Bill C-391 (Historical)

Indigenous Human Remains and Cultural Property Repatriation Act

An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Indigenous human remains and cultural property

This enactment provides for the development and implementation of a national strategy to enable the return of Indigenous human remains and cultural property to the Indigenous peoples of Canada.

Bill C-68—Time Allocation Motion

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the Senate there are a number of bills that are so important, just like this exact bill here, Bill C-68. There are also Bill C-88, Bill C-91, Bill C-92, Bill C-93, Bill C-391, Bill C-374, Bill C-369 and Bill CC-262. All these bills are being delayed by the Senate because they are taking far too long.

I was wondering if the hon. minister could tell us why the Conservative senators are delaying all these bills, delaying us from doing the job that Canadians have sent us here to do. They gave us a mandate in 2015, after a decade of darkness with the Conservatives, to repair the damage they had done to the environment and to indigenous communities and to make sure we get this job done.

Can the hon. minister talk a little bit about that, please?

Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was just sitting here listening to all the members of Parliament and thinking about what a wonderful place this is. We are talking about repatriation of indigenous artifacts, and I have heard members from all parties speak in support of that.

Members may not have noticed, but from time to time this place can be a bit partisan. However, tonight we are talking about the repatriation of indigenous artifacts, and I am grateful to every single member who has spoken in favour of it and helped us with it. A lot of members and a lot of senators have been involved in the drafting of the bill, amending it and making it as good as it is. I know that it is not perfect, but it is a very good step in my view and I thank everybody for that.

I want to thank Heather Stevens, a young Mi'kmaq woman at Millbrook First Nation near Truro, Nova Scotia. She inspired this by telling me about a Mi'kmaq artifact from Millbrook that was taken to Australia years ago, and they have tried to get it back. I talked to my assistant about what we could do. I am not sure whether it was his idea or mine, but we agreed that we would draft this bill, and that is all it was.

I want to thank Joel Henderson. If I were allowed to point out that he is in the gallery I would, but I am not allowed to point that out. He was my executive assistant and developed much of the bill. He made endless contacts, endless consultations with museums and the people involved every step of the way. We were dealing with indigenous peoples from all walks, MPs, senators, chiefs, community leaders and historians. It was a learning experience. It was an amazing journey to go through this and listen to our indigenous people talk about their artifacts and how important they are to them.

This was an amazing journey that started with a particular issue, which, as I mentioned, was a Mi'kmaq robe that ended up in a Melbourne museum. When I tabled the bill, I spoke for two minutes and 37 seconds. Three weeks later, the ambassador from Australia, Her Excellency Natasha Smith, came to my office and said that she had been in touch with that museum and was going to try to help us get it back. I asked why she was doing this. She said that they have indigenous artifacts that they want back in Australia that are very important to them.

I started to get an idea of how important this indigenous artifact issue is. It is not just a small thing. It is a big thing. Then someone pointed out that the bill, Bill C-391, was written up in China and in the Netherlands, and has been talked about in a lot of different countries. It was a journey of learning for me about how important artifacts are to indigenous peoples. It is important for reconciliation, as some members mentioned. It is important for history. It is important for their culture. It is important for the indigenous youth to be able to see how their ancestors lived, the things they were able to make, the talents they had and the wonderful abilities they brought forward. I want to thank all the members who were involved, and everybody who was involved.

Today is my birthday, so I want to thank everyone for coming to my little party. I am very grateful for this. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here and to be part of something like this. It is something that I will remember forever and I thank you all for it. Hopefully the bill will go forward and will make a difference for indigenous people everywhere, not just in Canada but in other countries. Other countries have contacted us and asked if they could use this as a template for legislation in their legislatures.

Thank you very much everybody. I do appreciate it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in the House and speak to this bill at second reading. Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property, is something New Democrats are supporting.

It is very important for us to acknowledge that some of the historical events that have taken place have had injurious effect and harm that we need to address. In fact, we see it not only with regard to the specific things in museums and private collections, but also within pop culture and everything from cinema to other things where the cultural appropriation of a number of different objects and items has violated the culture of many different groups. It is unfortunate that this has taken place.

In fact, some of it even goes back to the Roman Empire. Cultural appropriation was of trophies during colonialism and other types of territorial occupations that have taken place to this day. Cultural appropriation involved everything from smaller, more easily carried objects to larger institutional statues and other types of materials and substances that were quite laborious to transport.

This bill, in second reading, is part of a larger discussion. I sit on the innovation committee, where we are studying copyright and doing the five-year review of the act. One of the important things we are looking at is copyright belonging to indigenous peoples. We had testimony as we went across the country related to how to go about protection and then inclusion, and we heard differences of opinion about copyright and also heard from cultures that have a different set of systems from the copyright system that we have through our existing colonial laws. That discussion is ongoing and is going to be one of the more interesting aspects of our report, which is now being compiled.

All political parties sit on this House of Commons committee, and we will discuss these issues. This committee has been functioning very well, not only in terms of how it operates in general but also specifically on the copyright issue in this component.

Today we are talking about Bill C-391, and it is appropriate that we will be addressing some of the things that have taken place in the past. However, the issue over copyright is that it is also about addressing things that are taking place right now and in the future.

What we need to understand is that with the cultural appropriations we have had and the historical events that have taken place on indigenous cultures and heritage, repatriating items is very important. People have had human rights violated when cultural heritage has been disturbed, stolen, excavated, exchanged, taken under duress, studied, exhumed and moved beyond the boundaries of their territories in Canada without free and prior consent.

It is important to talk about that, because many of the problems that we face are a result of unilateral action. It is not good enough for us to rely on the thought or the argument that it is just science or it is history or it is being done in order to share and exchange. Especially given the fact that it has been done unilaterally, that is not good enough for then and it is certainly not good enough for now. This bill looks to take those things and to restore the ownership that has been lost. Even funerary objects have been taken. We have seen cases of people's privacy and personal items being very much at stake.

It is important because Canada has signed on to the universal declaration with regard to indigenous rights and culture. We have had that in the past. In fact, it goes back to a time when laws and United Nations resolutions were passed in the 1970s and 1980s, which we were supposed to follow but did not.

It is good to see a bill that addresses the national front because international agreements certainly do not complete the circle of responsibility that is required. For us, as a country, to absolve ourselves of doing so without a legislative footprint is certainly not acceptable. Therefore, getting the bill to the next stage is important.

Some of my family history is from England. People had curio cabinets. They would place items and objects from distant lands on display privately or donate them to museums. It was seen as an attempt to showcase worldly visions of the British Empire and the elements that it touched. At one point it was quite significant across the globe. Treasure hunting and the appropriation of cultural items was seen as a social status, a way of displaying one's wealth and important position in society. We cannot forget this. It was a cultural component. Displaying things on a regular basis was seen as a family's social status and position in society. The way people arranged their homes was to showcase that element. That was often done at the expense of other people and done unilaterally without support.

Just because a family passes on an item, or a piece of art or whatever to a museum, a not-for-profit organization or a charitable organization does not take away from the responsibility we have in trying to make amends with those individuals and families that were injuriously affected by that. The possession-based element cannot be excused because an item, at the end of the day, ends up in a university setting, or a museum or a not-for-profit organization. Even if it is used in the private sector to attract tourism or some other economic activity does not excuse the fact that a restitution process is required. That is important not only for the credibility of the organization, but how we go about making amends and the long-term effect. This is one of the reasons I like this bill as a starting point.

Going back to the 1800s, there were attempts to establish some rules or controls on the appropriation of a number of different items, including even funerary objects, that were quite intimate to families, but this egregious situation still took place.

I look forward to the bill moving to the next stage.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-391, which has been proposed by the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

As my colleague previously stated, the bill is not perfect. There were some amendments to it that the Liberals should have taken into consideration at the committee stage. However, ultimately, reconciliation is important and is something that this side of the House takes very seriously. Repatriating indigenous human remains and cultural property is a crucial step in that process. It is also something that is very important to Canada's indigenous people, and I respect their desire to achieve this. Because of that, my colleagues and I can ultimately support the bill and its intended purpose.

I would like to provide some background on the bill we are discussing today, the aboriginal cultural property repatriation act.

It should be noted that aboriginal cultural property is defined in the bill as “objects of historical, social, ceremonial or cultural importance to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada”. If passed, the bill would require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to co-operate with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada to develop and evaluate a national strategy on aboriginal cultural property repatriation.

This is important because many items of aboriginal cultural property were taken, purchased, traded and gathered by different groups, including missionaries, collectors, government agents and others, during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Some of these items are as precious as ancestral human skeletons and sacred objects. Many of these items have since been placed in museums and institutions, where they are on display or studied. For the most part, this was done without any consultation or approval from aboriginal communities. They were left out of the decision-making process. They are now requesting to be involved and in some cases to have the property returned to their people. This is not an unreasonable request.

The bill is an important step in supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, two things that those of us on this side of the House have supported. We believe in the importance of broadening Canadians' historical literacy and appreciation, and we support initiatives that educate and that celebrate Canadian history. This obviously includes the rich and important history and culture of Canada's aboriginal peoples.

The purpose and the important step toward reconciliation that would be facilitated through the bill has been reiterated by various stakeholders. Hearing from these stakeholders is an important part of the process and also of determining the appropriateness of legislation like this.

For instance, we heard Millbrook First Nation Chief Bob Gloade tell the CBC that his community has been working on repatriating several important artifacts. In reference to this piece of legislation, he said:

It has cultural significance and it has historical importance to have it back....

Having federal legislation will make it a little easier with the support of the federal government....

The committee had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Clément Chartier, the president of the Métis National Council, who stated:

Bill C-391 is a good first step for Canada to reconcile these injustices. It will serve to make way for indigenous peoples to reclaim their cultural property and to guide all involved in processes that should ultimately make everyone feel that this is the right course of action. The repatriation of aboriginal cultural property is going to speed up the process of cultural renewal for indigenous peoples. It will reflect a time Canadians should not be proud of, and support a time in which Canadians can take great pride.

The committee also heard from Ms. Aluki Kotierk, the president of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. She also stated her support for Bill C-391:

I will say that when I'm reading this bill, it indicates that artifacts can be used for educational purposes. This is very important, in my view. It is very important to us Inuit that Inuit artifacts be inside Nunavut, which they are not. They are housed somewhere else.

The young people should see their own way now in Canada.

That is an important point. The process would allow indigenous young people to actually see items and artifacts of significance from their history that reflect their heritage. They can learn from seeing these items with their own eyes and develop a strong sense of pride in their history and ancestors.

There are still steps needed to figure out how to deal with what was often mentioned by stakeholders during committee meetings, but taking this first step is important and significant and is one my colleagues and I are supportive of.

That being said, I would be remiss not to reiterate what my colleague has previously stated, which is that this bill must not in any way tamper with private property or force anyone to give up legally acquired artifacts. It is important that this concept be respected, even though we only have verbal assurances, because the bill does not specifically mention the protection of private property. Therefore, we are expecting that there would be no consequential changes to private property in Canada.

I need to bring this point up because even though we have been assured by the member for Cumberland—Colchester that this would not be the case, there are stakeholders who have voiced concerns about this. Because the Liberals were not in favour of amendments proposed by concerned stakeholders, it is important that verbal assurances be upheld on this point.

To conclude, I want to thank the member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing forward this bill. It is an important step in the right direction. I am happy to support this legislation, and I know that my colleagues are also in agreement. I think there are some important elements that need to be respected. Ultimately, I am pleased to support this bill, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this important subject.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the person responsible for Bill C-391, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

The repatriation of cultural property and ancestral remains lost by indigenous communities under a range of circumstances is a significant issue for indigenous communities all across the country, as we have heard from several others in the House.

It is also an important factor in the relationship between those communities and cultural institutions in Canada and around the world, such as museums. I say “around the world” because important aspects of Canadian indigenous culture are not found just in Canadian collections; in fact, many important items were removed to foreign lands by explorers, missionaries and academics early in our history. I have an example of my own that came to a successful conclusion just recently, and I will touch on that issue in just a few moments. The se items exist in public and private institutions around the world in the United Kingdom, France and the United States of America.

How can a national strategy support this process of repatriation? The most important part of developing this type of strategy is to hear from all stakeholders who have experience with repatriation and hear what has worked for them and what has not, hearing about best practices from the people who have experience with this sort of procedure, including the government. We also need to hear from those who would engage in repatriation but do not feel they currently have the capacity to do so. Perhaps personal history for them dictates that they should have a say in what is going on, and we certainly do want to hear from them. We consider them as very important stakeholders in this process of repatriation.

Without prejudging what all the stakeholders might say, Bill C-391 needs to make sure the government, in developing a national strategy, has enough flexibility to listen to what it will hear during the consultations and what to take into account.

We are here to consider Bill C-391. The bill does not legislate rules for repatriation, of course. That is an important point, and one of the strengths, one of the great things about this particular bill.

We have heard from members of indigenous communities that they do not want the government to create the rules or add elements of bureaucracy to what should be a direct dialogue between them and the people involved directly in the repatriation, certain export experts and historians alike. This is a big part of the bill that opens up the dialogue to others and would allow the people who share a common history to have direct input.

Bill C-391 speaks to the role of the federal government in repatriation.

I would like to point out that the bill no longer includes a definition of what is meant by “aboriginal indigenous cultural property”. That is a very important point. It is a commonly used term, but it is not defined in law. It is not even defined in the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Definitions can be complex things. No matter how comprehensive we try to make them, something will always be unintentionally excluded, or they become so general as to be meaningless or hard to interpret. As well, if we define in a piece of legislation a concept that is not defined elsewhere, people can still refer to it for reasons that were not intended. The result of removing the definition is that the scope of the strategy and what it covers would still be determined, but would be done together with stakeholders when strategy is developed, not ahead of the time when other people become involved. The bill would give the government enough flexibility to listen to stakeholders and to be guided by what it hears. That is essentially the spirit of what we are trying to achieve through Bill C-391.

I think we would all agree that these are the first steps in a long path toward reconciliation, a path that we are still on. Bill C-391 signals that next step.

I want to remind everyone here that it is not the kind of thing that took place in other countries at the time. It was based on collaboration and dialogue. The principles it advocated were negotiated solutions, taking place on a case-by-case basis.

What role has the government continued to play since the task force? The government introduced a category. Given the comprehensive range of consultations, to plan meaningful consultations, undertake them, analyze what is heard and develop the options for a strategy will take time. If all that had to happen within two years, the consultation phase of the process would be severely reduced, and this is too important an issue not to take the time to do it right.

I will talk about my situation once again. Back in the early 1800s, a situation took place that led us to today. We are talking about a situation just shy of 200 years ago. A native group was established on the Island of Newfoundland centuries ago called the legendary Beothuk. The last known Beothuk passed away in 1829. Her name was Shawnadithit. She passed away in St. John's. She succumbed to tuberculosis. She had members of her family involved in a situation that took place near the town of Buchans and Buchans Junction at Red Indian Lake.

In the mid-1820s, a group of explorers travelled up the Exploits River to seek out the natives. A confrontation took place and one individual Beothuk named Nonosbawsut was shot and killed by the explorers.

At that time, a lot of conflict was taking place and the Beothuks succumbed to that and also to disease. Two Beothuks were buried in that area. Cormack the explorer found the remains of the two Beothuk and he took their skulls back to Scotland, where he was from, for academic study. For close to 200 years, those skulls remained in that museum, not even on display.

Several years ago we had a ceremony commemorating the Beothuk and we brought up the idea of these skulls being repatriated. We contacted the Government of Scotland, through the U.K.'s Royal Museum, and asked it to repatriate the skulls. Within the last month, the Government of Scotland said it would do just that. It engaged the Government of Canada, after responding to a request from the Department of Canadian Heritage. Now we are embarking upon the journey for these skulls to come to Canada and then to Newfoundland. What we do at that point involves stakeholders.

As I mentioned, the spirit of Bill C-391 talks about the collaboration of stakeholders. Five indigenous groups within Newfoundland will have their say. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will have its say and all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have input into this.

What is the best way to commemorate the spirit and memory of the legendary Beothuk of our province, my province, the province of the member for St. John's East as well? This is incredibly important to us. Do we take the remains back to the place where they perished? Do we do an initial study? All these issues have to be discussed. What has happened here, what is the most essential component of this is that these people who lived in Newfoundland for centuries, the legendary Beothuk who unfortunately do not exist today, have to be commemorated in a way that is completely and utterly respectful to how they lived and how they would want to be remembered.

For that reason, I strongly endorse Bill C-391 and the spirt of what it would do. For the member for Cumberland—Colchester, this is a fine point, a cherry on the top of a fine career, I might add. He has established a fantastic bill and I congratulate him. Through the examples of the repatriation of the Beothuk remains, Bill C-391 should be supported by all of us. I am sure it would be supported by all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property.

While I am on my feet, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the lands on which we are gathered here in Ottawa are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

According to current knowledge, the lands of the greater Drummond area were transit points where the Abenaki, Mohican, Huron, Algonquin and even Iroquois peoples stopped to portage, camp or fish.

Yolande Allard of the Drummond historical society has prepared a map that very clearly indicates the various sites that were used and their Abenaki names all along the Saint-François River transportation network. She and the Drummond historical society have done an excellent job of helping us better understand how indigenous peoples used these lands.

This bill refers to a very important issue. We are finally beginning to recognize the historical events that led to the erosion of indigenous cultural heritage. That is why the return of seized objects is an important part of the healing process for communities and for reconciliation between the colonial state and indigenous peoples.

The connection between returning objects and healing and reconciliation is extremely important. We have been working on this issue for years, and it is very important to us.

The NDP will support this bill at second reading, but we do have some questions. For example, we would like to know who was consulted about this bill.

Any time a bill affects indigenous peoples, they must be the first to be consulted so they can provide guidance. We do not know exactly who was consulted as this bill was being drafted.

As I said, it is extremely important to enable indigenous peoples to preserve and protect their ancestral, religious and cultural property and to have access to that property.

The Government of Canada and foreign governments must respect the collective rights of indigenous peoples with respect to the return of ancestral remains and sacred, funerary and culturally important objects.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms this right, and the Government of Canada fully and unconditionally supported this declaration and plans on supporting Bill C-262. That bill was introduced by my New Democrat colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. During the 41st Parliament, he also introduced Bill C-469, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That bill set out the fundamental restitution rights in international law and then became Bill C-262 when it was introduced in 2016. The bill is now at committee stage, and we are confident that it will be improved and strengthened.

My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou is working with the government to make sure that the bill truly reflects the objective of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Radio-Canada recently published an article online about the repatriation of indigenous property and how it keeps a culture alive. It was interesting to see how Sandy Raphaël, an indigenous woman who is the heritage and culture director of the Mashteuiatsh band council, felt when she was able to repatriate some cultural property.

I will read a few excerpts from the article.

Why repatriate?

Sandy Raphaël remembers exactly how she felt when she saw some objects that belonged to her nation, such as drums, tumplines and a moosehide coat, at the National Museum of the American Indian, or NMAI, in Washington.

This is what Ms. Raphaël said:

It is quite moving to see the beauty of these objects, their life, their history, because they were made by our people. If they could speak, I would want them to tell me their story. I already had a sense of attachment to them.

A little further on, Sandy Raphaël states the following:

Seven grade nine students from the community, accompanied by Sandy Raphaël, went to the museum in June 2013. The young people returned with shining eyes, feeling even prouder of their identity.

I am reading out these excerpts to show why it is important to repatriate the cultural objects of indigenous peoples. It will give them back their identity, their culture and their history. That is extremely rewarding.

Studies have shown that young people who have access to strong cultural components, such as their language, ceremonies, ancestral property and education, are less likely to commit suicide, drop out of school, become addicts or engage in other harmful behaviour. It is clear that these elements and the repatriation of cultural property are important.

Bill C-391 is a step in the right direction. There is currently no federal legislation designed to facilitate the return of property stolen from indigenous communities. That is why it is important to pass this bill. As I already mentioned, Bill C-391 will have a positive impact on many members of Canada's indigenous communities.

A law to facilitate the repatriation of property will help indigenous youth connect with their culture and their language. Young people are the leaders of tomorrow. It is important that they are familiar with this identity and culture, so it is in our interest to give them the tools they need to thrive. In the case of indigenous youth, we also need to make sure that they connect with their culture by facilitating the repatriation of property.

The return of stolen cultural artifacts will also empower women and help restore the traditional balance between men and women. These artifacts teach about identity, the cultural nature of gender, roles in the community and the personal behaviours that enable individuals to define themselves. That is also a very important benefit.

The repatriation of property will also enable two-spirit people to reclaim their heritage.

However, I have some concerns about the bill. First, the bill does not contain any enforcement measures. It talks only about promoting and encouraging, and that is problem. Second, the implementation is not cohesive enough. There are so many stakeholders that there could be inconsistences and contradictions. Fourth, some communities are unable to conserve their artifacts even if they want to and will be forced to give them to museums because of budgetary constraints. There are no financial resources allocated to help preserve these precious and sometimes fragile artifacts. Fifth, the bill does not take into account the complexity of the repatriation of cultural heritage. Furthermore, the bill does not propose any concrete solutions in cases where organizations refuse to return legitimate property. Finally, indigenous peoples were not consulted enough during the drafting of this bill, and something needs to be done about that.

I am sure that the corrections needed to improve this bill can be made when it is examined in committee.

The House resumed from November 28, 2018, consideration of the motion that Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property, be read the third time and passed.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this important private member's bill. Like my colleagues who have also spoken to it today, and other colleagues from the Liberals, I am not sure if the NDP has spoken on this, we will be supporting this bill.

This bill, Bill C-391, the aboriginal cultural property repatriation act, introduced by our colleague from Cumberland—Colchester just recently, talks about aboriginal culture being repatriated to museums and other proper owners here in Canada.

In what I call my past life, before I joined this wonderful place, I used to be in the hotel business. One of my activities was as a supporter and a member of the board of directors of the Alberta Aviation Museum. Therefore, of course I appreciate the member bringing forward an important bill that would strengthen our ties to our past through the repatriation of some aboriginal artwork or artifacts and also give Canadians better access to enjoy the artwork.

The Alberta Aviation Museum is located in part of downtown Edmonton in the very last surviving dual hangar left over from the British Commonwealth training program. I bring that up because they were scattered across Canada, from Victoria all the way out to Newfoundland. There is a new-found interest among first nations in aviation, to the point where there is a school in Ontario called the Tyendinaga Aerodrome. It is the First Peoples' Aviation Technology. There is almost a rush to join the First Peoples' Aviation Technology to learn to fly. What is interesting about this is that the aerodrome is based at one of the very last surviving single hangars left over from the air training program. I thought I would tie them together. It is interesting to see the first nations getting into the high-demand aviation industry.

We were fortunate at the aviation museum in Alberta to have a wonderful collection. We had an F-86 Canadair Sabre. What is interesting about that Sabre is it was the first plane in Canada to break the sound barrier. We also had a Mosquito, which was interesting. The reason I tie it into the repatriation is because Canada does not allow Canadian-owned or Canadian-built planes to be sold out of the country.

Unfortunately, I am down to my last minute. Therefore, I will skip the story of the Mosquito unfortunately and talk about why we support this bill. It would “implement a mechanism by which any First Nation, Inuit or Métis community or organization may acquire or reacquire” aboriginal cultural property that has a strong attachment. This is part of the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission brought about by the previous Conservative government and also supported in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well, in articles 11 and 12. There are a lot of great things about this bill.

I apologize to my colleague for not being able speak for the full 10 minutes on it. I think I am out of time. However, I want to thank him for bringing it forward. There is a lot of good that would come from this bill. I look forward to it passing at committee, passing in this House, and all the wonderful things that the bill would do.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight in the House of Commons and contribute my voice to the debate on Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property.

I will begin by thanking the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester. In his comments this evening, he noted that he recently celebrated 30 years since he was first elected as a parliamentarian in this place. Currently, he is a member of the government party, and he has been a member of the governing party a few different times throughout the years. Some of those governing parties went by different names over the years, including the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada from 1988 to 1993, and then its legacy party, the Conservative Party of Canada, for a time as well. I believe he also sat as an independent, which makes it a quadfecta in terms of sitting as a member of various parties within this place. I want to thank him for bringing forward this piece of legislation and for bringing it to third reading here tonight.

I also want to thank some of the previous speakers, particularly the member for Bow River. He is also a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I thought his comments were particularly insightful. He brought about some of the concerns he had with the legislation. While he supports the bill, he still expressed the concerns he has and some of the unintended consequences that often come to be with this type of bill. His thoughtful commentary and the constructive criticism of his concerns on the bill were worthwhile, and I thank the member for bringing those forward in this debate.

When we talk about the preservation of artifacts and human remains, my mind is drawn to many of the great cultural institutions in our ridings and across the country that have, at their core, the effort of preserving and enhancing the memories that we have of our history. In my riding of Perth—Wellington, I am always delighted to attend events at the two significant museums in my ridings, those being the Stratford Perth Museum located just outside of Stratford, Ontario, officially in Perth south, as well as the Wellington County Museum, which is officially just outside of my riding but nonetheless covers the Wellington portion of my riding.

Both of those institutions have made a distinct and concerted effort over the past number of years to ensure the preservation of the indigenous history that has spanned our country. In some cases, it has touched on the local geographic area that is now known as Perth and Wellington counties as well as the communities within them. They appropriately preserve and are respectful of the important indigenous cultures that have been in Canada over many millennia. That history is enhanced and preserved, not just for our generation, but for the generations that come after ours as well.

The bill has at its heart a few measures that would be included in a potential strategy. The bill calls for the implementation of a strategy to preserve these artifacts and provide that they could be repatriated to the appropriate location within Canada, within the appropriate first nations, Inuit or Métis community.

What the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester came across when he was in his riding, an indigenous artifact that had found itself in Australia, and the connections that were made to try to return that artifact to its rightful home in the indigenous community, is a great example. The measures contained in the bill, and there are five, would help to facilitate the production of such a national strategy.

The first measure would implement a mechanism by which any first nation, Inuit or Métis community or organization may acquire or reacquire aboriginal cultural property to which it has a strong attachment. I would suggest there is some ambiguity in this measure, particularly in the phraseology of “strong attachment”, which could be open to interpretation. I would suggest that as the strategy is developed and as the departmental and governmental officials undertake the construction of this national strategy, they bear this in mind and ensure there are strong indicators for the strong attachment that an indigenous community or organization may have to a particular artifact so there is not too much of a grey zone when analyzing these measures.

The second measure would encourage owners, custodians or trustees of aboriginal cultural property to return such property to aboriginal peoples and to support them in the process. I think this is a worthwhile measure and a worthwhile conversation as well. One of the things that we as non-indigenous Canadians often find is that we may not necessarily understand the significance of a particular artifact or the significance of a particular piece of aboriginal or indigenous history. Having this measure included within the strategy would spark that conversation, that discussion and dialogue on the significance of a particular artifact that ought to be at least considered to be returned to a more appropriate venue such as an indigenous community, a first nations, Métis or Inuit community.

The third measure would support the recognition that preservation of aboriginal cultural property and access to that property for educational and ceremonial purposes as principles of equal importance. Talking about the educational and the ceremonial purposes is extremely important because we are still learning. Unfortunately, we have had terrible examples in our history, such as the Indian residential schools. It is indeed a dark mark on our history, but having the ability to learn from those mistakes, learn from where we as a country have not treated aboriginal people with the care and respect they deserve, and the absolute tragedy of that aspect of our history is one that we as Canadians cannot forget. The focus on the recognition of preservation in the light of educational and ceremonial purposes is very important as we debate the bill and as the national strategy is eventually created.

The fourth measure is to encourage the consideration of traditional ways of knowing rather than relying on strict documentary evidence in relation to the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property. This goes to some of the traditional cultural ways in which indigenous communities operate. There may not be written evidence of the ownership of a particular artifact. Nonetheless, there is traditional knowledge within indigenous communities that an artifact or a piece of history does have that connection. I would hope that the national strategy, when it is developed down the road, would be able to take into account that traditional way of knowing as is referenced in the bill.

The fifth aspect is to provide a forum for the resolution of conflicting claims that is respectful of aboriginal traditional processes and forms of ownership and where claimants are self-represented. This is important because there will be disagreements among individuals and perhaps among indigenous communities themselves as to whether or not there are significant connections. Having a forum to help to adjudicate, but also help to resolve in a non-confrontational way would be exceptionally important in terms of the development of this national strategy. There would be some concern, in my view, about whether or not that particular aspect would require a royal recommendation, but that would be an aspect for down the road after the national strategy is created and is developed.

At committee, as referenced by the member for Bow River, amendments were suggested by the official opposition. Unfortunately, those were not accepted. Those recommendations and amendments would have improved the bill, but we as the official opposition will nonetheless be supportive of the bill at third reading and sending it to the other place for further debate. The Senate is its own independent body and senators may wish to consider the amendments that were proposed by our official opposition at committee stage. That is their right and their prerogative as an equal legislative body to do so.

I will conclude with an important quotation from the former shadow minister for Canadian Heritage, the Hon. Peter Van Loan, who stated:

The aboriginal communities of Canada are truly our first peoples. As such, aboriginal culture is important to all Canadians for its role in informing us who we are, what our roots are, and how that has contributed to making Canada the extraordinary country we are today.

I recognize that my time is at an end. Once again, I want to thank the member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing forward Bill C-391 and for the opportunity to participate in this important debate.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak to this bill on the repatriation of indigenous cultural property. I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with my colleagues. We wanted to better understand the bill and improve it.

That is why this evening I would like to rise to speak to Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of indigenous human remains and cultural property.

The Conservative Party had amendments for this bill. We tabled five amendments that we felt would have improved the bill. We were assured at committee by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, the sponsor of this bill, that the bill would not interfere with private property rights. As long as the Liberals are true to their word on that, we plan to support this bill even though, unfortunately, at committee the Liberals demonstrated that they were being closed-minded. For example, they rejected the suggestions of the Canadian Museum of History before even reading them.

We felt that the amendments we brought forward at committee were substantive and would have significantly improved and better defined the scope of the bill. While we do not believe this is a perfect bill, what I gathered from the testimony we heard from experts and, importantly, aboriginal Canadians, leads me to believe that this is desired by our indigenous people. Indeed, the repatriation of indigenous human remains and cultural property is one of the many steps we must take toward reconciliation, as mentioned earlier today in the House.

Before going any further, I want to note that the repatriation of indigenous cultural property is part of a broader movement. I would like to point out to the House that France has committed to a similar process for the restitution of African heritage. French historian Bénédicte Savoy and Senegalese writer Felwine Sarr have studied the conditions under which works held in French museums could eventually be repatriated to Africa.

Obviously, this has to be done in an orderly fashion, and that is why, when we were debating the bill in order to improve it, we had concerns. Unfortunately, those concerns were not taken into consideration by the Liberal government. We believe that these improvements would have helped clarify the intent of the bill's sponsor. As I mentioned earlier, the intent is not to interfere with private property rights, which are a fundamental right.

Before going to the positive reasons why I support this bill, it is important to consider the concerns and debate around this bill. Even with regard to something we ultimately support, it is important to consider all sides. On one hand, 1 am pleased that the sponsor of the bill verbally reassured the House that the intent of the bill is not to tamper with private property, or to force anyone to give us legally acquired artifacts.

During the first round of debate on this bill, the member for Cumberland—Colchester said:

Madam Speaker, we have done wide-ranging consultations. Our focus is on having a system that can help a small community like Millbrook First Nation in my riding deal with the issues of transportation, restoration, storage, display, and so on. Right now there is no process. Communities are on their own if they identify an artifact. They have done that but they have no help and there is no place to turn to.

Certainly, I am open to anything that will make the bill better, to deal with these issues that we have both brought up, but the intent is not to force anybody to give up legally acquired artifacts.

We can see that the intent of the bill's author is clear. Unfortunately, we do not find this clarification in the bill, because the amendment we were willing to support were rejected by the Liberals.

While the bill does not mention the protection of private property, 1 have been assured that the bill ultimately will not make any changes to private property rights in Canada.

Some stakeholders did signal their concern about these rights, and the Liberal government was not very open toward the amendments proposed by stakeholders, such as museums. Members know the key role that they played in this process and in what is happening in France. On this topic, while I do not believe that the bill infringes on private property in any way, I hope that once it comes into effect, there will be none of the unintended consequences that we see all too often, and that we can continue to keep private property, one of the most sacred rights in a democracy, in mind.

There was also some concerns regarding the scope and jurisdiction of the bill.

A representative from the Canadian Museum of History told the committee that he and his colleagues wondered whether the bill is supposed to apply to national requests, international requests or possibly both.

There are two questions here, namely whether the property in question is public or private property, and whether it is located in Canada or outside Canada. We would have liked to clarify these elements in the bill, based on the recommendation of museum experts. Unfortunately, once again, the Liberals ignored these important clarifications and rejected our amendments.

The wording in the bill before us today, which will eventually be examined by the other chamber, whose members sometimes examine bills for flaws, does not clearly specify whether the bill applies to national or international requests or, as I mentioned, whether it applies to property held in public or private institutions. We had some suggestions regarding these options, but the government did not consider them.

The experts from the Canadian Museum of History said that they had proposed some options for these two cases, along with their observations. They hoped that the observations would be helpful to the committee members, but once again, the Liberals did not even consider these recommendations. In fact, they did not even read them. In my opinion, when we are discussing a piece of legislation, it is important to listen to the witnesses and, above all, to consider the undesirable effects of bills.

We recognize that over centuries, museums, collectors and churches have taken objects during ceremonies. However, this needs to be done in an orderly fashion, and unfortunately, that is not the case. This is what we heard from a member of the indigenous community of northern Alberta:

Working together collectively to have these items repatriated is an empowering mechanism that will be a vital component to build the journey toward reconciliation so that our future generations can have the dignity and pride that our ancestors and grandparents had taken away from them.

This shows the importance of all the collections that are held in museums but are not necessarily accessible.

Preserving culture is important. We support the spirit of the bill, but unfortunately, since the Liberals rejected the amendments, the bill remains vague, which means we are not sending the Senate a polished gem, but merely an intention that needs to be clarified. That said, given that I agree with the principle, I will be supporting this bill.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, thank you.

I will only speak very briefly. I really want to rise in support of Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of indigenous cultural property, mainly to explain why I handed my spot to the member for Cumberland—Colchester so this could pass quickly through this place and go to the next place before the next election.

For those who follow the Order Paper closely, they may have noticed that my motion, Motion No. 196, was meant to be heard tonight. It is important to people in my community and deals with cultural diversity in the online world. However, I do understand that to get things through this place and on to the other place takes some time, especially when we come up against an election.

The reason it is so important to people in my riding is that Beothuk remains are still held by the National Museum of Scotland. Newfoundland and Labrador have made attempts to have those remains repatriated. The Government of Canada had to step in to fulfill an obligation under European and Scottish law to make a national request for the return of those remains. That was done less than a year ago, and we would so love to have the additional support of the House and Senate to allow the Beothuk remains to be returned and to reside, most likely, at The Rooms, which is a museum in my riding of St. John's—East.

I would be very interested to hear the comments of any other members in this place.

That includes the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, if he wishes to take the floor. If he agrees to speak for just a few minutes, we might be able to get this bill to the other place before the Christmas break.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and join in the debate on Bill C-391, brought in by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester. I appreciate the initiative and the thought behind the bill. It is an issue that needs to be talked about and brought into force with some measure of the law.

I am very honoured to come from a region of the country that has a very deep and rich first nations heritage, which is still ongoing, as do many parts of Canada. It is a vast land. When we are talking about first nations, Métis and Inuit, their cultures are as diverse as any we would find around the world. We cannot speak about them just as one set of peoples. They have a lot of diversity and a lot of different cultural practices. When I look at the Cowichan Valley and the Cowichan people, who are the largest first nation band in British Columbia, I am very honoured to have some long-standing relationships with many members, including the chief.

I look at some of the well-known archaeological sites. They abound in the Cowichan Valley and in many of the islands that form the southern Gulf Islands between Vancouver Island and the Mainland.

One in particular is the Ye'yumnuts village near Duncan, which is about to become a living indigenous history lesson. It is a 2.4 hectare meadow, which, in collaboration with Cowichan tribes, will be used as an open air classroom. They have found a lot of different tools. The site is more than 2,000 years old and it is estimated that the Cowichan people lived there for about 600 years and then used the area as a burial ground for another 600 years. They have found tools that originate from the Fraser Valley and even jade tools that come from the Fraser Canyon and sharp cutting rocks that originate from as far away as Oregon, which speaks to the flourishing trade routes that existed among all the different nations in the Pacific Northwest.

We can go out near Salt Spring Island to Grace Islet. We had some controversy there about three to four years ago when someone was trying to build a house on the island, even though there was knowledge that there were at least 15 different individual burial sites marked by cairns there. It was only through intervention by the Government of B.C. that the construction on that island was stopped. It is now under the protection of the Nature Conservancy, which is working with local first nations to preserve the area and to bring it back to its natural state.

I look at Galiano Island, specifically the campground at Montague Harbour, that is sitting on an old midden heap, where for thousands of years all of the clamshells were deposited. We are talking about hundreds of years of clamshells being deposited in one area and all of the various tools that were used to harvest them.

I have a friend who is an archaeologist by profession. I remember one year, when we were camping at Montague Harbour, being able to walk down the beach. Pretty much every couple of minutes, she was pointing out different stone tools. Once we got an eye for them, we could see them everywhere. They were pieces of rock that had been hit upon with different instruments to make them into different cutting surfaces, and they are everywhere.

We derive a lot of education from museums around the world. We would not know about some of the long lost civilizations such as the Sumerians, ancient Babylonia and the ancient pharaohs in Egypt if it were not for museums. They serve a purpose. The main difference, when we are talking about first nations cultural pieces and tools, is that they are not gone. They are still with us. In fact, I attended the elders gathering, which the Cowichan hosted in British Columbia this year, and the main theme was “We are still here”.

We know that most indigenous ethnology collections found in Canadian and foreign museums in universities today were taken by missionaries, government agents, amateur and professional collectors and anthropologists and that that was done without the informed or prior consent of the people. It was theft, and in many cases the stealing of these tools and ceremonial devices was a way to crush their culture, to try to take away their traditions and try to subsume those nations into the white person's culture, as we have tried to do so many times in this country. That is the main difference.

I am really happy that the member has brought forward this bill. If I could offer some constructive criticism, I would point out that when we look at the language in the bill, we still see words like “encourage”, “support” and “provide”. We could have used more forceful language to bring this bill into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That said, it is good to see that the minister will have to report to Parliament because of clause 4. It remains to be seen how well the government provide funding as a result of legislation, but I certainly hope, if this bill does make it to royal assent and becomes one of the statutes of Canada, the government would see fit to take this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

I mentioned the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is important to highlight that because the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has spent a large part of his life working on this particular issue. Everyone in the House can take great pride in Bill C-262, which seeks to bring the laws of Canada into harmony with the United Nations declaration. The fact that government members and a majority of members in the House voted for the bill and sent it off to the other place represents a very historic moment. If Parliament, both the House of Commons and the Senate, and later the Crown represented by the Governor General, assent to this particular piece of legislation, a key article of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 12, reads as follows:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains.

2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned.

Bill C-262 was certainly the very important first step. If we agree to that bill as a whole, then we would be agreeing to article 12 as well. Bill C-391 would establish the framework for exactly how this is to be done.

There is always room for improvement in legislation, but I will commend the member for Cumberland—Colchester for his private member's bill reaching third reading stage. That is a rare feat. I appreciate the thought behind the bill and I will be voting to send it to the other place. I hope the hon. senators will give it their due consideration.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-391. I thank the hon. member for bringing his private member's bill to the House for us to consider.

I have a keen interest in the subject matter of the bill. I have great respect for the history, and I greatly enjoyed learning more about it, as we studied it through the committee.

The bill is well-intentioned, and I will be supporting it. However, I believe there were some issues that could have been addressed that would have made the bill even better.

I have great respect for the important role artifacts play in fostering appreciation for history. They are a tangible and irreplaceable link to our past. It is one thing to read about history in a book, but it is another to see the historical objects created by another person living in a different era. Historical objects bring history to life. They provide a window into how things were and how people lived. They remind us that the historical figures we read about really existed in flesh and blood.

If we want future generations to truly understand how their present is linked to our country's past, we need to ensure these objects are not lost. They are not just an invaluable means through which to remember the past; they are the way we can learn to live how they lived. They are also a key to understanding the present. I strongly believe that their protection and preservation should be a priority of any government.

The bill seeks to establish a framework through which aboriginal peoples can reacquire these invaluable links to their proud histories. It would implement a mechanism through which any first nation, Inuit or Métis community could acquire or reacquire aboriginal cultural property to which they would have a strong attachment. It would also implement a means through which they could reacquire human remains. This was an important part of the study that we found was missing to begin with and the significance it had to aboriginal people. It would encourage owners, custodians or trustees of aboriginal cultural property to return such property to aboriginal peoples and support them in the process. This is a laudable goal.

In my riding of Bow River, we have Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park. I was very happy that its representative, Clement Doore, was able to join us at committee and offer valuable testimony. Blackfoot Crossing maintains a collection of many incredible historical objects. It provides a great educational service to its community. It also provides an economic benefit by attracting visitors and promoting tourism in the region. I was fortunate enough to visit and receive a guided tour last year. I was greatly impressed by the wealth of history and knowledge on display. I believe it is an example of a success story that deserves to be emulated more broadly in our country.

Despite being well-intentioned, I strongly believe that parts of the legislation should have been clarified and could have been improved. The government members rejected our amendment that would have ensured that the public interest would be considered in the repatriation strategy. The intent was to ensure that artifacts would be available to Canadians in a way that would enhance knowledge and appreciation of aboriginal culture. Including this language explicitly in the bill would have strengthened it considerably. Access to history is always in the public interest. As I noted, we cannot comprehend the present without understanding the past.

I again point to Blackfoot Crossing in my riding as a great success in this regard. It is located on a historic site of great significance to the Blackfoot confederacy, where thousands gathered for the signing of Treaty No. 7. It is available to the general public, and I can assure anyone interested in visiting that it offers a fantastic educational experience.

The bill should have also included language noting how important it was that the strategy adequately preserve and protect the quality and integrity of aboriginal property. The heritage committee heard about the challenges the museum industry faced in attracting staff. For a variety of reasons, there are not enough professional curatorial staff in Canada.

Many artifacts are fragile and require a good deal of expertise to preserve. Operating costs related to the preservation of historical objects can also be a real challenge for smaller museums. We heard in committee that the Haida museum, for example, had some difficulties due to its remote location. This bill should have been amended to reflect this reality.

I was lucky to have been able to visit the Haida nation and see some of its historical treasures. It is isolated and far removed from most of the Canadian population, but it is significant and most people should be able to see it and travel there. However, it is remote.

We need some manner of safeguard in place to ensure that these tangible links to history are not lost to future generations. We need to help with the cost to preserve and maintain these aboriginal artifacts. It was a mistake not to include this explicitly in the bill.

We also failed to ensure the legislation did not have unintended consequences for aboriginal artists and creators. I own several pieces of tremendous artwork produced by Siksika artists who live in my riding. This industry yields great economic benefits in many indigenous communities and helps foster appreciation for their cultures. It should not be jeopardized in any way.

The bill must not dampen enthusiasm for the incredible work produced by aboriginal artists by suggesting one's purchase might someday be repatriated. That would be a very unfortunate, unintended consequence. Again, the Liberals rejected our amendment to the legislation that would have guarded against any such unintended consequences. I am not sure why they rejected it.

I was very disappointed to learn that the Canadian Museums Association was not consulted during the drafting of the bill. Perhaps some of these issues could have been highlighted at an earlier stage in the process had consultation taken place. We did eventually receive a written brief from the CMA in committee. We attempted to include some of its counsel in the bill through amendments, but again the government rejected them.

The CMA has done great work and has a great working relationship with first nations. Its input was valuable and should not have been disregarded in this way.

We want to continue to ensure that Canadians understand and appreciate the first peoples of Canada, while respecting property and the great significance of these historical objects to aboriginal peoples.

As I noted, I will be supporting the legislation, but I remain deeply disappointed that amendments were rejected that could have made it much stronger and better.

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, it is an extreme pleasure for me to rise again and talk about my private member's bill, now entitled “Indigenous Human Remains and Cultural Property Repatriation Act”.

I want to thank the seconder, the very distinguished member for St. John's East, who has not only helped me to ensure the bill gets through in the appropriate time, but who will also speak to it again tonight.

This private member's bill has taken me down a road I did not expect to go down when it was first adopted.

Just a few days ago, I celebrated the 30th anniversary of my first election, but I still marvel at what can happen in this place. It is an amazing place that can do amazing things.

Although I did not realize how important my private member's bill was when we first drafted it, it has turned out to be very meaningful to a lot of people, and I think it will have a positive effect.

I started it as a result of a visit I made to the Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Centre, a first nations museum in my riding. I was admiring a beautiful robe in a glass case. While doing so, the curator told me that it was not the real robe, that the real robe is in Australia. She said that it was purchased legally and legitimately by a person in the 1800s and it was taken there in 1852. Now it is residing in a museum in Australia. When I asked if we had tried to get it back, she said that some efforts had been made, but there was no ability to get it back.

At that time, I thought perhaps we could draw up a private member's bill to ask the government to establish a structure so small first nations bands, like Millbrook band near Truro, Nova Scotia, could have somebody to turn to to get help if it wanted to get back one of its original artifacts. Therefore, we drafted Bill C-391, thinking it would be a little innocuous bill that might help first nations get their artifacts back if they became available.

When I tabled the bill, I spoke for two minutes and 37 seconds if I am not mistaken. However, I did not know the Australian ambassador heard about it somehow. She took action. We did not ask her to do this and we did not expect her to it. That was not my intention.

At that time, Her Excellency Natasha Smith took it upon herself to contact the museum in Australia to see if it could begin negotiations to get the robe back to Millbrook. I could not believe that happened. She came to see me a few weeks later and told me what steps she had taken. I will be forever in her debt for doing that.

Her Excellency Natasha Smith and Brittany Noakes worked hard on this. They made a connection with the Melbourne Museum, where the robe resides. In the end, it turned out that the young aboriginal woman from the first nation in my riding, Heather Stevens, was negotiating with a young first nations person in Melbourne, Australia. That was so meaningful. It was not Canada to Australia. It was first nation to first nation, 15,000 kilometres apart. Negotiations are under way and hopefully some day the robe will come back.

Heather Stephens, the manager and curator of the Millbrook Heritage Centre, is dealing with Genevieve Grieves, the manager of first people's department in the museum in Melbourne. To me, that is part of the magic of this whole process, that those two people have connected and are negotiating and discussing how this can all happen.

I want to thank all the people who have been involved in this, all the people who have helped and all the people in the first nations right across the country who have contributed ideas and thoughts. They really made me understand how important artifacts were to their people.

It is more than just an artifact. It is their history, it is their people, it is the spirit of their people. I do not pretend to be able to capture the entire meaning that artifacts have to first nations peoples, but I know it is so important for them to have them back. I am so pleased to be a part of a process that will help them achieve the goal of getting artifacts back to their proper homes.

I want to thank the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, especially the chair, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, who helped to get the bill through the committee in the proper way and in a timely fashion. Thoughtful amendments were made to the legislation that improved and strengthened it.

Also, through this process, those of us who really do not have a lot to do with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples have a better understanding of it. This bill complies with that declaration and I think it will be an important part of Canada's process to move ahead on the United Nations declaration.

The other thing that has amazed me is that we have had responses from all over the world on this. It is just a private member's bill. I had no idea where it was going to go. However, it was pointed out to me that it was written up in the Netherlands. The article was all in Dutch, but I know it is right because my name was spelled right. That was the only way I could tell. It includes a picture of the artifact from Millbrook. There was also an article written in China. It was the same thing, my name was spelled right again, and the picture of the artifact and Millbrook was in it.

We have been contacted by the commonwealth museum in Britain about the importance of the bill and how it might be used as a model down the road in other countries. There are so many countries that want their artifacts back. I noticed last week, I think, that France decided it would repatriate some incredible artifacts back to countries in Africa.

We are part of a worldwide effort to repatriate artifacts to indigenous peoples. I am certainly pleased and proud to be a part of it. I hope my bill does go through. I think we have support from all the parties, and I appreciate that very much.

I so much appreciate the support from my caucus and my House leader, who helped ensure we got this in, in a timely fashion. I will work with members if there are amendments, or they want changes or need interpretations. I appreciate it going through report stage the way it has. I am now pleased to have it at third reading.

I want to thank everybody who has been involved with this. It has been an incredible journey. It has taught me a lot. It has taught me a lot about indigenous peoples and the values they have, which I have come to really appreciate more than I did in the past. However, it is all through talking with indigenous peoples and museums about indigenous artifacts.

One indigenous lady said that this was not just a robe in Australia, that this robe represented the spirit of all the indigenous peoples who made it, all the people who handled it and all the people who cared for it until it changed hands and went into European hands and then to Australia, where it has been ever since. I will never forget that conversation. It was certainly meaningful and meant a lot to me.

Again, I thank everyone who has supported it and has helped get it to where it is.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Philippe Méla]

Let me go back a minute, to amendment LIB-1. That amendment was asking that Bill C-391, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 11 on page 1 with the following:

2 in this Act, minister means the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

By doing that, everything in lines 6 to 11 was replaced. In other words, the definition that was there is no longer there. There is no longer a definition, because the amendment withdrew it. The lines that were removed therefore cannot be amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Let us resume the session.

With us, we have Guylain Thorne and Kathryn Zedde, from the Department of Canadian Heritage. I notice that the third person we invited is not here.

Thank you for being here today.

We are now continuing with our clause-by-clause review of Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property. When we left off, we were at clause 2 and amendment LIB-1.

If I may, I'll let everyone know that if LIB-1 is adopted, CPC-1 and NDP-1 cannot be moved, as they amend the same lines.

Does anybody want to speak to LIB-1?

Go ahead, Mr. Long.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, it was in a sort of spirit of collegiality that I said I was happy that the Conservatives see the fact that we are rushing to pass this bill as a problem. I was surrendering given the majority, but, frankly, I thank my colleague very much for pointing this out.

We did receive information yesterday from the Canadian Museum of History. We also received something yesterday, or maybe it was this morning, from the Royal British Columbia Museum, if I'm not mistaken. While I'm talking to you, I'll check it. I received an email at 10:14 a. m.

It was “Written responses to questions on Bill C-391”.

We received it this morning at 10:14 a.m.

Mr. Blaney, I'll give you time to eat. I'm not going to ask you to make comments with carrots in your mouth. They're good, by the way. It's often the same menu.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 6, 2018, we'll now go to Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property.

We do have amendments to this bill. We'll be going to clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

[Aluki Kotierk, President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.]

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you. I considered speaking in English, but I am now going to speak in Inuktitut, since you have an interpreter. I'm very proud that I'll be able to talk in my language, in Inuktitut, while I'm in Ottawa.

There are two things I'll be talking about in regard to Bill C-391 and respecting Nunavut. Briefly, I will say that when I'm reading this bill, it indicates that artifacts can be used for educational purposes. This is very important, in my view. It is very important to us Inuit that Inuit artifacts be inside Nunavut, which they are not. They are housed somewhere else.

The young people should see their own way now in Canada. There is a history of shame for being indigenous people. When we see up close the intricate stitching of the Inuit and how they put tools together—for example combs and other tools—it reminds us how indigenous Inuit were distinct from other people. They were ingenious. This would be the case in Nunavut.

This is a commendable aspiration, as we have nothing in Nunavut. This plan would be very useful to us if there were to be a museum in Nunavut. At the moment, how are we going to use the repatriated cultural property? My concern is that despite the national strategy, there is no facility, and no appropriate measures to protect this cultural property have been implemented.

As we know, Nunavut became a territory in 1993 as a result of the Nunavut agreement, specifically article 4. It's been 25 years since the Nunavut Act and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act received royal assent from the Canadian Parliament.

In Nunavut, there is no territorial heritage centre that can house Inuit cultural property. As such, there are more than 140,000 Nunavut artefacts in storage, including here in Ottawa. The Government of Nunavut has been spending millions since 1999 to store them outside of Nunavut. The need for such a facility was included in the Nunavut agreement. Article 33.2.4 states:

There is an urgent need to establish facilities in the Nunavut Settlement Area for the conservation and management of a representative portion of the archaeological record.

In addition, to highlight the need for facilities, the Nunavut agreement established the Inuit Heritage Trust, which is tasked with the safekeeping and safe use of property entrusted to it.

The establishment of a territorial facility has been in the works with the Nunavut government since 2001. In 2006, Nunavut Tunngavik, the Inuit Heritage Trust, and the Nunavut government announced that the territorial facility would be located in Iqaluit. With many competing infrastructure needs, the project was shelved in 2011, and funds that had been budgeted for this were redirected to other projects.

The sense of Inuit is important to us. In 2014, the Inuit Heritage Trust had been working with the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation on the heritage centre project with the intention of bringing home Nunavut Inuit artifacts and building the facility on the Inuit's own lands.

Currently, the creation of the Nunavut heritage project is estimated at a cost of $70 million to $90 million. At our annual general meeting in 2017, Nunavut Tunngavik committed $5 million toward this project, and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association committed the same—$5 million for this new heritage centre to be built inside Nunavut.

Thank you very much for listening to my comments.

[Clément Chartier, President, Métis National Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

I begin this presentation with a statement of whom I am referring to when I use the term “Métis”. That is the historic Métis nation based in western Canada—a distinct people with a distinct history and language, Michif; a national flag that is over 200 years old; a significant population; and a defined geographic homeland. It is the people or nation that took both political and military action to defend its people and territory.

To be clear, I am not referring to the modern-day plethora of the hundreds of thousands of people of mixed indigenous and European ancestry, particularly in eastern Canada, who now claim to be Métis, using that term as an adjective and being of mixed ancestry with potential or tenuous claims to some faraway Indian ancestor. This adjective or mixed-ancestry use of the term “Métis” does not relate to the Métis nation, which is a distinct indigenous people, a polity and full-fledged rights-bearing indigenous people with its own distinctive culture and rights, which are inherent in that fact.

Today I am here to address Bill C-391, a proposed act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property. It is expected that this proposed act will provide for the development and implementation of a national strategy to enable the return of aboriginal cultural property to indigenous peoples in Canada, something now desperately needed. The sense of urgency that the Métis nation, the Inuit and the first nations peoples are feeling is evidence that indigenous peoples want to reclaim their cultures and heritage. While indigenous cultural revitalization also includes languages and land, cultural property held by others is a fundamental component of cultural renewal and reclamation.

From the birth of the Métis nation, visitors to this land appreciated the beauty of our material culture and collected and kept it as works of art. This was the time when some semblance of fair trade and commerce was taking place, as indigenous peoples and settlers exchanged goods and services. The colonization and oppression that followed this dynamic put the power to own and possess indigenous material and culture in the hands of the newcomers. This included limiting and eradicating food sources, restricting freedom, denying land ownership, and curtailing business, trade and commerce.

The Métis are often touted as the middlemen or women of the fur trade era. We were once a vibrant and successful connection between the first nations and the newcomers. However, this too diminished as the Métis nation was dispossessed of land and forced to disperse. It forced many or most Métis families into abject poverty, hiding and denying their identity for cultural safety. This was coupled with over a century of shaming indigenous peoples through unfair treatment, one-sided historical records, relocation, outlawed spiritual practices, heavy-handed assimilation tactics, and numerous other forms of discrimination.

Having to choose between feeding your children and keeping culturally significant property was no choice at all. Forced relocation meant taking only what you could carry. The kind of infrastructure that allowed those in more stable environments to enjoy cultural practices and make cultural property could not exist under these conditions.

Métis women were essential to the family's economy. Métis women made their best and most beautiful cultural property to be bought and collected by others, while at the same time it was impossible for Métis families to keep and enjoy what they made.

The kind of work available to Métis men included sporadic and difficult labour endeavours at very low wages, and these men were considered more fortunate than others. Providing for a family through harvesting plants and animals was absolutely necessary. It was a laborious and time-consuming endeavour.

We ask ourselves what kind of cultural property might be there if these hardships had not been foisted on indigenous peoples and, in particular, the Métis nation. What kind of effort did it take to covertly maintain our culture and to continue to pass on the cultural arts for which we became so well known? In fact, we were known as the “flower beadwork people”.

We are grateful to those who could, and hold no malice to those who could not in order to survive. Some people with origins elsewhere may think to themselves, “I don't know the songs and dances of my ancestors, and I can't make any of the material culture either, so what's the big deal?” The big deal is that the vast majority of Canadians have a country of origin from which to reclaim any part of their culture, your culture. It wasn't outlawed or suppressed as it has been here in Canada for indigenous peoples. It hasn't suffered from decades of indifference and shaming, which drove many people to the cultural safety of letting their traditions go in order to survive.

When we look at the care and attention given to the cultural property of those who were free to make and collect it, and how long they have had this privilege, we can only imagine what might have been if indigenous peoples—in our case, the Métis nation—had had the same freedom and opportunity. The most precious and beautiful items would have been kept as cherished family heirlooms. They would not have been sold or taken. These items would not be mislabelled or unlabelled regarding who the artisan was or the indigenous nation from which they originate. They would certainly not be in keeping houses other than our own.

As an example of proving the provenance of potential cultural items that may be subject to repatriation, in August I joined an organization of a number of American states' ambassadors, indigenous leaders and others on a tour of the Museum of the American Indian at the Smithsonian, in Washington, D.C. In one of the displays of the bonnets, a piece caught my eye, a beaded baby bonnet with distinctive Métis beadwork. The caption stated, "Plains Cree (Prairie Cree) baby's cap/hat, circa 1910, Saskatchewan, Canada”. Anybody from the Métis community looking at that knows it's of Métis origin. This is a potential case of having Métis art labelled wrongly, as the suppression of Métis rights and existence was, at that particular period, being visited upon the Métis nation.

Bill C-391 is a good first step for Canada to reconcile these injustices. It will serve to make way for indigenous peoples to reclaim their cultural property and to guide all involved in processes that should ultimately make everyone feel that this is the right course of action. The repatriation of aboriginal cultural property is going to speed up the process of cultural renewal for indigenous peoples. It will reflect a time Canadians should not be proud of, and support a time in which Canadians can take great pride.

There is also a need to ensure that repatriated cultural property has a home or homes to return to. In too many cases, the Métis nation does not have adequate resources to establish museums and/or cultural centres. This is slowly changing. The Manitoba Métis Federation, on behalf of the Métis nation, after a 20-year effort is in the final stages of being able to establish a national Métis museum in Winnipeg, the former site of the Red River Métis provisional government. Other initiatives are also under way.

Finally, in 2020 the Métis nation will be celebrating its 150th anniversary of joining Confederation, which was made possible by the negotiation under president Louis Riel and the passage of the Manitoba Act of 1870. We look forward to all parliamentarians, and in fact all Canadians, celebrating this historic event with us.

[Witness speaks in Haida]

Thank you.

[Steven Blaney, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Collison and Mr. Doore for coming out in support of Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property.

My first question is for both of you. Do you have an inventory of the artifacts of your nation throughout the world that are spread through other museums?

Maybe you can begin, Mr. Doore. Do you have an idea of the number of artifacts within your new museum, the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park? You mentioned the Crowfoot artifact and so on.

[Wayne Long, Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses this morning.

Look, while heritage is essential to all peoples, there's no question that indigenous people have had the least control over theirs, so I just want to give a shout-out to MP Casey for Bill C-391. I think it's very meaningful, and it can change the way we look at history, for sure.

My first question is for you, Ms. Collison. You mentioned in your presentation that you want other organizations, groups, countries, what have you, to want to give back indigenous cultural property. How realistic is that? Where do you think we are right now with respect to their wanting to give that back? How much work do we need to do?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

You also mentioned that Bill C-391 is a process on how to get back aboriginal cultural property. Can you please elaborate on this?

[Nika Collison]

Okay, great.

Yahguudangang has changed Haida history and Canadian history. It has also changed the way some Western museum staff see themselves, their own settler histories, and their museums' histories as we heal together. They also come to accept, learn and practise that our own indigenous laws and protocols must be part of the process and be followed. While museums support our repatriation efforts, it helps their staff address and heal from the shame of colonialism, so the bigger shame then becomes not working towards repatriation.

In 2003, as we prepared our relatives for their journey home from the Field Museum, my cousin Jenny Cross wondered if were repatriating ourselves. We believe in reincarnation, and we know that everything is connected to everything else. I've learned there is a practice in our culture called “putting a string on someone”. For example, during the times of arranged marriages, the family of one young child might endow a great deal to the family of another, effectively “putting a string” on them, ensuring the two would one day move forward in life together.

I like to think that our ancestors put a string on their treasures, on themselves and the museums they were taken to, and on us, binding us to something that transcends the preservation of Haida history, culture and identity, binding two worlds so that we would come together in the future when the time was right, to heal and to redefine our relationships with each other and with the world so that we can move forward together in a respectful and honest manner. In this, you can see that repatriation is not a job but a way of life in which I and my nation are deeply embedded.

In reviewing BillC-391, my understanding is that it is not a repatriation act, but one to establish a process to assist with repatriation. We appreciate that, because then it becomes not overly prescriptive, but we would suggest that the process slow down a bit. Despite there having been consultation, it requires greater engagement and consultation with indigenous nations.

We have been leading the charge on repatriation. We know it best. It requires greater engagement with the Canadian Museums Association, including the newly formed and still-forming reconciliation council. It requires consultation with provincial governments and mainstream museums that hold indigenous collections.

We need to include territories in the wording of the bill, along with provinces, and we need to consider that it must be indigenous self-determination that moves repatriation forward and defines what it means.

The act needs some indemnification for wrongful or incorrect repatriation, as sometimes that could happen because of competing claims or incorrect returns.

As the previous speaker said, funding is critical in moving repatriation forward, for both indigenous nations and mainstream museums. In terms of the research, community consultation, negotiations, coordination, conservation, transport home, building a centre to house these pieces and care for them, capacity-building and longevity, it is so expensive and it is so absolutely necessary and critical to healing our nations and the greater Canadian public's relationship with us.

When we're looking at legitimately sold materials, we need to consider that—

[Nika Collison]

Haw'aa.

[Witness speaks in Haida]

My name is Jisgang. My English name is Nika Collison. I'm the executive director of the Haida Gwaii Museum and co-chair of the Haida Repatriation Committee.

Haw'aa to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Haw'aa to Mr. Bill Casey for his vision and to all who have done a great amount of work on Bill C-391.

I would also like to take a moment to thank and recognize Mr. Saganash for his work on Bill C-262.

At the second reading of Bill C-391, Mr. Casey stated that he is open to anything that will make the bill better. I appreciate this opportunity to provide insight into Haida repatriation experiences and respond to the bill as it sits right now.

As museum professionals and human beings, we carry the responsibility to effect societal change by mainstreaming Canada's dark history with indigenous peoples while actively working to set things right.

In the indigenous and mainstream museum world, the path toward reconciliation has been shaped by what my Haida Nation calls Yahguudangang, the act of paying respect. The Haida Nation sees this work, more commonly known as repatriation, as based upon mutual respect, co-operation and trust. Yahguudangang has brought a new depth to our nation's healing and our ability to heal with others. It provides opportunity for western museums to become voluntary agents of change rather than the physical evidence of Canada's genocide against first peoples.

Saahlinda Naay, Savings Things House, also known as the Haida Gwaii Museum, is the result of one of the earliest acts of making things right—or reconciliation—in the museum world. It was a vision of both the Haida citizens and Canadian friends residing on our islands that brought this place into being, which opened in 1976. In 2007, we opened the Haida Heritage Centre, which expanded our museum. It was created for our people but also created to share. This is our gift to the world.

Since most of our treasures left Haida Gwaii during the height of colonial regimes, our museum didn't have much of a collection to begin with, but Haida and settler families generously donated Haida heirlooms. The Royal British Columbia Museum, under the lead of then curator Peter McNair, showed support by returning some monumental poles for our museum's opening. This quiet act of repatriation is probably the earliest in Canada. It was not required by law or policy. This act was done because of the humanity this one person brought to our table.

The Haida Gwaii Museum has since grown to include a considerable collection of treasures, mostly gained from private donations, purchases and long-term loans, as opposed to museum repatriation. We also present new works, as we are a living culture. We are not simply an institution. We are a part of the institution that makes up today's Haida society and the greater Canadian society.

In the mid-1990s, the repatriation of ancestral remains became a primary focus of our people. To date, over 500 of our ancestors have been brought home from museums and private individuals from across North America, and one from the U.K. This work has taken over 20 years and well over a million dollars in cash, sweat labour and in-kind donations.

When we visit these museums to bring our ancestors home, we also visit our cultural treasures and other containers of knowledge, such as archives. We bring the diaspora of our people's lives home through imagery, audio recordings, collection notes and the recreation of pieces, and through the physical, emotional and spiritual connections that forever bind us. A few times, family heirlooms have come home from these museums. We are now ready to bring more home.

Around the same time that we began to focus on our ancestors, the 1992 “Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples” came out. This report has had a very important influence on relationships between indigenous people and mainstream museums, but it's the past four decades of knocking on doors, patience and relationship-building by our people that have been pivotal in having the Haida world and the museum world come together to make things right.

NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of the United States, has played an important role there and, in a roundabout way, for us as well. The first cross-border repatriation of one of our ancestors was spurred by NAGPRA. Legally, the museum was not required to work with us because we are not a federally recognized U.S. tribe, but they wanted to see our relative come home. When we contacted the next couple of U.S. museums, they wanted to repatriate through our Alaskan relatives in order to align their process with NAGPRA, but these ancestors came from Haida Gwaii, and eventually the museums agreed.

England is far behind Canada in repatriation, with many mechanisms—or lack of mechanisms, depending on the situation—to prohibit such work. Despite this, through relationship-building and a lot of other hard work, we were able to bring home an ancestor from the Pitt Rivers Museum in 2010. The British Museum has changed its act to allow for repatriation of human remains, and we will be bringing home an ancestor from there imminently.

What we found in working in Yahguudangang is that you can instil a policy and/or laws around repatriation, but true Yahguudangang, or repatriation and reconciliation, is not fully achieved without respectful, genuine nation-to-nation relationship-building. We want people to want to give our relatives back and to see our treasures come home. We want people to want to make things right, and want to find a way forward together, not because they have to. Repatriation is the most important work I've been involved in around the work of reconciliation. The work is beyond monumental. It costs time and healing, and it involves everyone in our nation and our friends.

I'm worried about running out of time, so just give me a second here.

[Clement Doore, Community Member, Board of Directors, Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park]

My name is Clement Doore. I'm an elder from the Siksika Nation in Alberta. Our presentation is entitled “Repatriation and Reconciliation”.

First I'll give you some background. The Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park is a world-renowned cultural, education and entertainment centre located on Siksika Blackfoot Nation reserve No. 146. The Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park was built for the promotion and preservation of the Siksika Nation people's language, culture and traditions. Blackfoot Crossing, the historic site of the signing of Treaty No. 7, is of national and international historical and archaeological significance. It is a designated national heritage site. The success of the Treaty No. 7 commemoration in 1977 intensified the Siksika Blackfoot Nation's vision of building a unique world-class tourist attraction designed to engage visitors in authentic cultural experiences with the Blackfoot people.

In 2007, a 30-year vision became reality. The Siksika envisioned an indoor and outdoor living museum that would shelter and share their precious artifacts, their heritage landscape, and their Blackfoot culture with Albertans, Canadians, and the world for all time. Since its inception, the philosophy of the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park has been based on five pillars: culture, education, tourism, economic development and socio-political benefits.

The Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park is a testimony to the commitment and preservation of the Siksika Nation to mark the historical site of the signing of Treaty No. 7 and to preserve for all time the culture of the Blackfoot plains indigenous people of Canada.

Here are the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park recommendations.

One is that the government support and provide funding to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park's implementation of their renewal and repatriation plan. The renewal and repatriation plan is critical to the sustainability and viability of the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park.

Two is that the government provide funding and support to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park in further repatriation efforts to recover any and all remaining artifacts pertaining to and belonging to Chief Crowfoot.

Three is that the government provide funding and support to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park's strategy and development of a Siksika Nation repatriation plan to align with a national strategy.

The repatriation of Chief Crowfoot's artifacts from the Royal Albert Museum in Exeter, U.K., is central to the renewal of the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park. The repatriation plan for the revival of Chief Crowfoot's regalia will act as a catalyst for the renewal of the Blackfoot Crossing operation, for more successful financial viability, and to strengthen cultural preservation and long-term sustainability.

The renewal plan has addressed the challenges and mitigates the threats facing the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park. The repatriation plan is an analysis of new programming, facility design, sales and marketing, public relations, human resources strategy and financial strategy.

The Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park began to pursue the path to repatriate Chief Crowfoot's artifacts, which are housed at the Royal Albert Museum in Exeter, U.K. The artifacts on display are Chief Crowfoot's shirt and leggings. Meetings had been ongoing with Government of Alberta officials, and subsequently in March 2015 the repatriation grant was approved.

In July 2015, the Government of Alberta funding was approved and received. In October 2016, the Government of Alberta approved grant funding to hire a consultant to develop a Blackfoot Crossing historical repatriation and renewal plan.

In February 2015, another grant was received to hire a consultant to continue repatriation and communications with the Royal Albert Museum in Exeter, U.K. The repatriation of Chief Crowfoot's artifacts defines the significance of the Treaty No. 7 agreement. The treaty was prominent in developing the relationship between the Indians and the European settlers. The repatriation of Chief Crowfoot's artifacts is one of the major steps towards reconciliation. By means of a holistic repatriation plan, current roadblocks and stalls in negotiations can be effectively mitigated. Through this plan, understanding may be gained by both parties to commit their vastly different beliefs into an agreement that this plan is mutually beneficial.

The second recommendation is that the government provide funding and support to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park in further repatriation efforts to recover any and all remaining artifacts pertaining to and belonging to Chief Crowfoot. Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park is aware of the following artifacts and items that fall under the auspices of repatriation: one headdress, one deerskin robe, a leather shirt, one pair of leggings, one bow-case and quiver of otter fur, eagle feathers, one bow, four iron-headed arrows, three arrow points of hornstone, four pairs of moccasins, one pair of mittens, three whips, three embroidered bags, one rattle.

The third recommendation is that the government provide funding and support to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park strategy and development of a Siksika Nation repatriation plan to align with a national strategy. The Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park's next step to develop a holistic repatriation plan is creating a framework built on the following.

The first is in answer to band council resolution number 8-2018. The First Nations Sacred Ceremonial Objects Repatriation Act allows for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations “respecting the process and procedures to be followed in repatriating a sacred ceremony object” and other matters.

The second is in answer to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta's Bill 22, an act to provide for the repatriation of indigenous peoples' sacred ceremonial objects.

The third is in answer to Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property.

The fourth is in answer to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 67 to 70.

In closing, when taking into consideration the effects of the treaty, the implementation of the reserve system, the residential school system, and the systematic abuse of first nations people in Canada, the importance of this mission becomes clear. These items are part of the foundations of identity for the Siksika people. When we consider the matters of holistic healing, the usefulness of this process becomes clear. Repatriation will be the cornerstone to reconciliation for all first nations peoples.

Furthermore, I'll reiterate and emphasize the following recommendations from the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park. The first is that the government support and provide funding to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park's implementation of their renewal and repatriation plan. The second is that the government provide funding to support the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park's strategy and development of a Siksika Nation repatriation plan to align with the national strategy. The third is that the government provide funding to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park's implementation of calls to action 67 to 70 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, under “Museums and Archives”. References include the Blackfoot Crossing renewal and repatriation planned summary, the Siksika Nation band council resolution, and Chief Crowfoot's photograph.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I want to welcome everyone to the 125th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Today, we'll be continuing our study of Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property.

We have two witnesses with us today. One is by video conference, and that is Clement Doore from the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park. We also have a witness by teleconference. We have audio only. Apparently the video was unable to work today. It's just to give you a reminder that we do have one other person; you just cannot see them. That is Nika Collison from the Haida Gwaii Museum.

We'll begin with Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We're back.

It'll take too long to clear the room, but we do have to vote on the budget for the review of Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property. You have all been provided with a copy of it.

[Wayne Long, Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our presenters this afternoon. It's fascinating. Thank you for speaking on Bill C-391.

Chief Googoo, my first question is to you.

From the Assembly of First Nations, how do you see your involvement in the creation and rollout of the action plan? Can you drill down on that for me, please?

[Dr. Ruth Phillips, Professor, The Great Lakes Research Alliance for the Study of Aboriginal Arts & Cultures]

Thank you.

I also would like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to speak to you, and I would add on a personal note that I am particularly grateful to be here because I was a member of the task force on museums and first peoples, to which we owe the current guidelines we work with. I'm very happy to see this further stage finally being reached.

GRASAC is also an organization that has existed because of federal funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada research chairs program, and SSHRC. We are indebted to federal support for the research that we've done.

We are a collaboration of academics, indigenous communities, researchers, and museum staff. We have come together in order to do some of the work that other speakers have referred to—the need to identify the locations and histories of collections of objects, both abroad and within North America.

GRASAC supports the passage of Bill C-391. We regard repatriation as an important expression of self-determination, as expressed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is now a signatory. We've described our organization's work and provided detailed comments in a written report, which will be circulated to you after translation.

Today we want to highlight key provisions and refinements we believe to be necessary for the bill to succeed in its goals. We believe that it needs to support three primary things—research leading to the identification of items for repatriation; multiple forms of access, including digital access and loans where appropriate; and infrastructure in indigenous communities.

Anong Beam, who is with me today, is executive director of the Ojibwe Cultural Foundation and a member of GRASAC's steering committee. She will speak to this last, very critical issue.

Why is research necessary as a precondition for repatriation? As other speakers have said, we actually don't know where all this heritage is located. We also find that much of it is very poorly documented. In many cases, we don't know how it was collected, when, or from which community. Indigenous people need to identify items for repatriation because museums and collecting institutions will need to know these histories in order to consider the requests. They will demand this kind of information, in addition to the practical need to know where things are.

When we do this research, as we have been doing in the GRASAC project, it illuminates the different ways that aboriginal cultural property has left communities over the course of four centuries, in the case of the Great Lakes region.

I brought a few images. I hope to show you how important these things are and the ways in which they have been collected.

The first slide shows a 17th century curiosity collection in Paris that still exists. It had indigenous Great Lakes items in it. These kinds of things were collected by curiosity collectors—a beautiful Odawa bag and a very important pipe.

The bag is in the National Museum of Ireland. It was brought there by an Irish soldier who was in Canada around 1800. The pipe was brought to Scotland by a soldier who fought in the Seven Years War and who left it with his patron. It was only sold around 2006 at a Sotheby's auction, where Canadian museums did not have enough money to bid for it. It went to a private American collector, along with a whole collection of other wonderful things. Indigenous communities were completely unable to bid for these things at the time, because of lack of funding, which I'd like to point out.

A very important way that things left communities in early years was through diplomatic exchanges and rituals of gift-giving. Wampum is the most famous and best known form of item that left in this way, and you see here an important example, now in the McCord Museum.

I have learned from my colleagues in GRASAC that when gifts are received in such a context, it indicates and confirms that an agreement has been reached. There are potential consequences to returning such items, because it may simply signify that the agreement is nullified by the return. This is something to keep in mind.

During diplomatic exchanges, especially in the 18th and early 19th centuries, there were also ritual adoptions of individuals who were regarded as allies or supporters of indigenous communities, and part of such adoptions was very often the presentation of a very beautiful outfit of clothing. Lieutenant John Caldwell was adopted in 1780 by Anishinaabe people. He's wearing the outfit he received. Much of it is now in the Canadian Museum of History. It was repatriated in the 1970s when federal funding was made available for the repatriation of Canadian heritage held abroad.

Other kinds of gifts were given through the 19th century when important officials visited, such as a remarkable collection of quilled birchbark containers that is now in Osborne House on the Isle of Wight in Britain, which was Queen Victoria's family home. These were given to the Prince of Wales, and some of them directly to Queen Victoria. They may look like the kinds of items that were purchased as souvenirs, but they were actually diplomatic gifts.

Things could be commissioned, such as this magnificent and very famous cradle. The panels for it were commissioned of one of the most famous quill workers in Nova Scotia in the 19th century, Christina Morris, and there was an enormous production of souvenir work in the Great Lakes for economic purposes. It provided a very important source of income to indigenous people.

Among these items were very beautiful items of beadwork made by Haudenosaunee people throughout the northeast, and there are lots of those in collections. From the many photographs we have found of Victorian women holding these bags, you can see that they prized them greatly.

However, the largest body of materials in museums, which has already been referred to by other speakers, is the enormous amount of material collected in the late 19th and early 20th centuries under a project that is often called salvage ethnography. Anthropologists fanned out across North America to collect what they regarded as the last remnants of indigenous culture, thinking that indigenous peoples would disappear.

In my experience, this body of material is understood to have been collected under duress. People were impoverished. They had been confined to reservations and reserves. Their children were being removed to residential schools, and it was a period of great demoralization in many places. The status of this material seems to be somewhat different from the other kinds of things I have been talking about.

The important point we want to make is that items in all of these categories can do more good in indigenous communities today than in storages and drawers in museums, but they may require different forms of request to the institutions that hold them. This research phase is really critical to framing requests in ways that will be persuasive.

I agree also that the definition of “aboriginal cultural property” needs to be further refined, as stated earlier by Dean Oliver.

I will now turn our presentation over to Anong Beam, who will address the critically important need for the bill to support indigenous community infrastructure.

[Dr. Sarah Pash, Executive Director, Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute]

[Witness speaks in indigenous language]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you also to the committee.

[Witness speaks in indigenous language]

I am very honoured to be here on unceded Algonquin territory to speak about the very important bill that we're discussing today.

Aanischaaukamikw is the cultural centre for the 10 Cree communities of the Eeyou Istchee in northern Quebec. We run a 30,150-square-foot building that has 3,000 square feet of long-term and temporary exhibition space, visible storage, a documentation and resource centre, state-of-the-art collection storage, including archaeology, and workspace for approximately 40 staff.

Aboriginal cultural property is defined in the bill as “objects”. In our experience, and considering our long-term needs for repatriation, the definition should include intangible heritage, archival documentary materials and all forms of research data. As we struggle to maintain our language, ensure transmission of our culture and traditional knowledge from generation to generation and protect our cultural heritage for generations to come, we understand the importance of ensuring our ability to repatriate materials and objects such as our ceremonial items held in museums in the south and the voices of our elders, long since passed, in university archival collections of anthropologists.

This necessitates inclusion of any research data and documentary materials that are part of indigenous heritage. Much of our cultural heritage is held by museums and academic institutions beyond Eeyou Istchee throughout Canada, the U.S. and in other places in the world.

When we define cultural property, we define it in terms of heritage and identity. Heritage is inextricably linked to identity; therefore, there is no way to separate indigenous cultural property from indigenous heritage as a right.

The bill comes at a time when we're welcoming the ratification of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for its assertion that indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize cultural traditions and customs, including the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, referring to both material and intangible cultural property.

After centuries of colonization and colonial actions that have endangered our ability to authentically enact heritage as a right, we welcome actions such as Bill C-391 if the enactment is an authentic way of supporting our right to heritage and ensuring that our cultural property is protected and preserved for generations to come.

Although the scope of Bill C-391 places aboriginal cultural property wherever it is situated, in order for this to be comprehensive and meet our needs, this must be clearly understood to include holdings in other countries beyond Canada. We have items of great significance to our heritage throughout the United States and Europe as well as in many places across Canada, and much of this consists of sacred and ceremonial items.

The lack of strength in statements as a result of utilizing phrasing such as “encouraging” the return of property rather than “requiring” the return of cultural property is of concern in the light of calls for authentic implementation of the UN declaration and the TRC calls to action. The two documents, if taken seriously, require a complete reframing and revisioning of the relationship between indigenous nations, their cultural institutes and mainstream museums.

The bill refers to “owners, custodians or trustees”, which are typically self-appointed positions when it comes to indigenous heritage or intangible cultural property. This is a subtlety in power dynamics that should be more widely understood within the discourse surrounding repatriation as an act of reconciliation.

It's also worth noting that the owners, custodians or trustees referred to in this section have profited from the property they hold, using it to raise profile, develop programming, legitimize their standing as institutions and raise capital. From this view, it should be recognized that the owners, custodians or trustees are indebted to the source communities. The mainstream heritage community and the indigenous heritage community together need to collectively advocate to reframe the relationship as a matter of reconciliation. In fact, the ways in which indigenous cultural property is discussed and publicly labelled as “collections” or “artifacts” work to whitewash processes that are quite violent in nature.

In terms of our territory, items from our territory ended up in museums, academic collections or private collections through means that were more than dubious in nature. Yes, some were bought and paid for, but even when this happened, the collector was frequently in an advantaged position of wealth and power, not facing starvation or other catastrophic life events.

Take, for example, the case of ceremonial objects that we know are in museums across the country and around the world and that we know originated in our communities.

One such ceremonial item, a woman's beaded hood from the mid-1800s, used to honour our relationship with the animals that we depend on and to celebrate life events, was found in a museum in Montreal. Through our research, we tied this ceremonial hood to one of our communities in northern Quebec. We knew which family it was from and we knew who the hood-bearer was in the 1800s, but we were unable to determine how the hood ended up in the hands of a collector, and from there in a mainstream urban museum. We can only theorize that if the hood were not obtained through theft or forcibly taken, then the family would have been in such a state of extreme hardship that they would have needed to part with this important family inheritance, an important tie to their spiritual and ceremonial life.

If we are able to only discuss and acknowledge the fact that the removal of parts of our cultural heritage from our communities was facilitated by undesirable economic or social conditions, or that they were stolen or taken by force, or even unexplainably ended up in the hands of a collector, we have not arrived at the point as a society where we can merely “encourage” the return of indigenous cultural property. In keeping with this, support for the process referred to must ensure that indigenous heritage organizations and communities are not burdened with any costs related to the process of re-homing cultural property.

From our experience, transporting an object from a museum in Montreal or Toronto can cost tens of thousands of dollars. For a small non-profit institute, this is a burden that is taken on with the knowledge that our ability to provide access to parts of our tangible heritage that have fallen out of memory or use within our communities is an important aspect of cultural revival and maintenance of heritage. If we're speaking, as referred to in clause 3, of support for preservation and access, this should be understood to mean the financial support necessary to do this work properly. In addition, this support should ensure that the cost is not borne by indigenous communities or organizations. Authentic financial support takes into account transportation costs, conservation costs, and facility and operations support. There are other considerations that must be taken into account here, including support for increasing capacity within indigenous nations, human resource training, and facilities development.

Our facility, Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute, located in Oujé-Bougoumou in northern Quebec, serves our entire nation of 10 Cree communities across Eeyou Istchee. We own and operate a state-of-the-art facility that has achieved category A designation from Canadian Heritage, a designation that recognizes our facility is on a par in terms of conservation and storage facilities and capacity with many of the major museums in this country.

More and more across the country, indigenous organizations are developing these types of institutes and supporting their ability in cultural heritage management. The bill calls for support for repatriation of cultural property, which must include support for the development of the facilities necessary to house such property.

Further, regarding access, it would be preferable if there would be no room for conditional demands on indigenous communities centred in western museological norms that restrict access for any reason that an indigenous community deems valid. Control and access decisions should remain in the hands of indigenous communities or their representative organizations, and that authority must be well recognized.

Frequently we're met with resistance from museums to access because of their reliance on decision-making protocols that are based in western museological norms. These norms don't take into account our own knowledge about how ceremonial items and other items should be cared for and handled. In many instances we found that our objects are improperly cared for and disrespected in mainstream museums because of their reliance on western museological norms. In many cases as well, proper care of the object would entail its relocation to the territory it originated in and to which its spiritual life is tied.

The dislocation and disrespectful handling, even incidentally, of our most precious heritage objects is a pain that this bill could work to alleviate. It should also be noted that in many cases collective items have been subjected to less than ideal storage situations. Many sacred and ceremonial and otherwise important objects have been sprayed with pesticides and neglected as low-priority items in museums, as we have found in some of our cultural property that's held overseas.

The need for support in repatriation of indigenous heritage property is contextualized for us by the fact that much of the collecting work took place during an era of empire expansion, when indigenous cultural items were viewed as exotica, fetish and salvage. In light of these points, there's much repatriation work to be done.

In regard to claims on collections extracted from indigenous communities and territories, especially following contact with Europeans, there was rarely any form of proof of ownership in the sense of documentary evidence. The burden of proof can't be borne by indigenous communities alone. While research must be done, this must be led by indigenous communities but supported financially and otherwise, without placing costs on indigenous communities. In addition, oral tradition and oral discourse need to be valued in terms of this research that's done to place objects within their home communities.

I'd like to take a moment to recognize the work of Mr. Casey and others who developed this bill and also acknowledge that, if passed, it would be a substantial support to our efforts to ensure cultural maintenance and access to our own heritage. Repatriation of cultural property allows us to ensure access to heritage to the population we serve. It creates deep and meaningful experiences and learning opportunities that allow us to reclaim aspects of ourselves and who we are, learning about ourselves as we bring our cultural property home.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Regional Chief Morley Googoo, Regional Chief, Nova Scotia/Newfoundland and Labrador, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you so much.

[Witness speaks in indigenous language]

Thank you so much for having me this morning. I am very glad to be here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin nation, a proud Mi'kmaq from Nova Scotia. My good friend is here, our MP Andy Fillmore. I have worked on some projects with him.

The Assembly of First Nations has not taken a position on the private member's bill, Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property. During our summer assembly, the Chiefs-in-Assembly passed a resolution that directed the AFN to ensure that any future national strategy on the repatriation of indigenous cultural property be created with the full participation of first nations and uphold the standards set out in the UN declaration. I expect the issue raised by this proposed Bill C-391 will be reviewed by the chiefs this coming December in our winter assembly.

First nations across the country have long expressed the need for the creation and implementation of legal protection to ensure repatriation of all ancestral remains, sacred objects and objects of cultural significance. In 1994, the Assembly of First Nations created a task force with the Canadian Museums Association that developed ethical standards on how first nations and museums would work together on respecting the interaction of repatriation.

While that work stands the test of time, we note the need for informed legal analysis on this matter, one that takes into account significant legal documents since 1994, such as the adoption of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms the treaty and inherent rights of first nations; and in 2007, adoption by the UN General Assembly of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

First nations across Canada have experienced many violations of our rights. Ancestral remains, sacred objects and objects of cultural significance have been taken without free, prior and informed consent of first nations. This is what most people think of when they speak about repatriation of our cultural property—heritage and our materials—but it's also important to note a crucial repatriation issue: intangible property.

First nations have lost access to recordings of voices, the voices and stories of our elders that were collected from our people by all the researchers. These sacred stories, histories and lessons from the land are often deposited in museums and archives, gathering dust when they could be helping rebuild our nations and connection to our landscape and to our history.

Action is needed that respects first nations protocol and our human rights as people. Guidelines were developed 24 years ago by the task force on museums and first peoples, but there was no enforceability, and there still isn't. Discretion and power have been left in the hands of the museums. This situation doesn't align with the obligations Canada has under the UN declaration. The Government of Canada has moral and legal duties to assist indigenous peoples to secure the return of property and materials that were illegally and deceptively taken from indigenous people, and they must work with indigenous people to establish a pathway home.

First nations and Canadian museums have developed a case-by-case approach to repatriation requests that respects different circumstances. After all, there are 58 different indigenous nations in this country. As your committee has heard, first nations require resources to participate in many of these endeavours or to bring about repatriation of our own items. There is a need for a full engagement process as well as a thorough legal analysis to understand the diverse situations of first nations across Canada.

We encourage Canada to explore a structured and fully supported dialogue process with first nations. I bring to your attention that the Chiefs-in-Assembly have passed numerous resolutions relating to repatriation. The chief has also directed the AFN to call upon federal and provincial and territorial governments to acknowledge their moral and fiduciary responsibilities to assist first nations across Canada in their domestic and international repatriation efforts. To deny first nations access or control is to impede first nation rights to a self-determination guaranteed by our inherent treaty rights, constitutional rights and international human rights. We must examine what policies and legal framework are required to guide museums in the relationship and interaction with first nations.

A law that simply encourages owners to return property will not achieve the aim of protecting and respecting first nation rights and advancing reconciliation. Many items were sold to museums or private collections under conditions of duress. People were starving. First nations have never consented to the relocation of their ancestral burial remains to museums.

First nations need commitment and action from the federal government to locate, gain access to and repatriate cultural items held domestically and in collections outside of Canada. Ultimately, there must be enforceable measures for those holding sacred first nation items and burial remains to respect the protocols and rights of first nations.

Our communities must be partners with agencies and authorities throughout the decision-making process and application process. Canada's role would include promoting and supporting the return of our cultural property and materials. The principles within the UN declaration should be used as a framework for any decisions on repatriation. First nations should not be limited in their presentation of their own past, present and futures.

In the spirit of reconciliation, the wilful erosion of first nation cultures and languages by previous generations calls for expenditure of public funds. Any new legislation on repatriation that seeks only to encourage repatriation does not go far enough in affirming first nation rights, especially legislation that is not co-created.

In the short term, there are a number of steps Canada can take:

Fund and take action to support first nations in the return of our tangible and intangible cultural heritage and ancestral remains. In the same way, language revitalization action is needed to preserve our protected languages. Cultural heritage faces endangerment, and we cannot wait to act on repatriation to revitalize our indigenous culture;

Develop a domestic and international catalogue. A record of objects of ancestral remains currently held by museums, archives and other institutions must be established.

We need co-development of the process. Actions should be taken to develop an indigenous peoples-led framework to equally recognize the knowledge of indigenous peoples and our rights to make decisions about our tangible and intangible heritage.

Hundreds of years of cultural erosion cannot be overcome simply through small steps. Longer-term steps should be included. There should be robust legislation that is directed by indigenous-led policy development and a review of current policies and practices that identify where indigenous peoples' values and rights have been excluded.

Provide funding and support for the inclusion of indigenous peoples' legal traditions and protocols and cultural heritage policies and legislation.

Carry out audits of museums' and other institutions' past practices in repatriation and an audit of the failure to implement the recommendations of the 1994 Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples.

Look at reviewing international policies and legislation to understand what has and what has not worked in their repatriation legislation—for example, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The U.S. has some great successes, but it also creates stress on the relationships between parties through a rigid framework and lack of funding to support the work required.

First nations across Canada should be able to maintain, protect and have access to our religious, ceremonial and cultural sites and objects and have a collective right to repatriation of our ancestral remains, sacred objects and objects of cultural significance.

I want to thank the committee and Bill Casey, our MP back home, for raising the profile to another level. I think this is so important for us to build co-operatively with a new narrative for all Canadians and for all our people.

Wela’lioq.

[Travis Gladue, Co-founder, Bigstone Empowerment Society]

Thank you.

Hello. Tansi. I am Travis Gladue.

I would like to thank MP David Yurdiga for the recommendation to be here today, and the heritage committee for inviting me to discuss Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property.

Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge the traditional territory of the Algonquin Tribe in Ottawa.

I'm a proud Bigstone Cree Nation member from Treaty 8 territory in northern Alberta. Our traditional territories include Chipewyan Lake, Sandy Lake, Calling Lake, and Wabasca-Desmarais, Alberta. We are a Woodland Cree tribe.

My nation is known as sakâwiyiniwak. It's also a Cree word for forest people, bush people.

Over the centuries we have had many ceremonial items taken from us by museums, collectors, churches, specifically from the Anglican and Catholic denominations. Some of the ancient artifacts, which date back prior to European contact, include arrowheads, axe heads and various ancient tools. Due to the colonization of Canada, many of these ancestral artifacts were taken from us or were destroyed.

As a nation, we are in the process of healing and reconciliation, and we greatly need to find our identity, culture and language.

Working together collectively to have these items repatriated is an empowering mechanism that will be a vital component to build the journey toward reconciliation so that our future generations can have the dignity and pride that our ancestors and grandparents had taken away from them.

Safekeeping and monitoring of these artifacts will take a collective effort and support system from all levels of government to help ensure this effort will be sustained and protected in the years to come. Furthermore, first nation, Métis and Inuit nations should work along with all parties involved into helping to preserve and protect our history.

An elder and fellow members from my nation have recently been in contact with the Royal Alberta Museum regarding some of the artifacts they have kept in their collection. A total of 11 objects are being considered for repatriation, including a pair of handmade moccasins, a drum, an axe head, and several pieces of jewellery. We are currently talking with the museum about a long-term loan basis. We have overcome a hurdle recently due to the great efforts to build a facility to house these objects.

Back in 2000, the Alberta provincial government passed the First Nations Sacred Ceremonial Objects Repatriation Act. The act governs the Royal Alberta Museum and the Glenbow Museum in Calgary, but mainly pertains to the Blackfoot tribe in Treaty 7 territory and only currently covers ceremonial items. Members of my nation would like to see the act expanded to include the other two main Alberta treaties, Treaty 6 and Treaty 8.

I would like to thank Mike Beaver, the former Bigstone Cree Nation Chief and current chairman of the Wabasca Museum Board. He was one of the first people to propose the repatriation of items back in 2007. I would also like to thank the former chief, Ralph Cardinal, for his support to achieve the recognition of these endeavours.

On another note, I'd like to take a moment and mention the protection and repatriation of ancestral gravesites. In 1999, a book called Kituskeenow Cultural Land-Use and Occupancy Study was published by the Arctic Institute of North America. The subjects covered in the book included native people in the Alberta region. Specifically, page 36 of this book sums it up:

The project recorded unregistered grave sites only. The total number of these graves exceeded 200 at more than 70 sites. Registered cemetery sites in the communities of Peerless Lake, Trout Lake, Wabasca-Desmarais, Sandy Lake and Calling Lake are not included in the count. Most of the elders in this study will be buried in these established communities rather than the bush where they were born and raised.

In early 2017, I researched the potential burial location of a former chief of Bigstone Cree Nation. Chief Maxime Beauregard served the nation from May 26, 1947, to January 31, 1962. After his time as chief of Bigstone Cree Nation, my great-grandfather became ill and was sent to the Charles Camsell Indian Hospital in Edmonton. He passed away on July 24, 1963. His body was not sent back to Wabasca, where he was from and where his children resided at that time and reside even to this day.

According to his death records, he was buried at the Winterburn Cemetery, which is located in Enoch Cree Nation, Alberta. We were able to find some potential burial locations, and at this point in time, we are in talks with the Enoch Cree Nation with regard to burial plots and the location of these potential plots or the names of these parties.

I would just like to conclude that this bill is very important, but it will also have to take into consideration the consultation needed in the communities. There needs to be a collective, joint effort by all parties involved.

Thank you for having me today.

[Dr. Dean Oliver, Director, Research, Canadian Museum of History]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madame Chair.

The Museum of History is very appreciative of the opportunity to discuss Bill C-391 and the proposed creation of a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property.

As an institution that has been historically at the forefront of discussions on this subject, and on reconciliation with indigenous communities more generally, we are pleased at the invitation to share some notes from our own experiences and recommendations and have had an opportunity to meet with the sponsor of the bill earlier this year to provide, directly, some feedback and advice and I will reiterate that a little further in my remarks.

The museum, as many of you know, is Canada's national museum of history. It is one of Canada's six national museums and is mandated onto the Museums Act of 1990 to collect objects of historical or cultural interest to be preserved on behalf of all Canadians. The museum's unique collection represents the entire country, all of its peoples, and it is very well documented. It was built and continues to be built with very particular deliberation in terms of collections, building and management.

It holds, I think, the largest collection of objects related to indigenous history and culture in Canada, collected over the past 150 years. It's well known in the museological community for its close work in collaboration, consultation and partnership with indigenous communities, and many of those same communities are, in fact, quite proud to have their cultures and their histories represented in the museum and its activities.

The museum recently opened the Canadian History Hall, the most comprehensive exhibition of Canadian history ever developed, and that hall begins with an indigenous creation story and continues to weave indigenous stories throughout approximately 15,000 years of Canadian history that are depicted in the hall, fully integrating indigenous stories into the fabric of the museum in its entirety. A section of that hall—to point out one example—presents a digital forensic depiction of the likenesses of a high-ranking indigenous Shishalh family that lived approximately 4000 years ago. This module was created in very close collaboration with that indigenous community, and a second version of the module was presented at the same time in the community's own museum in Sechelt, on the Pacific coast of British Columbia. The entire hall, in fact, was created through that kind of collaboration with indigenous communities around the country, as well as in consultation with an indigenous advisory committee. The hall, too, was designed by someone many of you know, indigenous architect Douglas Cardinal, who was the designer of the original museum building itself.

The museum's leadership in that kind of principled engagement was, in fact, highlighted in the 2015 report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by name. Such projects build, we believe, strong and positive relationships with communities, and they share knowledge and expertise. They achieve all of that through day-to-day museum work, as well as through more formal programs, such as something called the sacred materials project, which brings community members to the museum to share appropriate and traditional care and handling of the materials and knowledge of same.

The RBC Aboriginal Training Program in Museum Practices, which was created in the early 1990s, offers professional and technical training for first nations, Métis and Inuit participants from the around country so that they may gather, preserve and share their own histories and cultures in their own communities. That has now graduated more than 100 young indigenous museum professionals.

In the field of repatriation activities specifically, we have been very heavily involved for around four decades. Beginning in the early 1990s, the repatriation of objects in the national collection was also added as a topic in treaty negotiations. The museum engages directly in those negotiations, providing information about the collections to participants and discussing repatriation in the context of its own repatriation practices and policies.

In addition to treaty negotiations, custodial agreements or sharing agreements are another important way that the museum shares responsibility for, and access to, its own collections. The museum has a custodial agreement, for example, with the Nisga'a Nation whereby Nisga'a objects are shared on a permanent and ongoing basis with the community.

That agreement speaks to consultation and the inclusion of Nisga'a cultural practices in the care of objects that remain at the museum and of any future acquisitions by the museum of Nisga'a material. Nisga'a Museum director Stephanie Halapija called the implementation of that agreement, “a tangible representation of reconciliation in action.”

The underlying purpose of the bill we are discussing today, as reiterated by the sponsoring member before this committee on September 18, is to provide an additional voice or doorway to the repatriation discussion. This is an objective my museum certainly shares.

As we understood it directly and indirectly from the sponsoring member, his intent in drafting the bill was to address concerns he had for a small museum in his riding in an effort to help it repatriate an object held in an international museum. The proposed strategy that has resulted, which was kindly shared with the museum in the spring, promises to support the return of aboriginal cultural property under specified conditions and to improve access to that property for educational and ceremonial purposes as matters of equal importance.

The museum shares fully these objectives. In fact, as I've already indicated, the museum is doing much of this work now, and has been for a very long time. However, the museum would add for the committee's due consideration—as we shared with the member after meeting with him in the spring—some suggestions on how the bill's current language might better serve these purposes.

As written, the bill's language may be more expansive and imprecise, and therefore not as helpful as originally intended. The strategy could identify more clearly the types of material to be subject to repatriation and the terms and conditions under which requests or demands might be entertained. For example, the current draft offers little distinction between legally acquired objects and all objects, a difference of cardinal importance to all collecting institutions, and indeed to all collectors the world over.

Further, the notion of physical and legal availability of an object is likewise currently absent from the bill's language, as is the notion of compliance with existing and relevant indigenous protocols. The bill, we believe, would be further helped by clearly defining what “available” or “availability” means in its context.

These suggestions would help hone and target the bill's efforts to realize what we understood to be its original spirit and intent. They would also serve to clarify the work and deliberations of any strategy or implementation framework that would later be created by the bill to help manage the flow of information, claims and decisions.

In our experience, this important but delicate work also requires clarity on the link between the requester for repatriated material and the material being requested. This, too, is presently imprecise in the bill's language, which specifies objects that are “of importance” to requesters. Describing objects as “linked to” or “originating from” the requester's specific indigenous group would, we think, be closer to the professed intent.

The bill may also be enhanced by including the notions of access and/or accessibility in addition to that of repatriation. As we indicated earlier, there are other means in addition to repatriation that can enhance accessibility to stories and to objects. As the bill proposes ways to measure progress and eventually to create metrics for success, it might also acknowledge awareness of the work already being done today by cultural institutions of many types, and the ways in which the bill can support such institutions in their work.

Any such metric should differentiate between existing efforts that are successful and new initiatives that stem from the bill and might also be successful, to ensure that future reporting is effective, accurate and encouraging of future results.

In closing, we've been guided in these comments by the text of the bill itself; by what the sponsoring member indicated about his motivations and intentions, including his comments to you on September 18; and by our own considerable experience in repatriation work and related fields as a very privileged participant and, humbly, a leading practitioner for some 40 years in this field, in anticipation of greater and more impactful efforts yet to come.

We certainly believe that the bill holds promise. We also believe that it needs some additional diligence and tighter drafting in key areas to ensure it meets its author's and this committee's expectations, so that if enacted, it can serve as a usable, effective and respectful framework for many years to come.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. We hope the committee finds our recommendations to be of use in its deliberations.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I call the meeting to order.

I would like to welcome everyone to meeting number 122 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I apologize for a slight delay in beginning, but we will keep moving it along.

We have witnesses here today with regard to our study of Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property. We have Travis Gladue with us, from Bigstone Empowerment Society, and from the Canadian Museum of History, we have Dean Oliver.

We have one other witness on this list, but I just want to confirm whether she's in this room. She would be Sarah Pash from the Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute.

All right, we're still waiting for her. What we can do is begin with the witnesses who are present.

I would also like to flag for you that you have translation services available. We have members of Parliament who will ask questions in both English and French, because we are a bilingual committee, so if you need translation services, you have earpieces you can use.

Why don't we begin with the Canadian Museum of History?

We'll begin with Dean Oliver, please.

[Bob Laidler]

Museums contribute to the economy and the tourism industry. Over 60% of all our international visitors attend museums. Museums are catalysts for creative hubs, a collaborative community building upon its ability to stimulate creativity, innovation and business development and to build a culture of success and prosperity.

The CMA is named in the TRC call to action number 67, which calls for the complete review of museum practices and policies. We have established a special reconciliation council composed of 15 respected individuals—with a majority of indigenous descent—to address this review.

In addition, before the House is Bill C-391, which calls for a national strategy on repatriation. We have supplied a comprehensive brief to you, based on extensive consultations. These are based on several main pillars of support: reconciliation, digitization, social inclusion, diversity and financial stability.

[Bill Casey]

I think you can tell that I would like it to go a long way. This calls for that strategy. I'm calling for the strategy you're calling for, and that includes all of those things you listed and the resources that would be necessary. We're talking about a lot of different things.

We just agreed with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We're going to adopt that. In there it says we have to take special measures to help the economies of first nations. This is a special measure. If we can help them establish what you're talking about—facilities with artifacts on display—that's going to be a huge draw.

Everybody is interested in indigenous history, it seems. I am for sure, and I know most people are, but they don't have the resources. Everything we're doing, everything we're saying we're going to do, points to this. It points in this direction. We've adopted it. We've agreed to take special measures.

The number one issue for the Indigenous Tourism Association was artifacts. I had no idea that would be it, but I had just tabled my Bill C-391. I went to this meeting in Centre Block, and that was the number one issue. They didn't know about my bill, but their number one issue was restoring their artifacts so that they could put them on display and attract tourists. This will help pay for it. It could be a viable business plan. They have these artifacts on this display and it's going to cost this much money. It might be a positive economic business plan you could put forward and finance in that way.

The strategy is to help first nations like Millbrook figure that out. I'm not calling for a lot of money to be spent on it, but I'm calling for a strategy to help first nations. For sure, there will be cases where it's just not viable. If that robe was $500,000 or $600,000 10 or 15 years ago, it would probably be much more today. There's no way we could support that, but by adding a voice, which the House of Commons has done, maybe we're going to get it back for zero dollars.

Fortunately, Millbrook does have a properly built facility that has environmental controls and fire protection and everything else, but you're right that a lot of them don't. Maybe it's part of the strategy to help work on that. If we recognize the artifacts as a tremendous resource and a tremendous asset—and they are—then maybe these resources will be available to develop them. How's that for an answer?

[Bill Casey]

The experience I had was that Millbrook had no place to turn. I talked to museums, and they talk about repatriation, but from talking to indigenous communities, I feel they don't provide the help they need. The whole goal is to add a voice to small indigenous communities like Millbrook so that they're not all by themselves on this endeavour.

As far as money goes, that's part of the strategy. This regalia, I understand, had been given a price of $500,000 to $600,000. That was the estimated value. We're talking about zero now; because of Bill C-391, we're talking about them returning it for zero. That's how this national strategy that I'm calling for could help. That was one of the barriers they ran into at the beginning. By adding our voice...and I just say to all members, it was two minutes and 37 seconds in the House of Commons. That's meaningful. I wouldn't rule out money being made available, but it's not necessary. Mostly I'm talking about assistance in communication and transportation, things like that. Safekeeping is really important. That's what it's about.

Here's a book written by Ruth Phillips. We met with Ruth Phillips. This is almost the bible of indigenous artifacts. You have the whole story about the travels of this robe in here, in the chapter called The Global Travels of a Mi’kmaq Coat. The whole story's in here. It's an amazing book. It's just amazing, the research she did. Huyghue, the guy who bought the regalia in 1843, is quoted in this book:

...Huyghue was convinced of the inevitable and tragic fate that awaited Aboriginal cultural traditions and ways of life: “Alas! poor remnants of a once mighty nation - ye are like the few remaining leaves on a tree from whence their companions have withered....”

That's why the person who bought this robe in 1843 wanted to save it. He wanted it saved. He treasured the Mi’kmaq traditions and culture. It's all in this book. It's just an amazing book. She spent five years writing it.

[Heather Stevens, Operations Supervisor, Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Centre]

I do.

Hello and good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members.

My name is Heather Stevens. I'm a Mi'kmaq woman from Millbrook First Nation in Nova Scotia, as Bill said. I am here before you this afternoon to address Bill C-391. In doing so, I'm going to tell you a bit about me and the story behind the bill.

I am the operations supervisor at the Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Centre, which is located in Millbrook First Nation. Within the centre, we have artifacts from our Mi'kmaq people that date back 7,500 years. Think about that. It's a long time ago.

I'm going to go off my notes just a bit. We have an archeological dig taking place just outside of our location at Mi'kmawey Debert. In Mi'kmawey Debert, artifacts dating back 13,600 years for our people were uncovered. Mind you, we don't have them in our centre yet either. We're hoping to get those as well.

We are fortunate and honoured to have in our centre these artifacts from 7,500 years ago.

I am here today to bring light to our struggle in trying to have a priceless piece of our Mi'kmaq cultural history returned to its mother country. The Mi'kmaq regalia that we are now trying to acquire is being held at the Melbourne Museum in Australia. This regalia dates back to about the 1840s. We have a picture of it in our museum, as Bill said, but the true piece is in the Melbourne Museum, tucked away somewhere.

When I first started at the Glooscap Heritage Centre and Mi'kmaq Museum, which is now the Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Centre, I was a programs assistant. At that time, the picture of this regalia was in the same display case, and I often wondered why there was just a picture. Why didn't we have this historical regalia displayed here for our people from all over Mi'kma'ki, which in our language is “the land of the Mi'kmaq”, to see, touch and experience that part of our history at first hand?

The answer I received from those in previous endeavours of trying to acquire the regalia in partnership with the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq and the GHC was that “We have tried, but there's too much red tape and it's just not worth the fight anymore.” That frustrated me so much, but in the position I held, my hands were tied.

When I was eventually put in my current position, I made it a point to have not only me but the entire staff speak to all visitors to our centre about the regalia. In doing so, we were hoping that eventually someone would listen and help us. That day came at the end of last year when MP Bill Casey came to the centre on a different matter. I had been chosen to give him a tour of the museum. When we reached that particular display case, I spoke to him about the value of the piece and the struggles that I had gone through to no avail. At that point, I saw a light in MP Bill Casey's eyes that I had never seen before. That light was hope.

From that point on, MP Bill Casey has worked with me on moving forward with regard to acquiring this priceless historical Mi'kmaq regalia and having it returned to its rightful place. Over a short period of time, I made a connection with another first nations woman of the Worimi Nation, who is employed at the Melbourne Museum, and spoke with her about the regalia. She could relate to the meaning and the desire to get it back home where it belongs. She's so very excited to be a part of having this artifact returned to its rightful place.

As of right now, the movement is slow, but I am very optimistic that if this bill passes, we are going to open a door that is going to let other first nation communities get back the material history that is rightfully theirs, and they will be able to share that history with others. Sharing this history among the Mi'kmaq people and others could uncover direct descendants of that regalia and other historical properties.

The feeling is about recognition of wrongdoing and moving forward with a part of reconciliation for first nations. I, as well as many other first nation people, feel that this would be a step in the right direction, a step to allow us to reconnect with our past, which was taken from us so long ago.

That's it. Thank you very much for your time, Madam Chair and committee.

[Bill Casey]

They also spelled my name right, which is the important thing.

That's the impact it's had. We had calls from Germany. We had calls from Britain, the U.S., and all over asking about the details of the bill. We had a call from the Secretary General of the Commonwealth Association of Museums, which represents 52 countries with thousands of museums. They suggested that they may use this bill as a template for other countries that are trying to get their artifacts back—especially African countries, which have seen many of their artifacts taken all over the world.

Therrefore, we've already had an impact. We had one family call and tell us that they have indigenous artifacts and they don't know what to do with them. This bill would provide a place for them to go. The family told us that they want the artifacts to go back to the proper people, to go back to the people they came from. They don't know what to do.

This bill will help to provide that doorway that people can go to if they do have artifacts to return.

Yesterday I received an email from Chief Dean Nelson, who says:

...I am the political chief of the Lil'wat people

That's in Mount Currie in British Columbia.

He says:

I thank you for your efforts in the introduction of this Bill C-391. I am currently pursuing the very same action of repatriation. If there's anything we can do to [help] strengthen these efforts, please [let us know].

We've heard from indigenous peoples all across the country. When we started, we consulted with just our local indigenous community, but since then we've consulted with dozens of museums and indigenous communities to make sure that we did this right.

When we first started, we didn't realize what a big thing this might end up being. It was just to add a voice. That was our goal, just to add a voice, but it seems that countries around the world are really anxious to have their artifacts repatriated.

In a coincidence, I went to the Indigenous Tourism Association meeting last spring, and the number one issue to them was repatriation of artifacts for economic purposes—not for heritage and culture so much, but for economic purposes, because people who want to come to first nations are really interested in the history and the heritage and they want to see the artifacts. They want to see the history. The young people want to see how things were made. They want to see the talent. They want to see the processes that were in place in the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s. That's what this artifacts issue is really about.

In the U.S., they did it a little differently. They developed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which requires confiscation of artifacts. Our bill does not require confiscation. It would mean that if artifacts are available or have been obtained through nefarious approaches, the Government of Canada has a structure and a policy to help first nations bring them back.

Millbrook First Nation has about 1,500 to 2,000 people; it depends on how you count them. They're incredibly innovative and imaginative and they do a wonderful job, but still, they're 1,500 to 2,000 people and they do not have the resources to take on something like this repatriation of the robe. However, if this bill passes—I hope you'll help us with it—they will have some place to go to in order to ask for advice on storage, repatriation, restoration and safekeeping.

I'm sure you all heard about the museum in Brazil that burned to the ground a week or so ago. A whole lot of Canadian aboriginal artifacts were lost in that fire, priceless artifacts that are gone forever and ever because they weren't stored properly. Maybe we can save some future losses if we can have this bill passed and we can get those artifacts back in our own hands and properly stored.

It's been a thrill to be involved with this issue. It's been a thrill to talk to aboriginal peoples all across the country and all around the world about this. It's been very gratifying to me. What started out to be a small thing to just add a voice has turned out to be something really meaningful, and I appreciate your attention to it.

I have to hand it to Heather Stevens. She's done a great job on this.

Heather, thanks very much.

Joel, too, you did a great job.

With that, I'm going to finish my remarks. I welcome your interventions and questions and everything else.

Thanks very much.

[Bill Casey]

Yes. Thanks very much.

I think I'll start the presentation by telling you a little story about how this all unfolded and how I got involved.

In 2017 I visited the Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Centre. Millbrook First Nation is a small first nation in my riding, but very progressive. They have a wonderful cultural and heritage centre, and Heather Stevens is the manager and curator. They have a lot of artifacts on display. She was explaining the artifacts to me, and she showed me this—I've passed the picture around for everybody to see—in its own glass display case.

I was admiring it, and Heather told me that it wasn't the real one, but a replica. The real one was in Australia. She told me they'd been trying to get it back since the 1990s. Because of different barriers, they hadn't been able to repatriate it.

I thought that was not right, so when I came back, Joel and I checked to see if there was any legislation or any government program or policy that would help a small first nation like Millbrook reacquire their artifacts. We knew where they were—they were legally in Australia and everything—but just in general, we wanted to find out if there was any way the government could help. There was no way.

We decided to draft this private member's bill, mostly just to give a voice to indigenous peoples and to know that there's a strategy on behalf of the government to help them get their artifacts back. We started it out that way, with the very small goal of just adding a voice—that's the way I like to put it—to indigenous peoples' voices.

The amazing thing was that when I tabled the motion at first reading, I spoke for two minutes and 37 seconds. I talked about the robe and I talked about it being in Australia, just to introduce the bill. Three weeks later, the Australian embassy called and asked if the ambassador could come and see me. I told them, “Of course”. I didn't connect it. I just thought she was doing her job and making good connections. She came in, she sat down, and we talked for a little while. All of a sudden, she told me that she'd been in touch with the Melbourne Museum, where the robe is, and they were prepared to begin negotiations to repatriate that robe. I was floored. I couldn't believe it. Two minutes and 37 seconds in the House was better than 30 years of trying on behalf of indigenous people.

It was a profound moment for me when she said that. I couldn't believe it. She gave me the name of the people in Melbourne to contact. She was very outgoing. When I asked her why she had done this, she told me that in Australia they have a thriving indigenous community. They have a rich heritage and rich culture, and they want their artifacts back. How could they ask Canada or other countries to please return artifacts if they wouldn't return theirs? As a result, that process is under way.

The magic to me is this. We have here a young aboriginal woman from Nova Scotia, from Millbrook band, and she is negotiating with a young aboriginal woman in Australia. It's not Australia to Canada or Canada to Australia: it's first nation to first nation, 15,000 kilometres apart. To me that's very meaningful. I think it's an indication of where we're going as a country and as a globe with respect to indigenous relations and respect.

We've already had an impact with Bill C-391, even though it hasn't passed. We don't have this robe back, but we're well on the way to getting it back. I'm optimistic that we are going to get it back, and the other artifacts with it.

I've passed around this article. It's not in either official language. It's in Chinese. This private member's bill was picked up in China. I know what it's about because it has my picture in it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We will start up again.

In our second hour today, we are reviewing Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property.

We have with us MP Bill Casey, who brought forward this bill; Heather Stevens, from the Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Centre; and Joel Henderson. I do not have him on my list, but he is with Mr. Casey.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 3:34 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-391, under private members' business.

Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

The House resumed from May 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Export and Import Permits Act

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, it is fascinating to hear the opposition complaining about having to be here, and this is only day three of extended hours.

The Conservatives say they are willing to stop debate on Bill C-47, but only if the government agrees not to call any other legislation. That makes no sense. They have been complaining about not having enough time to debate legislation, and extending the hours allows them to debate important legislation, so why do they suddenly not want to debate?

The government has been asking for information. The NDP has provided it, but the Conservatives have refused to provide it. Why do they ask for more debate time and then complain about getting it?

The government has spoken on this legislation, and we are now ready to advance it to the next stage. I would encourage opposition members to share information, as there is a better way to work in this place if they are willing to do so. We have not seen their desire to do so yet, but perhaps there is a way forward to be better.

They say they are eager to debate legislation, and yet they forced a vote on Bill C-57 when the House supported the bill. They did the same thing for private member's bill, Bill C-391.

If Conservative members can confirm that no members want to speak to Bill C-47 and they are prepared to let the debate collapse, then we would most certainly be happy to see the clock at midnight.

Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise today in support of Bill C-391, which concerns the development of a national strategy on the repatriation of indigenous cultural property.

I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing this very important issue before Parliament. I am happy to have seconded the bill that supports ongoing efforts for reconciliation. I was happy to second this bill because of its relevance to my home province and community.

In Manitoba last year, the federal government and the RCMP agreed to transfer Métis artifacts that belonged to Louis Riel to the Manitoba Metis Federation. These items were of deep cultural importance to the community, and the symbolism of the RCMP displaying items belonging to Riel, whom they imprisoned, was very striking. In transferring these items, the government made it very clear that it understood the artifacts belonged to the Métis community, and therefore it was only appropriate for them to be returned.

One cannot speak to this bill without referencing the importance this bill has for the path of reconciliation our government has embarked upon. It is the spirit of reconciliation that inspired this bill, and again I commend the member for using his opportunity to present legislation in the House to present such a bill.

The member for Cumberland—Colchester recalled, in his first speech concerning this bill, the events that inspired its creation. The situation he described is one that is repeated in many communities throughout Canada. Many communities have lost artifacts through various circumstances, and thus have had to resort to showing a picture of their own heritage in place of the actual item.

Bill C-391 would require the government to develop and implement a national strategy on repatriation of indigenous cultural property and to report to Parliament on this strategy within a set number of years. What is of note to me is that the development and implementation of this national strategy would be done in consultation with indigenous peoples. It is the communities that will tell us what a relevant cultural property is, and how best to engage on a strategy to return the items can only come from them.

I have discussed this bill with the member on many occasions, and I was pleased to see that he realized the importance of a distinctions-based approach. What works for one community may not suit another, and the national strategy must meet the needs of a wide variety of communities. That is why the strategy should not be developed from the top down. The strategy needs to be developed organically, with an emphasis on collaboration with the affected communities. A one-size-fits-all solution does not work in a country like Canada, whose indigenous communities are very diverse.

With the remaining time I have, let me speak briefly to the importance of this bill to my own community.

As I indicated earlier, the Manitoba Metis Federation was told last year that artifacts that belonged to Louis Riel would be returned. They are currently housed in the RCMP Heritage Centre. This transfer is an example of reconciliation in action.

By facilitating the return of these artifacts to the Métis nation, we are supporting the vitality of Métis culture and heritage. I am thrilled about the Métis National Heritage Centre that will be opening soon in Upper Fort Garry. This centre will give all Canadians a chance to learn about Métis heritage. It will also give the Manitoba Metis Federation the space and resources it needs to properly store and display cultural heritage artifacts.

While this example of repatriation was facilitated by our own government, there are many situations in which repatriation is not quite as simple. Often indigenous artifacts were sent across the world, and they are now displayed in museums as far away as Australia. It is not easy for indigenous communities to engage in discussions with museums in foreign countries, and this strategy should try to make this process easier on communities. Continuing and facilitating international conversations will take time, but having a concrete strategy will make conversations easier and less adversarial for all parties involved.

We must also respect the existing relationships that have developed between cultural institutions and indigenous communities. Sometimes the appropriate solution will not be repatriation. However, this can be explored through the development of a strategy, and ultimately be the decision of the individual community involved. For example, broadly, a community may seek ownership but allow the museum to maintain it is display. In this situation all Canadians benefit as they will be able to see and learn about the communities culture.

It is important that these relationships evolve. We cannot allow colonialism and colonialist-thought to continue to shape our conversations and policies surrounding indigenous culture. We must recognize the power imbalance that led to many of these items being displayed. When a museum displays a cultural property, it should respect the terminology, knowledge, and understanding of the community when describing and promoting indigenous heritage.

I am happy to have heard from the parliamentary secretary for heritage, who outlined the amendments our government intended to propose. I truly feel that these amendments will strengthen the bill, rendering it ultimately more effective. I look forward to the work of my colleagues on the heritage committee, from all parties, to collaborate to make the bill possible.

It is clear that our government is committed to ensuring the preservation and promotion of indigenous heritage and culture. This bill is an extension of this commitment. I am proud to support the bill and our government has indicated its support as well.

Meegwetch.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be here to speak to this private member's bill.

It is important that we consider what story is told, who tells that story, and how it is told. We often hear the phrase that history is the story of the victorious, those who have won the battle, but Canada, we know, is perhaps a different country that is unusual and special in the history of man, for we have created a very pluralistic society for many Canadians. As Steve Heinrichs, a friend of mine, said, “It's all about relationships. It's all about how we relate to each other.”

I am very proud of the work of the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who put forward Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property. The bill seeks to provide for the development and implementation of a national strategy to enable the return of aboriginal cultural property to the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

I believe the government must work to ensure the protection of important aspects of Canada's heritage. The Government of Canada must facilitate the repatriation of indigenous cultural property through financial support, and it must do so in a timely way. The government must continue to examine the bill and find ways to ensure that it is implemented with indigenous peoples.

This bill, in my estimation, is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is consistent with articles 11 and 12 of UNDRIP, which we have just approved today in the House at third reading.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended the implementation of UNDRIP and a national review of museum policies and practices to determine their compliance with UNDRIP.

I would like to quote article 11:

Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revive their cultures and tradition.

Governments will work with indigenous peoples to ensure indigenous property rights to their cultures, knowledge, spiritual and religious traditions are respected, and to address cases where these have been used without free, prior and informed consent.

Article 12, on the right to spiritual and religious traditions and customs, says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to practice their spiritual and religious traditions. Governments will, with indigenous peoples, ensure that indigenous peoples are free to practice, protect and revive and keep alive their cultures, spiritual, religious and knowledge traditions.

These are very noble objectives.

I have a friend whom I have not had a chance to talk to in a number of years, but when I was at the University of Manitoba, we had excellent and very profound conversations over the role of museums and how museums shape our history. We know there was a great debate in this Parliament when the Museum of Civilization's title was changed to the Museum of Canadian History. We know that how we tell these stories is very important.

Ruth B. Phillips, who wrote Museum Pieces: Toward the Indigenization of Canadian Museums, writes, “Critical writing on museums during the past two decades has produced a widely accepted understanding of the ways in which nation-states have historically used these institutions”—museums—“to educate their public to desired forms of social behaviour and citizenship.”

This is a long history, and we have been talking about indigenization of cultural artifacts for a very long period of time.

In 1988, during the Calgary Winter Olympics, the Glenbow Museum had a wonderful display on indigenous peoples, but it was not without controversy.

Most writers on this topic know that The Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada's First Peoples was a point of departure and change within the Canadian state about how museums work with indigenous peoples. For instance, Bernard Ominayak, chief of the Lubicon First Nation said in 1986, “The irony of using a display of North American Indian artifacts to attract people to the Winter Olympics being organized by interests who are still actively seeking to destroy the Indian people seems painfully obvious.”

In response, Duncan Cameron, director of the Glenbow Museum, wrote, “I believe that it is this Olympic connection which will draw attention to the real concerns of Canadian Native peoples, as it is in the context of the exhibition that the richness and depth of Canada's Native culture will be emphasized.”

Stuart Hall later wrote—in 2005, because sometimes these debates go on for very many decades in academia—“The exhibiting of “other cultures”—often performed with the best of Liberal intentions—has proved controversial. The questions 'Who should control the power to represent?' and 'Who has the authority to re-present the culture of others?' have resounded through the museum corridors of the world, provoking a crisis of authority.

It is important that this crisis of authority continue. It is not simply about indigenous people taking back and never sharing; it is about how we build relationships together and how we work together. I do not believe there is any indigenous nation or people who would say, 'We don't want to work with museums around Canada and around the world', but “nothing without us” is an important phrase.

This work has been going on even in Winnipeg. I was at the University of Winnipeg for a funding announcement on indigenous knowledge on a research project for Dr. Reimer. It was called the Six Seasons of the Asiniskow Ithiniwak.

In 1993, the remains of a 25-year-old Cree woman were found. She had lived 350 years ago near the South Indian Lake. The community-led archaeological research resulted in Elder William Dumas writing an award-winning book, Pisim Finds Her Miskanow. This also led to working with Dr. Reimer from the University of Winnipeg to create a research project with the goal of reclaiming the Rocky Cree language, history, and culture. We eventually did an interview in which we talked about it, and it can be found on Facebook if people are interested.

This was about a community taking charge of its own knowledge, its own story, to ensure that what the community needed was put first and foremost. It was not about the Museum of History in Ottawa and Gatineau taking charge or, in the case the member for Cumberland—Colchester talked about, a museum in Victoria in Australia taking charge, but about truly indigenous communities saying, “This is how we believe the story should be told.” Who better to tell a story than the person who has lived it?

Ruth Phillips, who wrote that book, said:

Since the late nineteenth century, one of the most important collections of Mi'kmaq and Huron-Wendat art from what are now New Brunswick and Quebec has lain largely unregarded in a large urban museum on the opposite side of the globe from its communities of origin. Consummate examples of Native North American textile and sculptural art, the clothing, textiles, wampums, and carved pipes in the collection accompanied the aspiring young writer and amateur ethnologist Samuel Douglass Smith Huyghue in 1852 when he emigrated to Australia to take up work as a government clerk in the Ballarat gold mines.

He had gone to New Brunswick and bought a number of artifacts and objects and essentially gave them to a museum in Australia. This Mi'kmaq community would like some of these artifacts repatriated so that they can be displayed and bring pride to the indigenous Mi'kmaq community in New Brunswick.

This is important, because this bill would enable us to develop a strategy. Australia, incredibly enough, actually already has a strategy on this, and they should have been repatriated many years ago.

I talked about the work that was going on at the University of Winnipeg. These remains were eventually re-buried, but if we had continued to follow old practice from the 19th century, the bones of this 25-year-old indigenous woman would have remained in storage, disturbing her spirit and the peace of the community.

I support this bill, I believe many Canadians support this bill, and I hope other members support the bill. I understand there is a bit of controversy, but as with The Spirit Sings exhibit at the Calgary Olympics in 1988, controversy sometimes can help move us forward, because it increases the amount of debate. It makes sure that everyone understands that people hear about this issue and we come to some form of conclusion and consensus about the way forward.

Thank you very much.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property. While this bill has very good intentions, aspects of it could lead to unforeseen consequences and it is consequently in need of much amendment.

As we all know, first nation communities play a critical role throughout this great country, contributing to our great cultural diversity and history. The cultural artifacts of first nation peoples provide all Canadians with opportunities to learn lessons from the past, understand the present, and view the future with greater awareness and clarity. To ensure that the cultural artifacts of first nations continue to educate, inform, and inspire Canadians across this country, significant dialogue took place way back in 1994 between the Canadian Museums Association and the Assembly of First Nations with the goal of ensuring that the common interest of Canadians would be met by these important cultural artifacts. They developed a joint recommendation through many consultations, which advocated that there be moral and ethical frameworks for the display and interpretation of first nation cultural artifacts and for resolving disputes. The report of the Canadian Museum Association and the Assembly of First Nations found that museum collections do recognize the importance of cultural objects. These objects represent cultural history and values, and are therefore sources of learning, pride, and self-esteem.

The primary concern of first peoples is the importance of the cultural collections within their own communities. Nonetheless, there is a general recognition of these collections and that the institutions that care for them serve a wider function and can contribute to greater public education and awareness of the significant cultural contributions made by first peoples in this country. Clearly, we all want to ensure that as many Canadians as possible are able to learn about first nation cultures and to discover from these artifacts the rich cultural heritage of first nation peoples. It is in the common interest of all Canadians that we continue to educate and inform them about the amazing contributions that have been made by first nation people throughout history, right up to the present day.

Disconcertingly, the Canadian Museums Association was not consulted prior to the introduction of this bill. That is troubling. It is unfortunate, considering the vast body of work that has been done by this marvellous organization, along with numerous first nations, in the field of first nations' cultural artifacts, and how best to promote mutual interest.

One of the principles brought forward by the joint recommendation of the Canadian Museums Association and the Assembly of First Nations is that museums and first peoples should work together to correct the inequities that characterized their relationship in the past. In particular, the desire and authority of first peoples to speak for themselves should definitely be recognized and affirmed by museums. However, given that the Canadian Museums Association was not consulted prior to the introduction of this bill, the partnership highlighted by this principle from the joint recommendations seems to have been forgotten during the drafting of the bill. That is unfortunate, because the relationship between the AFN and the Canadian Museums Association goes back to 1984 with respect to the artifacts we are discussing today.

In recognition that the presentation and interpretation of first nations' cultural artifacts represents a significant public good for this country in terms of the wealth of knowledge, perspective, and understanding that they provide Canadians across this country, and in keeping with the recommendations resulting from the excellent work by the Canadian Museums Association and the AFN, we will propose an amendment that would ensure that consideration be given to the public interest in artifacts being available to Canadians in a way that enhances knowledge and appreciation of aboriginal culture.

Furthermore, we will propose that steps be taken to ensure that first nations cultural artifacts are preserved in a way that they will be available to instruct and inspire all future generations of Canadians, who will only benefit from this cultural property and heritage.

Our amendment will seek to ensure that consideration is given to how best to adequately preserve and protect the quality and integrity of aboriginal cultural property. No common interest is served when cultural artifacts are damaged or even destroyed, and we should be taking every precaution possible to ensure that these cultural artifacts survive for the benefit of all Canadians. Such a consideration is currently absent within Bill C-391 in its present state, and we believe that this amendment would better serve the intentions of the bill by removing unforeseen consequences.

Additionally, we note with some trepidation that the bill includes a very broad definition of aboriginal cultural property. This is defined in the bill as “objects of historical, social, ceremonial, or cultural importance to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.”

One outcome that we want to avoid in the bill is a chilling effect on the thriving first nation arts sector, in which our first nation artisans and craftspeople produce many stunning works that are then bought by people around the world. The income these artists generate through this sector is very important for many families. I saw that firsthand when I had an opportunity to go to Nunavut in January. When the plane lands in a community, the artists come out and are really thrilled to show off their work to those new to the community.

We definitely want to protect their work. We want to make sure that people are not discouraged from purchasing the works of art produced by these talented first nation artisans for fear that this work may be repatriated in the future. That is why we will propose an amendment that would ensure that such a strategy does not have the effect of harming or discouraging the importance of commercial trade by aboriginal artists in the creation and sale of art, design, and fashion.

Finally, as my colleague from York—Simcoe noted, we will propose an amendment that would ensure that the proposed repatriation policy would only affect artifacts that individuals or museums are no longer interested in possessing. This is in the spirit of the remarks made by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester across the aisle, who said that the intent is not to force anyone to give up any artifacts. It also opens the door or encourages owners to display artifacts that are in storage or currently not on display, either at their own facility or at other facilities across this great nation by lending them out.

First nations culture is incredibly important for Canada. It serves to broaden the perspectives, knowledge, and understanding of all Canadians. We need to make sure that we are doing everything to ensure that first nations cultural artifacts continue to teach and inspire all of us both now and in the generations to come.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I am very proud to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-391. I want to begin by sincerely thanking the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing this very important issue before Parliament. I would also like to thank him for being so open about the prospect of amendments to this bill. That and the comments so far by other hon. members of this House from different parties show that we are all here to work together.

We believe that the government has an important leadership role to play in support of the repatriation of indigenous cultural property, which is critical to our work overall to promote reconciliation. We are supporting this bill, because it is a critical step in the right direction, in the direction of empowering indigenous persons; in the direction of ensuring a renewed relationship with all indigenous persons—first nations, Inuit, and Métis people; in the direction of respect; and, most important, in the direction of autonomy.

A new national strategy on the repatriation of indigenous cultural property is something I have heard about locally from advocates for reconciliation in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, but it is also something we have heard about nationally when consulting with indigenous leaders, literally from coast to coast to coast.

This is an idea whose time has clearly arrived, but we also believe that there are a number of ways in which this bill can and should be strengthened. I would pause to reflect on the comments made by members of the two opposition parties who just spoke to this bill. The government will indeed be seeking some amendments to this bill.

First, we have heard others refer to the importance of the repatriation of indigenous human remains, including in the comments by the member opposite. Indigenous communities themselves have shown that this is often the highest priority for them. It seems that some consider human remains to be part of what the bill calls “Aboriginal cultural property”, but that aspect is not clear. We feel that the bill should be explicit in stating that the proposed national strategy will focus on both cultural property and human remains.

Second, we have heard other hon. members voice concerns about the definition of aboriginal cultural property in the bill. Definitions are always tricky. We know that as parliamentarians. We do not believe this term should actually be defined in the legislation itself. It does not appear to be defined elsewhere in law, and it is not even defined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It would be much more appropriate, in our view, if the scope of the strategy and any necessary definitions were developed as part of the strategy itself, in co-operation with indigenous communities and the holders of collections. We should not define the term in legislation itself, because we may end up with something either too vague or too narrow, and we may inadvertently exclude something we may regret after the fact.

Third, and to the same point, the bill refers to cultural property where there is “a strong attachment”. By whom or how should this strong attachment be judged? In our view, this concept and the scope of the proposed mechanism are best left to be determined in consultation with all stakeholders during the development of the strategy Bill C-391 contemplates. The point is that we need to be very careful that the bill does not go too far in determining the details of the strategy in advance. To do so would restrict the ability of the government and all those who work with it, most importantly indigenous persons themselves, to come up with the best possible result.

Fourth, speaking of the development of the national strategy in co-operation with stakeholders, Bill C-391 makes reference to the role to be played by the provinces, but there is no mention of the territories, and that certainly is something that should be added.

One of the really innovative aspects of the bill is that it proposes the creation of a forum for the resolution of conflicting claims. We are assuming that this is meant to be a forum where, if more than one indigenous community or organization is claiming the same item, indigenous people would get together and decide whose claim should go forward. That is very important and should be highlighted. Sorting out something of this nature should not be the role of a museum facing competing claims, and it should not be the role of the government. It should be up to indigenous people themselves. That is the point of reconciliation. It is about ending the patterns and habits of colonialism, where too often, governments have told indigenous persons about policies that affect them, rather than working with indigenous persons to co-develop those policies in a respectful nation-to-nation or Inuit-crown or government-to-government relationship, in the context of the Métis.

Co-development is the method we are pursuing in tabling Canada's first-ever indigenous languages act, a project I have been privileged to work on as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That spirit of moving away from the old colonial ways of thinking to ensuring that decisions on competing claims to the same indigenous item rest with indigenous people is something that needs to be emphasized more clearly in this bill.

It also should not be a forum where the government adjudicates the claims between indigenous communities and holders of collections. I cannot stress enough that success in repatriation depends on direct dialogue between indigenous peoples and institutions. The government should not be trying to insert itself into the middle of that dialogue, but clearly has a role to play in facilitating that dialogue. It is also important to acknowledge that a single forum may not be appropriate. Separate forums may be needed for first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. We need to take what we call a “distinctions-based approach” and acknowledge the unique circumstances of each of these three groups.

There are two more amendments I would like to raise.

Fifth, given everything we have heard and everything that has been said here, it is clear that developing a national strategy will be neither simple nor easy. Two years is not enough time to do all this work, hold all the consultations, and make all the decisions that need to be made. If the minister has to come back before Parliament with a strategy within just two years, we worry that it will not be the best possible strategy.

The government will be seeking an amendment to extend the period for developing the strategy to three years. We agree with the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester that a deadline is important to ensure that this repatriation work, which will support the reconciliation process, goes quickly.

Before I close, my sixth point relates to the report that the minister would provide after the first two years of the strategy's implementation. As the bill is drafted, that section of the report seems to suggest that success can only be measured by the number of objects returned. As parliamentarians, we know that is not the only form of positive outcomes of negotiations. We also know there would be some information, particularly on negotiations still under way, that would simply be too sensitive to be included in a report that becomes public. Therefore, some adjustment to how the report is described is needed, in our view. We fully support the need for a report and the accountability and transparency it would bring with respect to delivering on the national strategy.

None of the potential amendments I have mentioned would weaken Bill C-391, or change its fundamental objective of enabling more progress on repatriation, the honourable goal of the member for Cumberland—Colchester. We support what he is working to do. We want that progress to take place, and that is why our party and our government is supporting the bill.

We look forward to working on amendments that would increase the chance of successfully implementing a national strategy for the repatriation of indigenous cultural property.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-391, the Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act.

I have a keen interest in the subject matter of this bill. I have great respect for history and greatly enjoy learning more about it. I will try to keep my remarks brief and to the point. I liked it when Diefenbaker said, “don't get me started on history, because then you shall know the meaning of eternity.” I will continue in that spirit.

This bill is well-intentioned, and I will be supporting it. However, I do believe it has a couple of flaws that should be amended at committee.

I have great respect for the important role artifacts play in fostering an appreciation for history. They are a tangible and irreplaceable link to our past. It is one thing to read about history in a book. It is another to actually see a historical object created by another person living in a different era, like in the time of the Greek Acropolis, or the terracotta warriors in China, or the Machu Picchu of the Incas. To see those things in person, to see the artifacts, to see the real things that people created centuries and centuries ago makes such a difference.

Historical objects help bring history to life. They provide a window into how others really lived. They remind us that the historical figures we read about really existed in the flesh and blood. If we want future generations to truly understand how their present is linked to our country's past, we need to make sure these objects are not lost.

They are are not just an invaluable means through which to remember the past. They are also a key to understanding the present. I strongly believe that their protection and preservation should be a priority of the government.

This bill seeks to establish a framework through which aboriginal peoples of Canada can reacquire these invaluable links to their proud histories. It would implement a mechanism through which any first nation, Inuit, or Métis community or organization may acquire or reacquire aboriginal cultural property to which it has a strong attachment. It would encourage owners, custodians or trustees of aboriginal cultural property to return such property to aboriginal peoples and support them in the process. This is a laudable goal.

In my riding of Bow River, we have Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park. They maintain a collection of many incredible historical objects and provide a great educational service to their community there. They also provide an economic benefit by attracting visitors and promoting tourism in the region. I was fortunate enough to visit and receive a guided tour of it last year. I was greatly impressed by the wealth of history and knowledge on display. I believe they are an example of a success story that deserves to be emulated more broadly.

Despite being well-intentioned, I do think that several parts of this legislation could be clarified, and possibly improved. First, we need to ensure that the public interest is considered so that artifacts are available to Canadians in a way that enhances knowledge and appreciation of aboriginal culture. Access to history is always in the public interest. As I noted, we cannot comprehend the present without understanding the past.

I again point to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park in my riding as a great success in this regard. It is located on a historic site of great significance to the Blackfoot Confederacy, where thousands gathered on September 22, 1877, for the signing of Treaty No. 7. This historical site is visited by thousands of people annually. I can assure anyone who is interested in visiting that it offers a fantastic educational experience in aboriginal history.

I also believe that this bill should ensure that consideration is given to how best to adequately preserve and protect the quality and integrity of aboriginal property. At the heritage committee, we have heard about the challenges the museum industry faces in attracting qualified staff. For a variety of reasons there are not enough professional curatorial staff in Canada. Many artifacts are fragile and require a good deal of expertise to be handled and preserved.

Operating costs related to the preservation of historical objects can also be a real challenge for smaller historical museums. The Haida Museum, which I was fortunate enough to visit, has some difficulties due to its remote location. It has a fantastic collection, but very few people get to see it.

This legislation should be amended to reflect this reality. We need some sort of safeguard in place to ensure that these tangible links to history are not lost to future generations.

We also need to make sure that the legislation does not have unintended consequences for aboriginal artists and creators. I own several pieces of tremendous artwork produced by Siksika artists in my riding. This industry yields great economic benefits in many indigenous communities, and helps to foster appreciation for their cultures. It should not be jeopardized in any way. The bill must not dampen enthusiasm for the incredible work produced by aboriginal artists by suggesting that what one has purchased might some day be repatriated. That would be a very unfortunate unintended consequence.

Finally, I note that in his previous remarks on this legislation, the member for Cumberland—Colchester said that the bill's intent is not to force people to give up their artifacts. I do not believe this is made explicit in the bill's language, which should be amended to clarify this point.

I was also disappointed to learn that the Canadian Museum Association was not consulted during the drafting of the bill. This is a great organization in our country with tremendous knowledge. Perhaps some of these issues could have been highlighted at an earlier stage in the process had that consultation taken place. The Canadian Museum Association has a great working relationship with first nations. Its input could be very valuable going forward.

I would also echo the comments of my colleague from York—Simcoe that this legislation must strive to develop a framework that builds on common interests to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

We want to continue to ensure that Canadians understand and appreciate the first peoples of Canada. With their artifacts in appropriate locations, handled scientifically and correctly, this could happen. We would then be respecting property and the great significance of these historical objects to the aboriginal people themselves.

As I noted, I will be supporting this legislation, but I hope to see it amended significantly at committee to ensure that it does not result in unintended consequences.

The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak in support of Bill C-391. I will also offer my congratulations to my colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, for bringing this important bill forward.

It is not often in the House that we have a chance to bring a private member's bill forward. It is a wonderful opportunity to make a difference in the lives of Canadians and where we are going as a country.

If passed, the bill would call for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to co-operate with the first nations, Inuit, and Métis people of Canada to develop and evaluate a national strategy on aboriginal cultural property repatriation. As my colleague stated earlier, the intent of the bill is very important, but I think it deserves a few amendments, which I will speak to in a little while.

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, indigenous cultural property was gathered, purchased, or confiscated by missionaries, government officials, collectors, and anthropologists. This was often done without the direct involvement or consent of the indigenous peoples.

I come from British Columbia, and we often hear about the potlatch, which was an elaborate ceremonial feast held by first nations up and down the Pacific coast of British Columbia. When the Canadian government banned the potlatch ceremony in 1885, it arrested those who defied the ban. The potlatch artifacts were seized and many found their way around the country and overseas and into museums.

In 1978, the Canadian Museum of Civilization returned confiscated potlatch items to the Kwakwaka'wakw communities of Alert Bay and Cape Mudge. The federal government financed the construction of two new museums to house that.

We have heard over the last number of years that there is a strong desire of indigenous people in Canada to have those culturally sensitive artifacts returned to the communities where they originated. They certainly are artifacts that have a lot of meaning for indigenous peoples.

Repatriation of cultural property is a positive opportunity to connect indigenous communities with meaningful artifacts within their original context. We also heard how this is consistent with some of the articles in the UN declaration and in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Again, I do agree with the principle of the bill, but I will also agree with the member for York—Simcoe who identified some areas that he thought could be improved upon. I also understand from the speech by the originator of the bill that he sounded more than willing to listen to some of the ways in which the bill could be improved.

The Canadian Museums Association represents over 2,000 institutions and museums. It has stated that we have a moral imperative to amicably pursue the repatriation of cultural property with aboriginal communities regardless of any legal imperative, and it will continue to encourage this practice with its members. It has also expressed concern with the vague language in the bill which could be interpreted in terms of how it will actually impact the museums and the burden that it might create. Certainly that is an important voice to listen to.

While the bill suggests that museums and similar organizations will be encouraged and supported in the repatriation process, it does not specify the degree to which museums would be obligated to participate or how these organizations would be consulted or involved in the development of the national strategy or the execution on the bill's passage.

It is necessary to have that conversation up front with museums and involve them in the strategy because their expertise is absolutely phenomenal. I have witnessed how well they do.

We will be proposing three amendments, and possibly a fourth, constituting additional criteria for evaluating the measures to be included in a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property.

The first proposed amendment is to ensure that consideration be given to the public interest in artifacts being available to Canadians in a way that enhances knowledge and appreciation of aboriginal culture. We only have to go over to the Canadian Museum of History to look at the phenomenal opportunity that not only Canadians from across the country but people from across the world get to enjoy the rich heritage.

The second proposed amendment is to ensure that consideration is given to how best to adequately preserve and protect the quality and integrity of aboriginal cultural property.

The third proposed amendment is to ensure that such a strategy doe snot have the effect of harming or discouraging the important commercial trade by aboriginal artists in the creation and sale of art, design, and fashion.

Repatriation of cultural property is very important, and it is a significant step toward reconciliation. We should remember the roles that museums and cultural institutions play in our society by fostering education and appreciation of aboriginal culture and history through the exhibition of artifacts.

If this bill goes to committee and has some amendments, ultimately, it will be very important for the minister to work in consultation with all the stakeholders to ensure that the value of repatriation and the value of teaching our society about the indigenous cultures and the past are upheld.

I want to give an example of a very meaningful story, reported in a 2006 CBC article. It reads:

Many cultural artifacts have also wound up outside Canada, as Canadian aboriginal artifacts are highly prized by foreign collectors. The Cultural Property Export and Import Act has been of some help in repatriating a few of these artifacts.

In the summer of 2006, a 135-year-old Haisla totem pole will finally return home to a community 600 kilometres northwest of Vancouver. The pole has been in a Swedish museum since 1929. Out of gratitude for Sweden's decision to voluntarily send it back, the Haisla sent four carvers to Sweden in 2005 to carve a replica they would leave behind.

What are hearing about the good will to repatriate the artifacts and to move forward in what is perhaps a win-win for everyone.

This is just one of several examples of successful repatriation of cultural property. It is possible and it is significant.

Last summer I had the opportunity to go to the Secwepemc Museum. I witnessed an excellent local example of how it had taken its artifacts and had presented their history. It is a tourist attraction. Again, it is the small town Tk'emlups that sits right beside the city of Kamloops. They work in partnership with local museums. We have a Kamloops Museum and we have the Secwepemc Museum. The partnership they have with respect to celebrating both local indigenous culture and local history of the Kamloops area has been very significant. Both organizations recognize the challenges of the work that has to be done in protecting these very important artifacts for the future.

This private member's bill presents a great opportunity. We look forward to seeing it in committee and having some thoughtful conversations around how we can suggest amendments to make it a little stronger and a little more positive.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-391, which deals with the repatriation of indigenous cultural property. I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing this very important issue before Parliament. As a non-status adopted Cree and as a member of the indigenous caucus on the government side, it is my honour to second this private member's bill.

I am inspired and moved by the passion and commitment of the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester. The tabling of Bill C-391 allows us to reflect a very important aspect of reconciliation with indigenous communities in Canada.

The government is firmly committed to reconciliation. In its Speech from the Throne opening the 2015 parliamentary session, the government committed to establishing a renewed nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and indigenous people, a relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

This commitment was reinforced in budget 2018 through a broad series of investments, including $23.9 million over five years, starting in 2018-19, to the Parks Canada Agency. This investment will allow the agency to integrate indigenous views, history, and heritage into Canada's national parks, marine conservation areas, and historic sites managed by the agency.

The decision to provide those funds responds to call to action 79 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. It calls for historical commemoration activities, and for recognition and acknowledgement of the contributions that indigenous peoples have made to Canada's history.

That raises an important question. Where should we turn for guidance on the approach Bill C-391 should take and on how the bill will address repatriation as part of reconciliation?

I think there are two very important documents that we should refer to in order to inform our decisions on repatriation and this bill. They are the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The government committed to implementing each of the commission's 94 calls to action. With the introduction of Bill C-391, I was curious about exactly what those calls to action said about the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property, so I took a look and did not see it mentioned anywhere. However, two major calls to action are directly related to it.

For one, call to action 67 calls on the federal government to provide funding to the Canadian Museums Association to undertake, in collaboration with aboriginal peoples, a national review of museum policies and best practices to determine the extent to which those policies and practices comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The review will lead to recommendations, probably for various stakeholders, which could include museums, indigenous communities, and governments.

The first thing that struck me about the review is its perspective on how Canadian museums carry out their work in accordance with policies and best practices. Looking at this issue from an indigenous perspective, it seems clear to me that the call to action is about policies and practices relating to the repatriation of cultural property and human remains. We know that Canada's museum community has been involved in this type of activity for quite some time.

The fact that this call to action requires the review be undertaken in collaboration with indigenous peoples is a very important principle. I note that the same principle is reflected in Bill C-391. It says that development of a national strategy on repatriation would have to be done in co-operation with representatives of first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada.

The final aspect of call to action 67 that caught my attention is that the review of museum policies and best practices is to determine how consistent those policies and practices are with the UN declaration. I will speak more about that declaration shortly. However, before I do, I would like to note that the government, through the Department of Canadian Heritage, is already working closely with the Canadian Museums Association on bringing forward the national review. A first meeting of an advisory committee that includes representatives from museums and indigenous communities recently took place at the association's annual conference in Vancouver.

I am sure that as this project proceeds, it will have some very important things to say about the repatriation of indigenous cultural property.

This brings me to the other call to action that is relevant for our consideration of Bill C-391 and repatriation. I am referring to call to action 43, which calls upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations declaration as a framework for reconciliation. As hon. members will recall, the government has already endorsed the UN declaration without qualification and is committed to its full implementation.

I will turn to what the UN declaration can tell us about repatriation to provide us with context for our consideration of Bill C-391. There are two articles in the declaration that will be useful in guiding our reflection on the bill, and they are articles 11 and 12.

I will begin with article 11, which says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures.

It goes on to say that states should provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution of, among other things, cultural property taken without the consent of indigenous peoples or in violation of their laws, traditions, and customs. It says that those mechanisms are to be developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples.

We have heard on both sides of the aisle this evening about the effect this has on indigenous peoples, and has had in the past when their cultural property was forcibly taken from them. I see parallels between this and Bill C-391.

Moving on to article 12, among the rights discussed is the right of indigenous peoples to use and control their ceremonial objects and the right to the repatriation of human remains. It goes on to say, “States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession”, and ends by stating that this should be through “fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples”. Not surprisingly, the development of plans and actions in collaboration with indigenous communities seems to be a common thread.

When we look at article 12, there are obvious parallels with Bill C-391, but its scope is more limited to certain kinds of indigenous cultural objects, and only those that are in the state's possession. It also, unlike Bill C-391, makes explicit reference to human remains. We know that can be of significant concern for indigenous communities when it comes to repatriation.

With respect to objects and human remains in the state's possession, I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the existing policies and practices of the two main federal repositories for this type of material. I am referring specifically to the Canadian Museum of History and Parks Canada Agency. Both already undertake repatriation with indigenous communities within and outside the treaty process and have done so for many years.

In summary, we know that repatriation is a significant aspect of reconciliation, and we know that our government is committed to reconciliation. The calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples both give us some useful points to consider to support Bill C-391.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his leadership and care in consulting with the government indigenous caucus, and more broadly with caucus members on the government side and members in this House, and for his commitment in helping indigenous artifacts and all of their related spirits to come back home.

I look forward to hearing the views of other hon. members on this bill.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to rise on such an important issue for indigenous people, that of cultural property.

First, I would like to remind members that this government already committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

One would therefore expect that all legislation introduced by the government would be in keeping with the declaration, particularly when it comes to indigenous rights or issues. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case with the bill we have before us today.

I think it is important to point out that we will support this bill at second reading so that we can work with members to improve some of its aspects.

The cultural items that are currently held in museum archives, universities, and private homes were handmade from teachings and techniques passed down for generations among indigenous peoples. They are are necessary part of our self-identity, guaranteed by our inherent treaty rights, constitutional rights, and international human rights.

These are not artifacts belonging to some culture in pre-history. These bones are our ancestors, genetically proven. The clothing was worn by our cousins, the masks were carved by our uncles, the hunting tools were made with our fathers. The makasinan were sewn and beaded by our mothers.

I usually wear a sample, handmade pair of makasinan. The shoes are handcrafted of thick, brain-tanned moose hide, still smelling of the smoke that guarantees the leather stays soft, the same technique that has been used for thousands of years.

The financial considerations of indigenous communities regarding repatriation are not explicitly resolved in Bill C-391. I would like to know from the member what the bill proposes to do. For example, I know recently that in British Columbia, the government has allocated $2 million to help with repatriation efforts for indigenous peoples.

Imagine walking through a museum and coming across a bag made with one's mother, which was taken away at residential school and is now under glass. This has happened to indigenous peoples again and again. Imagine the loss when one cannot even keep a bag after having learned to bead as a small child.

There are cultural teachings about beadwork: leave a bead in the wrong place to reflect life's imperfections and keep us humble, a crucial value for many indigenous peoples around the world.

The makasinan are well-known, well worn, and have been to ceremonies, hunting camps, and visiting communities in many territories. The security guards, cafeteria staff, visitors, and my colleagues ask me why I wear slippers to work. These makasinan have meaning to me in a way slippers bought at a store will never have. They connect me to a time and a place, and remind me of what I have been taught to hold true.

I invite all members to come to my riding this summer. In my riding there is the Cree cultural centre called Aanischaaukamikw. For many years Cree elders have spoken of the need for a central place for the protection of our ways. They remind us that Cree culture must be captured, maintained, shared, celebrated, and practised. Aanischaaukamikw is the realization of that very vision.

The museum allows us to preserve and share the stories, legends, music, pictures, and physical objects that show the youth the Cree people's reverence for the land we have walked on for thousands of years.

This museum is an example of what is possible when we have our personal belongings returned to us and when we have the resources to properly restore and protect our heritage, share it with our children, and share it with others.

However, not all communities have the capacity right now to store or care for their objects. Some have developed arrangements to leave precious objects in museums for proper storage and care. Others have chosen a shared arrangement that allows objects to rotate between the community and the museum, which takes them back to conservation.

The current requirement on indigenous peoples to prove ownership and connection is onerous. Research costs, often paid by loans, can prevent communities from achieving successful repatriation claims. Indigenous peoples should not be blocked by financial constraints. That is contrary to the inherent rights to cultural identity and cultural connection.

The heart of the matter when we are talking about the importance of repatriation of cultural heritage is self-determination. In fact, cultural heritage is considered so important to national identity, self-determination, and international cultural diversity that many states—Pakistan, India, the U.S., and Bolivia, for example—have MOUs and agreements that regulate the exportation of cultural objects.

It is also part of the agenda of the Summit of the Americas, where governments in the western hemisphere pledged to enhance appreciation of indigenous cultures and cultural artifacts through various collaborative means.

The language in Bill C-391 is weak and leaves many of the bill's provisions unenforceable. “To promote and support the return”, for instance, “encourage owners”, and other similarly drafted wording leaves most of the bill as optional.

Since the protection of cultural property touches on so many different areas, responsibility for various aspects of policy development and enforcement involves multiple ministries and government agencies, raising the risk of inconsistent and even contradictory actions being taken if a coordinated mechanism is not in place.

I would like to see a strong mechanism contained within Bill C-391 for Canadian-nation-to-indigenous-nation agreements.

The language used in this bill must also reflect already accepted national and international definitions of cultural property. I am not currently satisfied that it does. Definitions can be found in the Quebec cultural property act, the Canadian cultural property export control list, UNESCO conventions, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I refer members to article 31, for instance, under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to article 12, paragraph 2, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

There is a lot of potential for the bill to provide closure to many people around the world and in this country in particular. Ancestors can be reburied with respect. Stolen items can be returned to their owners. Cultural teachings and practices can be revived. I look forward to working with the member on the bill.

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

moved that Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my seconder today, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, and my assistant Joel Henderson, who worked so hard to develop and draft this bill, and to make so many contacts in Canada and around the world.

This is an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property.

For me, the story started at the Millbrook First Nation near Truro, Nova Scotia. I was at the Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Centre, admiring a beautiful robe in a glass case. I was fascinated by the workmanship, the detail, and everything about the robe.

The curator of the facility, Heather Stevens, came over to me and said, "It is a beautiful robe, isn't it?” I said, “Yes, it is.” She said, “It's too bad it is not the original one.” I asked her what she meant. She said that the original one was in a museum in Melbourne, Australia. It was taken there in 1852 and it has resided in Australia for 166 years.

It means so much to the Millbrook First Nation to have this robe there, even if it is a copy. However, to have the original repatriated would mean so much to the youth in the community, because the youth want to know about their culture and their roots. They want to know where they came from. They want to know everything they can find out about their culture from hundreds of years ago. The best way to do that is to be able to see the workmanship, the details, and the artifacts that people produced in those times.

The purpose of this bill is just to ensure that a small indigenous community, a Métis, Inuit, or first nations community, has another voice with it when it seeks to repatriate an artifact that has become available. It is not about taking artifacts away from people, or out of museums that have collected them and that appreciate their collection.

When an artifact becomes available, there should be a process in place where a small community or an indigenous community can approach a government agency or a government body, sit around a table, and discuss the challenges of getting the artifact back. It might be transportation, restoration, the display process, money, or negotiations, but in many cases the indigenous communities need another voice, and that is what this is about. It is about adding another voice to the efforts to repatriate first nations, Inuit, and Métis artifacts.

We are asking the government to establish a process that people can go to, not only indigenous people, but people who have artifacts. It is amazing that since we first tabled this bill, Bill C-391, we have had two organizations come to our office to tell us that they have indigenous artifacts that they would like to return to their proper owners, but they do not know where to return them. Such a facility and such a process would have in place the ability to receive information about artifacts that are available, ensure that they go to the right place, and provide the proper transportation, protection, restoration, and so on.

This is not about taking artifacts out of other places against people's will or preference. This is about taking advantage of an opportunity when it arises.

The robe I am talking about is fascinating. It is in Melbourne, Australia. It was purchased in 1843 by a gentleman from Prince Edward Island. I do not think he was from Malpeque, but he was from Prince Edward Island. He moved to Australia in 1852. When he passed away, he bequeathed the robe to the museum, which has taken really good care of it ever since. It is not on display, but the museum curators in Melbourne are taking good care of it. We have had communications back and forth about the robe, and we appreciate the care they have taken of it. Maybe some day the robe could come back to the indigenous community where it was made, to be part of the culture and part of the spirit of the community.

Originally, my goal was really quite simple: to make sure that there was a process to bring back artifacts. However, it has taken on a whole new direction for me. It has been much more meaningful, with much more depth to it.

I went to an indigenous tourism meeting the other night. It had nothing to do with this, but the president and CEO of the Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada talked about the repatriation of artifacts as part of their culture and their ability to increase tourism and economic development.

He said that it was too bad there is not legislation. Well, this is the legislation Keith Henry was talking about and it will serve the purpose that he was talking about, so there is an economic development element to it as well as a cultural element.

Yesterday I met with an indigenous senator, Mary Jane McCallum. It is interesting that we just talked about residential schools here, because she was in a residential school from the age of five until she was a teenager. Then she sought a career in dentistry, of all things.

It was an amazing discussion that I had with Senator Mary Jane McCallum. She talked about the residential schools, but she tried to give me a hint of what artifacts mean to aboriginal and indigenous peoples, more than I could have thought. She talked about the spirit involved with every artifact and told me about how that robe that is down in Australia carries with it the spirit of all the people who had anything to do with it. She talked about the people who made the robe, looked after it, and cared for it, and that their spirit is with that robe in Australia. I kind of got the impression that she thought those spirits wanted to come home, and I agree with her.

Then, amazingly enough, we had a chance to talk to the secretary-general of the Commonwealth Association of Museums, Catherine Cole. She deals with 53 countries that have museums. She told us about how repatriation of aboriginal artifacts is very important to them. It is one of their main goals. Some countries even have virtual museums; when they cannot bring the artifacts back, they take pictures of them, record them, and have them in a virtual museum with the hope that someday they will be repatriated.

I had a visit this week from the High Commissioner of Australia, Her Excellency Natasha Smith. She came to talk about the museum in Melbourne, but she also came to tell us that repatriation of indigenous artifacts is very important to Australia. They have a major focus on repatriation of remains and artifacts of their indigenous peoples. It is very important. She went on to tell me that they feel it is a responsibility under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and that under that declaration, we have an obligation to make sure indigenous peoples have access to their artifacts, history, and culture for education and ceremonies. They feel it is very much a part of that, and they support that view of the declaration, as does Canada.

Then today I had a visit from a young Inuit man. He was so excited about this legislation that it inspired me. He grew up in a northern Labrador community, and his words were that “repatriation is the root of reconciliation”. He said it several times. I was most impressed. He told me that in one of the communities in the north, they have actually created an award for organizations that have repatriated artifacts from cultural finds. One of the first to get the award was the University of Chicago, which worked with the community to repatriate 22 remains that had been taken from a graveyard in the north, I think around 1911 or 1912. They were returned, and the community awarded the University of Chicago this award for cultural repatriation.

I have heard so many voices about this issue. What started out to be a small exercise with a good purpose has turned out to be not only cultural but economic, and it is not only economic but spiritual. It is not only spiritual but very meaningful to all of these communities. I am so pleased that we have been able to do this.

We have contacted a wide range of people in indigenous communities all over Canada and the U.S. We have compared legislation. This proposed legislation is not as strong as some legislation, but it is stronger than others. The U.S. has legislation that requires facilities to turn over artifacts to indigenous peoples, and if they receive any money from the federal government at all, they are required to turn it over. Our legislation would not require that. It puts in place a process that aboriginal and indigenous communities can use if they identify an artifact that becomes available. We tried to come up with a middle road on this legislation. We have done a lot of work on it to try to make sure that it would suit everybody but at the same time not offend anybody.

The whole journey has been amazing, just to see how it has blossomed into other things, other than just a simple return of artifacts. It has impressed on me, and moved me, how meaningful it is to the indigenous people to have this in place. Already, even though we have only had first reading, and now the first hour of second reading, two organizations have called my office to say they have indigenous artifacts and are not sure what to do with them. They want to make sure they get into the right hands.

We are going to reach out to these organizations and make sure those artifacts get to the right people, to the right organizations, in the right communities. If this bill is successful, then it will include a process where people with indigenous artifacts can come in and say, “I have these artifacts. I want to make sure they get into the hands of the proper people. I understand how important they are. I understand that they part of the spirit of the community.”

We hope that this will be a receptacle for indigenous artifacts, as well as a way to handle them when they do arrive or are made available. I hope that receptacle will be part of that bill.

In the meantime, as an indigenous person suggested to me yesterday, I should say that if anyone has artifacts that are at risk of being discarded or finding their way to an inappropriate place, I urge them to call my office in Amherst or Truro, Nova Scotia, or Ottawa, or go to my website at http://bcasey.liberal.ca/. We will make sure that they are connected with the right people, and these artifacts will be protected and saved.

That winds up my remarks, but I do want to refer to the United Nations declaration which states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs.

We agree with this. I agree with it. It continues:

This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.

That is artifacts like the robe I am talking about. It goes on to say:

...cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains.

States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects...

That is exactly what this bill calls for. It calls to establish a process to make sure we do not let any aboriginal, indigenous, Métis, first nations artifact slip through our fingers. We want to make sure they get back to the proper communities, so they can appreciate them and understand their incredible cultures, and also share them with non-indigenous peoples.

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly my honour to introduce to the House an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property. This is designed to be an incremental step to encourage governments, institutions, and private collectors to reorient their thinking around the collection, custody, study, and use of indigenous cultural property.

This started for me when I recently visited the Millbrook Cultural and Heritage Centre near Truro. I was admiring a beautiful ceremonial Mi'kmaq robe. The curator came over and told me that this was not the real robe. The real robe is in a museum in Australia, not on display, and it has been there since 1852.

This bill is designed to get us all to think about how artifacts can be returned to their rightful owners, the indigenous people right across the country, and I am very pleased to table it today. It is important that we provide this information to indigenous youth and the communities.

I am pleased that several indigenous members of this House have agreed to second the bill, and I appreciate that the member for Yukon seconded it as well. It represents the country from coast to coast, and I thank members very much.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)