Bill C-29

National Council for Reconciliation Act

An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation

This enactment provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and Indigenous-led organization whose purpose is to advance reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Bill C-15 in the last session, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is mentioned 15 times in the bill, and the TRC calls for UNDRIP to be used as the framework for reconciliation.

We have a framework. We just have to follow that framework. That was a declaration that was produced after decades. It was over 23 years of work. We have the tools. We have the frameworks. We just need the political will to do the right thing.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is something I have been working on with the member for Nunavut. In Ontario there is a group of eight first nations, and they are first nations with a school collective in mind. We are talking about first nations education by first nations, and we are rewriting a curriculum that is made for indigenous people by indigenous people.

Could the member talk about how that could be a step toward that reconciliation we are talking about today?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a long-time educator and an educator who taught in the area of indigenous education, I am happy to answer these questions. We have several examples of first nations' control of first nations' education across the country, including in Manitoba with the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre. For the James Bay Cree, it has been a few decades that they have been developing their own curricula and taking control of the education of their children.

I think this is central, particularly with the history of educational systems and how things, under the guise of educational systems, were used to perpetrate genocide against our kids. For first nations, Inuit and Métis, control of education is critical and the path forward.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her work at INAN.

One of the amendments she proposed was to ensure that while not being too prescriptive to the transition committee, we give it the option, if it wanted, to have advisory committees consisting of indigenous residential school survivors and elders, and that this was an important part of what we needed to give it as an option to do as a national council for reconciliation.

Can the member opposite talk about the intent behind ensuring that the voices of survivors and elders be a part of the NCR?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member's question is an important one.

Based on the composition and the nominating bodies, it is very important to make sure that we always keep in mind who this reconciliation council is for. It is to make sure that survivors are heard and that elders are heard. We know for a fact that indigenous individuals are the ones who have suffered the most. It is those people we need to honour and make sure their voices are prevalent in the work of the council for reconciliation.

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

Madam Speaker, there was an amendment made that shortened the total time frame from approximately 11 months to five months for the council to present its annual report and for the Prime Minister to respond to that report.

Would she like to speak about how that raises the sense of urgency in this process? Does she think that is important?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I did support that motion, because it is urgent.

For indigenous peoples, federal governments and bureaucrats have known for years that there are many issues that need to be addressed. We hear about the social indicators on a daily basis. We hear about the crisis situation on a daily basis. We know that federal departments have this data, and they must be able to share it as soon as possible with the national council for reconciliation.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent speech.

Creating a national council for reconciliation is one of the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's report, which is a few years old now. The government is acting on one of the recommendations by creating the council, which will watch over progress on the path to reconciliation. Nevertheless, the government remains responsible for taking meaningful action in response to the many calls to action.

In my colleague's opinion, how can we be sure the government will not offload its responsibilities onto the council instead of taking action itself?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member has asked an important question. It is a difficult one.

Of the many steps that have been taken, including the creation of the national council for reconciliation, we also need to make sure that when we receive reports from the Auditor General and the PBO that we, as parliamentarians, make the government accountable by asking questions about why those commitments have not been met, and why those ongoing boil water advisories continue.

We need to keep pressuring this government to re-educate it on why it is important to make sure that the people of the Peguis First Nation, which has been evacuated for 10 years, get the attention they need so that they can return to their homes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it has been seven years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission produced its report and the calls to action, which is as long as the government has been in power, yet only 13 of the 90-something calls to action have been implemented. This would be one of the more basic ones to implement. Had we done it earlier, we would be further ahead.

I am wondering if the member can comment on why it has taken so long to get to this point and why the government is lagging so far behind in its promises to indigenous people.

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

Madam Speaker, that is precisely what we are working toward, and we are taking into consideration the hundreds of years of bills not being paid by the Crown. That is the work we will make sure the council does. It will be independent of government and will bring solutions and recommendations forward and hold the government accountable.

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

Madam Speaker, just to follow up on the last question for the member, I note the time frame of the progress. It started in December 2017 with the Prime Minister announcing that he was going to pursue this national council for reconciliation. From January to June 2018, the interim board of directors did the work it needed to do and reported, and had 20 very solid recommendations. It actually included in those recommendations a draft bill that could have been put forward in 2018. We then waited three and a half years for the minister to appoint, in the next step, the transitional committee members.

Why does the member think there was a lack of urgency for three and a half years while this just sat in limbo?