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.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend's question does a far deeper dive into the issue than I am capable of making. I will defer to our scholar on this issue, the parliamentary secretary.

I can say that we are challenged here. Even the process we are going through today and even the government funding still represent the vestiges of a colonial approach to these communities across the country. We need to take steps to break with that and really start treating these people with the dignity and the independence they deserve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He continued by saying, “I recommend that Bill C-29 be amended so that the council's first board of directors also includes a member of the First Nations Fiscal Management Act institutions to ensure economic reconciliation is addressed as a foundation for reconciliation.” It does not get more clear than that. Prosperity is the foundation of what Manny was requesting for first nation peoples.

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

He said:

A number of aboriginal leaders feel strongly that economic reconciliation not only lifts up first nations but also obviously lifts up the provinces and the country. The proof is out there.

In my community, for example, the economic reconciliation that we participated in not only made us one of the wealthiest bands in B.C., but it also, for some reason, got rid of [other ills in the community].

I will continue the quote where he says, “we have young aboriginals getting mortgages in their own right without depending on Indian Affairs or their band council. They're going on vacation. They're planning futures for their children.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I did quite substantial work before I was a member of Parliament in teaching about the calls to action and reviewing them. I looked at all the harms that were caused by the residential schools. The calls to action talk about the loss of language, the high incarceration rates and the deep need for healing in our communities, but one thing I do not see once in the calls to action is the term “economic reconciliation”.

I will ask the member a straightforward question. In which specific call to action do you see economic reconciliation to address the healing that needs to happen in our indigenous communities?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member not to use the word “you”, because he should be addressing all questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I sat in those committee meetings with the witnesses and heard all the questions raised by all parties. I specifically remember the witnesses only responding to questions raised by the Conservatives about economic reconciliation. Most times, witnesses did not voluntarily talk about economic reconciliation.

Would the member concede that when the witnesses talked about it, it was in response to Conservative questions and not said on their own?

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

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

I have more of a question back to her. Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission, in his testimony, even before we got to ask him questions, talked about economic reconciliation being fundamental to this bill. He said, “I recommend that Bill C-29 be amended so that the council's first board of directors also includes a member of the First Nations Fiscal Management Act institutions to ensure economic reconciliation is addressed as a foundation for reconciliation.”

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

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech in regard to economic reconciliation. Nowhere in the TRC is that mentioned, but I understand the principle the member is discussing in relation to the need to ensure first nations, Métis and Inuit folks have the economic tools to ensure they are fit and prepared to participate in the economy.

The truth and reality of the member's statement, however, are only in direct relation to natural resource projects. What if, for example, an indigenous group were to take an approach to build renewable green energy? Would the economic reconciliation principle exist in something like that for the Conservatives?

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

Madam Speaker, on a couple of fronts, those projects are happening as we speak, even in my own jurisdiction in B.C.

Call to action 92 actually says, at the end of the paragraph, “Ensure that Aboriginal peoples have equitable access to jobs, training, and education opportunities in the corporate sector, and that Aboriginal communities gain long-term sustainable benefits from economic development projects.”

If that is not economic reconciliation, what is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I asked this question of another Liberal member earlier here today. It is about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. I hope that the parliamentary secretary is aware of the Daniels decision related to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Government of Canada, and the long legal battle between the two with the recognition that the federal government is legally accountable for Métis and non-status Indian interests.

That is key because, over the course of debate at committee, additional and important interests, including national indigenous organizations, were added to this council, yet we see an amendment, dropped on the table here today by the Liberal minister, which would remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. It is an important voice for indigenous concerns, many of which are not represented by other forums. Does this member support removing CAP from this commission?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very content that the government is moving forward in establishing the council with representation from a range of indigenous organizations. I believe that it is going in the right direction.

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

Madam Speaker, call to action 54 called upon the government “to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation” to ensure that it has the financial and technical resources required.

In the 2019 budget, the government announced a total investment of $126 million for the national council for reconciliation, including $1.5 million to cover operating costs for the first year.

We have no idea whether this is a permanent measure. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary what is going on with that and, in particular, whether it has been discussed in committee.

Were any suggestions made? Can we get more information about the financial costs involved? Is the investment even sufficient?

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot really speak to the second aspect of my friend's question, but I can assure the House that, as a government, we are committed to ensuring that the national council would be supported. When councils of this nature are established, there is a ramp-up period, so often times the budget in the first year may not be the same as in the fourth or fifth year. I can assure the House that our government would continue to support the needs of the national council for reconciliation so it can function to its mandate.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have such a tremendous amount of respect for my hon. colleague across the way. We did some pretty critical work together in committee to pass Bill C-15.

In saying that, I know that my colleague is very committed to human rights, but one of the frustrations that I have had, particularly as we are talking about this council, is the focus being shifted away from survivors and toward organizations. My second frustration is with this whole history of incremental justice.

With the current Liberal government, according to reports, only 13 out of the 94 calls to action, knowing that not all of them pertain to the federal government, have been responded to. The government still fails to respond adequately to the calls for justice from the national inquiry. I wonder if my colleague agrees with me that true reconciliation is demonstrated through action and not rhetoric.