted access within the legal limits to report on what is happening to indigenous communities. It will be important to see the council work to consistently protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples with its recommendations.

It is because of the New Democratic Party's recommendations and amendments that the council will use a rights-based approach to its work on advancing reconciliation.

It is important we do not lose sight of what this legislation has the potential to do. First nations, Métis and Inuit have voiced for years and advocated for years for solutions that can work in indigenous communities.

The work of this national council for reconciliation will be important as it will ensure a non-partisan approach to hearing what the issues are and the work that needs to be done as it will monitor government programs and policies. It is vital that reconciliation be on the minds of all Canadians.

I remind all indigenous peoples and groups that hope to be heard that those opportunities remain. The work has started to ensure that indigenous peoples lead the way in reconciliation through the creation of this council. There has been great work already completed and more great work that needs to continue.

As a country, we have a lot to learn regarding reconciliation. I have spoken to members of Parliament from New Zealand who visited us in Canada. One member of Parliament asked how we will know when reconciliation is complete. My response to that question is reconciliation will only be complete when indigenous peoples say it is complete. This is not something that should be determined by governments.

Indigenous communities need to see action from the government that shows it is listening to what communities are saying. Governments must follow the lead of indigenous peoples, especially on matters related to reconciliation, decolonization and to the indigenization of laws, policies and programs that are to impact indigenous peoples.

In conclusion, Bill C-29 leaves me with a sense of hope that it will lead to measurable outcomes. While this bill is not the only solution to addressing the injustices experienced by indigenous peoples, it will ensure the advancement of reconciliation needed for all Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. It is an honour to work with her at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We are currently working on a study she proposed on the impact of resource development on indigenous women and girls, which is an important issue.

For both our study and Bill C‑29, how can we make sure that we are working collaboratively, nation to nation, with indigenous communities and various levels of government, to draw on best practices and what is being done well in Quebec, the provinces and the territories, while steering clear of overlap in terms of jurisdiction?

[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.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑29 would establish the national council for reconciliation. This council will be a permanent, independent and indigenous-led organization. It will monitor and support the progress being made towards reconciliation in Canada, including the full implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. Indigenous and non-indigenous people have a lot to do to contribute to this council.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, kwe, ulaakut, tansi, hello, bonjour and marhaba. I would like to acknowledge before I begin that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am proud today to stand and participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. First, I want to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of Crown-indigenous relations and the member for Sydney—Victoria. For the many years I have known him, his information, his experience, his knowledge and everything I have learned from him have really enriched me and made me a better representative of the people, so I want to thank him for that.

In September we marked the second National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, and I recognize there is still a lot of work to do and that Canadians rightfully want to see more tangible progress.

For example, a few weeks ago, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation participated in the raising of the survivors' flag on Parliament Hill. The flag pays tribute to the survivors and those affected by residential schools, and it represents our responsibility and commitment to reconciliation.

During the ceremony, the right hon. Prime Minister reminded us that reconciliation is something in which all Canadians, including all levels of government, can and must participate. Reconciliation is not just something that affects indigenous peoples or the government. It affects all of us, including all the members here today.

We need to know where we are making important progress on reconciliation and, more importantly, where we are failing and why, so that we can do better.

These conversations are not easy, but progress is being made, and indigenous communities, families and survivors are guiding that progress.

I would like to take some time to reflect on the genesis of this legislation. The road to get here required collaboration and a lot of work. Bill C-29 has been many years in the making, and as I just mentioned, the original idea for the national council was laid out in 2015 by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Since then we have been working from the foundation set by the TRC commissioners to advance and establish this council.

In 2018, an interim board made up of six eminent indigenous leaders—including one of the commissioners from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission—made recommendations based on its extensive research and consultations regarding the council's mandate, governance and operations, which served as a basis for a draft legislative framework for consultation. The interim board also recommended the creation of a transitional committee to move the initiative forward.

Last December, our government announced the creation of the transitional committee. The committee members examined the draft legislative framework, consulted indigenous and non-indigenous technical experts and provided their recommendations. That led to the bill that is before us today.

As we heard from the members of the transitional Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, it is clear the bill is the culmination of a substantial amount of work, including many years of advocacy by indigenous people and leaders. The council's mandate would be to advance reconciliation in Canada, including monitoring and evaluating the government's progress on all of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. This means the council would have access to relevant information about how governments are delivering on their commitments.

I also want to emphasize that the national council for reconciliation would be completely independent of the government and operate as a not-for-profit organization. As such, it will answer neither to Canada nor to the Crown.

We will have no control over this council. the Government of Canada will provide an endowment fund and initial funding, but I can guarantee that it will be run by indigenous individuals.

After coming so far, it would be unwise to let the opportunity to accelerate the legislation slip through our hands.

Creating the national council for reconciliation is one of of the best tools we have available to achieve true reconciliation in this country.

While there is much work to be done on reconciliation, there is innovative work happening across the country. Part of the council's mandate would be to conduct research on new and promising practices to advance efforts on reconciliation.

In addition to its monitoring and reporting work on the progress of reconciliation, the council would be a strong and respected authority in the area of reconciliation. It would not only be there for oversight, it would also be there to set an example. The council would play a role in promoting reconciliation in its own way. This means communicating the realities and stories of indigenous peoples to the public and fostering dialogue, reflection and action leading to reconciliation.

This research could be based on segments of Canadian society that are already contributing to reconciliation work. The interim board and the transitional committee have clearly indicated that these positive examples also need to be highlighted. We can and must learn from the successes that have already taken place.

In addition to research, education and monitoring, the council could determine additional priorities as it moves forward in its work. This bill is not exhaustive, but rather is intended to be a flexible framework for the council. We must give the council the authority to pursue other measures it deems important and necessary to achieve its purpose.

To get to this point, many indigenous voices were included in developing the bill that we are debating. The interim board engaged with various indigenous and non-indigenous people and organizations on options to establish the council. Board members helped define the scope and scale of the council's mandate.

The indigenous process will not end with the passage of the bill. In fact, the bill itself contains provisions to ensure that the voices of indigenous people and communities will remain at the centre of the national council for reconciliation's work moving forward.

I would like to thank all those who helped design this bill. I am very grateful for the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada commissioners, members of the interim board of directors, members of the transitional committee, survivors, families and all indigenous and non-indigenous people who are campaigning for the government to be held accountable for its promises of reconciliation.

Together, we are advancing this difficult but important work. This bill goes far beyond the creation of a national council for reconciliation. It is about making a new commitment to reconciliation in this country. It is about finding common ground to move forward together.

I call upon my colleagues to advance Bill C-29 and pass the proposed legislation without delay. We must work with purpose and action to fulfill the calls to action and establish the council as quickly as we can.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Outremont.

As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would therefore like to understand what my colleague and her government truly think about the Indian Act. How can her government claim to be relying on Bill C‑29 to embark on a true reconciliation process without talking about the possibility of replacing or eliminating the Indian Act, which the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has described as unacceptable? I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

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

It is a privilege to participate in the third reading debate on an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. I would like to acknowledge all of my colleagues in the House who have spoken so eloquently as to the importance of this bill.

In the past year and a half, reconciliation and relations between Canada and the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples have altered considerably. The discovery of unmarked graves at former residential schools was a turning point. Survivors and indigenous people across the country spoke out. The discovery opened up new conversations about the hard truths surrounding the residential schools and our country's colonial past, the meaning of reconciliation and how we can all move forward together.

We need to know where we are making real progress and, more importantly, where we are failing and why, so that we can do better. We need a way to measure our progress as we move forward, so that the federal government and the entire country are held accountable for our promises to indigenous peoples.

As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission pointed out in its final report, “[p]rogress on reconciliation at all...levels of government and civil society organizations also needs vigilant attention and measurement to determine improvements”.

However, as many indigenous partners and organizations pointed out, the government cannot evaluate itself in the reconciliation process. We need help. That is why, in 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called on the Parliament of Canada to establish a national council for reconciliation, hence the bill before us.

If passed, Bill C-29 would do exactly what was requested. It would establish the national council for reconciliation as an indigenous-led, independent, permanent and non-political body. The council would monitor long-term progress on reconciliation in this country, and it would evaluate and report on the implementation of the 94 calls to action.

This aligns directly with what many indigenous leaders have been calling for over many years and that is greater accountability, greater transparency and a way to hold the government and Canada responsible for our role in reconciliation.

For the last number of years, the government has used the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action as a way to measure our progress on reconciliation. Establishing this national council for reconciliation would be a vital milestone along our path to implementing all of the calls to action. More specifically, it would also ensure the full implementation of calls to action 53 to 56.

If passed, this bill would allow for the creation of a national reconciliation council to immediately respond to call to action 53. It would also respond to calls to action 54, 55 and 56, which elaborate on the roles, responsibilities and expectations for the council and the various levels of government and their involvement.

Let me briefly explain by providing an overview of some of the key elements of the bill. The proposed bill defines a process for establishing the council, including selecting the first board of directors, and that has been a topic of much discussion this morning.

The bill states that at least two-thirds of the board must be indigenous. More specifically, the council must include, over time, the voices of first nations, Inuit and Métis as well as non-indigenous peoples in Canada. Indigenous organizations would also be included, with a nominee each from the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council as well as the Native Women's Association of Canada. It would include youth, women, men and gender-diverse peoples, elders and survivors, and people from various regions of our vast country, including the territories, urban, rural and remote regions.

Indigenous peoples are holding us to account. The board of directors will be composed of nine to 13 directors, in total. The bill states that the minister responsible will work jointly with the transitional committee to appoint the first board of directors. The council will subsequently establish the election process for future directors.

Our government will establish a protocol respecting the disclosure of information by the Government of Canada to the national council for reconciliation within six months of its creation. We released documents about residential schools to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, and it is imperative that we ensure that the national council for reconciliation has the information it needs to do its work.

I also want to point out that the national council for reconciliation will be completely independent of the government and will operate as a not-for-profit organization. Therefore it will have no ties to the federal government or the Crown. We will have no control over this council. The Government of Canada will provide an endowment fund and initial funding, but it will be an indigenous-led organization.

Even though it will be set up as a non-profit organization, the council will be required to report annually on the progress being made towards reconciliation in Canada and to make recommendations to advance the work. That means that the council will have to provide annual and financial reports to which the government must respond. These reports will help the federal government set objectives and make plans to advance reconciliation based on those recommendations.

The reporting-back mechanism that is laid out in the bill ensures transparency and accountability, and it will ensure that we make further progress on the calls to action.

I will just point out a final aspect of the bill, which outlines the purpose and functions of the council. This is the most vital part of the legislation in my view. In short, the mission of the council would be to hold the Government of Canada and all levels of government to account on reconciliation and on the calls to action. The council would be responsible for developing and implementing a multi-year national action plan to advance efforts towards reconciliation.

To get an accurate picture of what is happening on the ground, the council will conduct research and discuss with partners the progress being made towards reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments. That will include following up on efforts to implement the calls to action.

It will also include monitoring government policies and programs and federal laws that affect indigenous people, and producing reports on their progress.

Based on this research, the council will also be responsible for recommending measures to promote, prioritize and coordinate reconciliation.

While the council will certainly chart its own path, part of its role would be to make connections and harmonize the work being done in all sectors of Canadian society, including all levels of government.

To sum up, the purpose and functions of the council would be multifold. Not only would it be there to react and report on Canada's progress, but it would also be leading the action we take as a country on reconciliation.

I just want to emphasize a final important point. This legislation should absolutely pass without further delay. With each passing moment, survivors, elders, knowledge-keepers and families grow older. This is urgent. Many survivors have already passed away without having seen the full scope of our efforts to advance reconciliation. That is why I ask members here today to press forward to support establishing this council as quickly as possible. We owe it to survivors, to indigenous people and to all Canadians.

I would like to acknowledge and thank residential school survivors for sharing their truths and experiences. Without them, we would not be here today discussing the importance of our history. Meegwetch.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate. I have already indicated that we are on Bill C-29.

The hon. parliamentary secretary spoke about Bill C-5. I understand that there is flexibility, but the relevancy also has to be to Bill C-29.

The hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that the bill before the House is Bill C-29.

I will allow the hon. member the opportunity to respond to that if he wishes, but I do want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that we are on Bill C-29.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Red Deer—Mountain View. I am rising today to speak to the government's bill, Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

I believe that truth and reconciliation should be viewed as a partnership, a journey to reach a successful destination. Rebuilding relationships is not easy, particularly when there has been a history of distrust. It is necessary for us to view this legislation through that lens of distrust as we review Bill C-29 and that we use that lens to focus on building bridges and consensus.

Bill C-29 is an attempt to address calls to actions 53 to 56 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by establishing a mechanism of accountability on the progress of reconciliation across Canada.

As previous members of my caucus have stated, our party supports accountability. I had the honour to sit at the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee many years ago when we established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I will say that up until these latest amendments were introduced, I was supportive of Bill C-29, thanks to the strong work of my Conservative colleagues at committee who pushed to have common-sense amendments passed, which ultimately made this bill stronger. The Liberal amendments now cloud the issue. No matter what, there are still other areas of concern, and I would like to focus my comments on those now.

First, I have an issue with the appointment process of the board of directors of the national council for reconciliation, of its transparency and its independence. To address this, we need to reflect on the realities of the government's actions. The Prime Minister announced in December of 2017 that he would start the process of establishing a national council for reconciliation by putting in place an interim board of directors. In June 2018, that interim board of directors presented its final report with 20 specific recommendations. However, it took three and half years for the minister to then get around to appointing the new board members of this national council or to prepare for that reality.

The minister, in my view, needs to be accountable and transparent in the House when addressing the concerns Canadians have about the selection process, particularly to indigenous peoples. Why did it take so long for the government and the minister to complete the appointments? Who is responsible for analyzing the process, and why was it acceptable for it to take over three years?

As a former math teacher, I truly appreciate the importance of metrics and tracking. I speak about this a lot at the environment and natural resources committees, which leads me to my next concern. BillC-29 has nothing in it to measure outcomes. If we do not know what we have and where we are going, how will we ever know when we get there? We need that data to understand if what we are doing aligns with our desired goals. No one can see into the future and no one can speak for indigenous people better than they can themselves. Having data that we can measure can help everyone ensure that the outcomes we all want are actually achieved.

I understand that quantifying reconciliation is hard, but call to action 55 shows us there are several items we can measure. For example, the comparative number of indigenous children to non-indigenous children in care and the reasons for that care. We can measure and track that. I am sure that such data would be extremely helpful in policy development for this very important cause.

Another example to help us develop youth justice policy and social supports would be to track the progress made on eliminating overrepresentation of indigenous children in youth custody, as well as progress made in reducing the rate of criminal victimization in homicide, family violence and other crimes. I am sure these metrics would also be an asset to the policy development process. To measure accountability, we first must set targets to determine success from failure. We understand that the government has a poor track record with meeting targets and measuring accountability.

The PBO released a report in May 2022 in response to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs' request to conduct research and comparative analysis on the main estimates of the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and the Department of Indigenous Services Canada.

The PBO was critical of the departments of Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. He noted that over the 2015-16 and 2022-23 periods there was a significant increase in the amount of financial resources allocated to providing indigenous services.

Then he added that this increase in expenditures “did not result in a commensurate [increase] in the ability of these organizations to achieve the goals that they had set for themselves.”

He further stated, “Based on the qualitative review the ability [of the organizations] to achieve the targets [that they have] specified has declined.”

Increases in budgets without any improvements to outcomes are never a good thing. Whether we are spending money or implementing policy, we need to be accountable to taxpayers and Canadians, and I feel that our Liberal colleagues have forgotten that principle.

When the bill appeared at second reading, I was concerned about the unacceptable timelines we saw in bringing the bill to the House for debate. I still remained concerned about the issues surrounding transparency as well as the independence of the appointment process of the board of directors. I am also concerned about the lack of measurable outcomes in the bill as well as barriers that governments erect to curb indigenous economic power.

Mr. Calvin Helin is a seven-time, best-selling, multi-award winning author, the son of a hereditary chief, the current CEO of Eagle Group of Companies and the previous president of the Native Investment and Trade Association. He recently appeared at the natural resources committee and talked about the need for indigenous peoples to have access to capital and markets. He spoke about the need to develop resources on their land and the issues indigenous peoples are having with the government in order to do that.

In Mr. Helin's book, Dances with Dependency, which I read when I first came here in 2008 and make sure that everyone who works for me also reads it, he addressed the reality of eco-colonialists. I fully agree with him that departments and governments are in the way of resource development for indigenous peoples, particularly at a time when the world needs Canada's ethical resources. It would be a real shame to see that these assets are stranded and to see our indigenous people further struggle for economic freedom because of the roadblocks the current government puts up around our oil and gas sector or, for that matter, many of our resource extraction activities.

At committee, a proposed amendment was defeated that would have given the national indigenous economic organization a seat on the board of directors. This contradicts multiple witnesses who testified on the importance of having a strong voice on economic reconciliation at the table. My Conservative colleagues at committee made strong arguments that economic reconciliation is the solution to eradicating poverty, solving the social issues that poverty creates and ultimately creating a pathway to self-determination for indigenous people.

It has been said that if one cannot be part of a solution, there is still money to be made prolonging the problem. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, along with their ministers, seem content in prolonging the problem with our indigenous people.

We have seen this over the past seven years with the Liberal government, especially on indigenous issues. It makes big announcements, and it holds press conferences and photo ops only to ignore and rag the puck in order to avoid the hard work needed to help our indigenous peoples.

Seventeen of the 19 proposed amendments that were brought forward to committee were brought forward by my Conservative colleagues. Those 17 amendments all passed with the support of the other parties, and I want to thank them for their co-operation. Sadly, today we see a backtracking on some of these initiatives.

In closing, I will go back to where this discussion started with our former Conservative government, which formed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We advocated for more transparency on reserve for indigenous peoples. My former colleague, Rob Clarke, passed the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act, which received royal assent in December 2014. It is sad that no real action has been seen on this initiative.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for truth and reconciliation. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the incredible work of many of my colleagues from different parties, including the member for Sydney—Victoria, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the member for Northwest Territories, the member for Nunavut, the member for Winnipeg Centre, the member for Edmonton Griesbach and others, who, over the many years we have been here, have been inspirational in their work and advocacy as we make sure that as a government, we move forward on reconciliation.

Reconciliation is multi-layered, is often complex and is an issue that will take generations to achieve in Canada. Canada has gone through 154 years of colonialism and deeply rooted legislation that often disempowered and displaced first nations, Inuit and Métis across Canada. We have gone from having over 90 indigenous languages to only a handful being spoken today. We have seen the horrific results of residential schools and the intergenerational trauma they have created, and the lasting effects of the hurt and loss. We saw this with the unmarked graves, starting last year, and I suspect we will see it again and again as we unpack this deeply hurtful issue over the next few years. Parliament recently acknowledged what happened with residential schools as genocide, and that, too, is a very important aspect of moving forward and speaking truth to power.

As we look at establishing the national council for reconciliation, it is important to look at history. In 2015, when we took office, the commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission presented their findings, with 94 calls to action. That was in December 2015. They outlined the bare minimum that needs to be done in order for our path to reconciliation to move forward.

Since then, we have seen a number of different initiatives, including the report of the MMIWG, the missing and murdered women and girls report, and the calls to justice, as well as several other very important findings, including the unmarked graves. These things put additional responsibilities on the government and on all Canadians to address.

The 94 calls to action are an all-encompassing set of guidelines for the federal government, provincial governments and in some cases municipal governments, as well as organizations, particularly national indigenous organizations, and all Canadians. It is important to recognize that reconciliation is not a journey that can just be undertaken by Canada as a government. It needs to be an all-of-Canada effort that includes all stakeholders.

When we talk about reconciliation, oftentimes we talk about what Canada is prepared to do, but it really comes down to how much trust and confidence indigenous people can have in this process. What we have seen in the last seven years is that while we have moved ahead on a number of very important initiatives, we have often seen this relationship be two steps forward and one step back because there is a lot of unpacking to do. As we approach and encounter these issues, it is important that as a government we double down and recommit to working harder to ensure we move forward on this process.

It is an imperfect process. It is an imperfect set of ideas that often may need reflection, and in that I am pleased to share with the House some of my experiences over the past seven years working across party lines with the members opposite.

I do want to start off with our work on Bill C-262, which was a private member's bill brought forward by my friend Romeo Saganash. It essentially called for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and I was fortunate to work with Mr. Saganash over the couple of years he was actively advocating for Bill C-262. We travelled a fair bit in our committee work and spoke to many individuals: young people, elders, band councils and indigenous organization members. The enormous support the bill had across Canada with indigenous people was remarkable. However, we saw that the same level of commitment was not here in Parliament.

Over time, sadly, Bill C-262 did not pass, but we were able to get Bill C-15 through Parliament in 2021, and basically it is calls to action 43 and 44, and it was able to pass. The second part of UNDRIP is the implementation of a national action plan, and our department is working very hard with indigenous partners and national indigenous organizations, as well as rights holders and many others, to make sure we have an action plan that can really address a review of laws and move us forward on this path.

One of the things that has really humbled me is the work we have done on indigenous languages. There is an act, Bill C-91, which was passed in 2019, and it was a critical moment in Canada because, when we talk about language, it is so fundamental to all of us. Often, I look at the passion with which my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois address the issue of bilingualism and language, and the passion with which many of my colleagues on this side speak to the need to protect the French language.

I think it is so critical to ensure that linguistic minorities are protected across Canada, but often missing in that conversation is the need to protect and save the many indigenous languages that existed prior to Confederation. In many ways, those languages are in their last stages. Medically speaking, they are on life support because we have so many languages that are at a point of being lost permanently.

I know the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London spoke about Oneida Nation on the Thames, and that is one of the groups we met during the development of Bill C-91. It was devastating to see that only a handful of people were able to speak that language, which shows how important it is that Bill C-91 is there. As well, we, along with the support of the New Democratic Party, repealed mandatory minimum penalties just last week, and we implemented the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

These are some measures that speak to the work that has been done, but there is a lot more to do, and I believe the national council would be a very important tool for us to measure objectively what work we need to do. It would measure and report back to the House, as well as to Canadians, on the need to fill in the gaps and to make sure we fulfill all the commitments in the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I look forward to questions and comments from my friends, and I thank them for this opportunity to speak.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I respect greatly the member for Nunavut on our committee.

I have more of a question back to her. Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission, in his testimony, even before we got to ask him questions, talked about economic reconciliation being fundamental to this bill. He said, “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.”

Manny has a right to ask for this when he comes before our committee. We owe it to him to respect what he is asking for and to include it in this bill.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I recognize and respect the hon. member from the INAN committee.

I absolutely support all of what is requested and all the past wrongs that have happened, which really need to be reconciled. I absolutely agree with all that he is saying. What I would ask the member back is, did we not hear testimony after testimony at INAN that asked for economic reconciliation to be added to Bill C-29? I know the member heard that as well but chose to vote it down.

I would challenge the government: If it really wants to pursue true, fulsome reconciliation, it needs to add economic reconciliation to this bill.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, guess who said to get the gatekeepers out of the way and put first nations in charge of their own destinies. Who said that? It was our very own Conservative leader who said that this November in Kitimat, B.C. I was there.

We spoke with local leaders like Ellis Ross, a former Haisla chief and current MLA, and the current Haisla chief, Cris Smith. They are asking for economic reconciliation. That is what the speech was about. It was about economic reconciliation. We thought it was important it be included in the bill.

The title of Bill C-29, as many members have already heard, is an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We heard many witnesses at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. I was surprised that we heard about economic reconciliation over and over again. With a bill that deals with reconciliation, we would think it would be an easy inclusion, especially if witness testimony said we really need to include it.

I am going to read some leader testimony in committee. I thought Manny Jules, chief commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission, did a great job of explaining what economic reconciliation is. He said:

I believe it will help you understand why there can be no real reconciliation without economic reconciliation.

When I say economic reconciliation, I am talking about two fundamental components. One is that first nation governments must have jurisdictions and unassailable revenue authorities that help fund the exercise of those jurisdictions. The second is that first nations need to implement their jurisdiction and fiscal powers in a way that attracts investment from their members, and others, to participate in the economy on equal terms with everyone else.

He continued by saying, “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.” It does not get more clear than that. Prosperity is the foundation of what Manny was requesting for first nation peoples.

I will refer to another quote too. I already mentioned the current MLA for Skeena, Ellis Ross, former Haisla chief. Here is some of his testimony from the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

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 not only made us one of the wealthiest bands in B.C., but it also, for some reason, got rid of [other ills in the community].

I will continue the quote where he says, “we 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.”

I have another quote from another indigenous leader, Karla Buffalo, chief executive officer of Athabasca Tribal Council:

In our traditional territory in Treaty No. 8, the first nations are leaders in the advancement of economic reconciliation at a remarkable pace. Our focus is not just on fiscal sovereignty, but also on cultural revitalization and fostering strong and thriving communities and indigenous peoples.

I have more quotes, but we would think that, with all these quotes of indigenous leaders saying they want economic reconciliation, it would be obvious to see this amendment pass.

I will back up a bit. In hearing that testimony, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River put forward the following amendment under representativeness, “That Bill C-29, in clause 12, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 5 the following: 'Indigenous organizations that focus on economic reconciliation and prosperity as the path to self-determination.'”

That was pretty clear. Members across the way in committee were all listening to the testimony like I was. We would think that amendment would pass with overwhelming support, but sadly, it did not.

When we put the amendment forward, among the other parties, one NDP member, one Bloc member and four out of five Liberals voted down the amendment to give an indigenous economic national organization a seat on the board of directors. I would compliment one of the Liberal members for voting for this amendment, and we had other support for it as well.

This gets down to the whole purpose of why we are even seeking economic reconciliation. It is really so that indigenous people can thrive and prosper in our country. That is what we were asked to do and that is what reconciliation seeks to re-establish. It is meant to to re-establish a relationship, and if we can do that with this legislation, complementing it with economic reconciliation as a key component, it would be a far better piece of legislation. There is still hope that the government will fix it, but it does not look like that will be the case, which is sad to say.

I want to read a quote by Chief Willie Sellars of the Williams Lake First Nation. He stated:

I look at economics through reconciliation and our aspirations to get to be a self-governing community. That has been through the treaty process, but we've also taken these incremental steps to self-government. We are under the first nations land management regime. We are governing over our reserve lands. We have a financial administration law, so these sectoral forms of self-government have allowed us to move at the speed of business and become this machine that works efficiently and is able to make decisions, because the capacity that we have on board helps us negotiate these deals and these agreements and start these other businesses that we've been able to see a lot of success and prosperity with.

In this place, sometimes we say what we heard in testimony in committee, so I have a couple of examples.

Theresa Tait Day is a good friend and is a former hereditary chief of the Wet'suwet'en. I met her at a natural resource forum in Prince George, where all around, people were asking where the support was for developing our resources. One would have sworn by the media coverage of the Wet'suwet'en situation and the blockades that no Wet'suwet'en person would want to develop resources. She said it was quite the opposite. She informed me that 80% to 85% of the Wet'suwet'en wanted a project to go through because they would benefit and prosper from it. She said the first nation has jobs and the economic prosperity that comes from that, so they see the benefit of it.

I was intrigued by her response, and then she said it was not just her I could talk to. I talked to the elected leaders of the Wet'suwet'en, who all said they supported the particular natural resource project that was so contentious a couple of years ago. I thought it was interesting that often the public from coast to coast to coast did not hear the true story of the first nations that really wanted to develop it.

The 80% to 85% number has become key to me. I have gone around the Northwest Territories and elsewhere in the north, whether it be Nunavut or other northern communities, and the 80% to 85% number is consistent. I was recently in Nunavut and asked a minister about a particular project in natural resource development. I asked how many people the minister thought supported this particular project in the community and he said it was easily 80% to 85%.

What I am getting to is that economic reconciliation is such an important part of reconciliation to indigenous people. They are our friends, neighbours and fellow Canadians, and we want to work together to see reconciliation occur and be realized. The leader of my party said we should get gatekeepers out the way and put first nations in charge of their own destinies, and I could not agree more.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, kwe, kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that our Parliament, this very building, is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

We are on a collective journey that is framed by what we believe very fervently we need to accomplish, and the debate is all about how we do that. We have to acknowledge and understand at the beginning the devastating impacts of colonization on first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, and we know there is a lot to do.

Since the first identification of unmarked graves in May 2021, communities have been leading the work to locate and commemorate the children who died at residential schools. The residential school system and colonization has had an impact on every indigenous community, from health to culture and tradition, self-sufficiency, displacement, housing, land, environment and more. These are truths that we have to remember and we have to carry them forward. We cannot undo the past, but we can use what we know of the truth to do better.

As my hon. colleagues have shared so far, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action represents a pathway forward. The calls to action are a road map for all levels of government, education, health, religious institutions, civil society and the private sector to redress the legacy of residential schools and advance the progression of Canadian reconciliation. In this sense, living up to the calls to action presents Canada with one of the greatest challenges and opportunities in our country's history, and that is what makes Bill C-29 so significant.

This proposed legislation is a concrete step toward implementing the calls to action. It will contribute to societal changes through education, dialogue and other functions that the council will lead. It will keep all levels of government accountable for progress on reconciliation.

Over the course of the past two months, we have taken important steps to strengthen this bill, and we have heard many recommendations from many indigenous groups and individuals and, indeed, from the House. We have worked collaboratively with all members of the House through the INAN committee. Through this collaborative process, we have implemented their feedback in the amendments to the proposed legislation.

Let me be clear that the version of the bill that is before Parliament today was developed in a truly collaborative fashion and strengthened by the feedback we received.

I would like to share the bill's proposed next steps for establishing the national council for reconciliation. How it is chosen and its composition has already been the focus of some debate here.

Following royal assent, the first step would be to establish the council's first board of directors. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the transitional committee for the national council for reconciliation would jointly select its first board of directors. Inclusion of the transitional committee in the process supports the independence of the council as a foundational principle.

Having a diverse and inclusive board is critically important, and there may be various opinions and ideas on how that is to be achieved.

The Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and the Native Women's Association of Canada would each have an opportunity to nominate one board member. Through the amendment process, and on the advisement of partners, we are also ensuring we include additional voices on the board, such as the directors from the territories as well as representatives of survivors or their descendants, elders and indigenous peoples who speak French.

The council's board would also include first nations, Inuit, Métis, indigenous organizations, youth, women, men and gender-diverse persons representing various regions of Canada, including urban, rural and remote areas. The board will contribute its expertise and knowledge to drive the council's work.

Through the board's establishment and subsequent work, the protection and promotion of indigenous languages will be a crucial part of the process. This means supporting board members in their usage of traditional languages.

The board will take steps to incorporate the national council for reconciliation under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act for not-for-profit status. Doing this is essential as it would give the council legal status. This would allow it, for example, to enter into contracts and have bank accounts under its own name.

Bill C-29 would also establish that the council be recognized as a qualified donee that can accept donations and issue official donation receipts.

Once incorporated, the board would then set up the council through steps that include developing bylaws, hiring an executive director and other staff, making financial and banking arrangements and developing operational and strategic plans.

Moreover, budget 2019 provided a total of $126.5 million to support the establishment of the council. This includes $1.5 million to support the council's first year of operations and, importantly, a $125-million endowment for the council's initial operating capital.

A key responsibility of the council would be to monitor and report on the progress. In this respect, the council would have to, within three months after the end of each financial year, submit to the minister an annual report on the state of reconciliation and the council's recommendations.

Within 60 days of the release of this report, the Prime Minister would be required, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to respond to the report by publishing an annual report on the state of indigenous peoples that outlines the Government of Canada's plans for advancing reconciliation.

These timelines would ensure that the momentum on reconciliation could continue. All of these steps would position the council as a non-political body, and that is the objective, led by strong indigenous leadership. It would require that the council be an independent voice that promotes and monitors progress toward reconciliation, including Canada's implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Together, the council's mandate would be to monitor, evaluate, conduct research and report on the progress being made toward reconciliation, including in relation to, and respect for, the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada.

There would be an opportunity for different representatives to sit on the council. The expertise and experience they bring would contribute to the council's priorities and goals. Their voices would come from many diverse groups across Canada, to ensure that the council would reflect the lived realities of indigenous peoples.

I know these voices may share some pretty hard truths with us. That would be part of their mandate. As we have heard already, some of their feedback is constructive and informed. It is highly valued. We know this because we need a council that will be truly able to make a difference. We need all levels of government, including our own, to be held to account.

The hon. former senator Murray Sinclair once said that “if we agree on the objective of reconciliation, and agree to work together, the work we do today will immeasurably strengthen the social fabric of Canada tomorrow.”

I think we can all agree that we need to act swiftly and decisively to achieve the goal. It is clear that we have worked together, in a true partnership, to develop this proposed legislation to achieve that goal.

I encourage all hon. members to support the bill and the objective.

As we all know, reconciliation is not an indigenous issue. It is a Canadian one. Every Canadian has a part to play in renewing the relationship with indigenous peoples and bringing about the transformative changes needed to ensure inclusive growth for indigenous peoples.

If not now, when? If not us, who?

Today, we have the opportunity to make good on our promise of reconciliation. Let us get to work and pass this bill without delay.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously this is a very important debate that we are having today as we see the in-the-chamber debates taking place.

It is truly an honour to stand here and speak to Bill C-29, an act to establish a national council for reconciliation, at third reading. I would really like to thank the committee that worked on this and adopted many amendments to ensure that we have a good piece of legislation, although we know we can still do more.

In the preamble of this legislation, the goals are very clear. I want to start, for anyone watching today, with what the goals of this reconciliation council are and why we need to have it.

I quote from the preamble:

[T]he Government of Canada recognizes the need for the establishment of an independent, non-political, permanent and Indigenous-led organization to monitor, evaluate, conduct research and report on the progress being made towards reconciliation, including in relation to respect for and the protection and promotion of the rights of Indigenous peoples, in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada, in order to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Call to Action number 53

Like many parliamentarians, we are talking about reconciliation and we are all working toward it. I can say that from going to the second annual truth and reconciliation day in Elgin—Middlesex—London, Canadians, indigenous communities and indigenous people are coming together because we recognize that work must be done, and reconciliation is part of that.

However, I want to quote my friend Chris Patriquin. Chris is a member of the St. Thomas Chamber of Commerce, has a great business and does tons of work. He is a leader in our community. Coming from the Oneida Nation, he said to me, “There cannot be reconciliation unless we have clean water. To me, that is very important.”

He says that because on the reserve of Oneida, just 20 kilometres from the city of London, there has been a boil water advisory for over two years. This community is probably about 50 metres from a water line. There are so many options, and I know it takes all levels of government, including indigenous people and communities, municipalities, provinces and territories, to work together. That is why I am saying we must work together if we are actually looking for reconciliation. These solutions occur when everybody is onside.

When we look at this piece of legislation, I recognize that there must be good governance; there must be accountability and there must be transparency, but most of all there must be trust. This trust has not been broken; it was never there. Therefore, it is important that we recognize that when government comes with its hands wide open, we have to understand why there is push-back and that everybody needs to be part of that. It is why this reconciliation council is very important. If the government is truly committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we need to ensure that indigenous peoples and indigenous communities are at the table. Reconciliation is about collective efforts from all people from all generations.

Today, there was an amendment tabled during this third reading, removing the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, known as CAP. Its seat would be removed from the board of directors by this amendment. I am sorry to hear that we have one of the other opposition parties now choosing to side with the government on this, but it concerns me, because I am looking at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. When we are talking about inclusion and talking about representation of different ideas, different ideas need to be at that table. Removing this for reasons unknown, and I do not know why they would want to remove this, would take a voice away from that table. This is a voice that represents thousands of indigenous people living in urban and rural centres. Therefore, I would ask the Liberal government and the NDP why they would change this, why they are accepting this amendment today and why we would take CAP off the table. Our mandate is to improve the socio-economic conditions of our constituents, and that is exactly what having CAP at this table would do. It is another organization.

It is really interesting, because I sit on the status of women committee and I am bringing the work I do on that committee here. On the subject of missing and murdered indigenous women, we have finished and are putting forward a report that we should be very proud of, in which we talk about calls for justice 13.1 and 13.5 from the national inquiry. We got this work done, and I am going to be very excited when we can table it. It is when we bring different voices and different opinions together, when we can actually work together and are able to get a report done, that very strong recommendations are brought forward about safety for women.

That is why it is important that we have everybody at the table. We have four political parties at the status of women committee and we must work together if we are trying to move an amendment, option or recommendation. However, when people are not at the table, it makes it much easier if we do not want chaos. Once again, I question why the government is not only removing CAP, but not allowing other groups. I am talking about the indigenous economic national organization, for example.

When we are talking about reconciliation, we also need to talk about economic reconciliation. If we are trying to create vibrant communities where there is safety and opportunities for indigenous people, that also comes with economic engines. That is why it is very important that we have organizations representing different views at the table. Perhaps that would have been the indigenous economic national organization, but unfortunately we will never know.

I would like to quote Karen Restoule, who was at the committee. She stated:

Adequate funding and support for education, child welfare programs and health investments is at the core of how we are going to be able to succeed to achieve what I've just referenced...in terms of robust challenges and objectives for ourselves.

She also 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.

When I arrived here in 2015, and probably like every other member who arrived here, I received two books of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Yes, these two books are massive, but they have really good and insightful information in them. I would like know why it has taken the government seven years to finally start taking action on some of these very simple things. To me, this is a very simple process of what we can do. The government started some processes back in 2018-19, but it is now 2022 and we are finally about to appoint our first council, and that is a concern.

I also look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that was established in 2008, and it is really important. I came here as a new parliamentarian with very little knowledge of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I have sat in Parliament and listened to other parliamentarians, to people with lived experience and to my colleagues who have represented northern and indigenous communities. We need to be working on this. If we are looking for a journey of truth and healing, we need to create these relationships on a basis of inclusion, understanding and respect.

I would like to quote also from the final report. As a parent, this really knocks me off my feet. As any parent would recognize, it would be so hard. This is a quote from the very first page of the summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report. It states:

It can start with a knock on the door one morning. It is the local Indian agent, or the parish priest, or, perhaps, a Mounted Police officer. The bus for residential school leaves that morning. It is a day the parents have long been dreading. Even if the children have been warned in advance, the morning’s events are still a shock. The officials have arrived and the children must go.

This is the truth, and we have to recognize this truth, of indigenous people who have gone through this for many decades. Let us move together, let us work together and let us ensure we have a council that it is appropriately appointed, not by the Prime Minister, not by the minister but by organizations that will be working together. There needs to be proper oversight, but if we are putting in an appointed council that is going to be representing the wants and needs of the Prime Minister and the minister, that is not appropriate. We need to ensure that all are at the table, that it is inclusionary, because the path, the journey, is the truth.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North.

The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of Bill C‑29 and is a strong supporter of nation-to-nation relations with the first peoples.

My colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned that there is still a lot to do. Yes, there is still a lot to do for there to be true reconciliation with first nations. I am referring to the Indian Act, a racist, colonial and discriminatory piece of legislation. The Minister of Indigenous Services has said that it is unacceptable legislation, that it needs to be eliminated. For that to happen, we will need to replace it.

I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell us when his government will take concrete action to change the Indian Act to ensure that we can have true reconciliation with first nations.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to add a couple thoughts. When the member makes reference to names, I think of individuals such as Diane Redsky, Sharon Redsky, Cindy Woodhouse and Amy Chartrand.

These individuals have committed so much of their lives and efforts toward indigenous people on the issue of reconciliation in a real way. There are obviously many others. I am referring just to Winnipeg North, and it is a relatively small number of individuals that I could recognize.

I would like to pay a compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on how effective he has been as an indigenous caucus chair. He has provided advice to the Prime Minister and to members of Parliament, such as myself. He has provided us very valuable information to ensure we continue to be on the right track.

Back in 2015, when the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party in third-party status, the 94 calls to action were tabled here. The then leader of the Liberal Party made a solemn commitment to indigenous people from coast to coast to coast, and beyond, to implement and work toward getting all 94 calls to action moving in a positive direction.

Upon the election results later that year, we made it very clear that our priority was indigenous reconciliation. That was something that was not optional. If one were to check the mandate letters provided to ministers, they would see a very clear indication on indigenous people. This is something that is of a strong personal nature for our Prime Minister. It has been a priority for our entire caucus, with the guidance of individuals like our Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

If we look at budgetary measures or legislative measures, virtually from day one to today, we will see calls to action being responded to in a tangible way. We hear some members of Parliament say we are spending too much, implying there is too much waste. Others will say we are not spending enough.

What is clear is that we have never before seen a government invest so much in financial resources, and other resources, to deal with truth and reconciliation and justice for indigenous people in Canada. There should be no doubt about that.

When I was in opposition, I on occasion made reference to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls from indigenous communities. That is an issue I recall asking for a public inquiry on. That was before the calls to action.

I would like to read call to action 41. It states:

We call upon the federal government, in consultation with Aboriginal organizations, to appoint a public inquiry into the causes of, and remedies for, the disproportionate victimization of Aboriginal women and girls. The inquiry’s mandate would include:

(i) Investigation into missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls

(ii) Links to the intergenerational legacy of residential schools.

I raise that because one of the very first actions of this government was to call for the public inquiry. We have many actions being requested of the government that have come out of that public inquiry.

Fast-forward to today, and we are talking about Bill C-29. If we look at what Bill C-29 is all about, let there be no doubt that it is specifically in response to calls to action 53, 54, 55 and 56. Call to action 53 states:

We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal Peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members. Its mandate would include, but not be limited to, the following....

Call to action 53 then goes on to list five points.

Call to action 54 states:

We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.

Call to action 55 states, in part:

We call upon all levels of government to provide annual reports or any current data requested by the National Council for Reconciliation so that it can report on the progress towards reconciliation. The reports or data would include, but not be limited to....

It then lists two items.

Finally, call to action 56 states:

We call upon the prime minister of Canada 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.

Those four calls to action are in this legislation, in the amendments that were brought forward. I highlighted call to action 41, which we took action on immediately after we became government back in 2015, and today we are debating those four calls to action.

It is not only budgetary and legislative measures that the government makes on a daily basis. If we focus our attention strictly on truth and reconciliation, we can talk about not millions, but billions of dollars that the government has allocated in working in partnership with indigenous people, whether it is on issues such as systemic racism, health care, housing and so much more.

In terms of legislation, we can talk about enactments to support indigenous child welfare. We can talk about legislation to support indigenous language. We can talk about Bill C-15, the UNDRIP legislation that was brought forward. What about the statutory holiday that was brought forward in legislation? There is legislation dealing with the oath of citizenship. When we hear that every child matters, calls to action 72 to 76 are ongoing. We can talk about the lobbying that took place and call to action 58, which was the formal apology from the Pope here in Canada.

If we look at the 94 calls to action in total, well over 80% of them have been acted on in one form or another, and many of them have been completed. It is important to recognize that, as a national government, where we have responsibility, we act on it. That is a commitment that the Prime Minister and Liberal Party made before we formed government, and now that we have the reins of government, we are implementing these calls to action because it is the right thing to do.

I recognize there is a lot more that needs to be done. I suspect if we were to check with the Prime Minister, cabinet or any individual member of the Liberal caucus, we would find the same sentiment.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I thank my constituents in Nunavut who continue to reach out and give me encouragement in this work. The faith they give me drives my work and continued commitment to ensure that their voices are amplified in this place.

I speak passionately as an Inuk, and I am guided by the voices shared with me by first nations and Métis. I thank the many indigenous peoples in Canada to whom I dedicate this speech.

Inuit and first nations thrived on these lands we now call Canada for generations before the arrival of settlers. Métis have thrived in Canada. Much to the chagrin of settlers, Inuit, first nations and Métis still use our cultures, languages and practices.

Unfortunately, there are still far too many indigenous peoples whose experiences show the constant disparity between Canadians and indigenous peoples. In support of the need to pass Bill C-29, I share some of these disparities and some basic words that have such disparate treatments between most Canadians and indigenous peoples in Canada.

On reproductive care, most Canadian women get proper guidance, they easily talk about birth control and do not have to worry about their pregnancies. Indigenous women still experience unconsented sterilization, do not get proper birth control guidance and must worry about nutrition due to a lack of accessible nutritious food.

Most Canadian women give birth in places with which they are completely familiar, with doctors and nurses they recognize, and the comfort in knowing that the system will be ready for any urgent issue that may arise while giving birth. Some indigenous women must leave their home communities and travel thousands of kilometres to give birth a month in advance. The doctors and nurses are not indigenous, may not necessarily speak their language and they may worry that their newborn baby may be taken by social services.

Love for most Canadians can be unconditional. The love between generations provides the financial stability, educational goals and freedom to choose to transfer a property from one generation to the next. For too many indigenous peoples, love is short lived, tainted by intergenerational trauma and little to no guarantees about the financial security needed for the next generation.

Education for most Canadians is having one teacher preside over many children and youth. It is a system rooted in colonial history, with Canada's successes. While there have been improvements, it is still largely without the history of how indigenous peoples were treated by assimilationist policies, which are still plaguing indigenous peoples. For indigenous peoples, it was a process of genocide and indoctrination. Indigenous children were emotionally, physically and sexually abused by so-called teachers. Some children never returned to their indigenous parents. Instead, they were buried next to the school that was supposed to take the Indian out of the child.

The RCMP for most Canadians is an institution whose members they can recognize and call upon to be protected. For indigenous peoples, it is a current and ongoing enforcer of systemic racism. It is still very fresh in my mind when RCMP officers, who were equipped with assault weapons, helicopters, dogs and a chainsaw, were breaking down the doors of indigenous women who were seeking to defend their lands against the unconsented project to cross their ancestral lands. There is also a lack of presence in other places where gang violence and squatters are allowed on indigenous lands.

Violence, for most Canadians. are the things they watch on TV screens, in movie theatres or some far away social media. For most indigenous peoples, it is a common experience. From childhood to the dying days of elders, violence is surrounding our lives.

Justice, for most Canadians, occurs quite quickly. For indigenous peoples, it takes generations, if any. Justice has tests to meet to determine if it is justifiably infringed. Justice for indigenous peoples will continue in jails and in gravesites.

Missing and murdered, for most Canadians, are terms they hear in the media about indigenous women. For indigenous families, it is a far too common experience. Reports after reports are not making the systemic changes to stop this genocide. There are far too many basic emotions to express all the heartache experienced by indigenous peoples.

Crisis is another word we hear all too often in the House. First nations, Métis and Inuit have been experiencing crisis for generations. Let us choose to be more careful when we use the word crisis in the House.

Suicide is something that has been a reality for far too long in Canada. For most Canadians, it is a debate on legislation that allows people who are suffering medical conditions to choose. Suicide, for indigenous communities, is something chosen by youth because they have no hope left. I am still hurt, and it is still very fresh in my mind, about the young pregnant woman who committed suicide because she was given the news that she would not have a home.

Reconciliation, for most Canadians, is a term on which the federal government needs to act. There is no sense of obligation for regular Canadians. It is a term used by politicians to make promises during campaigns. It is a term that costs too much, so the piecemeal approach is often taken.

I have not even mentioned the environment, housing, culture, languages and so much more. These disparities demand that the national council for reconciliation finally be established. I thank the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which heard and voiced such important calls to action. The national council on reconciliation must take a rights-based approach to monitoring the work of the government, whose side of reconciliation has failed for generations to date.

I conclude by sharing names of some indigenous role models who have proven indigenous peoples are vibrant, strong and vital to the continued success of indigenous peoples. These people are leaders and voices we must continue to amplify as they are the ones who have advanced reconciliation, whether they tried to or not.

This is an incomplete list and I challenge members to name more: Governor General Mary Simon, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Okalik Eegeesiak, Dalee Sambo Dorough, Cindy Blackstock, the member for Winnipeg Centre, Justice Murray Sinclair, John Amagoalik, Tagak Curley, former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash, John Borrows, Tracey Lindberg, Duncan McCue, Pam Palmeter and James Eetoolook. I know this is not an exhaustive list in any way.

We must all do what we can to ensure the national council on reconciliation is established. Through the great work of the interim board, we will see the advancement of indigenous peoples' rights, the advancement of self-determination and the expectation that the federal government does better to support the work of indigenous peoples in Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to ask the member about something she did not really talk about in her presentation and give her the time to tell the House what the 14 Inuit communities in her riding have said about Bill C-29.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to take the floor in the House and, today, I am doing so at the report stage of Bill C‑29.

As we all know, the adoption of this bill will allow for the establishment of an apolitical and permanent indigenous-led national council for reconciliation to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples in response to calls to action 53 to 56 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs studied Bill C‑29 and produced a report that includes the amendments made to the bill. These do not change the spirit and intent of the bill.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle underlying Bill C‑29, and will support its adoption in its current form, since, as I said in a speech here in the House last week, the Bloc Québécois is a vocal advocate for nation-to-nation relations between Quebec, Canada and first nations.

Giving indigenous peoples a stronger voice and allowing them to be heard in the reconciliation process is entirely in line with our position. As members know, the Bloc Québécois has always worked with indigenous nations at the federal level to strengthen and guarantee their inherent rights. It is also working to ensure that the federal government applies the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in its entirety in its own jurisdictions.

The Bloc Québécois has also come out in support of indigenous nations receiving their due, and we will continue to apply pressure on the federal government to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Lastly, let us not forget that, on June 21, 2021, the Bloc secured the unanimous passage of a motion to ensure that indigenous communities have all the resources needed to lift the veil on the historical reality of residential schools and to force the churches to open their archives. This bill is a step forward in this regard.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill follows up on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 to 56. As members will recall, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established through a legal agreement between residential school survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives and those responsible for creating and running the schools, in other words, the federal government and church authorities.

It is important for us, here, to remember these calls to action, and that is why I am taking the liberty of reading them, as they are the reason for Bill C‑29. Call to action 53 reads:

We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal Peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation.

Call to action 54 reads:

We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.

Call to action 55 reads:

We call upon all levels of government to provide annual reports or any current data requested by the National Council for Reconciliation so that it can report on the progress towards reconciliation....

Call to action 56 reads:

We call upon the Prime Minister of Canada 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.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois is fully and firmly in favour of these calls to action, which is why we support this bill. We also support Bill C‑29 because of its major components, including the positive goal to establish a national council for reconciliation to advance efforts towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Members will note one thing that keeps coming up in this bill, specifically all the entities that the national council for reconciliation will monitor and on which it will make recommendations.

We can see that the council's current purpose is to monitor the progress being made towards reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada and to recommend measures to promote, prioritize and coordinate efforts for reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada.

First, we need to understand what “all sectors of Canadian society” means.

I assume that all Canadian Crown corporations will be under the council's scrutiny, but that raises questions. Will the council also monitor and investigate federally regulated private businesses? Would an independent airline be included in the mandate to monitor and make recommendations?

The very broad scope the bill allows the council appears to give it great latitude in its activities, but that could also make it less effective when it could be focusing on government corporations and bodies rather than on private businesses. The government must set an example, so it is important to pay special attention to its entities.

The other element to look at is the monitoring of “all governments in Canada”. The intention is to monitor provincial and territorial governments. Although indigenous affairs fall under federal jurisdiction, first nations issues also relate to many areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as health and education. There seems to be a desire to disregard jurisdiction and allow the council to monitor all government activities in Canada.

I would remind members that the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Quebec, known as the Viens commission, was set up to determine the underlying causes of all forms of violence, discrimination and differential treatment towards Indigenous women and men in the delivery of certain public services in Quebec.

In his report, the commissioner issued 135 recommendations to the Government of Quebec. These calls to action apply to all of the services the government delivers to indigenous peoples, such as justice, correctional services, law enforcement, health, social services and youth protection.

In the interest of independent and impartial monitoring, the Quebec ombudsman was mandated to follow up on the implementation of the recommendations made by the Viens commission. The ombudsman has established an advisory committee comprising first nations and Inuit members to foster collaboration and ensure that the Viens commission’s calls to action are translated into measures that meet the needs of first nations and Inuit representatives.

Another committee, made up mainly of university researchers and representatives of civil society, was also set up to independently document the implementation of these calls to action. The committee, which was based out of the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, released its first report in 2021.

The national council for reconciliation is another body tasked with monitoring progress and making recommendations, in addition to the two similar bodies already at work in Quebec. It is worth asking whether there will again be overlap between their mandates or whether the council will focus on federal issues in Quebec, analyzing only issues that fall under federal jurisdiction. I certainly hope there will be no overlap.

Lastly, we know that the national council for reconciliation will have to conduct investigations, since its mandate is to monitor and make recommendations. That means it will need investigators and analysts. I would be curious to see the current forecasts concerning the number of employees the council will need in order to carry out its mission properly.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I alluded to in my speech, a very important aspect is that the government needs to listen and be responsive to the needs of indigenous communities. When I talk to chiefs and leaders across my riding, they know what their communities need and they know where the gaps are, but too often we have Indigenous Services trying to dictate where those dollars should flow, and that is why I think we see a number of gaps, including when it comes to housing.

I would say as well that I think economic reconciliation is a very important part of this conversation. The Conservatives brought forward an amendment, which unfortunately was rejected at committee, to include economic reconciliation in Bill C-29, but we have heard testimony from a number of people who have said that it is key to prosperity and that it is key to ending poverty and ensuring communities can move forward.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have appreciated the opportunity to work with my colleague once again on the indigenous and northern affairs committee, as he alluded to.

The short answer is all of them. I support the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I support moving forward on the calls to action, but the point the parliamentary secretary made, and he alluded to it as well in his speech, is talking about calls to action 53 to 56. There are some gaps in Bill C-29 and the government has not actually implemented those calls to action as it was intended to, for example, by not having the Prime Minister respond to this, as was indicated in call to action 56.

There certainly is a long way to go, and I think there is still a long way to go when it comes to Bill C-29 as well.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to join the debate today on Bill C-29, the truth and reconciliation council. It has been an honour for me as the member for Kenora representing northwestern Ontario, which includes 42 first nations across three treaty territories as well as the Métis homeland, to work on this bill throughout the committee process.

I am pleased that the vast majority of the amendments brought forward by the Conservative Party have been adopted and implemented into Bill C-29. As well, other parties have been able to improve this legislation, so far, moving forward. Generally, we have been working together quite well at committee, notwithstanding a couple of hiccups. I will speak a bit more to those towards the end of my comments.

I first want to take a step back and look at the need for the truth and reconciliation council. I believe it is important that we are turning from nice words of reconciliation to action. I think we have a government that has said, more or less, all the right things over the last seven years that it has been in power, but that there has not always been the proper follow-up to ensure true reconciliation is being met and is moving forward.

I believe this council could serve as an accountability mechanism for that, to ensure there is that oversight, so to speak, on government, and to ensure that not just this government but future governments would live up to the rhetoric, so to speak, when it comes to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

This is important because we are in a situation where we have a government that, I would say, very clearly measures its success based on how many dollars it can spend. If we ask a question about almost anything in the chamber, the government tells us how many dollars it spent to address it. It says, “Look at us. We spent more money than anybody else. Clearly we care the most and we are doing the most. Therefore, that is the right approach.”

However, on this side of the House, we believe we should be measuring outcomes. We should be measuring the results those dollars are actually achieving. That is where there is a major gap. That is where I believe we need to take more action to ensure that we are actually following through.

I want to look to a report from May of this year, from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It indicated that since 2015 there has been a significant increase in funding to Indigenous Services Canada. I believe there was an over 100% increase. However, the highlights of the Parliamentary Budget Officer report said:

This increase in expenditure did not result in a commensurate increase in the ability of the organizations to achieve the targets that they had set for themselves.

The government is spending more to achieve worse results. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also said that Indigenous Services is having trouble actually matching what it is spending with its own performance targets, essentially throwing money out the window in many cases.

I want to turn to another quote from Ken Coates in The Globe and Mail. He said, “Put bluntly, Canada is not getting what it is paying for—and what's worse, the massive spending is not improving lives in Indigenous communities.” That is a great cause for concern. I think that should concern everybody in the chamber and everyone across the country.

We have a system where, in many ways, the Liberal government is creating this appearance of progress by announcing all the funds they are funnelling through Indigenous Services, but the lives of indigenous peoples are not actually improving.

We see that across the north as well when it comes to nutrition north Canada. That is, of course, the government's flagship program to address food security across the north, particularly in the territories but also in the northern parts of the provinces, including in my riding of Kenora, where there are many communities that fall within the jurisdiction of nutrition north Canada.

Every single year the government has increased the spending on this program. It has increased the subsidy. It has put more resources towards it, but every single year it has been in office, the rates of food insecurity across the north have risen. The government is literally spending more, again, to get worse results. We see that especially across the north where in places like Nunavut over half of the population is food insecure. We have heard those concerns from many members on all sides of the House for a number of years now. It cannot just be addressed by more money.

We know that dollars in government investment are often necessary and are often an important part of the solution, but time and again we have seen these reports that show that more money is not going to solve the problem. We need to actually have a structural overhaul to Indigenous Services Canada to ensure we are getting value for those dollars and that indigenous people are seeing that value.

I want to speak a bit about the boil water advisories as well because that is another area where the government has made some progress. I have said that before and I will say it again. The Liberals have made some progress. We have seen in my riding some communities that have had water advisories lifted, that are moving forward and are having much success with that, but that is not universal. There are many other communities where the government, in large part, is getting in the way.

Neskantaga in my riding has been under a boil water advisory for many years. Just a couple of years ago, it actually had to evacuate because the water plant malfunctioned altogether. The government has put $25 million toward supporting a new water treatment plant in Neskantaga. It is not for lack of money being allocated. Indigenous Services Canada is putting up barriers and making it difficult for those funds to actually reach the community. That is why, in part, we are seeing the boil water advisory persisting to this date. Those are the structural issues I am talking about.

The Auditor General as well has previously stated that there are systemic issues in the Indigenous Services bureaucracy; that longer wait times are leading to higher costs of projects, for example; and that Indigenous Services often tries to dictate to communities how those dollars should be spent, when the communities know best where the dollars should go. One of the most troubling things is that Indigenous Services Canada is not allowing indigenous communities across the country to guide their own destinies. The department is dictating to them and oftentimes getting it wrong.

That brings me to the overarching point of why I was sharing these concerns. Of course these are concerns that would be addressed in part through Bill C-29, which is why I am speaking positively about the legislation. I do think Bill C-29 is necessary and this council would help us achieve better goals for indigenous people. However, I want to talk about the reasons why I feel that is necessary. That is why I was sharing those structural concerns, and it comes back to what the Conservative Party is standing on.

We have currently a Liberal government in office that is, as the reports frequently allude to, spending more and getting less. It is the government itself, through the silos it has created in Indigenous Services with the lack of flexibility to allocate funding where communities see best, that is actually continuing to perpetuate challenges across the north. We are seeing it in northwestern Ontario and across northern Ontario. That is why I want to talk about what the Conservative Party would do.

The Conservative Party would respect the rights of indigenous communities to guide their own destinies. We would empower communities to have self-determination, to have more freedom and to make those decisions for themselves. We stand here ready as a partner and ally to move forward on prosperity, on projects, on infrastructure and on social supports that are necessary to see these communities thrive. For too long, we have had a government that is getting in the way, that is bloating the bureaucracy and that is not meaningfully addressing the needs that will advance reconciliation. Those are the thoughts I wanted to leave on a final note.

I wrap it up with the fact that Bill C-29, this council for reconciliation, should serve as an accountability mechanism for the government to ensure it is not throwing money into the wind but that it is actually getting meaningful results with the dollars it is spending.

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

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

As we gather to debate Bill C-29, I think that it is important to take a moment to explain the approach that the government took when developing this proposed legislation.

There is a saying, “Nothing about us without us”. The government has tried to fulfill the true meaning of those words as we rebuild a relationship with indigenous people across the country. This is why we used a collaborative approach to develop Bill C-29. Engagement with indigenous leaders and communities was integral to the process every step along the way.

I am going to take a few moments to outline the engagement process we used throughout the development of the bill. The first and foremost has been the incredible indigenous leadership provided by the interim board and the transitional committee. Both independent bodies were made up of first nations, Inuit and Métis, with all providing their best advice and taking into account a wide range of diverse voices and perspectives.

I also want to acknowledge the monumental work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was the foundation for this bill. The TRC held a series of national and community-focused sessions across the country as part of its work to lay bare the truth and story of this country. The commission has set forth a pathway of reconciliation to begin the healing necessary in relation to the trauma and ongoing impacts caused by the residential school system.

The extensive and historic work of the TRC was pivotal in laying the groundwork for this proposed legislation. By amplifying the voices of survivors, the commissioners included the idea of the national council for reconciliation in calls to action 53 and 54.

In developing the final report, they took an inclusive and indigenous-led approach, and the approach was to listen to the voices of the indigenous people. They heard from survivors of residential schools, as well as their families, and they used the stories not only to tell Canadians the truth about what happened but also as a basis on which to build the calls to action. The government has strived to honour that approach by inviting and supporting indigenous leadership throughout the whole process with the culmination being the development of proposed legislation.

We were inspired and led by the TRC commissioners, the residential school survivors and the indigenous people who participated in the TRC process. This included everyone who envisioned an independent, indigenous-led national oversight body.

The commission envisioned a national council that would prepare an annual report on the state of reconciliation, to which the Government of Canada would respond publicly, outlining its plans to advance reconciliation. In developing this bill, the government has aimed to listen to these diverse voices.

Indigenous leaders and community members had the courage to step forward, to tell the country about their experiences and how this has affected them and their families throughout their lives. More than this, these voices have been guiding the way to help their communities on a journey toward healing.

I would like to speak a little about the interim board. After the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had fulfilled its mandate, the federal government responded to the calls to establish a national council for reconciliation by creating an interim board to help transition to the next step by making recommendations on the scope of the mandate of the council. The federal government appointed the interim board of directors in 2018, comprising six indigenous leaders representing first nations, Inuit and Métis, including a former truth and reconciliation commissioner.

This independent board was responsible for providing advice to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on establishing a national council for reconciliation. The interim board held an engagement event in April 2018. It met with various indigenous organizations and non-indigenous stakeholders to seek their views on the mandate of the council, the legislation, the scope of the council and, more broadly, on long-term reconciliation.

The interim board carefully considered all that it had heard from the engagements with various indigenous and non-indigenous peoples and organizations, as well as engagement events in Ottawa, and developed a final report.

This process included a diverse group of people, community members, academics, business, arts and health professionals and other interested parties. Each member of the interim board reached out to the additional individuals to ask for their views on the establishment of the national council for reconciliation.

The government also reached out to non-indigenous Canadians for their thoughts about creating a council. An online platform was created to capture Canadians' views on the subject. People could share their thoughts on the mandate, on the future of the national council for reconciliation and on what its first steps should be. The responses were positive. They showed that Canadians supported the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Another important step was the engagement that took place directly with national indigenous organizations. The interim board reached out to the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council to seek their input on the mandate of the national council for reconciliation. Including this step in the process meant that indigenous community members, as well as political leaders, had the opportunity to express their perspectives about creating the council.

At every step of the way, establishing an indigenous-led approach was integral to the process. Only after the interim board had heard a wide spectrum of indigenous voices did it prepare its final report incorporating what it had heard.

In June 2018, the interim board presented its final report, which contained recommendations relating to the vision, mission, mandate, structure, membership, funding, reporting and legislation of the national council for reconciliation.

Notably, it echoed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, saying that a council should be established through legislation and that it should address calls to action 53 to 56. It also said that it should be independent, permanent and non-political, and that it should also be a catalyst for innovative thought, dialogue and action.

The interim board also made recommendations about how the government should implement those recommendations. The interim board said the government should create a transitional committee to support next steps. When the government drafted legislation, it should co-draft the legislation with advice and leadership from the transitional committee membership.

Finally, the interim board recommended more outreach and engagement. Building on the work of the interim board, the Department of Justice prepared a draft legislative framework for consultative purposes.

I think it is important to make special note of that fact. The legislative framework was based directly on the work of the interim board, and the interim board based its work on the feedback that it received from indigenous voices across the country. We can really see that indigenous communities are at the very heart of this proposed legislation.

The next step after the interim board was the transitional committee, which was established and launched in December 2021. The members were appointed by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. The committee reviewed the draft legislative framework and considered ways to improve it to ensure a strong and effective council.

Transitional committee engagement was part of this. Building on the interim board's engagement activities in 2018, the transitional committee carried out even more engagement. The committee members met with indigenous and non-indigenous experts, including lawyers, data specialists, and financial and reconciliation experts in March 2022.

The members gathered feedback and advice in areas such as reconciliation, law, data, organizational finances, information sharing, governance and accountability. The committee used this feedback as part of its recommendations.

This brings us to March 2022, when the transitional committee presented its final report. This contained recommendations about the legislation of the national council for reconciliation.

The transitional committee made recommendations on how to strengthen the draft legislative framework while maintaining the vision, purpose and mandate of the council as expressed in the vision put forth by the interim board. It worked to ensure, to the extent possible, that the legislation would address calls to action 53 to 56.

In March 2022, the transitional committee expressed strongly that it preferred this proposed legislation to be brought forward using an expedited approach. It spoke passionately about survivors who see this bill as a cornerstone for reconciliation and want to ensure that it becomes a reality before too long.

Following the recommendation, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations introduced Bill C-29 on June 22. Over the past few months, through second reading, at the INAN committee's dedicated study of the bill and today in the House, we have worked together diversely, but I am confident—

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-29. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

The House proceeded to the 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.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to stop the supports we have for Canadians. In fact, I would suggest to the member opposite that making sure our most vulnerable are protected is critical. That is why we have a number of things we are going to be doing in that regard, which I will illuminate in a moment.

As to the other question that was put, I do seriously want to ask, if the Conservatives are opposed to action on the climate, whether they have reflected about what the costs are. These are not costs that will be borne for a year or two but for all time. It is something to reflect on regarding the questions that were posed to me.

I am pleased that this afternoon we are going to complete the second reading debate of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Tomorrow, we will go back to the second reading debate of Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act. On Monday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022. For Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, which was reported with amendments from committee earlier this week.

Mr. Speaker, I see you moving in your chair, so you will be happy to know that, finally, for next Thursday, our plan is to commence second reading debate of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in relation to Bill C‑29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I haven't had an opportunity to say this before.

I want to specify that “PV” stands for Parti Vert, Green Party. The first time I participated in a clause-by-clause study, someone suggested that Green Party amendments should be designated with the letter G, for “Green Party”. Now, that would have been a problem, since that letter refers to “government”.

Maybe some day, but it's not right now.

This is why we use “PV” to refer to the Green Party amendments.

This is, again, an attempt to ensure that Bill C-29 as closely as possible tracks the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In Bill C-29, at first reading, the role of the Prime Minister in tabling the report was replaced with the minister. Now, I see by looking ahead.... As you've noted, Mr. Chair, if my amendment is accepted, then the government's amendment...where the “G” doesn't stand for “Green Party”; it's the government, and they're not very green. I'm just moving along here. It's a small dig to cheer up my Conservative friends.

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

Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It is a long amendment, but I hope the wording is familiar to all of you. This is the very same language that's found in the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for which this legislation is an important step to fulfill those recommendations and those calls to action.

The legislation, Bill C-29, fails to include the actual requirements—the minimum requirements—of the contents of the annual report. I've had some conversations informally with other members and understand a desire to not be prescriptive and say that's the only thing that the annual report must cover. I certainly would, if I were a member of this committee, amend my own motion by adding a paragraph (h) to say “and any other matters as the Council deems appropriate”, but I do think it's important, at a minimum, to include the mandate of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as they appear in the report.

I think it would be most unfortunate, Mr. Chair, if in the first few reports the minister tabled.... The minister must submit to the council an annual report. Imagine if it didn't include any of these things that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission required. It would be a very large failing of our process here in this committee if a report were tabled by the minister—a future minister, this minister, a minister 20 years from now, whatever—who decided, “I don't want to let the public know or the council know the number of indigenous and non-indigenous children in care, and I really don't think I want to share the comparison in funding for education for indigenous children on and off reserves.”

These are the minimum requirements from the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I hope that colleagues around the table will see the benefit, even if you feel that you want to amend it to make sure you're not ruling out other things that the minister might want. I don't think, when there's a list of things, an annual report setting out (a) through (g), that it in any way, given the context of the whole act, restricts what the minister would be able to put in a report to the council.

Without this language, I don't think Parliament and the government are fulfilling the commitments that were made to follow through on every single call to action. It's not enough, I think, to put a tick box next to this to say, okay, now we've created the reconciliation council, and it exists. On the calls to action, it's only a few paragraphs, but they're highly specific. I really do think it's an error—however well intentioned—and it would be a serious mistake to leave out this language.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone.

Welcome to meeting 39 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We acknowledge that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the House order of reference of Thursday, September 29, 2022, and pursuant to the motion adopted the same day by the committee, we are meeting to continue the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, in accordance with the order adopted by the House on June 23, 2022. Members may participate in person in the room or remotely using the Zoom app.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

As far as interpretation is concerned, those participating in the meeting using Zoom have a choice at the bottom of the screen between the floor, English, or French, while those in the room can use the headset and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please also raise that little hand icon. The clerk and I will do our best to manage the order in which you speak, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

To help us with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-29, we welcome once again, from the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Mr. Andy Garrow, director, policy and strategic direction, reconciliation secretariat, planning and partnerships; and Ms. Kate Ledgerwood, director general, policy and strategic direction, reconciliation secretariat. From the Department of Justice, we have Dr. Seetal Sunga, senior counsel.

There are a number of standard procedures that we follow in clause-by-clause. I read them out last time. Would members like me to read them out again this time, or is it still fresh in your minds?

Very good. In that case, we'll get under way.

We are here to continue the clause-by-clause consideration. The chair now calls clause 13. We have an amendment, NDP-5, proposed by Ms. Idlout.

Ms. Idlout, would you like to move your amendment and describe it? Then we'll see whether we go to debate.

Government Business No. 22

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

I will answer the question the Conservatives asked about having quorum in the House and it being in the Constitution. The unfortunate reality for the Conservative member who asked the question is that he should know that he has participated in unanimous consent motions in the House to waive that provision in the past. He has already set the precedent himself, so has the Conservative Party and, as a matter of fact, every single person in the House has set the precedent to waive the requirements for quorum.

We cannot be selective as to when we want to interpret the Constitution to our benefit, which is what the Conservatives are trying to do now. The reality is that there is been a long-standing precedent to waive the requirement for quorum under certain conditions, and that is exactly what we are seeing in this motion. There is the same consistency that comes with that.

However, I think what we really have to do with this motion is get to the heart of what is going on. At the heart is the Conservatives' partisan interest and allowing that to supersede the needs of Canadians. That is exactly what is going on here, and I will demonstrate in my speech today how they have routinely done that, not over the last seven years of my being in the House and watching it, although they have done it over the seven years, but five examples just in this fall session alone when they have done that. They have done it on multiple occasions using multiple different tools.

Any individual who has participated in or is well versed in how the Westminster parliamentary system works knows that the one tool the opposition has is to delay. That is its sole tool, and it is important for the opposition to exercise the use of that tool when it can to garner support, or whatever it might be, when they find those issues to be so important. When the opposition feels the issue is the hill it will die on, it will fight, delay and filibuster if it has to, because it feels something is not right.

That is the main tool opposition parties have in a parliamentary system like this. The problem is that Conservatives are using it all the time. They are using that tool for everything. They are saying absolutely every piece of legislation that comes before the House is a hill they will die on, and the problem is that this diminishes the value of the tool they have. It also affects directly, and this is what I do not understand, their credibility on the issue. When they stand up to delay things they are fully in support of, do they not understand that the public sees that? They are doing the same thing, and their partisan interest in seeing the government fail is more important to them than actually providing supports for Canadians.

Let us review some of the legislation from this fall alone. With Bill C-29, the truth and reconciliation bill, the Conservative Party blocked a motion to sit late to try to pass the bill at second reading before the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which is what the government, and I think all Canadians, would have loved to have seen. It was not until pressure was mounted on them by the public that they backed down from that position.

Another one was Bill C-30, the GST tax credit. This is a bill that needed to be passed in a timely manner to get real supports to Canadians. They were real supports for Canadians that needed to be done in a timely fashion to line up with when the GST payments were made. The Conservatives, again, blocked a motion to sit late on the second reading of that important piece of legislation. They only backed down again and changed their minds on how they would vote on that particular piece of legislation based on public criticism and the public holding them accountable for playing the games they are playing. That is the reality of what we are seeing.

Bill C-31 is the bill that afforded very important measures regarding dental care and housing supports. The Conservative Party, again, blocked the adoption of the legislation to help the most vulnerable, forcing the government, with the help of the NDP, to have a programming motion to get it passed, and this is what we see time after time.

The next is Bill C-9, which would amend the Judges Act, and I will remind members this is all happened during this fall session alone.

We had technical issues with interpretation with that bill. The Conservatives are always standing up and using the interpreters as one of their arguments for making sure we have the best quality of debate in the House. When there was a problem with interpretation, which delayed the debate of the bill, the Conservatives refused to support a motion to add time to the debate that day.

The Conservatives say that they want more time to debate. We literally said that we lost 30 minutes of time because of a problem and we had to temporarily suspend, so how about we add that 30 minutes onto the end of the day. The Conservatives said no. This is the group that is now sitting before us saying that they are in favour of doing absolutely everything to increase democracy and that they want more speakers on every issue.

The one glaring example of this happening in this fall session was with Bill S-5. The bill is on environmental protections, and it is a bill everybody in the House supported. It was unanimously adopted. Conservatives put up 27 speakers on it. I want to provide a comparison for those who might be watching. Compared to that number, Liberals put up six speakers, the NDP put up four speakers, the Bloc put up five speakers and the Green Party put up one speaker.

What is even more telling is that, if someone goes back to look at Hansard or watch the videos—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One witness, as an example, was Ellis Ross, who spoke about economic reconciliation and said there was a dark past, but here was the way to a bright future. I think there was a contrast in time to deal with that very negative situation of what's happened to indigenous peoples in Canada, but again, it was to set the stage for a new reality for first nations where there's a prosperous future.

I think it's very fitting that it would be included. It was mentioned by many of our witnesses in speaking to Bill C-29. I was actually surprised there were that many. Witness after witness brought it up—that it needed to be part of reconciliation, that economic reconciliation needed to be a part of this piece of legislation.

I think the amendment is quite fitting. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Unfortunately, I'm saddened to learn of the government's position on this amendment. I think, as pointed out by Gary Vidal, we have had numerous witnesses at numerous meetings talk about the need for economic reconciliation, about how it's an important part of the whole process. To leave something like this out when some people who had very strong voices and very good ideas when we were talking about the future in this bill.... Bill C-29 is about the future and how we move forward, so taking out that important piece, ignoring our expert witnesses who were advocating for such a voice on this committee, is disappointing. I hope the government reconsiders. I think not doing so is very short-sighted. Hopefully, this passes. It would be sad if it didn't.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning. Welcome to meeting number 38 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

As you know, we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the House order of reference adopted on Thursday, September 29, 2022, and pursuant to the motion adopted that same day by the committee, we are meeting to proceed with the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.

I would now like to make a few comments for the benefit of all.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation services, those participating via Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screen, of either floor, English or French. Those participating in person, in the room, can select the appropriate channel and use their earpiece.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will do our best to manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

First of all, I'd like to welcome some witnesses who are with us this morning to help us if we have any technical questions.

From the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, we have Mr. Andy Garrow, who is the director, policy and strategic direction, reconciliation secretariat, planning and partnerships. We also have Kate Ledgerwood, director general, policy and strategic direction, reconciliation secretariat.

As well, from the Department of Justice, we have Dr. Seetal Sunga, who is a senior counsel.

I'd also like to point out that we have with us experts on the legislative process associated with clause-by-clause study, Madame Thivierge and Mr. Pagé. Don't hesitate to use the resources that we have available if there are any questions.

As we begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-29, I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk.

Members should note that new amendments or subamendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

We may have to pause briefly if some amendments or subamendments are introduced today.

The chair will go slowly. This is not a speed trial. We are going to go as slowly as we need to get this right. I will admit that this is my first time going through a bill.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted the amendment. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

When an amendment is being debated, members may propose subamendments, which must be submitted in writing. The permission of the mover of the amendment is not required. The committee can have only one subamendment before it at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once all the clauses have been put to a vote, the committee will vote on the short title of the bill—in other words, clause 1—the preamble, the long title and the bill as a whole. If amendments are adopted, it will be necessary to order a reprint of the bill as a working copy for House use at report stage. Lastly, the committee shall direct the chair to report the bill to the House. The report will indicate only the amendments that were made and any clauses that were removed.

Now we will begin the process.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, and of the preamble are postponed until the end.

I will now call clause 2.

In some cases no amendments have been proposed. I will ask whether the clause shall carry.

On the first one, I'm going to ask for a recorded vote just to get us into the rhythm of this process. I won't do that for every clause when there's unanimous consent.

When we do get to the amendments, if it is you who are proposing the amendment, you will be asked to move it; then, if you wish to explain it, you will have a chance to explain it. Then we go to debate. I hope that's fairly clear.

Is that clear, Mr. Vidal?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Powlowski.

That brings our panel to an end. On behalf of all of the committee members, I want to thank our witnesses today.

We very much appreciate your answering all of our questions today. I think you cleared up a lot of things for a lot of us in terms of understanding the “why”, as you helped formulate the proposed Bill C-29 and the way it has been put together. Thank you very much. It's been a real pleasure meeting all of you today. This will really help us with our work.

Committee members, the decision was made by the whips that we would not hold committee meetings this Thursday when the fall economic statement is being presented. As a result of that, clause-by-clause will move to Monday, November 14.

I would also like to point out that this gives us a little more time—especially after hearing today's testimony—to put together proposed amendments. They were due tomorrow at noon. I would like to see if there is consensus for us to move the deadline for amendments to November 7 at noon, which would give us a bit more time, or if you would prefer to keep it on November 1.

Are there any comments with respect to that?

Go ahead, Ms. Idlout.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for the incredible testimony so far, and to my fellow members for their great questions. To that end, much of what I wanted to ask has already been asked, and I appreciate all members for doing that work.

I want to zero in on two topics, and specifically delve into, as in the first round, efforts versus ensuring that we find measurable outcomes.

Mr. DeGagné, we've heard a number of times in committee that there should be more measurable outcomes included in this proposal. I heard your comments earlier about some of the challenges around the specific wording. I'm curious as to whether you can elaborate a bit more on the specific measurable outcomes that you think could potentially be included in Bill C-29 to make it stronger. This would allow us to continue to advance efforts in or ensure reconciliation—whatever terminology you want to use—to make sure we can get it done.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I thank Rosemary for speaking in Inuktitut. I love our language, and it's wonderful to hear it from other people.

I want to very briefly ask a question about the work you did in preparation for Bill C-29. Were there discussions about whether indigenous rights should also be monitored and reported upon?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut]

[English]

I'll translate what I just said in Inuktitut.

First of all, welcome to all of you. I really appreciate what you've shared with us today. Your testimony is very important to this study, and I know it is going to be a momentous moment when we do finally have Bill C-29 passed in the House. The guiding work that this council will bring forward will give a lot of hope to indigenous peoples for generations.

I also mentioned in Inuktitut that I normally speak in Inuktitut but that today, because of our lack of interpretation, you have the unique honour of hearing me directly in English.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We are gathered here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses from the National Council for Reconciliation Transitional Committee, who have joined us all in person in the committee room this morning as we study Bill C-29. They will each have an opportunity to make a five-minute statement.

We have Mr. Mitch Case, Ms. Edith Cloutier, Ms. Rosemary Cooper and Mr. Michael DeGagné.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline the usual rules that we follow here.

Members or witnesses may speak in the language of their choice. Interpretation services are offered in English, French and Inuktitut. Please be patient with the interpretation. There may be a delay, especially since the Inuktitut has to be translated into English first before it can be translated into French and vice versa.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. This will help our interpreters translate what you have to say. When you are not speaking, please put your microphone on mute. I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Each of the witnesses today will be invited to make a five-minute statement, and that will be followed by questions for the remainder of the time.

Before we begin, I will give the floor to Mrs. Gill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

That brings our panel to a close. I would like to thank our three witnesses this afternoon for their very strong testimonies.

Ms. Melissa Mbarki, Chief Willie Sellars and Ms. Eegeesiak, thank you very much for the giving of your time today. I'm sorry we started a little bit late, but you contributed in an important way to our deliberations as a committee on Bill C-29. We very much appreciate it.

Committee members, just as a reminder, on Monday we'll also be hearing from the transitional committee. As well, any proposed amendments to Bill C-29 have to be in by noon on Tuesday.

Thank you very much, everyone.

With that, this meeting is adjourned.

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

Thank you very much. I have so many more questions for you, but I want to quickly go to Chief Sellars.

Todd Doherty says hello, by the way, Chief Sellars.

You mentioned in your opening statement a lot about education. You also wrote about it in a CBC article in which you talked about the healing process for indigenous and non-indigenous people and the move forward. You also talked a lot about economic reconciliation, as Ms. Mbarki just mentioned. How do you see this playing out?

In your opening remarks, you talked about how you've been able to help move your community forward. Maybe tell us a bit about that and how important it should be here at the table when we examine Bill C-29.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I bet you wish that sometimes we'd just stop talking, as our friend from Nunavut stopped, all of a sudden. That was pretty amazing. Politicians should learn from her.

I'm going to start with Ms. Mbarki, if I could.

I want to talk to you about something I think you're very passionate about: economic reconciliation.

During this review of Bill C-29, we've heard from a few witnesses about the need for someone passionate to be at that table, someone who talks about economic reconciliation as a way to move forward. Do you agree?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Well, you have an opportunity, Chief, to make a five-minute opening statement if there are specific things you want us to be aware of with respect to Bill C-29. This is just to set the table if you choose to do so. After all of the witnesses have spoken, we will be going to a question period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout. We have gone over time.

That brings this panel to a close.

I would like to thank again our witnesses today, Dr. Marie Wilson, former commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and Mr. Zebedee Nungak.

I'd like to thank Marjolaine Tshernish, general manager of the Institut Tshakapesh and, lastly, Chief Jean‑Charles Piétacho.

Thank you for opening your hearts to us and expressing your feelings about Bill C‑29, which is under consideration. We appreciate it very much.

We will suspend for a moment as we prepare for our next panel.

Now, members, we're going to resume very quickly, because our witnesses are ready. I'm sorry to rush things a bit, but we have to get on with our program.

I would like to first of all welcome the witnesses who will be appearing on the second panel.

We have Melissa Mbarki.

She is a policy analyst and outreach co‑ordinator for the Indigenous Policy Program at the Macdonald‑Laurier Institute.

We have Chief Willie Sellars, Williams Lake First Nation, by video conference. We also have Okalik Eegeesiak, as an individual, also by video conference.

Welcome to our three witnesses today. In case you weren't watching the first hour, you will each be given time to make a five-minute opening statement, after which we will go to questions.

Without further ado, I invite Melissa Mbarki to start us off with a five-minute opening statement.

I don't see Ms. Mbarki. Is she with the group?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, everyone. I thank each and every one of you for your testimonies. You came from far away to speak here, because what you have to say is very important.

Chief Jean-Charles Piétacho, I hear you and I love you.

I will go straight to my question, since my time is limited.

First, I want to pose a question to Mr. Nungak.

If we're going to have a strong national council for reconciliation, will our rights as indigenous people be taken into consideration and addressed...for their importance? Can a study be done to see whether our organizations are supported in this bill?

[English]

No, sorry; I can't hear you.

It's a basic question. I feel that Bill C-29 doesn't talk enough about allowing the national reconciliation council to monitor whether indigenous rights are being protected. I wonder if you agree that perhaps this council should also ensure indigenous rights are indeed being protected. Is there room for that kind of monitoring to happen in this reconciliation council?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank all the witnesses.

[Member spoke in Innu.]

[English]

Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Wilson and Mr. Nungak. I would like to hear from both of you. I have only six minutes, and you have seen how short that is, so I would like to leave room for you.

I don't know whether you consulted each other, but you talked about some similar things, in particular representativeness. You both talked about elders. When we look at the composition of the board of directors, in section 12 of Bill C‑29, it says that it must include "youth, women, men and gender-diverse persons", but it does not mention either survivors, whom Ms. Wilson spoke about, or elders. Having been in contact with the Innu nation, I think I know, and you will tell me if I am mistaken, how important elders are. I would like to know your views on that.

In addition, you also spoke about language. My colleagues may say that it is not surprising for a member from Quebec to talk about language, but it surprised me that you both raised that issue in your testimony. You said that because the first language of the Innu nation was Innu and French is its second language, that kept you away from the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and at the same time from information. I think that is what you meant.

Next, I would also like to talk about women. You spoke about women, so if you would like to complete your remarks, I will give you the remaining time. If that is not sufficient, of course, but you can always send us notes. It will be our duty and our pleasure to read them, to inform our work.

Ms. Tshernish, I would invite you to answer first, if you wish. Then, utshimau Piétacho, you can follow.

[Chief Jean-Charles Piétacho]

[Witness spoke in Innu, interpreted as follows:]

My name is Chief Jean-Charles Piétacho. I come from the community of Ekuanitshit, and I am here at the committee on behalf of that community.

I am proud to be here and to submit our brief on Bill C‑29. Truth and reconciliation are going to come about. I want to talk about this. Everything that has been said before...

[Marjolaine Tshernish, General Manager, Institut Tshakapesh]

[Witness speaks in Innu.]

[English]

Thank you for this invitation to contribute to the process that confirms the great importance of dialogue prior to implementing major projects for the benefit of the greatest number, including members of the First Nations of Quebec.

I am an Innu from the community of Mani-Utenam on the north shore of the province of Quebec. I am the general manager of the Institut Tshakapesh, an organization that has been in existence for almost 45 years.

Giving an Indigenous nation the right to speak is an appropriate and respectful way of recognizing it as a nation. In the case of Bill C‑29, this means recognition of its mother tongue and the language spoken in its region, its contextual environment, its geographic context, and its specific needs.

Often, the Innu nation of Quebec, which has French as its second language spoken, does not recognize itself in the way relations between the federal government and anglophone Indigenous people. It sometimes feels excluded from the major discussions. As a result, we feel powerless to act within those discussions. Today, I want to thank you for inviting us.

This linguistic specificity must now be taken into consideration. It may have very significant consequences for our communities, in particular socioeconomic consequences.

Since we live in eastern Canada and our spoken language, other than our mother tongue, is French, it is important that we be taken into account in allocating certain seats reserved for Indigenous people in Canada. It is important to allow members of First Nations who use French to have a place in major political discussions. As well, the documentation has to exist in that language so that these nations are able to speak freely in the official language in which they are fluent.

I also wanted to remind you that when Bill C‑91 concerning Indigenous languages was announced, the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council participated in drafting it.

I note that there was no joint drafting in the case of Bill C‑29. An interim committee was appointed by the ministers. I do not doubt the quality of the work done, but I must point out that we received no information in the regions. When Bill C‑91 was drafted, we received information in the regions. We were informed even before the bill was announced and throughout the process until it was passed.

In this case, however, were it not for the member for Manicouagan, Marilène Gill, I would not have been made aware of the existence of Bill C‑29.

Obviously, we are pleased with the initiative that establishes a national council for reconciliation, which responds to calls to action 53 to 55 issued by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

I particularly want to make recommendations relating to the composition of the board of directors, specifically for adding another organization. There are the transitional committee and the office of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, but it would be wise to add the Assembly of First Nations or another organization so that more people would be able to choose the directors.

The francophone region of Quebec should also be represented on the board of directors so that we are able to receive information in our region.

It is also important that one third of the Indigenous directors be candidates who acknowledge the existence of systemic racism. This is very important going forward, for the work of the National Council for Reconciliation.

We must make sure there is equitable representation of men and women on the board of directors and that it includes elders and former residential school students or children of residential school survivors. It is important that this sensitivity be reflected in the work of the National Council for Reconciliation.

We must also make sure that the directors do not have a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with the National Council for Reconciliation.

When the National Council for Reconciliation is created, it will be important to make sure that it has all the resources at the start that it needs in order to fully do its work, to perform its mandate. Even today, we are not hearing anything about the members of the transitional committee created last year. That is probably because they do not have the resources they need to perform their mandate. They are invisible. So it is important for the National Council for Reconciliation to be operational quickly, for it to be visible and accessible, and for it to be possible to see the work it is doing.

I would like to make one comment on accountability. I have seen that all levels of government, that is, the federal government, the provinces and the First Nations, had to provide data, at its request, to the National Council of Reconciliation so it could submit reports on the progress being made towards reconciliation. It is therefore essential that the Council have access to that data, which it be from the provincial or federal government or from the First Nations band councils. The data in question in the bill is under federal or provincial jurisdiction, or under the jurisdiction of a First Nations nation or band council.

I don't know whether I have any time left.

[Dr. Marie Wilson, Former Commissioner, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Greetings to everyone. I'm really glad to be here on Algonquin territory. I'm here visiting from the Northwest Territories, from Treaty No. 8 territory. It's nice to be in a room with my member of Parliament and one of our fellow northerners, Member Idlout, as well.

As mentioned, I was one of the commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. What that means for today is that I was also one of the authors of the call to action that informs this particular legislative proposal.

As you know, we criss-crossed the country for six and a half years, listening to a very mixed legacy of painful achievements and devastating losses, including—as we all know by now—the loss of life itself in the thousands and still counting.

Our multivolume final reports and various summaries reflect all that we heard, and our 10 principles of reconciliation and our 94 calls to action charted a pathway forward for Canada, addressing action areas for all levels of government and all sectors of society. Among those was a call for a national council for reconciliation.

The significance of that, as we repeatedly heard from friends and colleagues both in Canada and internationally who had been involved in commissions and inquiries before, is that there's a need for an ongoing oversight mechanism; otherwise, things get forgotten and left on dusty shelves. There's a need for follow-up, not as a way to hold up continuing shame, but on the contrary to be able to track and monitor progress and hopefully improvement so that we can get all the full benefits of our work and the work of survivors for lasting impact to the benefit of all.

Today I want to make reference in passing to our call to action. Given time, I want to mostly point out areas where I hope you'll be open to hearing some suggestions for improvement of what is before you in your proposed legislation.

In 2015—on the fifth anniversary, at that point, of our report from the TRC—we expressed great frustration and concern about the slowness of the fulfillment of the calls to action. We specifically singled out the national council for reconciliation. The reason for that today is to say, “Finally, here we are.” I hope you'll hear what I'm saying as potential areas for improvement and not as anything I hope would ever be used as reasons for further delay.

I want to make observations in three specific areas.

The first is reconciliation as a shared purpose. I'll just say, for the analysts and others, that there is a longer form of this paper that I will provide for your purposes, but I'm just headlining here and hoping I'm not being too negative in the process.

The Bill C-29 summary says the purpose of the proposed legislation “is to advance efforts for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.” I think the purpose statement itself can and should be much stronger, not just “to advance efforts for reconciliation” but to ensure reconciliation, and not just “with Indigenous Peoples”, but between and among indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. As we said throughout our reports and repeatedly ever since, reconciliation is about the establishment and maintenance of respectful relations between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

Bill C-29 recognizes the need for an establishment of “an independent, non-political, permanent...organization”. I would offer that that language, too, could be even more precise to ensure that the non-political meaning is both independence from government and also non-partisan in spirit. That would be to protect its longevity, no matter which political party prevails in government over the years ahead.

The draft also uses the term “Indigenous-led”. Our TRC call to action does not use that terminology. Again, we specifically insisted, over the course of the commission and repeatedly since, that reconciliation is not an indigenous issue; it's a Canadian one. The very fact that we have this deliberation before a committee that is narrowly cast as “indigenous and northern affairs” underscores how easily reconciliation gets recast as an indigenous problem.

That's why we commissioners were very deliberate and precise in our wording in describing the oversight body with “membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations”—using the terminology of the day—“and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members.

The Bill C-29 proposal as worded, including its model for appointment rather than a collaborative approach, creates a silo approach that potentially divides the council internally before it ever begins. I have comparative examples that I can offer if time allows in the discussion.

The second point I want to address is accountability to Parliament. This is all about public awareness and accountability for improvement.

The section about reporting to Parliament that we had in our call to action is entirely missing from the Bill C-29 draft. Parliament is where the laws were passed to enact residential schools. The House of Commons is where national political leaders stood in front of national indigenous leaders to apologize for the fallout of those schools and to promise to move forward in the spirit of reconciliation. Parliament is where all Canadians have an elected representative to hear regular progress reports on whether we are actually living up to these latest promises made on behalf of the people of Canada.

I want to stress that this public accountability also provides transparency for prioritizing what we need to do next to celebrate where things are getting better and to fuel our encouragement as a country to keep at it and to keep trying.

On the point of financial resources, I won't say a lot. I'll just say this: Regarding financial resources, the draft is simply too generic on that point, with a generalized reference to a further call to action 55. In my experience, an intention without certainty of resources focuses all early efforts simply on trying to find the means to function.

I want to conclude by reminding you of three of the TRC principles of reconciliation that are especially relevant to my points today and to your deliberations.

Number 6 is this:

All Canadians, as Treaty peoples, share responsibility for establishing and maintaining mutually respectful relationships.

Number 9 states:

Reconciliation requires political will, joint leadership, trust-building, accountability, and transparency, as well as a substantial investment of resources.

Number 10 is this:

Reconciliation requires sustained public education and dialogue, including youth engagement, about the history and legacy of residential schools, Treaties, and Indigenous rights, as well as the historical and contemporary contributions of Indigenous peoples to Canadian society.

I believe there's great urgency to these calls to action. Since we've already agreed, all parties across the House, that this is a priority, in recent elections recommitments were also made on the issue of reconciliation. I hope that with a few amendments to strengthen the purpose and potential of this legislative proposal, all parliamentarians will move quickly to get the national council for reconciliation enacted and fairly resourced as soon as possible. We've called it a vital tool for our country to reap the benefits of ongoing education, introspection, course correction, and celebration. It's an honest mirror, hopefully, that will help us all become the world leader we claim we wish to be in matters of good and respectful relations between indigenous and non-indigenous citizens.

Mahsi cho, qujannamiik, merci beaucoup, and meegwetch.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Good morning everyone and welcome to meeting No. 36 of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We are gathered here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

My name is Marc Garneau. I'd like to welcome our witnesses who have joined us this afternoon as we study Bill C-29. We have with us Dr. Marie Wilson, former commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, appearing in person. We have Zebedee Nungak, also appearing in person.

We also have with us, by videoconference, Marjolaine Tshernish, general manager of the Institut Tshakapesh.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members or witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services in English, French and Inuktitut are available for today's meeting. Please be patient with the interpretation; it takes a little while to get the translation done.

For those on video conference, the interpretation button is found at the bottom of your screen. It's a small globe, and you can listen in either floor, English, French or Inuktitut. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately, and we will ensure interpretation is properly restored before we continue.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute. When speaking—and this is very important—please speak slowly and clearly; this is for the benefit of the interpreters.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Each witness will now be invited to make an opening statement of five minutes, which will then be followed by questions from the members of the committee.

We'll begin with Dr. Wilson. I'd like to invite you, Doctor, to begin with your opening statement.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge my hon. colleague from Nunavut for raising this very important question. I would like to start off by saying that I am speaking from my home in Eskasoni First Nation on unceded Mi'kmaq territory.

The member is right that this is an important issue, and our government certainly needs to do more. That is why, as part of our commitment to the many Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action that talk about justice, health and the need for us to do more on burial searches, we have made available the funding that coincides with them.

Further to that, my colleague and I share the same passion in making sure that we are following through on our calls to action. That is why Bill C-29, which we are currently moving forward with, would ensure that we have an independent oversight committee that is funded for years to come to ensure that it is not just the government holding itself accountable; it is the survivors themselves.

We owe this duty to the survivors. We owe this duty to indigenous communities across Canada. I come from a family that has been affected by residential schools. My oldest aunt went to those schools, as did my cousins and my uncle. We owe them healing. We know that our communities need more of it and we know there are important areas around healing.

Budget 2021 announced $43.7 million over five years, starting last fiscal year, to move forward with this work. We are currently working with the Assembly of First Nations on not only making sure that there is healing but making sure that our communities are safe and that we put money, almost $1 billion, toward indigenous justice and indigenous policing. We are beginning to meet with stakeholders. We are in the process of talking with stakeholders to make sure they are part of the process, because we do not want paternal, government-knows-best solutions. We want solutions that are brought by the indigenous communities themselves.

I would also like to talk about some of the achievements of our government. Before I end my time, I want to make sure to recognize that we are also moving forward on murdered and missing indigenous women. One of my proudest moments was a call I made to the Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association to let them know they would get the funding they requested for a resilience centre in Nova Scotia, the first of its kind in this country, to keep indigenous women safe in the Atlantic provinces. I remember the tears on the other side. They were saying they had been waiting for this for 30 years. I would also like to acknowledge that our government just recently announced $8.4 million for Velma's House, in Winnipeg, for a 24-7 safe space in emergency shelters and transition homes for indigenous women.

Initiatives like these show the difference we can make when we work together on a common goal. Much more needs to be done, and I look forward to working with the member opposite to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

This brings our panel to a close.

I'd like to thank Ms. Stanovich, Ms. Prosper, Ms. Sulliman and Mr. Bailey for giving up their time today to answer our questions and for making their opening statements on this very important piece of proposed legislation. We appreciate their candour in answering our many questions.

With that, this panel is suspended.

I have one quick question for the committee. I should point out to the committee that we'll be holding an additional witness meeting on Bill C-29 next Monday, deferring clause-by-clause study to the following session on Thursday, November 3, because we want to hear from the transitional committee. We haven't heard from their members, and they were very much involved in helping to produce the legislation.

Consequently, I'm looking for unanimous consent from the members to amend the deadline for submitting amendments from this Friday at 4 p.m. to next Tuesday, November 1, at noon. This will allow us to hear from witnesses on Monday and give us a day before we submit those amendments.

Do I have unanimous consent?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you. I will now ask a question to Garry Bailey.

We as indigenous people had our own loss. In regard to Bill C-29, have you given any thought as to how we can revitalize those laws that existed before contact? Thank you.

[English]

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

My questions are very simple, Mr. Chair, but it's easier for the committee when it's very clear.

That concludes my questions about representativeness.

For the benefit of the committee, I would like to invite Ms. Stanovich to talk to us about “reconciliaction”. Of course, we've heard all kinds of variations on the word “reconciliation”. I'd like her to tell us what she means by that term and perhaps give us some examples. I think it's about expectations. It may not be worded that way in Bill C‑29, but perhaps defining this term will allow the committee to ask other questions to find ways to implement this “reconciliaction”.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Part of Bill C-29 is that there's a budget. In the 2019 budget, there was an amount of $126.5 million over the next few years to help the committee with oversight.

From the perspective of a provincial role and from a Mi'kmaq perspective, where do you think some of the money should be going in terms of moving forward on reconciliation within education?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Celeste.

I want to ask a question. Maybe Jacqueline can guide a discussion.

Call to action 57 calls for indigenous professional development for public servants. Do you think this is an important thing that should be reflected within Bill C-29, maybe in the preamble? Do you think this is an important new dimension in this legislation?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to direct some questions at Treaty Education Nova Scotia.

One of the functions of Bill C-29 is to conduct research on promising practices that advance efforts for reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society by all governments in Canada and at the international level. I know there are a lot of calls to action that speak to education: call to action 10, call to action 62 and call to action 63. I'm wondering if Treaty Education could give us a little bit of a glimpse into why there is an important element of education in reconciliation. Do you feel it's important for provincial governments to be a part of reconciliation moving forward?

I know Ms. Sulliman didn't get a chance to speak, so maybe we can start with her, and then we can go to Jacqueline after that.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Garry.

I have one more quick question and then I'll pass it over to my colleague.

Economic reconciliation has been brought up several times today just by the witnesses, but it isn't in Bill C-29. Do you think Bill C-29 should include economic reconciliation specifically?

[Brandy Stanovich, President, Indigenous Women of the Wabanaki Territories]

Good afternoon, honourable committee members. Thank you for inviting the Indigenous Women of the Wabanaki Territories to speak on this important bill.

First I would like to graciously acknowledge that we are gathering on unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, is an important bill. However, we were devastated to read that indigenous women have not been included in the bill.

This bill establishes a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization whose purpose is to advance the efforts for reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Clause 10 indicates that the national council for reconciliation includes three national indigenous organizations, as opposed to five. IWWT is disappointed that the Native Women's Association of Canada has been excluded. NWAC is a unique, inclusive, representative voice that ensures a MMIWG lens is applied, especially as it relates to human safety and security.

NWAC is made up of provincial and territorial member associations, PTMAs, from each province or territory. These are grassroots, not-for-profit organizations. IWWT is one of these organizations. It is our duty to listen and elevate the voice of grassroots women to the national level. Through NWAC, we do just that. By not including NWAC, you are excluding the voice of the women. An indigenous woman is the centre wheel of life. She's the heartbeat of the people. She's not just in the home; she's in the community. She is the nation.

The bill responds to truth and reconciliation calls to action numbers 53 to 55. This call to action is essential, since it will legislate implementation of all 94 calls to action.

As you know, implementation is the most important part of any measure intended to redress harms. Call to action 53 requires that all levels of government provide annual reports or any current data requested by the national council for reconciliation, so that it can report the progress towards reconciliation.

The reports or data would include, but not be limited to, the number of aboriginal children in care, comparative funding for the education of first nations children on and off reserve, progress on closing gaps, progress on eliminating an overrepresentation of aboriginal children in custody, progress on reducing the rate of criminal victimization of aboriginal people and progress on reducing the overrepresentation of incarcerated aboriginal people. The key areas for reporting under calls to action 53 to 55 are in areas where residential school abuses and colonialism are reflected in intergenerational trauma.

On December 21, 2021, Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, received royal assent. As a reminder, article 7(2) of the declaration states the following:

Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.

Though Canada recognizes five national indigenous organizations, including the Native Women's Association of Canada, only three NIOs will be mandated to the board of directors for the national council for reconciliation. Excluding NWAC from the national discussions on implementation of truth and reconciliation is a significant rejection to the organization that is a recognized expert on matters related to indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people. The people represented by NWAC face high rates of institutional betrayal, incarceration, violence and abuse, all issues that should be central to any discussions to reconciliation.

Having an NWAC representative on the board of directors of the national council for reconciliation will ensure that the process is inclusive and that the voices of indigenous women and gender-diverse people are considered.

We are valued leaders, decision-makers and knowledge-keepers in our families, communities and governments. Without our perspectives, discussions are unlikely to consider gender-based solutions to undoing systematic discrimination caused by colonialism and patriarchy. This is about equity and about reclaiming matriarchal leadership.

I signed the NWAC-Canada accord under the impression that Canada committed to considering the distinct perspectives of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people. Not including NWAC in this very important bill is not upholding Canada's commitment to indigenous women. Not doing so in this instance will set a—

[Clarence T., Manny) Jules (Chief Commissioner, First Nations Tax Commission]

Good morning. I am Manny Jules, chief commissioner of the first nations tax commission. I am speaking to you from the former Kamloops Indian Residential School on my reserve in Kamloops. Thank you for the opportunity to appear as a witness before this committee as part of your examination of Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act.

With regard to one of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, I am pleased to see the government's decision to enact legislation to make the creation of the national council a reality. The establishment of a permanent, non-political, indigenous-led organization to advance reconciliation with indigenous people is something all Canadians can and should support.

There is much work to be done with respect to reconciliation in Canada. I know that in my own community, we are still trying to come to grips with the discovery of graves of children who attended the Kamloops Residential School. That was almost 18 months ago, and the feeling of shock, pain, anger and sadness has not subsided. I attended the Kamloops Indian Residential School as a day scholar. My father attended the school until grade 9. My mother attended the school until grade 3.

Over the last three years, the First Nations Tax Commission undertook a research study about Canada's colonial policies from 1867 until 1927, leading to the prohibition of our power to collect taksis. We recently made a 15-minute film about this research. I will provide this to this committee. I believe it will help you understand who is truly to blame. I believe it will help you understand how residential schools were part of the government-led strategy to take away our children and destroy our governments, culture, jurisdictions and fiscal powers. I believe it will help you understand why there can be no real reconciliation without economic reconciliation.

When I say economic reconciliation, I am talking about two fundamental components. One is that first nation governments must have jurisdictions and unassailable revenue authorities that help fund the exercise of those jurisdictions. The second is that first nations need to implement their jurisdiction and fiscal powers in a way that attracts investment from their members, and others, to participate in the economy on equal terms with everyone else.

I have devoted most of my life to achieving economic reconciliation. Over the years, I have appeared many times before parliamentary committees to make proposals for economic reconciliation with first nations. With the support of Parliament, we have changed legislation to accommodate our property, local and sales tax jurisdictions in Canada. We have created a first nations national institutional model that enables interested first nations to implement their jurisdictions. As I said earlier, I believe first nation reconciliation must include economic reconciliation.

The First Nations Fiscal Management Act institutions have been doing this successfully for almost 20 years. For this reason, 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. This is a significant gap, and I believe it must be addressed now, not five years from now.

I look forward to working with this committee in the future on many more first nation-led innovations that will provide Canada with what it needs right now: hope and inspiration for a brighter future for all.

Thank you very much.

[Karla Buffalo, Chief Executive Officer, Athabasca Tribal Council]

[Witness spoke in Cree ].

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is Karla Buffalo, and I'm the CEO of the Athabasca Tribal Council in Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo, Alberta. The Athabasca Tribal Council serves five first nations—the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, the Fort McKay First Nation, the Mikisew Cree First Nation, the Fort McMurray 468 First Nation and the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation—by providing relevant and innovative services and supports that enrich the well-being and health and prosperity of its people.

We believe strongly in the need for authentic and action-oriented reconciliation. In our traditional territory in Treaty No. 8, the first nations are leaders in the advancement of economic reconciliation at a remarkable pace. Our focus is not just on fiscal sovereignty, but also on cultural revitalization and fostering strong and thriving communities and indigenous peoples. We are here to encourage a collaborative process with all nations, while respecting their individual sovereignty and self-governance.

The establishment of the national council is an opportunity to help further meaningful reconciliation and to give accountability to progress being made on the TRC's calls to action that have yet to be implemented by Canada. It is important that any new structure established by the federal government be indigenous-led and have indigenous laws and legal systems in its creation.

ATC supports the establishment of a national council for the purpose of advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. However, as it stands now, ATC has some serious concerns about the bill, such as under-representation of indigenous people in the committee structure. Additionally, the representation needs to be balanced in gender and ages, including a balance between youth and elder voices.

Bill C-29 does not include any measurable outcomes or targets, and no formal structure is given regarding metrics set out to the committee. We believe it's crucial that the proposed legislation include processes to measure outcomes.

The current bill does not bind the federal government to provide funding to the national council, which is necessary to ensure that the national council has adequate resources to carry out its mandate.

The legislation, as it's written now regarding the disclosure of information, does not appear adequate to allow the national council to obtain necessary information that it will require in order to carry out its mandate.

Also, Bill C-29 lacks accountability measures by the Prime Minister and Canada to recognize and implement the national council's recommendations. The national council must be given the appropriate tools to hold this government accountable for the progress on reconciliation in all areas.

ATC recommends the following amendments to Bill C-29:

First, there need to be specific metrics outlined in the bill to give the national council structure and to measure its accountability. Measures and targets must encompass all areas from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. This document is not a checklist to complete; it is a guide toward the long-lasting reconciliation to have indigenous people move forward from being an oppressed minority to having equal treaty and inherent rights as indigenous peoples of Canada.

Second is with regard to funding commitments on an ongoing basis. The Government of Canada announced in its 2019 budget that a total of $126.5 million would be allocated to support the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, including $1.5 million to support the first year of the council's operations. However, there are no funding commitments in the proposed legislation, and it is unclear how the national council will be funded on an ongoing basis.

Research and reporting requirements of the national council are very extensive. In order to carry out its mandate, the national council will need to hire a large staff, including investigators. A funding commitment in the proposed legislation must be included to ensure adequate funding to support the national council's operations.

Third, how the council will be able to access the necessary information to carry out its mandate should be clearly indicated. Bill C-29 should also be amended to give the national council the power to subpoena, in order to ensure that the national council has the ability to obtain all necessary information.

Fourth, the council would benefit from an independent process in appointing the initial board of directors, allowing a more transparent and less politicized processes. Having an open and transparent process that honours indigenous forms of governance is necessary for the council to have relevance for all communities.

Fifth is to increase the accountability required of the federal government. The federal government must take the steps necessary to ensure the recommendations of the national council are implemented. While ATC supports the passing of Bill C-29 to support reconciliation efforts, it is important that the values in reconciliation be upheld by having an appropriate structure and accountability measures in place.

If the goals of the national council are to monitor, evaluate, conduct research, and report on progress being made in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada, it is imperative that the national council have the appropriate tools to carry out this mandate in a meaningful way.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you all today.

Marsi cho. Hay hay.

[Karen Restoule, Founder, BOLD Realities]

Aaniin. Bonjour. Hello.

My name is Karen Restoule. I am from Dokis First Nation, with relations in Nipissing and Temagami first nations, and I am honoured to have been invited here today to share insights on Bill C-29.

In addition to recognizing each member of the committee here, I wish to recognize those who led the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: the commissioners, the secretariat and everyone who experienced residential schools, including, most importantly, the survivors who had the courage to live through these experiences as well as share with the TRC and Canadians their truths. I hold my hands up to each of you.

Also, I wish to recognize every Canadian who, whether employed by the state or by the church, was involved in the implementation of the federal residential school policy and mandate. It was a dark moment for all.

Today we all find ourselves at this moment in time where we are learning about the truths and, most importantly, positioning ourselves to ensure that focused and concrete results-based action is taken to correct the legacy of this horrible policy, with the goal of securing a better future for indigenous peoples and a better future for Canada.

Let us stay focused on this great responsibility.

Entities and governments do not need oversight, but good governance requires it. Oversight refers to actions taken to review, monitor and report on the activity of entities to ensure that they are achieving results, ensuring good value for money. Good governance is also supported by the principles of legitimacy, accountability and transparency, which serve to build and maintain trust between citizens and public institutions.

In Canada, the legitimacy of institutions is embodied in law. Advancement on call to action 53 to enact legislation to establish a national council for reconciliation is welcomed.

It is recommended that the bill reflect the purpose and intent set out in call to action 53, which sets out clearly that the council be “an independent, national, oversight body”. Indian residential schools and other policies were implemented throughout the 19th and 20th centuries with defined purpose, great rigour and ample funding. The same or a greater degree of focus, robustness and resources must be used to correct the course.

It is recommended that the words “efforts for” be struck from clause 6. The purpose of the council should be to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples, full stop.

In carrying out that purpose, it is recommended that the functions listed in clause 7 be revised to ensure that the council is also tasked with reporting on how reconciliation is being advanced in a tangible, measurable way with real results.

In May of this year, we learned through a report requested by this very committee that monies being spent by the two indigenous affairs departments on advancing reconciliation have not resulted in commensurate improvement in their ability to achieve the goals that they had set for themselves, and that their ability to achieve specified targets has declined. It seemed that the departments would benefit from this council and the oversight.

It is recommended that clause 10 include nominations of representatives from each of the following: the National Indigenous Economic Development Board, the First Nations Financial Management Board, the Indigenous Bar Association and the National Association of Friendship Centres. Monitoring and reporting on tangible advancement should be supported by leadership that is experienced in leading for results. There are many established indigenous leaders who have, in the course of their careers in business and finance, both on and off reserve, delivered real results.

Finally, it's recommended that subclause 17(3) of the bill respect call to action 56, which calls for “the prime minister of Canada to formally respond to the report of the National Council for Reconciliation”. Where other entities established through federal legislation would, in normal course, be required to be accountable for their decisions and actions to Parliament through a responsible minister, the unique and unprecedented nature of this legislation necessitates a response from the Prime Minister of Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the 35th meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We are gathered here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin/Anishnaabe nation.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses who have joined us for this study on Bill C-29. In person we have Karen Restoule, founder of Bold Realities; Karla Buffalo, CEO of the Athabasca Tribal Council; and Chief Commissioner Clarence Manny Jules, First Nations Tax Commission.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow. Members or witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services in English, French and Inuktitut are available for today's meeting. Please be patient with the interpretation. There could be a delay, especially since the Inuktitut has to be translated into English first before it can be translated into French, and vice versa.

For those on video conference, the interpretation button is found at the bottom of your screen—the little globe—and you can listen in English, French or Inuktitut. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately. We will ensure that it's restored before we resume.

The “raise hand” feature at the bottom of the screen can also be used at any time if you wish to speak or to alert the chair. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

I think there's something that needs to be added to this proposed bill. This bill should include studies of indigenous rights in order to support our indigenous rights. When our rights are violated, how can the bill be amended? If Bill C-29 were to be amended, what would you recommend to include?

[English]

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's been a long time since I last saw you. I think it was in New York, when the United Nations met to address issues of the indigenous peoples. I think that was the first time we met.

When I became a member of Parliament, the members of the NDP appointed me to monitor or to work with Mark Miller and to become a member of this committee in terms of indigenous and northern affairs. I monitor the work that's being done by the ministers. I always have a huge task, and I'm learning along the way. I am just learning about the issues that Métis nations face.

It states here in Bill C-29, under paragraph 10(1)(c), that one member will be from the Métis National Council. I understand that you identify this as just a body, and not as part of the government. Now, when there is a member of the Métis nation, aren't you concerned that in terms of the reconciliation process, the Métis nation will not be represented in the reconciliation process?

[English]

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador, for being here today and sharing your knowledge with us. We do appreciate that.

In your comments, you said that you would support Bill C-29.

My first question is a two-part question.

First, is that in the sense of the way it is, or are you looking for any changes or amendments that we might talk about in the next few minutes?

Second, maybe you can include in there reference to some comments that the Manitoba Métis Federation president, Mr. Chartrand, made back in June of 2022, which I would interpret as not supporting this legislation. He said:

I think Canada needs to catch up with their agreements that they’ve signed [and] commitments they’ve made.... I am looking forward to a call or a letter with minister Miller...whoever is going to be the lead [on this], to advise the Red River Métis of our involvement.”

You're saying you support it, but the president didn't seem to be supporting it back at the end of June. Was there a call or was there some interaction that has changed your federation's position on this piece of legislation?

[Clément Chartier, Ambassador, Manitoba Métis Federation]

Thank you, honourable Chair.

Members of the committee, I am pleased to be here representing the MMF, the national government of the Red River Métis. I appear as the ambassador responsible for inter-nation and international relations, appointed as such by President Chartrand and the MMF cabinet.

On previous occasions, I have appeared as president of the Métis National Council, which we once belonged to. It was a position I held from October 2003 until the end of September last year, 2021.

The Manitoba Métis Federation formally withdrew its membership in the MNC organization on September 29, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the Manitoba Métis Federation executed the Manitoba Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement with Canada, copies of which I believe you have. By this agreement, the MMF's inherent right to self-government is recognized and affirmed. We are the only Métis nation government recognized as having such by the federal government since President Louis Riel brought the Métis nation into Confederation through the Manitoba Act, 1870. The agreement clearly states that the MMF represents the Red River Métis wherever they may live, whether inside or outside of Manitoba and, for that matter, whether inside or outside of Canada. In this connection, Red River Métis is synonymous with the historic Métis nation and its citizens.

The MMF general assembly in 2014 adopted a resolution that opened its citizenship application process to Red River Métis living outside of the geographic borders of the province of Manitoba. At its general assembly held this past weekend, the MMF adopted a resolution declaring the MMF to be the national government of the Red River Métis. Between June and September of this year, a beyond-borders task force, of which I was the lead, visited 14 cities within the homeland in western Canada and the northern United States as well as cities outside of the homeland, in British Columbia and the cities of Ottawa and Toronto, which are places to which a number of our citizens have relocated for employment and other purposes, although they are still registered citizens of the national government of the Red River Métis.

My government is prepared to support Bill C‑29 even though there is still unfinished business in connection with reconciliation and the Métis nation experience in day schools and residential schools, in particular in the Île-à-la-Crosse Residential School, which I attended for 10 years, followed by a year and a half at the Charlebois Residence in La Pas, Manitoba.

My government is pleased with the legislation enacted by the federal government over the past several years. This includes the legislation creating the two departments that have replaced the Department of Indian Affairs as well as legislation aimed at the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In particular, both the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Act and the Department of Indigenous Services Act, in their definition sections, state that “Indigenous governing body means a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community or people that holds rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

In their respective preambles, both state that “the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with...the Métis...through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government...relationships based on affirmation and implementation of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership.”

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act of 2011, in the preamble, refers to the “Métis Nation” and other indigenous peoples, which, “throughout [our] history...lived in the lands that are now [in] Canada, with their distinct identities, cultures and ways of life;” and says that “Canada rejects all forms of colonialism”.

We remain concerned, however, that the federal government has not kept pace with the reconciliation process, in particular the nation-to-nation, government-to-government and reconstituting of indigenous nations initiatives—in our case, the Métis nation.

With the establishment of the section 35 rights reconciliation tables for indigenous peoples in 2016, the federal government, in relation to the Métis nation, chose only to have four tables with only the then governing members of the Métis National Council, and refused to establish one with the Métis National Council itself, the then national body representing the Métis nation, and I underscore “the then body representing the Métis nation”. This has led to the further consolidation of the colonial boundaries established in 1905 with the creation of the Province of Saskatchewan and the Province of Alberta and the dismemberment of the historic Métis nation homeland in western Canada.

Nevertheless, today we are moving toward one nation, one people, which accords with the federal government's reconstituting indigenous nations initiatives—in our case, the historic Métis nation. In this connection, we are opposed to and will oppose any federal legislation that attempts to further divide or dismember our homeland and, in particular, legislation that purports to give provincial Métis organizations self-government recognition under section 35.

Not only are we, the Red River Métis, facing threats from within; we are also facing threats from without our nation, from outside of our nation, with hundreds of thousands of individuals of mixed ancestry in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces claiming to be Métis and perpetrating cultural and identity theft.

In order to prevent further injustice to the Métis nation, the MMF—the national government of the Red River Métis—must be included in the proposed council, unless the act is meant to deal only with indigenous organizations and not governments. This, however, cannot be the intent, as it would exclude the sole and legitimate government, the sole and legitimate representative of the historic Métis nation: the Red River Métis and its national government.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

We're back in session. Committee, thank you for your forbearance as we deal with these problems.

I'd like to welcome Ambassador Clément Chartier from the Manitoba Métis Federation. This is in the context of this committee, the indigenous and northern affairs committee, studying Bill C‑29 at committee stage.

Ambassador, we will ask you to make some opening remarks for up to five minutes, and then the committee members will have an opportunity to ask you questions.

With that, if you're ready, the microphone is yours for five minutes of introduction.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ross, you stated that the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples was perhaps not the solution. You don't necessarily agree with the calls to action or with what the government hopes to do.

I imagine you have no amendments to recommend to the committee for Bill C‑29.

Am I right?

You can answer with a yes or no.

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

Then if the structure of this committee is not done properly—Bill C-29 as written—and if we don't have someone at the table with economic reconciliation at the forefront, this could potentially slow down that piece of this whole puzzle, the reconciliation puzzle, and the ability for first nations communities to chart their own course.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ross, for appearing. It's always a pleasure listening to you speak.

I want to talk a bit about what you were talking about—economic reconciliation. In this context, I want to talk about the structure of this committee. The transitional board under Bill C-29 is appointed by the minister. This transitional board gets to decide how the subsequent committee will be formed. The next committee that's formed then sets the structure going forward for years and decades to come.

Right now there is no plan for the immediate future to put groups like the Native Women's Association or anyone even talking about economic reconciliation at that original table to set the plan going forward.

Harold Calla, who I'm sure you know—yes, you know him quite well—was in the committee just a few days ago. He said we need somebody at the table who wants to talk about economic reconciliation. Would you agree with Harold Calla's comments?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Okay.

I will now read to you paragraph 7(d) of Bill C-29, which states:

monitor policies and programs of the Government of Canada, and federal laws, that affect Indigenous peoples;

What is your opinion on that?

[English]

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Chairman.

I am hearing something very different from what I have heard before. My fellow indigenous people have been advised that we were forced to speak English and not allowed to use our own language. Now there have been certain committees appointed to try to work out these issues.

First, I want to ask you, with regard to Bill C-29, how you understand it.

[English]

[Ellis Ross]

I first heard the word “reconciliation” when I read the case law, the Haida court case in 2004, when the judgment came down. It described the government's duty to address infringements on rights and title. The judge who used it said that we had to start addressing these because, let's face it, no one was going anywhere and we also had a duty to the greater society to make this work.

Originally I didn't agree, because I thought the priority for government should be to address this, but as I learned later on, I couldn't draw a line between first nations and non-first nations. I couldn't do it, especially since I enjoyed having hospitals, schools and roads and I had non-first nations in my family. I have non-first nations in my community. There is no way that I would single them out and say that they're different just because of reconciliation.

Over the last 10 or 15 years, no matter what the issue has been regarding first nations, I have always seen the word “reconciliation” pop up, and there was a whole spectrum of reasons it was used. Nobody actually brought the definition of “reconciliation” back to the case law where it started. There is no starting point, in my opinion, to the definition of “reconciliation”. Everybody has a different definition, and if there's a specific objective they want, then it seems convenient to bring up that word or it seems convenient to talk about some type of process, but if you don't have a starting point or if you don't have a clear definition of what a process is or what a word is or what it's meant to mean, you're going to have a tough time trying to achieve your objectives.

We didn't even talk about reconciliation back in our community. All we knew was that everything we had in place up until that date—the programs, the government funding, the suicide hotlines—all failed, every single thing. It wasn't until we walked away from the government funding, all of the government programs and all the hotlines and we focused entirely on economic development that we realized that yes, inadvertently we've actually solved all of our social issues.

I know you're talking about Bill C-29 in a specific manner, but on reconciliation itself, I still believe that if we're not addressing the social ills that plagued first nations, then it's just going to be another committee, and it will be open to interpretation by no matter who is in government to actually use that unless you have clear objectives.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Ross for his testimony.

Mr. Ross, you talked about a number of things in your opening remarks, and I was intrigued by two terms. We're discussing Bill C‑29, of course, but you she went upstream of that when you talked about the concept of reconciliation being used for political purposes, for example, and the fact that the very concept of reconciliation is being overused or not accurately defined.

On the one hand, how would you define the word “reconciliation” and on the other, what are the implications of reconciliation in concrete terms?

Could you also clarify what you meant when you said that the concept was used for political purposes?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I thank the witness for his testimony, but I'd like to bring things back to Bill C-29.

What we're talking about here is not the political definition of “reconciliation”, but the definition and blueprint for reconciliation decided by the Indian residential school survivors and their descendants or children. Within that are the 94 calls to action. They've asked our government to implement the TRC calls to action. What Bill C-29 means to do is ensure there is some independent accountability to ensure that the government moves forward on those calls to action.

Mr. Ross, I'm wondering if you could tell us whether you believe we should be listening to the Indian residential school survivors, whose feedback went into these 94 calls to action. Do you think these are worth moving forward on, and do you think we should be fulfilling the TRC calls to action?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.

Before we go to the next questions, I'll give a reminder that what we're discussing in committee today is Bill C-29 specifically. It's a very specific bill. How can we make it better? Members are free to ask their questions if they wish, but it is only what will make Bill C-29 move forward, possibly with amendments, that is of concern to this committee.

With that, Mr. Battiste, you have six minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We are gathered here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin/Anishnaabe nation.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses, the committee members and members of the public who have joined us this afternoon.

I’d like to now welcome the witnesses who have joined us this afternoon as we continue to study Bill C-29 at committee stage.

With us today are Mr. Ellis Ross, a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, who is with us in person, and Chief Willie Sellars, Williams Lake First Nation.

National Ribbon Skirt Day Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-219, an act respecting a national ribbon skirt day. This bill aims to further educate Canadians about the role of indigenous women and indigenous culture and heritage, and to celebrate those contributions. The ribbon skirt is a symbol of womanhood, identity, adaptation and survival. It is a way for indigenous women to honour themselves and their culture.

While national ribbon skirt day is an opportunity to celebrate indigenous women and their fortitude in the face of paternalism and colonialism, we can and must do more. The Indian Act perpetuates racism and sexism, and we must address this archaic and broken piece of legislation if we truly want to see all indigenous women and girls realize their vision of freedom, their vision of independence and their vision of honour.

The Indian Act was created by the federal government in 1876, a very different time with very different thoughts on the role of women and girls in society. The 1876 Indian Act explicitly stipulated that any first nations woman who married anyone other than an “Indian” or “non-treaty Indian” would themselves cease to be “Indian” under the meaning of the act. It adopted many of the concepts of its precursor legislation, including the ideas of assimilation and enfranchisement and the changing definition of “Indian”.

The 1951 Indian Act continued in this vein, introducing several sex-based rules governing entitlement to status, including the “double mother rule”, which revoked the status of individuals at the age of 21 in instances of two consecutive generations of mothers who were not born with entitlement to status; the “illegitimate female child rule”, which permitted the male children of status men born out of wedlock to register, but which did not entitle their female children to status; “the marry-out rule”, which caused first nations women to lose their status upon marrying a non-status person, but which permitted first nations men to extend status to their non-status wives; and involuntary enfranchisement, which revoked the status of first nations women and their children when their husbands became enfranchised.

Often led by the legal challenges of indigenous women, it was not until 1985, under then Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, that discriminatory parts of the Indian Act began to change. Thankfully, we have matured as a nation since then and we recognize and respect the power and potential in women and girls. However, many aspects of the Indian Act still perpetuate its 1876 paternalistic vision of indigenous women and girls.

The Indian Act denied women the right to possess land and marital property. Only widows could possess land under the reserve system. However, a widow could not inherit her husband’s personal property upon his death. Everything, including the family house, legally went to his children. Previous governments, including the previous Conservative government, have made amendments to update the act to eliminate sex-based inequalities. I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the work of the Minister of Crown Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Indigenous Services, who continue this important work, most recently on enfranchisement, deregistration and natal band membership.

In my my previous roles as the critic for families, children and social development and the critic for indigenous services, and in my two previous stints, and now my current stint, as the critic for Crown-indigenous relations, I have met with hundreds of stakeholders, women’s issues advocates and indigenous leaders over the years. On the Indian Act, the message, sadly, is always clear: The act is outdated, broken and paternalistic and it must go.

The government, the opposition, advocates and indigenous people all agree, so one question remains: What is next? How do we get to where we all want to be? As my colleagues in this place all know, that is never an easy answer. Indeed, there are many different approaches we could take: complete abolishment, a new act or a transitionary approach. There are many options, and many people have their own ideas.

However, all hope is not lost. We know a few important things. We know where we all want to be. We all know what we are willing to do and what needs to be done to get there. On this side of the House, the Conservatives support reconciliation and we support a proactive, inclusive process that puts a clear plan in place to achieve the results everyone wants.

While I know my colleagues across the way support reconciliation, and they have said so many times, there appears to be more reaction than planning from the government. As I have heard many times from community leaders, their faith in reconciliation with the government is sadly waning. One does not have to look far.

For example, in the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, we are currently examining Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, a piece of legislation that has ignored the voices of indigenous women and girls.

Yesterday, the Native Women's Association of Canada president, Carol McBride, told the committee that she was disheartened to see that indigenous women were not included in Bill C-29. In fact, that bill only guarantees the seats of the AFN, ITK and MNC. Indigenous women literally do not have a seat at the table.

The Native Women's Association of Canada plays a unique role and could provide invaluable insight to the national council by providing culturally relevant, gender-based analysis; the lens of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls; and specific expertise related to the concerns of indigenous women and girls.

Establishing a national council on reconciliation without the voices of indigenous women and girls is an oversight. It is an oversight Conservatives will correct and we will be putting forward amendments to ensure indigenous women and girls and their voices are heard on the council.

It has been three years since the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report and the Liberal government has made little progress in the past year on its plan to end violence against indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people.

While there have been funding commitments, there has been little action. For example, the CEO of the Native Women's Association of Canada said this about the Liberal government’s record: “The National Action Plan, as it was drafted, was actually a recipe for inaction, and the people represented by our organization are paying the price.”

A poll conducted by Nanos Research last June found that Canadians are three times more likely to say the government has done a poor job addressing the MMIWG than a good job.

Hilda Anderson-Pyrz, chair of the National Family and Survivors Circle, lamented, “Without the political will to create transformative change, this genocide will continue.”

The continuous blunders and inaction are undermining indigenous faith in the Crown. Therefore, in the spirit of Bill S-219 and what it proposes, Conservatives will work very hard to put a plan in place.

On day one of forming a new Conservative government, we will hit the ground running. We will achieve this by listening and planning with indigenous leaders, national organizations and grassroots community members on what they need to achieve true reconciliation.

We will not confine ourselves to one aspect of reconciliation or another. Instead, we will take a holistic approach to reconciliation, one that recognizes the importance of economic reconciliation and what it has on restoring the honour, self-dignity and power to indigenous people.

We will facilitate a plan that empowers indigenous people to not only make their own decisions on water treatment, child services, public safety and entrepreneurship, just to name just a few, but also provide the economic power to achieve those objectives themselves.

We will, once and for all, eliminate the Ottawa-knows-best approach to indigenous relations, and we will do so with the principle that indigenous decisions need to be made by indigenous communities. We will ensure that those decisions include the voices of indigenous women and girls.

Canada Disability Benefit Act

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

Madam Speaker, look at the facts. This fall, the House has sat for about three weeks and the Conservatives have given unanimous consent to expedite two pieces of legislation, Bill C-29 and Bill C-30. That is a pretty impressive, breakneck speed for the opposition to agree to the option of certain pieces of legislation.

This is only the second half day that we have debated Bill C-22, and yes, it needs to be debated. We support the legislation and want it to move forward, but we want the government to do better, and debate in Parliament is part of the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you very much.

This brings our panel to an end. It was a very, very good panel.

Thank you so much to all of the witnesses who came today. We thank Mr. Harold Calla from the First Nations Financial Management Board.

I'd also like to thank Grand Chief Gérard Coulombe, the president of the Native Alliance of Quebec.

Also, thanks to Carol McBride and Allison MacIntosh from the Native Women's Association of Canada. It was extremely important for us to hear you as we deliberate on Bill C-29, so thank you for giving us your time today and your thoughts.

With that, committee members, our next meeting will be this Thursday, and we'll continue our discussion on Bill C-29.

With that, this committee is adjourned.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Okay. Thank you so much.

Mr. Calla, it's good to see you.

I was struck by your intervention. You're hoping to see this bill create a transformative and systemic change. You see that as a great opportunity.

Bill C-29, under paragraph 7(d), reads, “monitor policies and programs of the Government of Canada, and federal laws, that affect Indigenous peoples”.

Do you think a section like that would create the transformation and the systemic change that needs to happen?

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

Call 56 and the other calls to action talk about the Prime Minister being accountable and reporting on the progress in the implementation of the calls to action. This piece of legislation, Bill C-29, reads that the minister is to be the one to address it and to be the point person.

Should it be the Prime Minister, as the calls to action have laid out, or the minister, as the government has drafted in Bill C-29?

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. We have some great talent here that we're hearing from, and we do appreciate it.

I'll try to be quick with my questions because I only have six minutes here.

Let's start with Ms. McBride.

I'm guessing you weren't consulted on Bill C-29 as it was being drafted, and, based on your comments, five years is way too long to wait to have a member from your organization on the original board of directors, which then sets the framework for future boards going forward.

[Grand Chief Gérard Coulombe, President, Native Alliance of Quebec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This morning, I will begin by speaking on behalf of my national chief, Elmer St. Pierre, who can't be here today, either in person or virtually, due to health problems.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples where we are meeting today.

For over 50 years, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP, has advocated for the rights and interests of the non‑status, status off‑reserve, Métis and southern Inuit peoples. We have often been the only voice for the off‑reserve indigenous community, and we are the only group that can truly speak for that community.

Reconciliation has always been at the forefront of our work.

Today, more than 80% of aboriginal peoples live off‑reserve and in urban, rural and remote parts of Turtle Island. Their voices cannot be ignored.

For CAP's communities, this country has provided very little in terms of reconciliation. The fact that we are falling behind other aboriginal peoples is evidence of this. Lack of culturally appropriate programs and services have led to the further marginalization of our people who are the most vulnerable and who are already suffering historical traumas from residential school and colonial policies.

For years, the Canadian government has failed to recognize CAP's peoples and only after a 17‑year legal battle did this question get answered once and for all. Despite this victory, the government continues to divide and cherry‑pick those they want to work with. This leaves the majority of aboriginal people out and forgotten, and without access to necessary supports.

We commend the federal government for honouring the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action to create a national council on reconciliation. We support this fully. However, reconciliation cannot be just for some; it must be for all.

Bill C‑29, if implemented today, would further exclude our people. The bill states that “reconciliation requires collective efforts from all [aboriginal] peoples and … multiple generations”. With no seat on the council, this legislation politically chooses those the government wants to work with and neglects the voice of the majority of aboriginal peoples. If we are to truly have reconciliation, these exclusions must stop.

I'll now speak on behalf of the Native Alliance of Quebec.

I'd like to acknowledge again that we are meeting today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples, of which I am proud because it is part of my aboriginal ancestry.

My name is Gérard Coulombe, and I am the president of the Native Alliance of Quebec and a board member of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples was never consulted or engaged in the development of this legislation. We have been left out of the bilateral conversations with the government on this issue, despite the Daniels decision and the signing of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples/Canada political agreement. Our exclusion from the council, as a national indigenous organization, is a political decision that is an affront to reconciliation. This bill discriminates against hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples, represented by CAP. This does not honour the government's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. True reconciliation can only happen when all indigenous peoples are involved in the decision‑making process.

In closing, I'd like to say that the Native Alliance of Quebec is one of 11 indigenous organizations in Canada. The affiliated members of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples cover 10 provinces and one territory, virtually all of Canada. So we can say that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents off‑reserve status and non‑status indigenous people, Métis and Inuit, across the country.

Thank you.

[Grand Chief Carol McBride, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Good morning, honourable committee members, and thank you for inviting NWAC to speak to this important bill.

First I would like to acknowledge that we are gathering on unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation. I feel very comfortable here today, because it is my homeland.

Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, is an important bill and one that NWAC has been waiting for. However, we are disheartened to read that indigenous women have not been included in the bill. Clause 10 indicates that the national council for reconciliation includes three national indigenous organizations, as opposed to five. NWAC is disappointed to be excluded.

This bill established a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization whose purpose is to advance efforts for reconciliation with indigenous people. The bill responds to Truth and Reconciliation calls to action numbers 53 to 55. These calls to action are essential, since they will legislate implementation of all 94 calls to action.

As you know, implementation is the most important part of any measures intended to redress harms. The key areas for reporting under calls 53 to 55 are areas in which residential school abuses and colonialism are reflected in intergenerational trauma.

NWAC has a unique role to play as a member of the national council for reconciliation. For example, NWAC offers a missing and murdered indigenous women and girls lens. We offer specific expertise, tool kits such as culturally relevant gender-based analysis that accounts for intersectionality.

At NWAC we are custodians of programs such as Safe Passage. This is a community-driven, trauma-informed and survivor-centred initiative created by NWAC that tracks cases of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit, transgender and gender-diverse peoples. This project is the first of its kind, led by indigenous people for indigenous people. NWAC is a unique, inclusive representative voice that ensures the MMIWG lens is applied.

Though Canada recognizes five national organizations, including NWAC, only three will be mandated to form the board of directors. Excluding NWAC from national discussions on the implementation of reconciliation is a significant rejection to the organization, as we are recognized experts on matters related to indigenous women and girls. The people represented by NWAC face high rates of institutional betrayal, incarceration, violence and abuse, all issues that should be central to discussion of reconciliation. An NWAC representative on the board of directors of the national council for reconciliation will ensure the process is inclusive and that the voices of indigenous women and gender-diverse people are considered. We are valued leaders, decision-makers and knowledge keepers in our families, communities and governments. Without our perspective, discussions are unlikely to consider gender-based solutions to ongoing systemic discrimination caused by colonialism and patriarchy. This is about equity and claiming matriarchal leadership.

In the Canada-NWAC Accord, Canada committed that they shall consider the distinct perspective of indigenous women and girls and indigenous gender-diverse people. Not including indigenous women in this instance will set a devastating precedent for this country and globally against the current backdrop of a proven genocide against indigenous women and girls.

Honourable members, NWAC is therefore requesting that the bill be amended in clause 10 to include one director for NWAC on the board of the national council for reconciliation. If the bill remains as is, the Government of Canada will have continued to entrench marginalization of indigenous women, girls, two-spirit, transgender and gender-diverse people in legislation.

With that, I'd like to thank you. Chi-meegwetch.Merci.

[Harold Calla, Executive Chair, First Nations Financial Management Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to acknowledge and thank the people on whose traditional territory we are having this meeting today. I would also like to thank the committee for the invitation to appear before you today.

I applaud the bill's objectives and I hope you'll give the bill thoughtful but speedy consideration. It's a big task. Reconciliation means many different things to many different people. It will require the collective effort and commitments of all of us, including our governments.

What I'm please to see is that Bill C-29 establishes an accountable and legitimate process that I haven't seen exist before, whereby there will be direct reports to Parliament that have to be responded to. I applaud that.

My question, when I read the bill, is this: Do we understand what we're talking about? Reconciliation in our context as indigenous people must mean we're talking about transformative change to the status quo. That will require legislation, regulation and policy changes over time. The indigenous community will require the institutional infrastructure that exists for other orders of government in order to be able to sit across the table as equals engaged in developing strategies to achieve reconciliation.

We need to recognize that it won't be achieved overnight. It will not be achieved through the efforts in Ottawa and the provincial capitals alone. It will occur through engagement, discussions and evolution, but it will begin in indigenous communities and flow from there.

It is critical that the process be supported throughout government and that the need for adequate and stable resources is recognized through statutory funding. Canada should engage indigenous communities now and codevelop a coordinated government-wide change management strategy to meet the challenges that will be faced in the transition to self-governing indigenous communities.

The reconciliation effort needs to respond to the need for modern-day governance and fiscal capacities at the indigenous community level. Free, prior and informed consent requires that communities have this capacity. Indigenous communities will move forward as they feel they are ready. We cannot force them.

For example, a lot of the work that needs to be done is being done by a number of indigenous organizations and institutions today. The council should recognize those and incorporate them in the body of work they undertake. For example, the institution that I chair, the First Nations Financial Management Board, provides services to over 300 Indian Act bands across the country. We've listened to our clients' concerns over the last 15 years and we are producing a report that we're calling “RoadMap” to focus on helping indigenous people see a pathway to eliminate poverty and a pathway to a life of prosperity through good governance, access to capital, economic development and exercising increased fiscal powers. We submitted some material to you today around that. You can have a look at it.

I recognize that the goal of this council is not to displace the voice and responsibilities of rights holders; it is to support them where support is needed and to inform all on the progress that is being made.

The preamble to this legislation suggests reconciliation. The context of this bill encompasses a recognition of indigenous self-government, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, as well as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, and, I would argue, section 35 of the Constitution.

However, the indigenous reality today is that the existing federal and provincial policies, regulations and laws that shape, define and govern the relationship between indigenous peoples and the governments in Canada and the provinces do not give indigenous people the recognition required to achieve reconciliation. We must then accept, as a starting point, that we are talking about transformative and systemic change in the relationship.

I believe there is a desire to see this in Canada. We have started by acknowledging our history and the harms done, and admitting that the current relationship is not only harmful to indigenous people but to all Canadians. To achieve reconciliation, it is important to accept that we are talking about shared decision-making and sharing the wealth that Canada has. I believe the council will be able to follow these kinds of measures and report back to Parliament on this.

I think it's really important that Parliament understand that this is what transformative change entails. I am not sure we appreciate that reconciliation is necessary to secure Canada's future economic growth and sustain our standard of living. Sustainability standards, together with environmental, social and governance reporting are impacting the ability of our economy to operate as it has in the past.

The international community is moving to improve consideration of the impacts and is doing this through reporting, so that stakeholders can evaluate which economic activities and companies are responding to the international community’s concerns. This will influence investment decisions and not only the availability of capital but also the cost of capital.

Canada is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, and indigenous matters are a real consideration within the international movement. Bill C-29 tells the world that Canada understands and is prepared to act. I look at this as an exciting time for Canada. If we can reconcile, we'll make our future more secure and filled with opportunity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

That brings our panel to an end.

I'd like to thank National Chief RoseAnne Archibald; Julie McGregor, director of justice; President Natan Obed; and President Cassidy Caron for their testimony today, as well as their opening remarks and their views on Bill C-29, an extremely important landmark piece of legislation. Thank you for coming today and giving us your views.

We will now suspend briefly as we prepare for the next panel.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Ah, okay. I have more time left than I thought.

I'll use it to ask a question.

Mr. Obed, it struck a chord with me when you said that you're still evaluating Bill C‑29, whereas today we're asking you, to some extent, what your recommendations are. I know it's important for this committee to do that work, obviously, because there is a pressing need to have a body like this for reconciliation. That being said, would you prefer that we move quickly to the next steps or that we take a little more time to make sure we do things the way you want?

My question is also for Chief Archibald and Ms. Caron.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here today and providing your contribution to the discussion around this important bill.

I was going to talk about the independence aspect, but you've all indicated some of your opinions towards that already, so I'm going to move on to a different discussion item.

Back in 2018, when the interim board released its 20 recommendations, which included much of the framework for what we're dealing with today, there were a number of recommendations in there. They became part of what is the “Purpose and Functions” section of Bill C-29 today.

What has been added in the legislation that wasn't in those original recommendations is this concept around advancing efforts or “including efforts”. The original recommendations talked about actually advancing reconciliation.

I guess my frustration, a little bit, is how we measure advancing efforts relative to actually moving down the road towards reconciliation. Is advancing efforts good enough in the opinion of your organizations?

That question can be for all of you. I didn't direct it to any individual, so go ahead and each have a shot at it.

[Cassidy Caron, President, Métis National Council]

Thank you.

Tansi, everyone.

My name is Cassidy Caron. I sit before you today as the president of the Métis National Council, which has been the recognized national and international representative of the Métis nation in Canada since 1983.

The Métis National Council, for those of you who may not know, is composed of, and receives its mandate from, the democratically elected leadership within provincial Métis governments currently within the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

In 2017, the Government of Canada and Métis governments entered into the Canada‒Métis Nation Accord. Among its objectives, the accord seeks to advance reconciliation of the rights, claims, interests and aspirations of the Métis nation. Four of five Métis governments recognized as signatories to this accord are the governments that currently compose the Métis National Council.

Our Métis governments, through their registries and democratically elected governance structures at the local, regional and provincial levels, are mandated and authorized to represent Métis nation citizens within their respective jurisdictions, including in dealing with collectively held Métis rights, interests and outstanding claims against the Crown.

Since 1983, the Métis National Council's priority has always been to advance the distinct Métis voice at the national and international levels, and we will continue to advance issues of collective importance and serve the Métis nation as our original founders intended.

I want to begin this morning by extending my gratitude for the work that has been done by the transitional committee to date in developing this legislation and to the interim board that sat in 2017 and 2018 to provide guidance to this transitional committee, and to all those who participated in and contributed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where this idea of a national council for truth and reconciliation was first articulated as an accountability mechanism. A significant amount of work by a significant number of individuals who have dedicated their time and effort has brought us to this point today. Their efforts must be recognized.

While a significant amount of time has passed since the release of the recommendation to establish the national council, we would rather not dwell on the time that has passed but rather focus our attention now towards the significant amount of work that lies ahead on our journeys toward reconciliation. Fulfilling TRC call to action 53 will be a significant step in the right direction on our collective journey forward in this country, and Bill C-29 is an important piece of legislation that can serve to support our ongoing and continued efforts on the journey of reconciliation.

While Bill C-29 will support this through the creation of this independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization, we believe that in some circumstances the legislation does not go quite far enough to provide for the federal government to truly lay the foundation to also address call to action 55, which is a piece that is critical to setting this national council up for success and ensuring that progress is made. Call to action 55 calls on the Government of Canada to provide key information to the council to support its mandate, including reports or data requested by the national council.

As it's currently written, the legislation fails to provide for mechanisms or enablers, such as a subpoena power, to ensure that this government or subsequent governments into the future cannot shield or refuse to provide full access to reports or data required to meet its mandate. It is important to ask how this council will successfully monitor the state of reconciliation without legislated powers to access this critical data.

I will note, however, that a key role and function of the Métis National Council through its dedicated seat on this council will be to support the implementation of call to action 55, thereby contributing to the success of the National Council for TRC.

As we move down a pathway toward data sovereignty, the Métis National Council aims to support our Métis governments in the areas of information governance and management, and it is working toward being able to collect, analyze, evaluate and govern Métis nation data, including data that will be able to contribute to reports on the progress toward reconciliation.

Furthermore, the purpose and function of the council, as set out in the proposed legislation, are in line with the Métis National Council's understanding of how we, collectively, will continue to advance reconciliation efforts. The research and reports that will be produced by the national council can also provide a very important opportunity to highlight the positive work taking place within our communities as it relates to reconciliation.

I will end by once again thanking the individuals who have contributed to the development of this legislation. As the recognized national Métis voice, I applaud the particular attention in the legislation to ensuring that indigenous voices will be a majority on this council, as well as the protection of the three national indigenous organizations' ability to appoint board members.

It's our hope that the end result of this legislation will be the formation of a national council board that can apply a distinctions-based approach and fulfill its mandate to the best of its ability for all indigenous peoples.

Thank you.

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Nakurmiik. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see everyone here in person.

We are pleased to offer our views on Bill C-29 and the creation of a national council on reconciliation.

The work of the truth and reconciliation commission, the national inquiry on murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and many other initiatives have been foundational to identifying and describing the widespread trauma inflicted upon indigenous peoples during the colonial era and its connection to the current situation of indigenous peoples.

While Inuit Nunangat, our homeland, comprises over 40% of Canada's land mass and 72% of Canada's coastline, it is remote and often removed from the consideration of policy-makers, government officials and most Canadians. We appreciate the broad scope of the act and provisions designed to address reconciliation measures.

In some cases, Inuit have shared experiences with other indigenous peoples, yet in many cases, the impacts of colonization have affected Inuit in a distinct fashion. We have worked with the Government of Canada for a distinctions-based approach to reconciliation for justice but also for the work moving forward with the Government of Canada. Some examples of this—and many of these initiatives have flowed through the Inuit-Crown partnership committee—are things such as ensuring Inuit inclusion for those who are excluded in the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, further and greater federal recognition of and actions with respect to the Qikiqtani truth commission, securing recognition and an apology for the Ahiarmiut relocation in central Nunavut, and completing long-standing work on the Nanilavut initiative for families to identify the graves of loved ones who had been taken south for treatment in sanatoriums for tuberculosis. If they did pass away, their families and loved ones weren't notified and were not told the place where they had been buried.

A challenge with many pan-indigenous exercises is that the specific impacts of colonization of Inuit and the specific means of moving forward could be lost. We note that the proposed body is mainly focused on reporting and awareness raising. It would not be in a position to provide meaningful redress for the ongoing impacts of colonization. This is the reason ITK has proposed an indigenous peoples human rights tribunal through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the implementation of that act to ensure that government accountability is clearly catalogued for recourse and remedy for all those situations in which Inuit human rights have not been upheld or have been violated.

This particular piece of legislation aims to do something completely different, and therefore there are many different pieces that are needed. Tribunals, boards, or bodies need to be created during this time to ensure that we implement not only the calls to action from the TRC and the calls for justice for the MMIWG inquiry but also implement the legislation on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

For these reasons, ITK often advocates the inclusion of Inuit representatives within and on federal bodies that have an impact on Inuit rights, and, further, that Inuit should be able to determine Inuit representation.

We do not have specific amendments for you today. We are still in the process of understanding this legislation and talking it through with our board of directors, but the principles raised by National Chief Archibald are very similar to the ones that I believe we would be making to ensure that the council is composed of representatives of first nations, Inuit and Métis and that these appointment processes will be very different under this proposed legislation because it is the creation of a not-for-profit society versus a governmental agency.

I look forward to further conversations with you all on this particular bill in the time that has been allotted.

[National Chief RoseAnne Archibald]

In terms of the recommendations from the AFN, we feel it's inappropriate for the federal government to grant itself the discretion to appoint the majority of the board of directors responsible for providing this independent oversight of its own actions. This is not within the spirit and intent of reconciliation, and it's very paternalistic.

The AFN proposes that clause 10 be amended to provide for the following nominations of the first board of directions: Assembly of First Nations, three nominees; ITK, two nominees; MNC, two nominees; and the remaining two to five nominees to be nominated and appointed by the minister in collaboration with the transition committee. This proposal ensures that the majority of nominations to the first board of directors will remain with the AFN, ITK and MNC, and not the federal government.

The second part of the recommendation is an actual amendment we're suggesting. The second recommendation is around clause 12, which deals with representativeness. It says that the board of directors “must, to the extent possible”, include first nation, Métis, Inuit, and other peoples in Canada. What we're saying as the AFN is that it is of the utmost importance that the NCR board of directors include first nation representation. It should not be “to the extent possible”, but that there must be first nation representatives on the board of directors.

I will wrap it up there—oh, sorry. There is an actual proposed amendment: The AFN proposes that clause 12 be amended to provide that the council's board shall include representation from first nations.

The third portion is not an amendment. It is around funding. Bill C-29 actually includes no provisions with respect to funding or operational budgets; it simply states that the NCR must fulfill financial reporting requirements. Again, we have a proposed amendment under funding. In order for the NCR to be truly independent and adequately resourced, the AFN recommends that Bill C-29 be amended to include guaranteed funding provisions to ensure that the important work of the NCR be sustained into the future.

I want to thank you, despite some of our technical problems. We will submit the full speech that I have prepared in writing.

I want to say meegwetch, thank you; ninanâskomon, which in my language means, “I'm grateful, I'm thankful, I thank you”; and kisâkihitin, which means, “I love you”.

[National Chief RoseAnne Archibald, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My comments might go over, so I think I might just jump quickly to the recommendations that the AFN has with respect to this bill.

[Witness spoke in Cree and provided the following text:]

Wahcheeyay misiway. RoseAnne Archibald nitishinikahsoon. Taykwa Tagmou ishinakataow kawocheean.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

Greetings, everyone. My name is RoseAnne Archibald and the place I come from is called Taykwa Tagmou.

[English]

I am happy to be here today to speak to the committee. I'm just trying to find my notes, if you could give me just a moment.

As I said, I'm here to share the AFN perspective on Bill C-29. I'll be providing a summary of AFN's perspective on the legacy of those former residential institutions. I don't call them schools anymore. They were institutions of assimilation and genocide where thousands of our children died.

I'll speak to the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to actions 53 to 56. I'll share with you some of AFN's concerns with Bill C-29.

I'm just going to jump ahead to that, Mr. Chair, because I feel like I might run out of time in terms of the amendments that we have to the bill, and the suggestions.

In terms of the nominations, clause 8 of the proposed act sets out that the first board of directors will be chosen by the minister “in collaboration with the transition committee”.

Clause 9 states that the board will have “a minimum of nine” directors and that the AFN, the ITK and the Métis National Council will each nominate one board director. Presumably, the minister would then have the discretion to appoint the remaining six to nine members of the first board of directors. Essentially, the minister has the authority to nominate and appoint two-thirds of the NCR's first board of directors.

Clause 11 requires that at least two-thirds of the directors must be indigenous, but no distinction is made between first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

Given the history of these institutions on our people, it's really of primary importance that the NCR board of directors be truly independent of government and also be reflective of the overwhelming impact that these institutions had on first nations people, so it's very concerning that under Bill C-29, the minister is given the broad discretion to appoint the majority of—

[Émilie Thivierge, Legislative Clerk]

In just a few words also, my role as the legislative clerk assigned to Bill C-29 will be to assist the committee during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. If members of the committee have any questions about the procedural admissibility of any amendments they would like to submit once they have been drafted by Alexandra or if you have any questions concerning the clause-by-clause study of the bill, please don't hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience.

In order to assist the committee in conducting an orderly clause-by-clause study, I will organize all the amendments that members submit to the clerk into a package of amendments. I will also prepare an agenda that includes each clause of the bill and any submitted amendments. This will be circulated to all members of the committee shortly after the deadline to submit amendments. I will also be present in the room for the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

My contact information can be found in the memo the clerk has already sent to all committee members.

I will be happy to answer any questions committee members may have regarding the procedural admissibility of amendments they may wish to make to Bill C‑29 and to provide advice in a confidential manner, as my colleague Ms. Schrorah said.

Furthermore, I encourage all members to contact my colleague to have their amendments written in both official languages as soon as possible.

Finally, if members have any questions, I encourage them to contact me without hesitation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Finally, today we have Émilie Thivierge, who is a legislative clerk, and Alexandra Schorah, who is a legislative counsel. They are here to explain how they can assist us if we wish to propose amendments to Bill C‑29.

Ms. Thivierge and Ms. Schorah, you have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

I call the meeting to order. Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 33 of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We are gathered here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

We have a few items of housekeeping before we get to our invited witnesses on Bill C-29.

First, we must approve the proposed budget for consideration of Bill C‑29, which you all received.

Do the committee members agree to approve the budget?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

This ends our second round of questions.

I'd like to thank the minister for being with us and answering our questions on Bill C‑29.

I'd also like to thank Ms. Ledgerwood, Mr. Garrow and Ms. Sunga for being here today and for answering some of our questions as we continue, in committee stage, to look at Bill C-29.

With that, I remind the committee that our next meeting is on Monday the 17th—we won't be here next week—when we'll continue our study on Bill C-29.

Thank you very much, everyone.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I salute your achievement 38 years ago.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm very pleased to be with you today.

My best wishes to you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that whenever I've had dealings with the minister with respect to the indigenous community in my riding, we've always worked well together. I want to thank him publicly for that.

Indeed, I have the privilege to represent the community of Wendake. The Huron-Wendat are established here, on the ancestral lands, and have been living here on a more permanent basis for over 300 years. I had the privilege of representing them for seven years in the Quebec National Assembly, and now I have been representing them for seven years in the House of Commons. I say that with pride because I was born next to Wendake, in Loretteville, which is just a mile from that community. I grew up with the people of Wendake, and I am very proud to represent them. Unfortunately, that representation will end in the next election because of the electoral redistribution. So if I run again and am re‑elected, I will no longer have the privilege of representing them. It breaks my heart. Electoral redistribution isn't done based on the moods of the members, but rather on demographics.

That being said, I would like to commend the minister and come back to what Ms. Gill said earlier about the various governments.

As we know, there is a department in Quebec that deals with first nations affairs. I've forgotten the official name of that department. In any event, I think the minister responsible is well recognized and has done a good job in recent years.

Bill C‑29 calls for the creation of a national council for reconciliation, which will be very important. We want everyone to work together. Of course, no one is against virtue. However, when there is jurisdictional overlap, that's when problems can arise.

In the context of this council that will be created, I would like to know how the minister sees the fit between the federal government, which is the lead on first nations matters, and the provinces, particularly Quebec, which have jurisdiction over the issues.

I would like to know the minister's vision on this.

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

Bill C‑29 provides for an audit process to ensure that everything is as it should be. There is a process established by the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act. In this bill, we have tried to ensure that the government cannot, on its own, make radical changes to that process without introducing a new bill. In other words, it would open itself up to criticism if it tried to interfere with the process.

So I think that everything is in place to ensure the independence of the body. In any event, there will always be provisions for that in the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act.

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

First, I think people are generally very happy with the principle of Bill C‑29. Where it gets complicated is that everyone wants their voice around the table. It's going to be difficult at the end of the day if everyone wants to be represented. There are stakeholders who are very political. I don't blame them for that. Unfortunately, difficult choices will have to be made. Most of the time, people who are independent are not politicians. People can also be political without being politicians. In the end, it will be a hard choice. All in all, I think people, looking back, will be very happy with the bill.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Please cut me off if I drag on.

Kwe kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi. Hello.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.

I'd like to thank the chair of the committee for inviting me to appear today to speak about Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

I look forward to answering these questions, because strengthening this bill and ensuring we move forward on this are priorities for all of us.

We marked the second National Day for Truth and Reconciliation on September 30, last Friday. Indigenous and non-indigenous people across the country came together in their orange shirts to continue to learn about the legacy of the residential schools and the intergenerational impacts. Orange shirts alone are not enough, though. We have to continue to take concrete steps towards reconciliation.

As committee members know, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission published its final report and calls to action seven years ago. Among the commission's calls to action, number 53 calls upon Parliament to establish a national council for reconciliation, while numbers 54, 55 and 56 expanded on the roles, responsibilities, and expectations for the council and the various levels of government. These calls to action are saying that, as a country, we need to measure our progress on reconciliation. We must be held accountable for our promises to indigenous peoples.

That's why we must implement the calls to action as envisioned by the TRC. It's important that the board of the national council for reconciliation be diverse and reflective of all indigenous people in Canada. If the bill is passed, as Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, I would collaborate with a transitional committee to appoint the first board of directors. The first council would then establish a process to nominate and elect future board directors, in accordance with the legislation stipulated in the bill.

The board would comprise nine to 13 directors, at least two-thirds of whom are indigenous. Three directors must be nominated by the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council, respectively. These criteria would apply to the first board, as well as to the future board once the council is incorporated.

In particular, the council will include representation from first nations, Inuit, Métis, indigenous organizations, youth, women, men, gender diverse persons, and various regions in Canada, including urban, rural and remote regions.

It is important to understand that the government does not own or dictate this process. This is a collaboration, and it has been since the beginning, as this bill was jointly developed with indigenous leaders.

Indigenous leaders led the interim board and transitional committee. They provided independent advice and recommendations that were instrumental in shaping the legislative framework before you.

One example of those recommendations is the decision to set up the council as a not-for-profit entity. Incorporating the national council for reconciliation as a not-for-profit organization under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act utilizes the existing legislation to set up the council. Moreover, it establishes and enables the council to be incorporated as a legal entity that operates completely independently from the Government of Canada. It will give the council legal status under the act and allow it to, for example, freely enter into contracts and have bank accounts. The council will also be able to independently fundraise for projects and future work.

It's important to note that budget 2019 announced a total of $126.5 million in funding for the national council for reconciliation, including $1.5 million to support the first year of operation. The funding can be used by the board to establish their endowment for future work, which was very important to the interim board.

I am grateful to the TRC commissioners, the interim board members, the transitional committee members, survivors, and especially the families, and all indigenous and non-indigenous people who participated in the engagement process. Their contribution was essential in shaping this important legislation.

I am happy to answer all your questions.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsee. Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you very much. We will now resume.

Welcome, Minister. As you know, we have begun, as of today, our study in committee of Bill C-29. We welcome you to the committee.

The officials surrounding you have answered questions for the past half-hour, and we will continue now with you. If you would like to make an opening statement, please do so. Try to keep it to five minutes. Then we'll proceed to questions.

Thank you.

[Kate Ledgerwood]

Thank you very much for the question.

As we've mentioned, Bill C-29 is to provide the frame for establishing the council, and I think one of the messages that perhaps we'll say, which we've heard quite clearly through the transitional committee and the interim board, was to create the frame but to let the council, once it's established, determine what its roles, responsibilities and functions—all of that—will be.

Really, as we've mentioned, it's supposed to be an arm's-length independent organization. For that reason, there are things that we can't predict, or we wouldn't want to suggest that we know how they will set these things up. The intention was always that the legislation creates that frame and the guidance so that the council can do the work in the future.

Your question is a great question. It's something that's difficult for us to answer now because we wouldn't want to suggest that we know in advance what the council, once it's established, would look to do in terms of its work. As Andy mentioned, there will be annual reports that will be coming. The council will have the range of what it would like to report on, and the government will be required to respond to the reports they provide us.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you very much.

Please feel welcome, for you have made us understand many things about this bill, Bill C-29, before it was established. That accountability is very important to us aboriginal people. Indigenous people have been expecting this for reconciliation.

For many of us who are indigenous, our rights have been broken and have not been protected. In the legislation you're requesting, is there any protection for aboriginal and indigenous rights?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I have questions about consultations prior to drafting Bill C‑29.

You mentioned several times that many people had been consulted. Obviously, you know how many First Nations there are in Canada and on their own territories. Were they all consulted ahead of time?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, folks, for being here today. I think most of you were on the technical briefing the other night, if I can remember the faces in the checkerboard instead of in person. I appreciate the other night as well.

I want to go through a little bit of timing, and I want you to help me out with a couple of things to make sure I understand. If I'm clear, the government announced the creation of an interim board of directors in December 2017. That was through a Governor in Council appointment, which would be directed by cabinet. This interim board that was appointed at that time did their work and issued a final report to the then-minister on June 12, 2018, with 20 fairly specific recommendations.

In the technical briefing the other night, you indicated that these recommendations were the basis for the draft legal framework, which ultimately ended up in Bill C-29 now.

It appears that the vast majority of the work was already done by June 2018 to create this council. That was when the work happened, but not until December 2021 did the minister actually take that next step, as advised by the interim board and the report, to appoint the transitional committee members. Finally, in March 2022, the final recommendations of that group were given back to the minister to go ahead and finalize the legislation.

My first question is simply this: Is that an accurate time frame? Have I understood that well?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

We will now begin with 30 minutes on receiving witnesses with respect to proposed legislation Bill C-29.

We have with us this afternoon for the first half hour, and they will stay on for the hour when the minister will join them, Mr. Andy Garrow, director, policy and strategic direction, reconciliation secretariat, planning and partnerships; Ms. Kate Ledgerwood, director general, policy and strategic direction, also from the reconciliation secretariat; and Ms. Seetal Sunga, senior counsel from the Department of Justice.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline the usual rules. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services in English, French and Inuktitut are available for the first part of today's meeting. Please be patient with the interpretation. There may be a delay. For those in the video conference, the interpretation button is found at the bottom of your screen. It's the interpretation globe, and you can listen in English, French or Inuktitut, if you choose. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately and we will ensure interpretation is properly restored before we continue.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, of course, your microphone is controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. When speaking please speak slowly and clearly, and when you're not speaking, please put your mike on mute. This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We're going to launch immediately into questions. We'll have six minutes for each of the four parties.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe, Mr. Vidal, you will be starting as the first speaker for six minutes. Please go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

It doesn't spell it out. I encourage people who know what changes they may wish to make to Bill C-29 to go through that process that's described in the email as quickly as possible, so that they can be looked at, we can find out if they're allowable and in which form they will be, and then they can be translated and distributed.

That's the process. Is that okay?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I want to be clear, Mr. Chairman. All I'm looking for is the amended version of Bill C-29. That's all I'm looking for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

I don't think we're going to get them before Thursday. Remember that they have to be bilingual, and the inputs will come over the course of the next few weeks. If you're talking about potential changes to Bill C-29, we didn't decide when those had to come.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor] on Bill C-29. We can have that forwarded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Right, but he's also confirming that we will get the proposed changes to Bill C-29 that may be coming up to the members—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

Finally, Mr. Chair, through you to the clerk, if we could have the amended and adopted Bill C-29 forwarded to the members so that we can be prepared, that would be wonderful.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

The second question I would have, Mr. Chair, is with respect to Bill C-29. I'm assuming that the names of witnesses are to be submitted by October 5, which is this Wednesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

The ministers will be asked to be here on Thursday in connection with Bill C-29. It's the normal thing to invite the sponsoring ministers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

I have a suggestion.

We said we wanted to start off with Bill C-29 this Thursday. That would probably be with the ministers coming. It's up to the committee to decide whether we might want to reserve 20 minutes at the end of that meeting to look at drafting instructions, so that the old gang from the Conservative Party—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

On that question, given the fact that last week we agreed among ourselves, with a couple of amendments, to focus priority on Bill C-29, that will take us to October 28 for the last session. Then, of course, we have to follow that up by doing clause-by-clause consideration in an expeditious manner, so we're into early November.

I would just add that I mentioned two other things that we need to revisit. One is the updated NIHB report, which the analysts are going to update, given the amendments, new resolutions and new recommendations that we proposed. Also, at some point—this Thursday, for example—we were going to look at future studies. The drafting instructions for this study are important as well.

In the coming days and weeks we should decide what should come right after Bill C-29. Should it be how quickly we want to do one of the three? Which of the three should we do, and in which order? Should it be the drafting instructions, the NIHB report or deciding on future studies, and in what order?

Mr. Schmale, go ahead.

Indigenous Affairs

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, reconciliation is not easy. It is neither linear nor free, but we are determined to right past wrongs and address their impact on indigenous peoples, an impact that is still felt today.

Tomorrow, we encourage all Canadians to reflect, to listen and to show compassion for indigenous voices. Tomorrow is a day for residential school survivors and indigenous communities and leaders to have their say.

Bill C‑29 will respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 to 56, while also promoting the implementation and independent review of the 94 calls to action.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the motion for second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, be deemed adopted on division, deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I have had the opportunity to work together on a number of different issues in committee and elsewhere, and I appreciate the approach she brings to this place.

The parliamentary secretary alluded to the final report from the interim board for the national council for reconciliation quite a bit. Earlier in this debate, I asked a member of the government why, considering that the report was completed by June 12, 2018, it has taken so long for the government to get to the point today where we are finally debating Bill C-29.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary is able to provide some greater input as to why the government did not act on this sooner, especially considering that we clearly have quite widespread support for this bill in the House today.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for mentioning frequently that indigenous peoples have been engaged in this whole process. Indigenous peoples have frequently experienced being deprived of their rights and their rights being infringed.

The 94 calls to action frequently talk about the importance of implementing UNDRIP. I wonder if the member could explain why Bill C-29 does not have any mention of implementing UNDRIP.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated listening to what the member had to say, and I understand that the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations appointed the interim board of directors, the transitional committee and now, in Bill C-29, he would be responsible to select the directors of the national council.

I wonder if the member could clarify this for me. In a past bill, as it was being discussed in the House and debated, we found out that the environmental council that was being created had already been established. Could she tell me whether or not individuals have already been appointed prior to the debate on the bill finishing in the House, and how many if that is the case?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded and traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. We are debating a bill that is very relevant not just to those first nation groups but all first nations, Métis and Inuit in Canada.

Before I get into the context of my speech, I want to point out Bill C-29 would establish the national council for reconciliation. This is in response to the calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, in particular calls to action numbers 53 and 56. Basically, the national council for reconciliation would be a permanent, independent and indigenous-led organization that would monitor and support the progress of reconciliation in Canada, including the full implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

I want to take a few moments to explain how we arrived where we are, because there is some insinuation on the floor of the House that indigenous people did not lead this process and did not make the decisions around what the new legislation would look like and how it would evolve. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a member of Parliament who represents a large population of survivors of residential schools and as the daughter of a mother who is a survivor of residential school, I do not need to tell anyone how important this piece of legislation is to my family, to my constituents and to many indigenous Canadians in this country. To say this would come to the House of Commons without their full support, their full participation and their co-leading and leading all sections of this piece of legislation would be accusations that are totally false and incorrect.

There are so many things I could talk about as it relates to the TRC. It is something I have been involved with for many years. It is important as well that I walk my colleagues through the work the government has done to get to where we are today. We worked really hard to renew our relationship with indigenous people. One only needs to go back to 2015, when we came into office, to see this. One of the first things we did was to immediately start implementing the calls to action. In fact, we were the only party, and to date I believe still the only party, in Canada that has said we are prepared to implement all 94 recommendations of the TRC.

When we took on the task of designing this legislation, first of all we started engagement with indigenous leaders and communities. We knew they were going to be integral to this process. Every step along the way, they have been engaged, included and leading what has happened here. The process was led by the indigenous leadership of the national council for reconciliation's interim board.

I will explain a bit about the interim board and about the transitional committee that came after that, but both of these were independent bodies. They were made up of first nations, Inuit and Métis members, who all came to the table providing their very best advice and experiences and took into account a very wide range of diverse voices and perspectives from all across Canada.

I also want to acknowledge the monumental work that has been done by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which has really been the foundation for this bill and where we are today in bringing it to the House of Commons.

As many in this chamber will recall, the commission has set forward a pathway of reconciliation to begin the healing necessary in relation to the intergenerational traumas and ongoing impacts caused by the residential school system.

The extensive and historic work of the TRC was pivotal in laying out the groundwork for this legislation, as I said earlier, and the national council for reconciliation was laid out in calls to action numbers 53 and 56. They were two of the 94 that we are on the path of implementing.

In developing the final report, the council took a very inclusive, very indigenous-led approach. It listened to the voices of indigenous people. It heard from survivors of these institutions, as well as from their families and from their communities.

Our government has strived to honour that approach by fully implementing the calls to action and a national council for reconciliation, and by inviting and supporting indigenous leadership throughout the whole process, with its culmination being the development of this proposed legislation.

This process has been led by the truth and reconciliation commissioners, residential school survivors, indigenous people who participated in the TRC process, and everyone who envisioned that an independent, indigenous-led, national oversight body was the way forward.

The commissioners envisioned a national council that would prepare an annual report on the state of reconciliation in which the Government of Canada would respond publicly, outlining its plans to advance reconciliation.

In developing this bill, our government has listened to these diverse voices. Indigenous leaders and community members had the courage to step forward to tell the country about their experiences, how it affected them and how it affected their families throughout their whole lives. Let us not forget that despite the personal and tragic impact this had on them, it is their voices that are guiding us in the right way to help communities, to help future generations of indigenous people, and to help us toward a journey of healing in Canada for all indigenous people. That is remarkable. It is remarkable that those who suffered the most are leading the process of healing today.

After the Truth and Reconciliation Commission fulfilled its mandate, the federal government responded to its calls and established a national council for reconciliation. In doing so, we created an interim board that helped transition to the next steps. It made recommendations on the scope and the mandate of what that council should look like. That was the first step.

Then the federal government appointed the interim board of directors in 2018. That board was comprised of six indigenous leaders who were chosen to represent first nations, Inuit and Métis, including a former truth and reconciliation commissioner, Dr. Wilton Littlechild, who is no stranger to indigenous people in Canada.

This independent board was responsible for providing advice to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on establishing the national council for reconciliation. They were all indigenous voices at that table.

The interim board held its engagement process shortly after that, in April 2018, meeting with various indigenous organizations and non-indigenous stakeholders across the country. As part of the council's mandate, members looked at the legislation, at the scope of the council, and, more broadly, at long-term reconciliation.

The interim board carefully considered all it had heard from its engagements with various indigenous and non-indigenous peoples and organizations, as well as at an engagement event in Ottawa, and it developed a final report. This process included, again, a very diverse group of people, with community members, academics, businesses, arts and health professionals, and other interested parties. Each member of the interim board reached out to additional individuals to ask for their views as well on the establishment of the national council for reconciliation.

The government, in addition to including all these people of indigenous background in various capacities across the country, also reached out to non-indigenous Canadians for their thoughts about creating a council. An online platform was created to capture the views of Canadians on the subject, where people could share their thoughts on the mandate of the future national council for reconciliation and what its first steps should be. I can honestly tell members that the input on that was very positive.

The other step forward was the engagement that took place. That happened directly with the national indigenous organizations. The interim board, which is an indigenous board, reached out to the Assembly of First Nations, the ITK and the Métis National Council to seek their input on the mandate for the council. Including this step in the process meant that indigenous community members, as well as political leaders, had the opportunity to express their perspectives about creating the council. When I say political leaders, I mean indigenous political leaders.

At every step of the way, establishing an indigenous-led approach was valuable, necessary and the practice for this entire process. It was only after the interim board had heard a wide spectrum of indigenous voices that it prepared its final report and incorporated what it had heard in that report.

It presented the report in June 2018, containing recommendations relating to the vision, mission, mandate, structure, membership, funding, reporting and legislation for the national council for reconciliation. It also said that it would be independent, permanent and a non-political body. It would also be a catalyst for innovative thought, dialogue and action.

The interim board also made recommendations about how the government should implement those particular priorities, saying that the government should create a transitional committee to support the next steps. It also said the government should draft the legislation, and that it should be co-drafted with the advice and leadership of the transitional committee members. I heard members mention that today. They did not look kindly on that process, but if they had read the recommendations from the interim report of indigenous people, they would have seen that that was the recommendation to government, to set up the transitional committee.

The interim board also recommended that there be more outreach and engagement, so we went from building on the work of the interim board to the Department of Justice preparing a draft legislative framework that could be used for consultation purposes. I think it is important to make special note of that fact.

We can really see that indigenous communities are at the heart of this proposed legislation. The next step after the interim board was, as it recommended, a transitional committee. That was established in December 2021. The members were appointed by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, and the committee reviewed the draft legislative framework and considered ways it could improve it to ensure there was a strong and effective council.

The interim board's engagement activities went on from 2018 into the transitional committee, and it then went on to carry out even more engagement with indigenous communities and indigenous peoples. The committee members met with indigenous and non-indigenous experts, including lawyers, data specialists, and financial and reconciliation experts. They gathered feedback and advice in areas such as reconciliation, law, data, organizational finances, information sharing, governance and accountability, and then used it to form their recommendations.

Basically, it was the work that was done all through this process over the last four years that has gotten us to the legislation we see here today. The transitional committee made recommendations on how to strengthen and draft the legislative framework while maintaining the vision, the purpose and the mandate that the council had expressed in the vision that it brought forward.

Today, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has introduced Bill C-29, which is now being debated with the full inclusion and input of indigenous peoples and communities and experts right across Canada. It is being done after extensive engagement with indigenous peoples and organizations, after leaders have been involved in co-developing the legislative process and ensuring that the legislation that is before us here today is at the heart of what indigenous people have been asking for in this country.

Every step of the way, and I cannot say this enough, this has been an indigenous-led process, starting with the TRC recommendations to the bill that members see before them in the House of Commons today. I am confident that this has led to strong legislation that, if passed, will serve indigenous peoples and Canadians across the country very well in the years to come.

I know that the survivors of residential schools are so impacted by the legacy of what has happened in this country. I know that each and every day they look at ways they can build stronger partnerships with each other, with governments and with Canadians. I also know that they are leading a path of healing, and that is a long journey. We can help on the journey, and what we are doing today is helping. We are responding to what they are asking for. We have allowed them to lead the process, co-develop the legislation and be a part of where this goes into the future.

Before I say meegwetch, nakurmiik, marsi, I would like to move a motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to rise in this place to address issues that are so pressing in the lives of Canadians.

If members would indulge me for a moment, before I get into my remarks specifically on Bill C-29, it is great to be able to acknowledge how important the upcoming acknowledgement, and hopefully learning experience for so many Canadians, of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation this coming Friday is. I acknowledge how important it is to acknowledge past wrongs and to chart that path forward, especially as indigenous people and survivors of residential schools, to make sure that they have confidence and they are given the tools needed to succeed in our country, and to make sure that we acknowledge those past wrongs and acknowledge further the fact that those past wrongs have had generational impacts.

There is a need for generational solutions and it is important that we not only talk but that we act to make sure that opportunity is provided for Canada's indigenous peoples, to make sure that there are supports where supports are needed, to make sure that opportunity is provided where opportunity is needed and to ultimately empower those indigenous men and women, young and old, to ensure they have everything required to move forward. Today, I wanted to acknowledge the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation and acknowledge just how important that day is for all of us here in this place.

I want to take a moment as a member of Parliament from rural Alberta to talk a bit about how the indigenous way of life and indigenous history are truly a part of the Canadian identity. I could not help but think, as the time for debate on this bill came forward, of some of the locations that I grew up around and, in some cases, heard stories about. In other cases, I have more recently begun to understand stories like those of the Neutral Hills or why my own riding is called Battle River—Crowfoot. There is history associated with Chief Crowfoot and the Battle River and the Cree, Assiniboine and Blackfoot peoples' historical areas along the Battle River. Up until just a few years ago, I had never visited the Dry Island Buffalo Jump Provincial Park or recognized the importance it has on the history of the region that I now have the opportunity to represent.

The reason I bring those things up is that these are not simply places one drives by. It is not simply the Neutral Hills in the distance where I grew up farming. It is the fact that indigenous history is very much a part of the Canadian story and to be proud of that is something that is so very important.

As we address the specifics here of Bill C-29, it is important to lay some of that framework as we talk about how important it is to take seriously the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I am, quite frankly, very proud that it was a Conservative government that initiated the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which gave us the tools required to find truth and to see the process of reconciliation started. The very words of the name of the commission are about finding the truth and seeing that there is reconciliation. It is so vital that we take as seriously today that general call as we do the calls to action in the final report.

I think back often to my attendance at one of the national events that the TRC put forward. I was a university student in the Lower Mainland and we were given the day off school. I cannot say how disappointed I was at how few students attended this national TRC event that happened to be at the PNE right in downtown Vancouver. My university provided busing so that we could attend, so my wife and I attended this event. It was an experience that I will never forget, and I have talked about that in this place before.

We see specifically that Bill C-29 would respond to the TRC calls to action 53 through 56.

I would like to share my support for the fact that we are taking action. I hope the action we take actually provides some results. That is absolutely key, but I do want to share and highlight a few concerns, which I hope will be valuable both in terms of the discussion we have in this place and also as this bill is sent to committee, where it can hopefully be refined to include input from all parties and stakeholders. I love the comment that was made by a questioner earlier to not just treat indigenous people as stakeholders, but to treat them as shareholders. It is a brilliant line. How important it is for there to be ownership in every aspect of what reconciliation is.

That brings me to my first concern, and that is the consultations referred to specifically in call to action 53. I know I have heard from indigenous peoples who have shared their concern that they are not always well represented at the table when it comes to the appointments process or to the policies that are brought forward regarding reconciliation or the host of other concerns, whether it be policing, resource development, issues in Canada's north or rural and remote concerns. There has to be that comprehensive consultation and not simply activism, which in some cases, and this is not to suggest that it is sometimes not well intentioned, can actually hold indigenous peoples back from that empowerment, that reconciliation and that ability to succeed.

I know time is always short when it comes to speeches in this place, so I hope to be able to get through all of the different aspects of it. Regarding call to action 54, there is a lack of clarity in the bill, and I hope when this bill goes to committee that we will find the exact clarity around what the financial provisions related to this bill are. I know there has been money budgeted in past budgets, some of which has gone toward interim processes. We are not exactly sure what the status of every dollar that has been allocated in the past is versus what will be allocated in the future. We need questions answered on that front.

Call to action 55 concerns the reporting mechanism, and this is absolutely key because not only should we be in this place talking about the fulfillment of the calls to action, but we need to make sure that there is a long-term mechanism so that we can see that there is progress being made. That is absolutely vital.

I would simply note, regarding call to action 56, how the calls to action specifically reference the Prime Minister. I am hopeful there will maybe be willingness to change the bill so that it is not simply the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations but the Prime Minister who is given the responsibility, when it comes to those reports.

The last thing indigenous people need is “Ottawa knows best”. We have seen the devastating consequences of that through our nation's history. We must engage with first nations at every step of the process. I was very excited to read that, in my home province of Alberta, there are, I believe, 11 first nations that are now shareholders in an energy project with Enbridge, and I know of others as well that are part of that reconciliation path forward. I know that is the case in some renewable projects and that is the case for other indigenous-owned businesses that I have the honour of being able to point to in my constituency.

It is important to make sure we do not allow high ideals to get in the way of making sure indigenous people are at the very core of both Bill C-29 and everything we do in this place regarding reconciliation.

As my time comes to a close, I would simply say this and repeat the words that my colleague shared earlier that speak to what should be in our hearts. It is to not just speak of indigenous peoples as stakeholders, to not simply seek their advice on paths forward, but to ensure they are truly shareholders in both the reconciliation process and in every aspect of what we are as a nation, both present and going forward.

When I look at indigenous peoples, I see so much potential, so much hope and so much promise. If Bill C-29 moves us in that direction, I am glad to be able to offer that support. However, let us make sure that this also entails the big picture so that indigenous peoples can prosper in this country.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations appointed the interim board, as the member mentioned, and the transitional committee. Now, with Bill C-29, he is responsible to select the directives of the national council. I hear all the time from indigenous communities in Saskatchewan that they do not want to be stakeholders. They want to be shareholders. A large percentage want to be involved in the oil and gas industry, more so than other Canadians.

I wonder how the member feels about that being something important to truth and reconciliation and their ability to succeed.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is really important to focus on what Bill C-29 is here to do, and that is to respond to calls to action 53 through 56.

This national council has to be done properly, and it has to have the right representation at the table to ensure it meets and delivers what it is meant to do, which is for indigenous, by indigenous. If we do not have the right representation at the table, we will never go forward on our path to truth and reconciliation.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

As always, it is an honour and privilege to stand in the House of Commons to represent the constituents of Peterborough—Kawartha. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. With Truth and Reconciliation Day just two days away, this coming Friday, September 30, this is an important bill, and I take very seriously how delicate this conversation is for many people.

After six and a half years, this bill is the government's attempt to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 through 56. These four calls to action include: call to action 53, to “establish a National Council for Reconciliation”; call to action 54, to “provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human and technical resources required to conduct its work”; call to action 55, to provide annual reports to show progress on reconciliation; and call to action 56, to issue “an annual 'State of Aboriginal Peoples' report [to] outline the government's plans for advancing reconciliation.”

As I mentioned, this bill is long overdue, and although we will support a lot of what this bill is, there are serious amendments, serious discussion and serious overhaul that need to be considered. I will address that today in my speech.

If we are going to work toward meaningful reconciliation with indigenous people, a robust and inclusive response to calls to action 53 to 56 is needed. Unfortunately, this bill would not meet the target. We continue to have the same problems over and over, and that is that there is too much government in the way.

We often hear this saying, and I will be talking about it today in my speech. It is “FIBI”, or “for indigenous, by indigenous”. We need to trust indigenous and allow them to do what they are able to do because they know how to make the best decisions for them, not the government.

Section 8 of the bill has the creation of a not-for-profit corporation that would monitor and report the government's progress in its efforts for reconciliation with indigenous people. The council would not be an agent of His Majesty in the right of Canada, nor would it be governed by the Financial Administration Act. It portrays itself to be an independent body.

Here lies the first major concern we have with Bill C-29. How independent would this council be if the minister of crown-indigenous relations picked the board members. The bill stipulates that the first board of directors would be selected by the minister in collaboration with the transitional committee. This would mean that the minister of the day and their hand-picked transitional team would determine the council's future, which is expected to hold that same minister to account for its own failed record on reconciliation. This does not sound like meaningful reconciliation.

Call to action 54 calls on the government to provide multi-year funding for the national council. The government did this in budget 2019 by allocating $126.5 million, yet the act would not require any accountability for the expenditure of this money and not one financial report would need to be filed by the council.

This is a major problem. Accountability and transparency are seriously lacking in the government. That is the issue we have at the core here. There is no trust between indigenous peoples and the government. The idea that zero accountability and financial reporting on such an important file is just more of the same of what we expect from the Liberals.

We need to see where dollars are going so they are being best used on those who need it most and not on more red tape and a bloated bureaucracy that does nothing to help those across our country who need it most.

I see this often in the file of indigenous tourism, for example. We need to see that the dollars are going directly to the organization that needs the dollars, not through another organization, because then they are going to lose money. It makes no sense, and it is not a good, efficient use of the money when it has been targeted to help the people who need it most.

The most glaring issue with Bill C-29 is the lack of representation on the national council for reconciliation. The bill sets aside three seats for Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Métis National Council.

These are the three national organizations the Liberal government almost solely deals with regarding indigenous issues. However, this does not even scratch the surface concerning who needs to be at the table of a national council for reconciliation. We need advocates for women and girls, children, aboriginal business associations and native development offices. They all play an important role in reconciliation and deserve a seat at the table.

What about a voice for urban indigenous people? Just yesterday, I was having a conversation with Jaimee Gaunce, the director of policy at Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services, about urban indigenous individuals falling through the cracks when it comes to housing and so many benefits because they do not fit within the bureaucratic boxes when it comes to accessing funding that, as an indigenous person, they should have every right to. Someone who is indigenous is not suddenly non-indigenous when they choose to live off reserve, so why do they lose the support they should have every right to access just because they left the reserve? It is not right. This only perpetuates the goals of colonization that we are collectively trying to undo through truth and reconciliation.

If I did not take this opportunity to mention that this Friday is National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I would not be doing justice standing here in the House. This day honours the children who never returned home and the survivors of residential schools as well as their families and communities. The reality is that we know now through science and data that trauma lasts seven generations. The last residential school was in 1997, I believe, which is in my time. My children come home from school and educate me more about what happened in our Canadian history than I was taught in my own school.

The reality is that we cannot have reconciliation without truth, and the truth is just starting to surface. These are challenging but critically essential conversations, and I urge everyone to read the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Every child matters. We will remember the children, their families and their communities, but it is time to stop talking and show solidarity through showing up and starting to have action. Bill C-29 needs more concrete amendments to ensure that the proper action is taken toward truth and reconciliation. It is long overdue to put a council in place with the right representation at the table. We need a plan that is by indigenous, for indigenous.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

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

I also want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

As my hon. colleague has just mentioned, Canadians are committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that we make progress toward true and respectful reconciliation. As Canada increasingly comes to grips with the unspeakable harms committed at residential schools, we are working with communities across the country on the heart-wrenching but necessary work to locate and commemorate missing children.

Many indigenous residents and their families in my riding, such as the Líl̓wat, were forced to attended the Kamloops Indian Residential School, where the tragedy of unmarked graves first came to light nationally. The Shíshálh are also currently researching and searching for missing children at the site of the former day school, with ground-penetrating radar.

As they are forced to relive the trauma of residential schools, we know it is not just the survivors and descendants who were impacted. It has led to terrible and sometimes permanent impacts on indigenous cultures and languages throughout the country.

We are supporting education and awareness initiatives through the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and the second annual National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, taking place this Friday, September 30. I invite all members of the House, and indeed all Canadians, to take the time this Friday to learn and understand the painful history and ongoing trauma that residential schools have inflicted upon indigenous peoples.

Walking the path of reconciliation will require consistent action and an earnest desire to forge a new relationship based on mutual respect, trust and nation-to-nation recognition, to which indigenous peoples are entitled. This work is vital, complex and long-term, and it will have to take place under our government and any governments that follow. For that reason, it is crucial that we have systems to measure the progress we are making as a country as we work toward reconciliation, and that we hold the government accountable to its obligations towards indigenous peoples.

In this regard, we are guided by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was chaired by the Hon. Murray Sinclair, investigated the history and legacy of residential schools and released its final report.

It was the culmination of six years of hearings and testimonies from more than 6,000 residential school survivors and their loved ones. The report included 94 calls to action to redress the legacy of residential schools and achieve true reconciliation based on the experience and recommendations of survivors.

The Government of Canada is committed to implementing each and every one of these calls to action. One of the many key steps forward, made just last year, was the passing into law of legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian Law.

We know progress has been made, but everyone in this place would agree that there is a lot of work to do.

That is why I stand before the House today, to ask that we pass Bill C-29 without delay so that Canada can be held accountable for our progress and our promises on reconciliation.

To ensure accountability, Bill C-29 will create a national council for reconciliation, with a mandate to monitor Canada's progress toward reconciliation and to develop a multi-year national action plan to advance reconciliation. It will conduct research into promising new practices in Canada and around the world that will advance our efforts toward reconciliation, and it will have the power to make recommendations to the government on advancing reconciliation in all aspects of Canadian society.

It will also work to educate the public about indigenous people's realities and histories and to advocate for reconciliation across the country. These measures are a vital part of keeping the government accountable on its obligations toward indigenous people and ensuring that all governments in Canada are conscious of their duty to walk the path of reconciliation.

Passing Bill C-29 and establishing a national council for reconciliation will help us make significant strides toward implementing all of the calls to action and making concrete progress on reconciliation across the country.

In fact, establishing the council was something that the commission specifically called for in calls to action 53 to 56. Advancing Bill C-29 will ensure that we are well on our way to implementing these four calls to action.

As previously mentioned, the bill will enable the creation of the national council for reconciliation, which will immediately fulfill call to action 53.

Budget 2019 already allocated funding, totalling $126.5 million, to support the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, including $1.5 million for its first year of operations and a $125-million endowment for its ongoing operating capital. If established, this funding can be immediately transferred to the council, meeting the first stage of funding obligations under call to action 54.

If the council is created, Bill C-29 will also lay the foundation to address calls to action 55 and 56. Call to action 55 asked that Canada provide key information to the council to support it in its work. Bill C-29 would ensure there are open lines of communication between the council and Canada's governments and institutions, so that information can flow easily and efficiently. This would be established through an information-sharing protocol between the responsible minister and the council. This kind of transparency is vital to rebuilding trust and strengthening our relationships with indigenous peoples and all Canadians.

Finally, call to action 56 states that the government must respond to the council's annual reports. Bill C-29 would also commit the federal government to publishing an annual report on the state of indigenous peoples. This report would outline the Government of Canada's plans to advance reconciliation, year by year, so that all Canadians can clearly see how the government is taking action.

As we look forward to the day when the council is established, these last two critical commitments, about information sharing and reporting back, would ensure that the Government of Canada remains accountable to the council and in turn accountable to Canadians.

Establishing the national council for reconciliation would do more than fulfill the four calls to action I just mentioned. A key part of the council's mandate would be to evaluate and report on the implementation of all the calls to action. This is a vital milestone on our path toward reconciliation.

We often talk about which calls to action we have fulfilled or which ones are on their way, and there is often much debate on how quickly we are advancing. Federal, provincial, municipal and indigenous governments, along with other institutions and parts of society, have not always worked together in a harmonized way. This has made it difficult to get an accurate picture of our progress on reconciliation as a whole across the country. That is what the national council for reconciliation would help us accomplish. The council would take stock of our progress as a nation and provide us with advice and direction on how to accelerate the implementation of all calls to action, not just the 76 that are under federal or shared responsibility.

There is a dire need to make progress on reconciliation, not only on the calls to action, but on who we are as a country. Seeing the big picture is critical to achieving tangible progress toward greater reconciliation in this country, and that is exactly what Bill C-29 would do. It would allow us to establish, support and maintain a national council for reconciliation, fulfilling calls to action 53 to 56. Beyond this, we would be setting the foundation to evaluate and report on the implementation of all the TRC's calls to action.

While I think this is a vital step, I want to highlight that I believe there is room for improvement in this bill. We must ensure that the council's board of directors is more representative of the diversity of the 634 indigenous communities right across the country. Whether they be historical or modern treaty nations, have no treaty, are living on or off reserve or are self-governing, it is vital that their voices be a part of the process and serve to guide us forward toward reconciliation, but in order to do that we must pass this bill now, so that it can be studied, debated and improved at committee.

Passing this bill would demonstrate to Canadians that we are serious about implementing the calls to action and being accountable for our actions and commitments. Just as we showed by passing the net-zero emissions accountability act that we are serious about meeting our emissions reductions targets, we must pass this bill to show we are serious about keeping our promises to indigenous peoples and we are serious about reconciliation.

With that, ?ul nu msh chalap.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really honoured to rise again in this place to discuss Bill C-29, a bill that intends to establish the national body for reconciliation. It is one that I think has been called for for a long time.

I really want to adjust folks' imagination about what reconciliation should be. When we imagine what reconciliation is in our country, we should imagine a country where indigenous people, first nation, Métis and Inuit truly have an opportunity to be themselves and excel in their own domains. What we are seeing, however, is a government that is insistent on going as slowly as possible in ensuring that these basic dignities and rights are truly recognized.

When we think about how little we have done in the last seven years with this government, it is astonishing to survivors who are at the point in their life where they have now told their story. They thought that after telling the truth of their own experiences with residential schools, the sixties scoop and the current CFS system, things would truly change.

It is unfortunate that this is the reality facing indigenous people today. There are more children in care now than were taken during the residential school period. There are more children continuously living in poverty, without food and in many cases without even shelter and water. These are the conditions of indigenous people in my communities, which are Métis, and in Inuit communities and first nations communities right across the country.

Best estimates put the government at 13 completed calls to action out of the 94. For seven years the government has had an opportunity to address these systemic problems, and Indigenous people are begging the question: Does the government truly care?

Let us back up seven years. The Prime Minister said that the most important relationship to the government would be with indigenous people. What is happening to our relatives is truly a shame. It is an abomination given that these survivors have given so much. The reciprocity that is needed now needs to move mountains, not pebbles, which is currently on display by the Liberal government.

Indigenous people deserve so much more. My hope is that we can reach deep into the understanding of this country to find lessons deep within. I am not the first indigenous member of Parliament to be in this place talking about these things. Louis Riel, at the time when he was elected, was unable to even stand in this place to talk about justice for our people.

Now we have struggled and climbed in this place in order to deliver what we hope is a message to the government that it is not going fast enough and that people are dying, our relatives, day after day while we wait. At the top of the government's agenda is to finally establish the national body for reconciliation, but this is after seven years. It is unacceptable.

The New Democrats will support this bill, but rest assured, indigenous people will not stop until there is truly justice that accounts for the lost resources. From coast to coast to coast, Canadians have to realize and every member of Parliament must realize that they stand on indigenous land, with thousands of years of history. It is a matter of dignity and respect for where we truly are.

When we are a guest in someone's house, we do not go in, steal everything and wreck the place. However, what we are seeing with massive pollution, whether it is in Fort McMurray tailings ponds or the ring of fire, and with indigenous children is that indigenous people are continually pushed to the fringes of what should be a time for true justice.

Survivors have put their stories forward and have shed tears, bringing out the pins and needles stuck deep within their heart to share with Canadians a true fact: that this country has harmed indigenous people even though it was not all that long ago, just a few generations, that we made a great treaty with one another. Where I am from is known as Treaty 6. To be betrayed so greatly and have no potential for justice for residential school survivors, as some of the perpetrators of that violence are still at large, is a real pain that indigenous communities have. They know that the people who hurt them in those schools are still walking the streets.

The Canada I want to be a part of and the Canada I think everyone deserves, particularly indigenous people, must recognize the basic human rights of indigenous people. It must recognize that indigenous people are the stewards and landowners of this place. This is Turtle Island, and I hope all members can find deep within themselves that truth, which is that when they come here to this place, North America, Turtle Island, they should come with dignity and respect for the original landowners. That means having true reciprocity. The things people get from being in this place are the things we must give back. It is a matter of dignity for indigenous people. This is where we are in Canada.

I am pleased to see this bill finally be presented, but I am so disheartened at the rate at which we are moving. This is not fast enough, and I challenge the government to move quicker.

The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I too always look forward to the Thursday question.

Let me first take the opportunity to thank the member for Barrie—Innisfil for his service in the role as opposition House leader. It was a pleasure to work with him.

I will also welcome the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to his new role as opposition House leader. We have had some fruitful conversations. I look forward to more of them.

First, of course, I reject the characterization that supporting Canadians in their retirement while making sure EI is there for them in case they lose their jobs is a tax increase. We have a fundamental difference with regard to making sure we invest in Canadians, and we will see that play out in legislation.

If I could, because the question was asked of me, I am excited to say that this afternoon we are going to start second reading debate of Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act.

Tomorrow morning, we will resume debate on Bill C-31, which provides for the establishment of dental benefits for children under the age of 12 years old and a one-time rental housing benefit. Then we are going to switch back to Bill C-30 following question period. If further debate is needed, we will continue will Bill C-31 on Monday.

On Wednesday, we will return to second reading of Bill C-29 concerning the establishment of a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization.

Finally, I would like to inform hon. colleagues that next Tuesday and Thursday shall be opposition days.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I just had one sentence left, which is basically that Bill C-29 is one of many ways that reconciliation can be stewarded.

In terms of education and the calls to action, I go back to the calls to action quite frequently, because it is such an important document. When we talk about education, we must ensure that the education is not just among first nations, Métis and Inuit communities. All Canadians must be taught about Canada's history, because all Canadians have been robbed of that history as well.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to first thank my constituents in Nunavut for putting me here, for putting their trust in me. I will continue to work hard to ensure their needs are being met and to ensure their voices are being heard.

I also extend a warm welcome back to all the MPs. I hope they had a good summer, and I am hopeful that we will make changes that will have positive impacts for indigenous peoples and for Canada, in general.

I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the New Democrats on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. The basis of this bill stems from important recommendations by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. I honour it for its work. I truly believe that when the commission made its calls to action, it did so founded in the knowledge that systemic changes would be made.

This bill has the potential to advance reconciliation efforts for Canada and for people who call Canada their home. However, the language of this bill requires amendments for clarity. The wording of this language is not strong enough for the important role it has. It does not reference the important legal obligations enshrined by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and case law.

There seems to be a disconnect between indigenous-led recommendations and how the government will implement these changes. Without a clear process in place, communication and actionable change can fall through the cracks, as they have done for decades. New Democrats will propose changes so that indigenous peoples take the lead on reconciliation and the government, to implement recommendations made by the council that will be created. The government needs to hear the voices of indigenous communities and implement changes based on the solutions offered to it.

Indigenous peoples know what changes need to be made. Indeed, the Government of Canada has been told where the disconnections are. Canada must now continue to reconcile its relationship and perceptions with indigenous peoples. Indigenous people have completed a lot of research and advocacy on reconciliation. The government's response must acknowledge this work and be guided in its actions going forward. The many areas requiring reconciliation demand that this council be created so that reconciliation is acted on, measured and maintained.

Before I turn to some of these areas, I will share a personal story. I have spoken in this House about government interference in my life. This summer, I was reminded of some of this interference. I was contacted by a former teacher, and she emailed the following: “Did you attend grade 5/6 at Maani Ulujuk School in Rankin Inlet for part of the school year? I taught grade 5 and 6 and had a student in my class, a lovely little girl, who one day was suddenly called to the office by social services and put on a plane with her mother (and maybe brother) and sent somewhere, if I recall, Pond Inlet. I never heard after what happened to her. Was that you? It would have been 35 years ago.” The sad fact, in addition to this, is that this was not the first time I was taken out of a class to be flown to yet another community.

Having shared this, I ask members, what does reconciliation mean? Unfortunately, my story as an indigenous person is not unique in Canada. Unfortunately, my story is too common among indigenous peoples.

Compensation for the confirmed discrimination against first nations children in the foster care system continues to be fought by the federal government. Changes in housing accessibility and affordability, employment opportunities based on their existing strengths, and language accessibility for federal services are areas of great concern.

Mental health services need to be highlighted across Canada. Processes that have worked and proved to be successful are those run through indigenous practices, and they could be acknowledged. Social justice support for victims of crime and funding in support of such services can be acknowledged through this process. The needs of indigenous persons are important. They are the needs that they see and speak to.

There need to be mechanisms for stronger language and incorporating indigenous laws. Many Canadians recognize the two official languages of Canada as only French and English. With many federal and territorial services being translated into only these two languages, many people are left out of conversations. These conversations are essential and need to include those who speak languages that are indigenous, including Inuktitut.

The public should learn more about indigenous cultures through their viewpoint, which is critical to educating the next generation to prevent future atrocities like those that have occurred here in Canada. By learning history through indigenous perspectives, there is a bright future in which Canadians can know and learn from the past.

We support the passing of this bill to help support indigenous-led reconciliation. Bill C-29 would offer support in facing what has happened here in Canada. Too long has Canada ignored the voices of indigenous peoples. Too long has there been inequality in safe, accessible housing and meaningful infrastructure.

The Government of Canada must take a rights-based approach to ensuring that efforts toward reconciliation have positive impacts on indigenous peoples. We will, at debate, push for the use of such instruments.

There are 94 calls to action. These calls to action must be used as a framework for reconciliation.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must be implemented in all its intents. Many elements of UNDRIP are incredibly important when speaking about reconciliation within Canada. In particular, I want to highlight the focus on education, health, and social and economic security. Article 21 states:

Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including...housing, sanitation, health and social security.

Finally, another instrument that must be drawn upon is the landmark Supreme Court decision in Haida Nation. This important case stated that reconciliation must be enacted honourably. Haida Nation states:

The controlling question in all situations is what is required to maintain the honour of the Crown and to effect reconciliation between the Crown and the Aboriginal people with respect to the interests at stake.

I have tried to respond to the former teacher who reached out to me. I was so touched by the fact that my long-forgotten memory of such government interference was indeed real. It felt so long ago that I wondered if it was a memory that I had made up.

I now stand here among members, having been elected by my constituents in Nunavut. As an indigenous MP, with my unique experience and voice, I stand among members as an equal. I plead for us to be the parliamentarians who stop the deprivation of indigenous people's rights and who respect, protect and govern based on indigenous people's strengths.

In creating this council, the federal government must implement its recommendations. With a clear plan and process in place, Canada can start to move in a new direction, a direction that acknowledges the past and seeks justice for the future—

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C‑29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

I am especially grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate because I am a member of the Huron-Wendat nation, the first Huron-Wendat to be elected to the House of Commons. Like the minister, I too was present when the survivors' flag was raised on Parliament Hill a few weeks ago. With us was my colleague from Manicouagan, who is the Bloc Québécois's indigenous affairs critic. We are still a very long way from having fully measured the tragic consequences of a vicious colonial regime.

We need to acknowledge a historical fact. The meeting of two worlds, of indigenous nations and European empires, heralded a brutal culture shock, to say the least. In the name of introducing peoples deemed inferior to the glories of civilization, nations were expropriated and crushed. For those nations, the freedom promised by westerners was actually, more often than not, oppression.

The bill before us today responds to calls to action 53 to 56 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was established through a legal agreement between residential school survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives, and those responsible for creating and running the schools, in other words, Ottawa and religious authorities.

The commission's mandate was to ensure that all Canadians were aware of what happened in residential schools. The commission has documented and provided us with a great deal of new information about survivors, their families, communities, and anyone else who was ultimately directly affected by the residential school experience, including former students who were first nations, Inuit, or Métis, as well as family members, communities, churches, former residential school staff, government officials and other Canadians. A tremendous amount of investigative and research work was required.

Let us not forget that from 2007 to 2015, Ottawa paid money, $72 million, to support the work of the commission. The commission members spent six years all across the country to hear more than 6,500 testimonies. They also held seven national events in different regions of the country to mobilize the Canadian public, raise public awareness about the history of residential schools and the scars they left, and share and commemorate the experiences of former students and their families.

In June 2015, the commission held its closing event in Ottawa, at which time it released the executive summary of its final report in several volumes. The summary outlines 94 calls to action and recommendations to promote reconciliation between Canadians and indigenous peoples.

As is the case in many bills, the intention is often commendable, but at times the devil is in the details. In this case, I would like to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑29.

The Bloc Québécois is a vocal advocate for nation-to-nation relations between Quebec and first nations. Giving indigenous peoples a stronger voice and allowing them to be heard during the reconciliation process is entirely in line with our position. Remember, the Bloc Québécois is a political party that supports Quebec's independence. In our opinion, this is the best way to achieve a new partnership between nations: a new regime that will no longer have any ties to the racist system of the Indian Act, whose very name is insulting. In fact, my status card says “CERTIFICATE OF INDIAN STATUS”. This is not a card from the 1950s. It is from 2012 at the earliest, not that long ago. Do not be fooled. That term is as insulting and disrespectful as the N-word and, yes, they are absolutely comparable.

The term Indians is just as insulting to first nations. For the Bloc, international relations start at home, in our own country. The Bloc Québécois is working with indigenous nations at the federal level to strengthen and guarantee their inherent rights. It is ensuring that the federal government applies the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in its entirety in federal areas of responsibility. The Bloc has also come out in support of indigenous nations receiving their due, and we will continue to apply pressure on Ottawa to ensure it responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

On June 21, 2021, the Bloc secured the unanimous passage of a motion to ensure that indigenous communities have all the resources needed to lift the veil on the historical reality of residential schools and to force the churches to open their archives. We could say that this bill works towards that and it is one reason why we will support it.

We also announced that we want to ensure that there will be predictable and sustainable funding for programs to help residential school survivors heal, such as the health support program that was specially designed for that purpose. This bill would establish a council to provide ongoing follow-up for this file.

The bill provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, an independent, non-political, permanent organization. The minister stressed that earlier. This organization, whose mission is to advance efforts for reconciliation with indigenous peoples, must be led by indigenous people. It responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action 53 to 56. I am going to read them, because they are important.

Call to action 53 reads as follows, and I quote:

We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation.

That is a good start.

Call to action 54 reads:

We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.

Call to action 55 reads:

We call upon all levels of government to provide annual reports or any current data requested by the National Council for Reconciliation so that it can report on the progress towards reconciliation.

Call to action 56 reads:

We call upon the prime minister of Canada 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.

Naturally, we are fully and firmly in favour of these calls to action. Earlier, the minister thoroughly explained the organization's mission, its mandate, its governance structure and representativeness on the board. That was all well explained, and the bill is fairly straightforward. We also applaud the obligation to table a report in Parliament and the government's obligation to respond to that report. We approve of all that and have no issue with any of it.

Nevertheless, some questions remain unanswered, and I urge the House to pay close attention to these issues. The first is funding. The 2019 federal budget included an envelope of $126.5 million to establish the national council for reconciliation, including $1.5 million in first-year operational, or start-up, funding, but we have no information about ongoing funding or how long that envelope is supposed to last. Details about how this is actually supposed to work are lacking.

Another lingering question is that of the scope. One thing that recurs frequently in this bill is all the entities the council will monitor in order to make recommendations. We can see that the council's current purpose is to “monitor...the progress being made towards reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada” and to “recommend measures to promote, prioritize and coordinate efforts for reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada”.

First of all, what does that mean? We would like to understand what is meant by “all sectors of Canadian society”. Crown corporations, surely, would be included. There are Crown corporations in Canada that could be scrutinized by the council, and government departments, too.

Will federally regulated private businesses also be subject to monitoring and investigation? Would an independent airline, for example, be included in the mandate to monitor and make recommendations?

The scope is very broad. It is perhaps a little too vague in the bill. The bill gives the council a great deal of latitude in its activities. This is not a problem in itself, but it could also undermine the council's effectiveness, because we think it could narrow its focus on government entities, rather than on private businesses. This is not to say that private businesses should be ignored, but rather, if there is one thing that should be looked at, it is the government, because the government needs to be held to a higher standard. Focusing on the government, then, only makes sense.

The other thing we need to keep an eye on is the monitoring of all Canadian governments. The bill refers to “governments” in the plural, so we see that there is a desire to monitor the provincial and territorial governments. Although indigenous affairs currently falls under federal jurisdiction, the challenges affecting first nations also relate to many provincial jurisdictions, such as health and education. We see here that the government wants to disregard jurisdiction and allow the council to monitor all government activities in Canada, including those of the provinces and Quebec.

I must admit that that is an irritant for us because we cannot support a federal council that would seek to put Quebec on trial. We are going to keep a close eye on that aspect of things, even though we are in favour of the principle of the bill, as I said earlier. This aspect does not change that support, but it is something members should be aware of.

The Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Québec, otherwise known as the Viens commission, was put in place to determine the underlying causes of all forms of violence, discrimination and differential treatment of indigenous men and women in the delivery of certain public services in Quebec.

In his report, the commissioner made 135 recommendations to the Government of Quebec. The report contains 142 recommendations in all, but seven of those were not for the Government of Quebec. We are left with 135 recommendations involving the Government of Quebec. These calls to action apply to all of the services that the government provides to indigenous peoples, such as justice, correctional services, law enforcement, health care, social services and youth protection.

The Government of Quebec announced $200 million in its 2020 budget to implement the commission's calls to action. Since October 2020, $125 million has been invested in enhancing, ensuring the sustainability of and improving public services, in addition to implementing cultural safety measures.

In the interest of independent and impartial monitoring, the Quebec ombudsman was given the mandate to follow up on the implementation of the recommendations set out in the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Québec. The Quebec ombudsman has established an advisory committee that includes first nations and Inuit people in order to promote collaboration and ensure that the Viens commission's calls to action are translated into measures that meet the needs of first nations and Inuit representatives.

Another committee, made up primarily of university researchers and people from civil society, was also created to independently document the implementation of these calls to action. It operates out of the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and its first report was published in 2021. This is a great model to follow, in our opinion. We applaud all of Quebec's efforts in this area.

Getting back to the current bill, it could be said that despite what I just stated about what Quebec has already done, we may be seeing the establishment of another body to provide oversight and make recommendations in addition to the two that already exist in Quebec. Therefore, we can wonder if there will be overlapping jurisdictions, meddling in jurisdictions by Ottawa, or if the council will focus just on federal issues in Quebec by analyzing only matters under federal jurisdiction.

The council will be responsible for providing oversight and making recommendations. To that end it will need investigators and analysts. For the committee to properly carry out its responsibilities in this era of labour shortages, it will also be interesting to know the number of staff that this council will need. In short, despite our support, there are many grey areas as I have just mentioned.

In conclusion, it is time to leave behind the rhetoric, crocodile tears and symbolic acts and to take action. Quebec's motto is “Je me souviens” or “I remember”. Today, let us remember. We owe it to the victims of these repugnant acts that in many respects we have barely uncovered or understood.

I will end my speech by saying tiawenhk, which means thank you in the Wendat language.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the slow response to the TRC calls to action. We have done that many times in committee. We have questioned the minister over and over again about the slow response to these calls to action.

Right now we are talking about Bill C-29, and we are pointing out flaws and things the government has missed in its bill. As I said in my question to that member opposite a few minutes ago, we want to see an amendment to call to action 56 that would include the Prime Minister making the response to the council's report.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑29 states that the purpose of the council will be to monitor the progress being made towards reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada. That is a broad scope.

Which sectors does my colleague think should be prioritized? Should the monitoring be limited to federal institutions? Should the council also monitor federally regulated private companies?

I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act. This bill is the government's attempt after six and a half years to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 through 56. Indeed, since 2015, the Liberal government, for all its rhetoric on reconciliation, has only fully implemented 11 out of the 94 calls to action and only eight of the 76 calls that actually fall under its jurisdiction.

Bill C-29 is long overdue, and the rush by the government to implement something has produced a flawed bill. If we are to continue down the path of reconciliation with indigenous people, a robust and inclusive response to calls to action 53 to 56 is needed. Unfortunately, the government has failed to produce that response. Bill C-29 provides a framework for the implementation of a national council for reconciliation, but the foundation is cracked and will need some care and attention at committee if the government hopes to provide a workable council that is respected by all indigenous leaders, communities and organizations across Canada.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended that the government establish a national council for reconciliation in call to action 53. Bill C-29 would address this through the creation of a not-for-profit corporation that would have between nine and 13 members who would monitor and report the progress of the government on their efforts for reconciliation with indigenous people. The council would not be an agent of His Majesty in the right of Canada, nor would it be governed by the Financial Administration Act. It would be, in every practical sense, an independent body, or at least it should be.

Here we find the first of several issues I have with Bill C-29. How independent would this council be if the members of the board are picked by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations? The bill stipulates that the first board of directors would “be selected by the Minister in collaboration with the transitional committee”. However, let us not forget that the transitional committee was selected by the minister in December 2021. Why is this important? First, the board would have the vital task of establishing the articles of incorporation and other founding documents that set aside how future boards would be elected and who would constitute a member. In other words, the minister and his hand-picked transitional team would determine the future of this so-called independent council, and its job would include taking the minister to task over their failed record on reconciliation.

Call to action 54 calls on the government to provide multi-year funding for the national council. The government did so in budget 2019 through the allocation of $126.5 million, yet the act would not require any accountability on the expenditure of this money, and not one financial report would need to be filed by the council.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission recognized the importance that relevant and timely information be provided to the council for it to actually do its work. This was enshrined in call to action 55, where all levels of government are required to provide annual reports and current data on a wide range of areas related to indigenous matters, including but not limited to child care, education, health, incarceration rates, criminality and victimization rates. It would be interesting to hear from provincial and municipal authorities how they are able to implement this requirement. I hope, for the council's sake, that a lot of the work to streamline these requests has already taken place between the crown-indigenous relations ministry, including Northern Affairs Canada, and their provincial counterparts. I also hope that there will not be any undue burdens placed on our already taxed municipal governments with respect to extra reporting requirements.

Call to action 56 calls on the government, the Prime Minister in fact, to formally respond to the report by issuing a state of indigenous peoples' report that outlines the government's reconciliation plan. Bill C-29 utterly fails here, designating the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, rather than the Prime Minister, to make the response.

One of the most glaring issues with Bill C-29 is the lack of representation on the national council for reconciliation. The bill sets aside three seats for the AFN, ITK and MNC, three national organizations that the Liberal government almost exclusively deals with when it comes to indigenous issues, yet they are not the only national indigenous organizations in Canada. In fact, large swaths of urban and poor people would be ignored. There is no representation of women or children designated on the council. There is no acknowledgement of the work of the on-the-ground community organizations that do the work day in and day out for indigenous people.

The Liberals will argue that those organization could get elected by the membership, and sure they could, but why do some organizations get guaranteed spots and not others? Why have important national organizations, such as the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or the National Association of Friendship Centres, been designated as second-class organizations by the government? Where are the other Métis and indigenous voices?

What about organizations focused on the important work of economic reconciliation? I often hear in meetings with indigenous leaders about the importance of economic reconciliation, not just to address their own issues with their own resources, but to also to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour to people who have had it stripped away by a paternalistic, archaic, and irreparably broken Indian Act.

If the government of Canada is serious about true reconciliation, we need to address the elephant in the room. I believe that we need to immediately, and in partnership with indigenous leaders, do a comprehensive review of the Indian Act with the intent of removing the legislative barriers to participation in Canada’s economy and developing a long-term plan to fully transition away from the Indian Act.

Some indigenous communities are already there. Some are in the process, and some are not ready for that conversation. That is why we need a cautious approach to supporting the abolition of the Indian Act by providing indigenous communities that are prepared for self-government with the legislative avenues to do so, while also ensuring that a robust and national dialogue on the plan for what is next is held inclusively with indigenous and non-indigenous people and ensuring that any new legislation is based on consultation relating to autonomy, taxation, transparency, accountability and property rights.

At the same time, it is my belief that we need establish a national dialogue with indigenous leadership and organizations to remove the bureaucratic barriers to economic prosperity that exist at Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, with the goal of phasing out these government bureaucracies all together. There is no reason why indigenous communities and organizations cannot deal directly with finance or health or any other government entity without consulting the gatekeepers at those two ministries.

We need to modernize the land treaties system to initiate economic prosperity for indigenous communities; provide the tools for indigenous communities to determine their own destiny while balancing the rights of Canada; ensure the need for certainty and finality of terms, so as not to impede the overall governance of the nation; and provide future certainty for governments, industry, and indigenous and non-indigenous people.

The existing model of federal public servants determining who is and who is not ready for self-governance needs to change. Reconciliation must be centred on the future of indigenous people, not what is in the best interest of this Liberal government. By modernizing our approach to indigenous partnerships through the eventual abolition of the Indian Act, we modernize Canada, and we usher in a new age of economic prosperity and equality for opportunity.

Bill C-29, which disregards the important counsel of organizations devoted to indigenous people, women's and children’s issues, urban and poor first nations, and self-sufficiency and equality is a symptom of a much larger issue. Conservatives support reconciliation with indigenous people, and we are ready to have conversation.

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

Mr. Speaker, while it is always an honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of the people of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, this week as we return to Parliament, especially as a member from northern Saskatchewan, I come with a heavy heart. As I begin today, I want to acknowledge the recent tragic events in northern Saskatchewan in the communities of James Smith Cree Nation and Weldon. As the healing journey begins for so many, it is important that in the days and weeks ahead we do not allow our focus to be lost from what is going to be a long and difficult journey for many. Often as the media attention diminishes, so can the help and support. The heavy burden these communities will carry will require a resolve, a resolve to continue to be there for family, friends and neighbours. We must not allow them to walk this journey alone.

It is with these thoughts in mind that I rise to speak on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. The work of truth and reconciliation needs to be viewed as a journey rather than a destination. Relationships are not easy, especially ones that have a long history of distrust. That distrust is the reason why a bill like Bill C-29 deserves to be looked at through a lens that focuses on a consensus-building approach. This will create better legislation. It is what is needed and, quite frankly, deserved.

Bill C-29 attempts to honour calls to action 53 to 56 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by creating an accountability mechanism on the progress of reconciliation across the country. Our party supports accountability. In fact, as the party that established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we welcome it. We will support this bill to go to committee and work there to make improvements.

With the purpose of building better legislation and in the advancement of reconciliation, there are a few matters that I feel should be addressed, some concerns, some questions and some suggestions we will make. I would like to take the next few minutes to speak to some of those concerns.

The first concern I will address is around the appointment process of the board of directors of the national council for reconciliation, its transparency and its independence. To help explain this, I want to speak to some of the steps and timelines that led up to Bill C-29 being tabled in the House.

In December of 2017, the Prime Minister announced that he would start the process of establishing a national council for reconciliation by establishing an interim board of directors. By June 2018, only six months later, the interim board of directors presented its final report, with 20 very specific recommendations. It is worth noting, and it was confirmed by the technical briefing last night, that those 20 recommendations were the basis for the draft legal framework. One of those recommendations also included setting up a transitional committee to continue the work that was started.

I want to read a quote from that final report. It states:

As indicated in our interim report, the interim board believes it is important that a transitional committee be set up to continue the work proposed in the interim and final reports. During our tenure, we have heard from various organizations and community members that we need to move forward with speed and maintain the momentum to establish the NCR.

However, inexplicably, it took three and a half years, until December 2021, for the minister to finally get around to appointing the members of the transitional committee. Again, let us be clear. The development of the basis for the legal framework of Bill C-29 was already finished in June 2018. Why the delay?

The current government, time and again on indigenous issues, makes big announcements, holds press conferences, takes photographs and then proceeds to ignore the real and difficult work. Now we fast-forward to June of 2022, when the minister finally tabled Bill C-29, with just two days left in the spring session I might add. That is four years after the recommendations.

It is not just the unacceptable time frames, but the lack of independence and transparency of the selection process that is concerning. From the interim board of directors to the transitional committee to the board of directors of the council, the process of selecting members has been at the sole discretion of the minister. In June, while Bill C-29 was being introduced, there were indigenous organizations that were very public with their own concerns about this process. These concerns are valid, because according to the TRC’s call to action 53, the national council for reconciliation is supposed to be an independent body. I have a simple question. How is it independent if, per clause 8 of this bill, the first board of directors is “selected by the Minister”?

Does the government really expect us to believe, based on its history, that it deserves the benefit of the doubt, and that it would never put forward any undue pressure to get what it wants? Finally, there are the minister’s own words when explaining how this oversight body is needed. He said, “It isn’t up to Canada to be grading itself.”

I think the concerns around the selection process require the minister to be very clear in the House and, more importantly, to indigenous peoples on why he is comfortable in having so much direct control and influence on a body that will be tasked with holding his own government to account on advancing reconciliation.

My next concern is that there is nothing in Bill C-29 that has anything concrete as far as measuring outcomes. Quantifying reconciliation is difficult, I admit, but a close look at call to action number 55 will show that it includes several items that are, in fact, measurable. I will give a few examples: the comparative number of indigenous children to non-indigenous children in care and the reasons for that; the comparative funding for education of on- and off-reserve first nations children; the comparative education and income attainments of indigenous to non-indigenous people; progress on closing the gap on health outcomes; progress on eliminating overrepresentation of indigenous children in youth custody; progress on reducing the rate of criminal victimization in homicide, family violence and other crimes; and, finally, progress on reducing overrepresentation in the justice and correctional systems.

The concern is that, if we want to measure accountability, we must set targets that determine success from failure. Like the axiom, what gets measured gets done.

The PBO recently released a report in response to a Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs request that was very critical of the departments of ISC and CIRNAC for spending increases without improvements in outcomes. I am going to quote from the report: “The analysis conducted indicates that the increased spending did not result in a commensurate improvement in the ability of these organizations to achieve the goals that they had set for themselves.” That paragraph ends with, “Based on the qualitative review the ability to achieve the targets specified has declined.”

Maybe this is what the government is afraid of. Not only is there a lack of measurable outcomes in Bill C-29, but the wording seems to be purposely vague, just vague enough to avoid accountability. Chief Wilton Littlechild, who sat on both the interim board of directors and the transitional committee, when referring to the bill, told CBC News that the wording needs to be strengthened.

For example, the purpose section of the bill uses the text “to advance efforts for reconciliation”, but Littlechild said the word “efforts” needs deletion. He says the bill should instead say, “advance reconciliation” because it is building on work that has already laid a foundation. The preamble of the bill states that the government should provide “relevant” information, which Littlechild says leaves the government to determine what is important or not. “We could've taken out those kind of words,” he said.

When added all together, it seems that there is a pattern of reducing the risk of accountability in the wording of the bill and in the lack of measurable outcomes that would require the government to follow through on its words and actions.

My final concern is around who responds to the annual report issued by the national council. Subclause 17(3) of the bill states that the minister must respond to the matters addressed by the NCR’s annual report by “publishing an annual report on the state of Indigenous peoples that outlines the Government of Canada’s plans for advancing reconciliation.” This does not honour the TRC’s call to action number 56, which clearly and unequivocally calls on the Prime Minister of Canada to formally respond.

The Prime Minister has consistently said that, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples.” Actions speak louder than words and the Prime Minister should be the one responding directly, not delegating that responsibility to the minister.

In closing, as I stated earlier, our party will support Bill C-29 and, in the spirit of collaboration and in response to the minister's own words of being willing to be open to “perfecting” the bill, will work with the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and will offer some amendments that we believe will make this bill better.

It is now our duty to ensure that Bill C-29 is a piece of legislation that truly advances reconciliation.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of that good work is continuing. It is what we are focused on. Bill C-29 is really focused on the calls to action that were determined by survivors all across the country, and we owe a responsibility to those survivors, my family members included, who have called upon the government to do a certain amount of things. This is what the truth and reconciliation calls to action were about. It was about hearing from those survivors about what they wanted to see from our government and putting it in the format of the 94 calls to action.

We have plenty of work to do on all facets of indigenous issues across this country, but one of the things that we must keep in mind when we are talking about the truth and reconciliation calls to action is that these are directly from the survivors, and there are thousands of them across this country. This is what they have called for from us, and this is what we have committed to enacting.

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

Mr. Speaker, kwe. Hello. Bonjour.

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words today as we gather to debate this important bill. Part of the shameful and racist colonial policy of residential schools was to forcibly remove indigenous children, first nations, Inuit and Métis, from their communities and deny them their families' languages and culture, all while they endured widespread abuse. Many of the children, we know now, did not come home.

The root of many of the inequalities we see today can still be traced back to the loss of culture, identity and family connections, and the abuse perpetrated by the residential school system. The harmful legacy of this system continues to affect survivors, family and indigenous communities to this day. We see it in the high rates of violence, incarceration and suicide, and in the high demand for mental health and addiction services across Canada for indigenous people. We must take action to reverse this legacy.

The creation of the national council of reconciliation, through Bill C-29, would be an important step toward enhancing reconciliation and strengthening the relationship between indigenous people and the Government of Canada, a relationship based on respect and recognition of rights.

As we begin to debate this bill, I would like to step back and look at the bill from a broader historical perspective. Canada had a system of residential schools starting in the 1830s and lasting until the final school closed in 1998. The aim of these residential schools was to kill the Indian in the child.

In the 2000s, survivors of the system organized a class action, bringing light to the abuses suffered in the residential schools. I recall during my time at the Assembly of First Nations, as part of the Assembly of First Nations National Youth Council, witnessing first-hand the leadership of survivors, such as former national chief Phil Fontaine, who was one of the first leaders to courageously share publicly his experience at residential school.

I am also reminded of the late Mi'kmaq advocate Nora Bernard, whose tireless pursuit of justice led to a class action lawsuit on behalf of the survivors in Nova Scotia. It was direct action and courage from indigenous survivors that led to a legal settlement with residential school survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives, the federal government and church representatives.

In 2008, the resilience of survivors led to Canada making a formal apology to survivors for Canada's role in the residential school system. A very important part of that settlement agreement was the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which had a crucial mandate to inform all Canadians about the truth of what happened in Indian residential schools.

The commission's great work from 2007 to 2015 helped bring the truth of residential schools to light and begin the work of reconciliation among former residential school survivors, their families, their communities and, indeed, all of Canada. During this time, the commissioners conducted interviews and hearings with survivors and their families to document what had happened at these residential schools. Their work was extensive. They hosted seven national events, countless regional and community events across Canada and conducted more than 6,500 interviews, which resulted in the 94 calls to action we now discuss today.

These 94 calls to action laid the groundwork to the further reconciliation between Canadians and indigenous people. It is clear reconciliation might mean different things to different people, but the commission gave us a point to start from. It gave us a way of solidifying a complex set of ideas, bringing them together in a blueprint for addressing systemic racism in this country.

It describes reconciliation as an ongoing individual collective process that “will require commitment from all those affected including First Nations, Inuit and Métis former Indian residential school students, their families, communities, religious entities, former school employees, government and the people of Canada.” This involves all of us, and this journey of reconciliation is one we must take together.

In relation to the bill before us today, calls to action 53 to 56 directly call upon the government to do what the government plans to do with Bill C-29 today, which is to establish a national council for reconciliation.

Among the 94 calls to action, our government has already taken steps along this journey. We have created the first Indigenous Languages Act. We have for the first time an indigenous languages commissioner, and we have passed legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Bill C-15. Next week, we will be celebrating the first anniversary of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. While I am proud of these accomplishments, there is more work that needs to be done. It needs to be done at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Bill C-29 would ensure that we stay committed to this important work.

Some of the functions of an independent national council for reconciliation would be to develop and implement a multi-year national action plan to advance efforts in reconciliation, conduct research on promising practices that advance efforts for reconciliation, educate the public about indigenous peoples' realities and histories, stimulate dialogue and address all other matters that the independent council determines are necessary to advance reconciliation.

Education is an important part of the work we need to do moving forward. In my previous role as a treaty education lead in Nova Scotia, I presented many times on reconciliation, and it was only then did I realize that most Canadians were not getting the entire history of Canada. Truth and Reconciliation commissioner Murray Sinclair, who is also a former senator, said it best when he pointed out, “While Indigenous children were being mistreated in residential schools being told they were heathens, savages and pagans and inferior people — that same message was being delivered in the public schools of this country.”

All levels of government and the Canadian public have a responsibility to educate and create awareness of our shared history, not only the things we are proud of as Canadians, but also the dark chapters in our history. We must do so by taking steps to decolonize our structures and education system and putting an emphasis on indigenous knowledge and indigenous voices. When we listen to indigenous voices and knowledge to work hand in hand with our indigenous partners, we create better, more inclusive legislation. That is why this proposed legislation has been led, at every step of the way, by indigenous voices.

From the interim board to the transitional committee, legislation has been led by indigenous leaders, such as former commissioner Dr. Wilton Littlechild, who was an integral part of the interim board, and the work he is currently doing gives continuity to the valuable work that had been done already. I will emphasize that this bill responds to the voices of indigenous leaders who worked closely with survivors, families and communities affected by residential schools. They led a process to build the resources and the space to try to heal, as well as build understanding between indigenous people and other Canadians.

The Government of Canada has respected that process and looks forward to advancing this bill with members' support. In doing so, we are directly responding to TRC calls to action 53 to 56 and the recommendations of the interim board and transitional committee.

In this important historical context, I call on all members of Parliament to join me in supporting this important bill and continuing to advance reconciliation.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question being posed by the member opposite, and I think it is important for this House to consider the work that has been done by the interim board in doing broader outreach as Bill C-29 was put forward. That was the task given to the interim board, and it included a broad swath of indigenous representation. I have a list of specifically notable people who were consulted during this initial process. There was also an open ability, which the interim board controlled, for people to submit their feedback.

Now that the bill has been proposed to Parliament, there is a process that we also follow, and the representation and leadership the member opposite is referring to are free to appear at committee. Indeed, as a government we do not dictate how the committee does its work, but they should look to the committee if they want to further provide their input, and provide it back to my teams as well in a more informal fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister consistently avoids accountability by sending his ministers to answer the hard questions. Bill C-29 is no different. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 56 clearly calls on the Prime Minister to respond to the national council for reconciliation's annual report, yet according to the bill, in subclause 17(3), the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations is to respond to the national council's annual report.

Yesterday at the technical briefing, the minister stated that Bill C-29 would only answer calls to action 53 to 55. That is actually true, because in the bill it is not the Prime Minister who responds to the national council's report.

Why is the minister blatantly disregarding call to action 56, protecting the Prime Minister and allowing the Prime Minister to abdicate his responsibility of answering to the national council's report?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge, before I begin, that we are speaking here today on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

As we begin the second reading debate on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, I think it is important to highlight that since locating unmarked graves at former residential schools a year and a half ago, Canada's relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis has evolved and often in a painful way. Survivors, their families, communities and all indigenous peoples across the country were heard as they shared the violent truth of residential schools.

It is our moral obligation as a country and as people to honour survivors and pursue the truth. It is also our responsibility to support all of those suffering from intergenerational trauma in their search for truth and closure. Addressing these ongoing impacts is at the heart of reconciliation and at the core of truth-seeking and the renewal of the relationship with indigenous people, particularly those who attended these horrible institutions.

This summer, after years of advocacy by first nations, Inuit and Métis, His Holiness Pope Francis visited Canada and offered a formal apology for the Roman Catholic Church's role in the abuse of indigenous children at residential schools. Although this apology was seen as a step in the right direction by many people, it is important to recognize the systemic nature of this harmful legacy and the ongoing impacts of the trauma at residential schools that was both instigated and perpetuated by the Government of Canada and religious institutions.

A few weeks ago, I joined the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation to raise the survivors' flag on Parliament Hill. This flag honours the survivors and those affected by residential schools. It represents our individual and collective responsibility and also our commitment to advancing reconciliation.

At the flag-raising ceremony, the Prime Minister reminded us that reconciliation is something for every person in Canada and all levels of government to participate in, and that includes every member present in the House today.

We are coming up on the second National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which is observed on September 30 pursuant to the passage of Bill C-5 last year, and I recognize that there is still much work to be done. Canadians understandably want to see more tangible progress. In particular, we must respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. The national day responds to call to action 80.

As we move forward, we need to be able to measure our progress so that the government and Canada are held accountable for our commitments to indigenous peoples. As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission wrote in its final report, progress on reconciliation at all levels of government and civil society organizations needs vigilant attention and measurement to determine improvements.

However, as many partners, particularly indigenous organizations, have pointed out, the government cannot evaluate and grade itself when it comes to reconciliation. Independent oversight is necessary and appropriate. That is why, in 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission asked the Parliament of Canada to create a national council for reconciliation, which is exactly what Bill C-29 will do if it is passed. It will establish a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization. The council would monitor the long-term progress being made toward reconciliation here in Canada and evaluate and report on the implementation of the 94 calls to action set out in the commission's report. That is in keeping with what many indigenous leaders have been calling for for many years: greater accountability, greater transparency and a way of holding the Government of Canada to account for the role it plays in reconciliation and the search for the truth.

If passed, this bill will enable the creation of the national council for reconciliation, immediately fulfilling call to action 53. It would also respond to calls to action 54, 55 and 56, which expand on the funding, responsibilities and expectations of transparency for the council and the federal government. The bill would ensure that Canada responds formally to the council's annual report.

I would like to take some time to reflect on the genesis of this legislation. The road to get here required collaboration and a lot of work. Bill C-29 has been in the making for many years.

In 2019, an interim board composed of six notable indigenous leaders, including Dr. Wilton Littlechild, one of the commissioners from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, made recommendations based on their extensive research and public engagement on the council's mandate, governance and operations, which were the basis for a consultation legislative framework. They also recommended the appointment of a transitional committee to advance this initiative.

Last December, I was pleased to announce and support the establishment of this transitional committee. The committee members reviewed the draft framework, engaged with indigenous and non-indigenous technical experts and provided our government with further recommendations that led to the bill we see before us today.

The bill is a culmination of substantial work and many years of advocacy by indigenous leaders, experts and communities in particular. Therefore, establishing the national council for reconciliation is one of the best opportunities to guide us in achieving truth and reconciliation in this country.

The proposed bill defines the process for establishing the council of nine to 13 individuals and sets out parameters to ensure that a diverse range of people are appointed to the first board of directors. The bill states that at least two-thirds of the board must be indigenous and must include the voices of first nations, Inuit and Métis; indigenous organizations, including a nominee each from the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council; youth, women, men and gender-diverse people; and people from all regions of Canada, including urban, rural and remote regions.

The council will be tasked with advancing efforts for reconciliation in Canada, including by monitoring and evaluating the government's progress on all of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

This means that the council must have access to the relevant information on how governments are fulfilling their own commitments. Our government will have to develop a protocol for disclosing Government of Canada information, not unlike the disclosure of documents regarding residential schools to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation in order to hold the government accountable and better understand the legacy of residential schools. I will be responsible for ensuring that the council has the information it needs to do its job. That is imperative.

I also want to point out that the council will be fully independent from the government and will be managed similar to a not-for-profit organization. This means that it will not have any ties to the government or the Crown. The Government of Canada will provide an endowment and initial funding in accordance with call to action 54.

If it is set up as a not-for-profit organization, the council will be required to report annually to Parliament on the progress made on reconciliation in Canada and to make recommendations for advancing reconciliation efforts. It will have to provide annual reports and financial reports to which the government will have to respond. The government will have to respond to the report every year. These reports would help the government set objectives and develop plans to advance reconciliation based on the council's recommendations. This reporting mechanism set out in Bill C‑22 will ensure transparency and accountability as we make progress on the calls to action.

Finally, the bill outlines the purpose and functions of the council. The mission of the council would be to hold the government accountable on reconciliation and the calls to action. The council would be responsible for developing and implementing a multi-year national action plan to advance efforts on reconciliation. The council would also conduct research and engage with partners on the progress being made toward reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and, crucially, by all governments. This includes monitoring efforts to implement the calls to action.

The bill is not exhaustive; rather, it is intended to be a flexible framework. The council would have the authority to pursue other measures it deems important and necessary to achieve its purpose.

In closing, I want to emphasize one last important point: We must pass this bill as soon as possible. It has been seven years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission published its final report and its calls to action. It has been 16 months since the first unmarked graves were discovered in Kamloops. It has been three months since Bill C‑29 was introduced in the House.

With each passing moment, survivors, elders, knowledge-keepers and families are getting older. Many survivors have already passed away without having seen the full scope of our efforts to advance reconciliation. I ask hon. members here today to press forward and support the establishment of the council as quickly as possible. We owe it to the survivors, indigenous peoples and all Canadians.

Finally, I want to thank all residential school survivors, once again, for sharing their truths and their experiences, and I honour those who continue to suffer in silence. Without them, we would not be here today. We see them. We hear them. We believe them.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

moved that Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, there have been consultations among the parties, and I am hopeful that you will find unanimous consent to allow my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria, to share my debate time today.

Indigenous Affairs

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his important question about the national council for reconciliation.

Today we are set to begin second reading of Bill C‑29, a bill that will establish an independent, permanent and non-political council to monitor long-term progress on reconciliation and implement the commission's 94 calls to action.

Bill C‑29 fulfills calls to action 53 to 56. I urge all parliamentarians to support this bill and take concrete steps toward reconciliation.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Ted Haney]

Number one, I believe, is to move all of the producer-facing regulatory activities to Agriculture Canada. Number two is to seek appropriate interpretation of the Cannabis Act and industrial hemp regulations to make them consistent with the act, the regulations and the will of Parliament, which we do not believe are being respected at this time.

That, I think, will require a special study.

[Ted Haney]

We do have 10 recommendations to guide interpretation within the current Cannabis Act and industrial hemp regulations, but we also have 10 additional recommendations for amendments to the Cannabis Act and industrial hemp regulations, primarily to clarify the issues that are currently misinterpreted.