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.

Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act

[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.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member indicated the legislation is only intended to apply if artifacts are available, if their owners no longer wish to have those artifacts, not to facilitate the removal of artifacts from people who have them. However, that is not reflected in the actual drafting of the bill which speaks to “a comprehensive national strategy to promote and support the return of Aboriginal cultural property, wherever situated.” It also speaks to “a mechanism by which any First Nation...may acquire or reacquire Aboriginal cultural property to which it has a strong attachment.”

Since there is no reference at all in the bill to the notion of it only applying to property that an individual does not want or a museum is willing to deacquisition or deaccession, is he prepared to entertain an amendment that would clarify that it only applies to such artifacts as he described in his speech, only those that people are not interested in maintaining or that museums are willing to surrender?

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

Madam Speaker, the intent of the bill is absolutely not to force anybody to give up their artifacts, but it does call for the development of “a comprehensive national strategy to promote and support the return of Aboriginal cultural property”.

The intent is not to force anyone to give up any artifacts. It also opens the door, if there are artifacts in storage or not on display, to encourage the owners to have them on display, either at their facility or lend them to some other facility. That would be part of the process.

There are thousands and thousands of aboriginal, indigenous artifacts not on display now, which serves no purpose for the cultural composure of our country.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow on the comments of my colleague. The experience in Alberta has been that many indigenous people are trying to repatriate items that were taken from them. Certainly in the period of colonialism, many artifacts were stolen. We just have to go to the Museum of Anthropology at the university in Vancouver to see all those artifacts that are stored away. Is the member not willing to include in his bill that surely the most important thing is to have measures to assist indigenous peoples of Canada who wish to repatriate artifacts that were taken from them, as opposed to people who have them trying to find a way to give them up? Does the member's bill deal with that? Is he willing to have measures such as that? Has he spoken with indigenous Canadians on how that might be incorporated into his bill?

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

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I was wondering if we could just quickly comment on the idea that in fact the Millbrook First Nation collection was saved by a gentleman back in the 1850s. I believe his name was Samuel Huyghue. He bought a lot of the collection and brought it around the world. Museums are actually an important source for saving many of these collections and many museums are spending a lot of time trying to share this resource back with many first nations as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member brought that up. That gentleman, who was from Prince Edward Island originally, took the artifacts and took great care of them. He was extremely interested in indigenous history. He loved these artifacts and took very good care of them. When he passed away, he bequeathed them to a museum, which has also taken very good care of them. We have had some discussions and we are discussing possibilities.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill before us, proposing a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property, is a well-intentioned but flawed piece of legislation. The Conservative Party will support it at second reading, but we will be seeking amendments to correct some of its flaws, which we have already seen highlighted through the questions and the speeches so far.

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. Naturally, the culture, artifacts, and art that bear witness to its past have an especially powerful meaning for aboriginal people. An ideal outcome will be one that not just balances competing interests in the property of cultural artifacts, but rather one that builds on common interests to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. While some may see gain in stoking grievances and differences of interest, the sensible Canadian way is that which looks to build on mutual interests.

The question of how museums should deal with aboriginal cultural property is not new. In fact, well before any politician sought to make this an issue, the Canadian Museums Association and the Assembly of First Nations established a joint task force, which conducted consultations for a year. They arrived at sensible and practical conclusions on how museums should work in collaboration with first nations. They jointly recommended a process based on moral and ethical grounds for the use and presentation of cultural objects, and for resolving disputes. Museums across Canada have developed and implemented policies based on this joint Assembly of First Nations and Canadian Museums Association report, and all of it happened without Parliament imposing legislation. The parties involved are to be commended and recognized for their efforts in working together. It is in that context that we must view this bill.

“Aboriginal cultural property” is defined in this bill as “objects of historical, social, ceremonial or cultural importance to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada”. This could include thousands of everyday artifacts, ceremonial and sacred objects, ancestral skeletal remains and funerary objects, as well as artwork, sculptures, jewellery, or literature produced by Canada's aboriginal peoples.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, many of these aboriginal cultural artifacts were gathered, purchased, and occasionally appropriated, by missionaries, government agents, anthropologists, and amateur and professional collectors. This occurred in a period when aboriginal culture was believed to be dying out, and the acquisition, preservation, and display of these artifacts was seen as a means to enable future generations of anthropologists and students to study traditional aboriginal cultures. Of course, aboriginal culture did not die out and instead now forms an important part of Canada's cultural landscape, while Canada's aboriginal people continue to make strong and significant contributions to our country.

The Conservative Party will be proposing three amendments, perhaps four, I might now suggest, constituting additional criteria for evaluating the measures to be included in a national strategy for the repatriation of aboriginal cultural property.

The display and interpretation of aboriginal cultural artifacts is broadly in the public interest. Current and subsequent generations of Canadians benefit from developing an appreciation and understanding of aboriginal history and culture, something that is a direct result of seeing and learning about aboriginal culture, often through artifacts and their interpretation in museums. It is not a coincidence that the appreciation of aboriginal culture, and public support to correct historical wrongs, have risen in parallel. This bill does not reflect that reality. For that reason, our first amendment will propose that measures “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”. The continued public display of aboriginal cultural artifacts will play an important part in helping future generations learn about and appreciate our first nations' traditions. This is a desirable outcome for all.

Another concern is that artifacts are often fragile and require special care. It will be a loss to all Canadians, including aboriginal communities, if artifacts are ultimately lost or degraded due to a lack of appropriate curatorial care. For that reason, we propose a second amendment. Any repatriation strategy should include measures that ensure that consideration is given to how best to adequately preserve and protect the quality and integrity of aboriginal cultural property. The current bill lacks this important consideration.

Finally, because of the sweeping definition of aboriginal cultural property in the bill as “objects of historical, social, ceremonial, or cultural importance to the aboriginal peoples of Canada”, the bill runs the risk of putting in jeopardy Canada's vibrant aboriginal art sector. This sector is a significant element to the economy of many remote aboriginal communities, and the revenues generated by the works produced support aboriginal families across Canada.

In any well-intentioned policy proposal, the greatest danger lies in unintended consequences. One need only look at the generally benevolent motivation behind the establishment of residential schools for aboriginal children and the subsequent suffering and hardship that often took place in those institutions to know the importance of looking beyond lofty ambitions to ensure that our actions actually make a positive difference.

In the case of the bill, there is a risk of placing a cloud over the entire aboriginal art and design community. If prospective purchasers, be they museums, galleries, or private collectors, fear that the repatriation of their newly acquired property is a future possibility, they will think twice about making such acquisitions or price in a discount for that risk.

Such an effort will harm aboriginal creators, communities, and economies. For that reason, we will be proposing an amendment to ensure that such a strategy does not have the effect of harming or discouraging the important commercial trade by aboriginal artists in the creation and sale of art, design, and fashion.

Of course, a fourth amendment reflecting what we heard the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester express in his speech—that this repatriation policy should only apply to artifacts that individuals are no longer interested in possessing or that museums are going to deaccession—would be a further constructive amendment to help ensure a positive, constructive path forward on a repatriation strategy.

With these four amendments we would be proposing, an aboriginal cultural property repatriation strategy will have the potential to focus on the mutual benefits and opportunities that grow the place for aboriginal culture in the Canadian identity for the benefit of generations to come.

I believe there is a deep well of good faith and existing collaboration between Canadian museums and our first nation communities. All across Canada, aboriginal communities have been engaged and made positive contributions as museums have stepped up their game in enhancing their presentation and interpretation of our aboriginal culture, art, and history. Let us work to ensure that this positive environment continues to grow, something that will benefit all Canadians in the future.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and support my colleague's initiative and commend him on the outstanding work that he has done with respect to raising the profile of the importance of artifacts and the important role of museums, no matter where they may be in the world, in recognizing where those artifacts belong and attempting to work toward repatriation.

In listening to the debate, I heard colleagues across the way asking “what about this?” or “what about that?” That is the nice thing about the standing committee process, as I suspect my friend and colleague will get the support necessary to be able to see this private member's bill passed, just based on the comments I have heard here this afternoon. Therefore, I congratulate the member and those individuals involved in assisting and motivating him to bring forward the legislation that we have before us.

I come from Winnipeg, where we have a natural tourist spot today. Hundreds if not thousands of years ago, it was a major attraction for settlers and for indigenous people, The Forks in Winnipeg where the Red River meets the Assiniboine River. It is the heart of Winnipeg, and there is great interest in the development of that area, where we continue to look at ways in which we can enhance tourism.

Often we underestimate the value of our heritage, in particular indigenous heritage, by not demonstrating appreciation and putting it out and displaying it, but we also underestimate the potential interest both from an educational point of view and from a tourism point of view. More and more, those complement each other. That is what I would like to see in terms of direction. We could identify many of these artifacts and bring them to a place where there is a greater educational component. I do not think that we appreciate the heritage that we have to date, and the first nations are the founders of where we are today. They have enriched who we are and have given us our identity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have seven minutes the next time this matter is before the House.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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.

[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.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am divided right now talking about this important bill. I want to thank the member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing it forward. This bill would create a national strategy on aboriginal cultural property repatriation.

I appreciate the intent of the bill, and I will be supporting it. However, I am also very concerned about the weakness of the language in the bill. It says things such as “to promote and support the return” and “encourage owners”, which would leave this bill as an option for people.

There is an important conversation that needs to happen in this country about what it means to be looking at reconciliation and the history of Canada. We know that the protection of cultural property touches many aspects of policy development, and this raises the risk that inconsistencies may happen and even that contradictory actions may potentially be taken if there is no coordinating mechanism. That is one of the biggest concerns I have. There is nothing here that is actually going to deal with this very important issue.

I had a wise person in my riding once tell me that for him, one of the best things about being indigenous was that the history of the culture was that they did not leave much behind. There were things like totem poles, but the actual impact on the environment was very balanced and limited.

I know that in indigenous communities across the country, their cultures are alive and active, and some communities are working very hard to bring back culture in their communities.

The history of this country is such that the human rights of indigenous people have been violated and often continue to be violated. Cultural heritage has been disturbed, stolen, excavated, exchanged, and taken under duress, and this is important when we talk about this bill. It is important to recognize that indigenous people were studied and bodies were exhumed and moved out of their territories and Canada without free, prior, and informed consent. That is the important thing we are speaking of today, as we saw with the passing of Bill C-262. In this day and age of reconciliation, it must be a key part of the conversation. How are we looking at what it means for indigenous communities to have free, prior, and informed consent? How are we are looking at the history of Canada and what has happened, and how are we making things change?

The University of Winnipeg, for example, currently has the remains of 145 indigenous people stored on its campus. It is concerning that the remnants of the first people of this country are left in places where they are not taken care of in a proper way.

In the riding I represent, North Island—Powell River, whenever remains are found, there is a working process with the indigenous community to make sure that those remains are treated respectfully. When we look at this bill, we have to be looking at that as well.

It makes me think of a community in my riding, the Klahoose First Nation, which is currently undertaking to find ancestors across the world. Recently, an ancestor was located in a Lower Mainland institution. The community came together and worked very hard. They wrote:

When it came time to transfer the ancestor from a cardboard box to the cedar box prepared by the Klahoose Nation we were guided into a private room. This is an incredibly spiritual and honourable undertaking: a precious moment as we handle the remains, bless them, brush and cradle them with cedar and tobacco, and then pray for peace to surround them on the journey to their final resting place.

However, when they walked into the room, what they saw was a cardboard box, which was home to their ancestor for more than 50 years. It had a single word written on it: “skull”.

One of the things this bill does not really look at is how to move forward in a respectful way to make sure that the remains of loved ones are returned home to their communities and that when that process happens, it is in the most thoughtful way possible.

The sad reality is that the history of Canada is steeped in colonialism. In the region I represent, many communities participate in the potlatch system to this day. The potlatch system was a way of redistributing wealth. It was a way of making sure that people were looked after. It was a very sacred process, and it was one of governance. That is really important. It was not a celebration. It was a way of governing. It was a way of making sure that there was fairness and that no one was left behind. People were respected for their generosity.

We know that in 1885, when the ceremony was made illegal, authorities took items away, including totem poles, regalia, and sacred family items. It is hard to explain the impact on the communities. These were the ways they governed themselves. These were the ways they dealt with conflict. These were the ways they acknowledged when people were moving from one phase of life to another. Therefore, it had a huge impact having all of those things gone.

I want to talk about the Nuyumbalees Cultural Centre in my riding, which has done a lot of work repatriating artifacts to their community. One of its main objectives is “to recover from other institutions and individuals, artifacts and records of cultural, artistic and historical value to the Kwakwaka’wakw people.” This cultural centre has activities for schools to educate young people about the history of the area. It has a carving and education centre where they continue to train people in methods that have been passed down from generation to generation. It works hard on language preservation. There is also archival footage in the lower gallery theatre, where people can see some of the recordings that were taken so long ago.

In 1975, the hereditary and elected chiefs founded the Nuyumbalees Cultural Centre so they could begin negotiating the return of their potlatch artifacts and regalia. In 1979, the society had things finally returned home and several months later, opened the doors and allowed the community to come in and engage with those things. It also encouraged the public to come and learn more about their history. It is important that they continue to do that work and find things all over the world that are from their cultural territory.

There are challenges trying to get those things back. The capacity of many indigenous communities to store and care for objects is extremely limited. Some museums work very hard with communities to make sure that they have access to these items.

Recently, a community in my riding, Homalco, took elders and young people to the Royal BC Museum in Victoria, where they saw masks from the late 1800s that are now stored there. They also saw baskets and other pieces of regalia. It was a really meaningful moment for those young people to see how long their history was, to see what the masks looked like, and to interact with the elders to learn the stories of the things that have been passed down. It is good to see those relationships happening, but there is so much more that can be done.

Professor Jack Lohman, chief executive officer of the Royal British Columbia Museum, said the following:

My last issue concerns the slow progress being made toward reconciliation. Our museum displays are still riddled with stereotypical display information, displays of indigenous life emphasizing and privileging white history over indigenous history. Repatriation is inadequately funded. Our museum culture is still predominantly white.

I understand the intention of this bill, and I appreciate it. It is important work. I think it is time in this country of Canada that we start to focus more on the impact than the intention, that we talk with indigenous communities and make sure we recognize the vibrancy in those communities, the history, and what it means when a person has things from their ancestors, their parents' parents' parents, and loved ones sitting in a box somewhere far away and there is no pressure to have those things returned. What does it mean to communities when they get those things back home? This is something we have to look at.

I look forward to supporting this bill. I wish I saw a little more emphasis on money. I understand that in a private member's bill, we cannot talk about money, but I want to make sure that this plan actually has a discussion about that. I saw nothing in there that said there would be a plan that comes forward from this national strategy that would include some of the heavy financial commitments that would have to be made to do this and do this right.

[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.

[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 first-hand 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.

[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.

I wish to express my thanks.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I will let the hon. member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital know that there are about eight minutes remaining in order to reserve some time for the sponsor of the bill and his right of reply.

The hon. member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital.

[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.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to table the government's response to Order Paper Questions Nos. 1629 to 1646.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all members who have spoken to the bill. I underestimated its impact when we drafted it. It was a very basic, simple bill for us, but we had no idea of the impact it would have on so many indigenous peoples who have contacted us. Just to hear the stories from the members and experiences they have had in their museums, heritage, and cultural sites is very gratifying.

I was sitting here thinking that I am almost an artifact myself. I will celebrate my 30th anniversary of my first election in November. However, I have been thrown out, recycled, and changed cars a few times. I was sent home for health reasons. Fortunately, I came back in the last election and was able to do this. It is just as exciting and interesting to me today as it was 30 years ago, and it is because of things like this where we can help change the lives of people and do things that will help and be meaningful to them. We are very fortunate we can do this and help people recognize their history and culture. It is an honour for me.

Somebody referred to me as the sponsor of the bill. I am the sponsor, but the bill belongs to the indigenous peoples. Everything about it is for them. I welcome every amendment that anybody wants to make. Any ideas that anybody has to add to the bill to make it more meaningful for indigenous people, I will welcome and support. Everybody has been very supportive. They may have their own little twists and turns on it, but they are supportive, and I appreciate that.

When I wrote the bill, the point was to help small communities. For instance, Millbrook First Nation in my riding had a case where it had discovered an artifact that might be available, but it needed a hand. My idea was to add another voice to small communities like Millbrook First Nation in Nova Scotia so it would not be alone in its effort to try to repatriate this article.

The second part came up after we tabled the bill. People who had artifacts were contacting us but they did not know where to take them. They wanted to repatriate them, but they did not know what to do with them. Therefore, another part of my vision of this strategy is that we have a place for people to go, if they have artifacts, to ensure they go back to the original community that had the artifacts and have a close relationship to them.

I am grateful to all the people we consulted on this. My executive assistant, Joel Henderson, was so helpful. As well, some of the people we dealt with were the Millbrook First Nation, the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq, indigenous members of Parliament, and indigenous members of the Senate, who were very interested and had many meaningful stories. We were approached by foreign governments. The Commonwealth Association of Museums, which represents museums in 53 countries, looked at the bill as perhaps a model for something it might do. The Canadian Archeological Association, the Canadian Museum of History, academics and authors have offered us help and ideas. We have been in touch with the Assembly of First Nations, the Cree Cultural Institute, the Royal British Columbia Museum, and the Victoria Museum in Melbourne, Australia.

I want to thank Mr. Mark O'Neill, the president and CEO of the Canadian Museum of History, and John McAvity of the Canadian Museum Association, who we met in our office to discuss the direction we should go in and the it could play to help. Dr. Sarah Pash from the Cree Cultural Institute was so interesting.

I had a visit from Her Excellency Natasha Smith from the Embassy of Australia. She offered to help open up a dialogue between Millbrook First Nation and a museum in Australia. To my amazement, I now have a young first nation Canadian woman dealing with a young first nation Canadian woman in Australia, and they are negotiating about artifacts. That is symbolic of the intent of this bill, first nation to first nation. It is so gratifying.

I have a lot of things I would like to say, but this bill has been a journey of enlightenment for me. I started to very much appreciate the culture and meaning of the artifacts of indigenous people, which I did not appreciate when we first started this. However, it has been very meaningful to me and I have met so many wonderful people. The one thing I learned is that we have a lot to learn.

I want to thank all members of Parliament who spoke on this, and those members who have amendments and proposals to add to the bill to make it more meaningful for the indigenous peoples who I hope it serves.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 6, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 3:34 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, 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, and the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope, Foreign Investment; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Justice; and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #725

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Heritage.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I regret that I was not in the chamber while you were reading the start of the motion. I still voted, and I know that was not in order. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have my vote count in support of this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to record the vote of the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope in favour?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I actually was in the lobby and heard the motion being read by you. I was actually with the government whip. My apologies to the House for missing it. I did vote. I did hear the reading of it. I believe it was counted. I also ask for unanimous consent that my vote stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.