Debates of Feb. 12th, 2024

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that there will be an opportunity for questions and comments. I know this is a very important issue, as well as a very passionate issue. I would just ask members to please wait for the appropriate time to make comments or to ask questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pointing out the fact that all of the calls to action are important. Not only it is important that we work on the ones that we are solely or jointly responsible for, but that we also do what we can for those that we are not responsible for.

It was not that long ago, for example, when call to action number 58, in regard to the Pope's apology, where the Prime Minister and others—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is offensive that a parliamentary secretary refers to other members having to reflect on themselves, especially when he can park that himself—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is raising points of debate, not points of order.

I do want to remind members to please be cordial in the House. As I indicated a while ago, this is a very sensitive matter, and I would hope that there would be respect within the House, whether individuals are supportive or not supportive of what is being said.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Winnipeg North is referring to me, and I will take the time to respond during questions. I would just like to remind the member of his colonial behaviour. He is telling an indigenous woman that I should be thankful for his government's continued violation of our rights, including not respecting and fighting against EI amendments that would make this legislation align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind the hon. members that these are not points of order. They are points of debate.

It is a very sensitive matter, but it is also a very important piece of legislation. I know the changes and impacts it would have are great. I just want to remind members that they will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would also ask, in terms of decorum in the House, that as a white male, maybe he needs to check his privilege at the door. He is lecturing an indigenous woman about how we should feel about bringing our kids home, but maybe because he represents a riding with the highest number of kids in care, and he drops names of women in our community that I also work with, he should not objectify indigenous women in the House of Commons.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I just want to remind members that there are opportunities for questions and comments. These are points of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[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.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is right. I agree the children are the future, and it warms my heart to hear the children of Aamjiwnaang singing O Canada at the Remembrance Day ceremonies in Sarnia—Lambton.

However, I think we need more. We need more action. There has been very slow progress on the 92 truth and reconciliation recommendations, and slow progress on the murdered and missing aboriginal women recommendations. How would this council, outside of the government, do anything to press the government to accelerate its efforts in reconciliation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the powers within the council would be to get a proper recording from departments and to provide reports. There would be, I believe, indigenous-led accountability to the different levels of government. As I indicated, this would not just be Ottawa.

There are things that happen within our provinces, our municipalities, and communities of all sizes and aspects. We all need to play a role in this, and I believe the council would be in a wonderful position to ensure there would be accountability at all levels. I honestly believe, at the end of the day, that is going to be the greatest value in this particular call for action.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, reconciliation is essential. When I read the bill, I see the mission, but there is something that is still not clear. The most racist legislation in Canada is the Indian Act.

Can my colleague tell me if this bill will allow the council to suggest changes to the most racist legislation in Canada, or even abolish it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was first elected back in 1988, and I can tell members that, even as far back as April of 1988, people were talking about the Indian Act and it being racially imposed legislation. I do not fully understand the rationale for it even existing today. I would like to think that the council would, in fact, play some role in the future in dealing with the Indian Act.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North tried to boast about how much progress his government has made, especially when talking about the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. By the way, the Yellowhead Institute just reported that the government completed zero calls to action in 2023.

I will go back to the amendment I proposed in committee, which would make sure the legislation conforms with Bill C-15. It reads:

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.

It would mean we could keep our kids in our homes. The core of reconciliation, the reason we have it in the first place, is that they kidnapped our kids and brought them into residential schools. There are more kids in care now than at the height of residential schools.

If this member is so dedicated to reconciliation, I am wondering why he will not bring our kids home and support this amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I left the Manitoba legislature in 2010. A child advocate at that time said that Manitoba was in a child care crisis. Well over 10,000 children were in foster homes or being taken away from biological parents. I will remind the member that that was an NDP government. At the end of the day, not much has changed in the province of Manitoba.

It is one of the reasons we needed the legislation as a part of the call to action. That is why we brought forward the legislation, to better enable the communities, the indigenous leaders, to be able to take more control. It is because provinces and some governments, such as the provincial government when I was in opposition, did not do anything to address the issue. They had the opportunity—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members they have an opportunity to ask questions, and they should wait for the answer. I know it may not be the answer they are looking for, but if they wish to add to their question, they should wait until it is time for questions and comments again.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has, in congratulating his party and his government for bringing in UNDRIP, invited the inescapable question of how the government ignored and violated UNDRIP by giving the Crown corporation we own, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, permission to drill right through and dredge right through the most sacred territory of the Stk’emlúpsemc te Secwépemc Nation, right through the area called the “Pipsell”, which Trans Mountain promised it would never touch, until it changed its mind.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have to bring it back to the focus of the national council, and its primary responsibility, in good part, would be dealing with the calls to action. The reason I raise the calls to action is that there are 94 of them, and out of those 94, a majority of them are the sole or joint responsibility for the federal government. It is not only the federal government, but also other levels of government and other stakeholders, if I can put it that way, that need to be held to account.

The federal government continues to work. We can still do more. I am not saying that as government we have done everything we can. We continue to work and will continue to work on this critical file. The national council would ultimately complement and ensure a high sense of accountability and transparency well into the future because, in good part, its job would be to ensure that the calls to action are not only reported on but ultimately implemented. That is a good thing, and we need to remain focused on that.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on this very important bill. In my colleague's speech, he said how important it is for all people to be engaged. I agree with him, so my question is why the Liberals are excluding the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

This group was founded in 1971. It is the largest group representing aboriginal peoples in Canada who live off reserve, and as of 2011, over 70% of aboriginal people lived off reserve. If we really believe all people need to be engaged, why would they not allow such a large group to be participating in this? Will that affect the legitimacy? Could he please explain why this extremely large groups was left out?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in many different ways over the last while now, a considerable amount of work and consultation has been done, and not only by the Government of Canada. Indigenous communities that, in good part, led the way also did a considerable amount of consultation, from what I understand. If the member has something very specific, as he just said, I would suggest that he bring it up with the current minister, to see if anything can be done on it.

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

Madam Speaker, in the parliamentary secretary's speech he was talking about the specific location of the national council for reconciliation. He suggested Winnipeg. I wonder if he can expand on why he thinks that Winnipeg would be the best choice for that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suggested that because of the University of Manitoba and the efforts it has put into working with the federal government and indigenous leadership. It is now going to be investing tens of millions of dollars, and it is going to be on site, dealing with truth and reconciliation. It is not for me to make that decision, but I am hoping it lands in Winnipeg.

[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.