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

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her congratulations on the birth of my little boy. He is nine months old, and it is very tough for me to be here while he is at home in Fort McMurray, but this is exactly the kind of work I have been sent here to do by the people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, and I am very proud to do so.

What I do know is absolutely not okay for first nations is to point-blank tell them, through a private member's bill, like the one that was brought forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay, that they are not legally allowed to say anything positive about an industry that supports them and that they could go to jail for up to two years or have a half-million-dollar fine simply for telling truth and facts. That is both censorship and goes against any form of economic reconciliation, so I am very disturbed. Over the weekend, I had an opportunity to talk to a number of indigenous people throughout my riding who shared the concern they have with that bill and how tone deaf it is to tell indigenous communities in my riding and across the entire country what they can and cannot say about industries they want to participate in.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the member a similar question to what I asked a previous Conservative member, because she spoke to it as well. She mentioned that, by CAP not being mentioned as one of the board members, it is being prevented from being a voice in this board. However, I give the same reminder that the national council for reconciliation will have a minimum of nine members and a maximum of 13, so in addition to the four, there are going to be several other board members that can be on this national council for reconciliation.

Can the member tell us where she sees, in the bill, that CAP is being prevented from being on this board?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate learning from the member opposite on the INAN committee, and I know that her kindness is one reason we do better in this place. I do want to highlight the fact that, yes, the bill would not preclude CAP from being on the committee, and I really hope that, at some point, it would be named to it. However, I think it is an absolute oversight to not include an organization that represents 800,000 people who live off-reserve, and I believe that is an important voice that is missed.

Yes, the bill does not preclude CAP, and I hope it is included, but I do think it is a mistake not to have included it to begin with.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member spoke about humility, and sometimes we do not get things right, but it is important to recognize when we do get things wrong and correct them. In this case, I am wondering if she has any further comments on that.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that humility is absolutely key in doing good in the world and that the government could learn a thing or two, and all of us could learn a thing or two, if we simply admitted when we made a mistake and tried our best to make things better. That is, unfortunately, not something I have seen very much of from the current government since I have come here.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to address the House on Bill C-29. My understanding of the schedule today is that I have about 12 minutes and then we will continue when we next come back to the bill. I know some members are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to ask questions or make comments, but they will sadly need to wait until this bill is next up for consideration.

It has been a pleasure for me to listen to many of the interesting and insightful speeches that have been given by my colleagues. There might have been a few less interesting and insightful speeches given, but I will not name any names.

I wanted to, first of all, identify some of the key aspects of this bill and then drill into a few specific areas around reconciliation. Bill C-29, for those just joining us, deals with the creation of a national council for reconciliation. This is a body that was called for in the calls to action associated with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and it now seeks to, through legislation, give life to that specific recommendation by creating a council that would be responsible for, in various fora, providing advice and recommendations around reconciliation. This specifically responds to calls to action 53 through 56.

I would just note out of interest that we do seem to see a number of these legislative proposals from the government for the creation of advisory councils or bodies that would be representative of some community of concern and provide advice to the government on specific issues. What I always look for in these kinds of proposals is whether these advisory bodies would have the capacity to authentically represent the people they are supposed to represent or whether these advisory bodies are subject to such a level of control by the government that they would be more limited in being able to be representative or operate independently.

I can think of a similar case of the creation of an advisory body on child care, where the government said it was going to create a child care advisory body. In every case, the impulse of the government is to say it is going to create this consultative advisory body that will be an important stakeholder that will inform it of situations on the ground, but then to, at the same time, create a system in which the power of creation of appointment, and maybe in some cases in an ongoing way and in other cases just in the first instance, is by a minister. This obviously creates challenges for that body to be authentically representative or to challenge the government with an alternative conception of how to proceed in a policy area that may be different from what the government is proposing.

If the government says it wants to have an independent body advising it that is going to be championing specific issues such as child care, reconciliation and some other issue and yet it is going to choose the people on that body, then to what extent is that body able to be a meaningful check on what the government is doing? This is an important area of caution in general. I would hope to see, and suspect the framers of the calls to action were more thinking of, a council for reconciliation that could provide that check on government.

I note the legislation, Bill C-29, does identify certain organizations that should be represented on the council. The problem with that is if the minister is still choosing the individual, that there must be someone from this group and someone from this group, or if the minister exercises a greater degree of discretion for a majority of those individuals, again that creates some obvious problems. It is something we need to be cautious about.

I note as well, as my colleagues have, there was no representation for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Members have pointed out in questions and comments it is possible the council might choose someone, in replacing a position, with an affiliation with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, but it is also possible it might not. The fact that there are protections for the inclusion of specific voices and not for the inclusion of the voice that represents indigenous people living off reserve is a problem as well, and one that Conservatives have highlighted.

We have also spoken about economic reconciliation, and I will come to that. However, I want to add to the conversation with some reflections on diversity in procurement and on the inclusion of indigenous businesses in procurement. This is something that has been on my mind and the minds of many members today, of course, with the release of the explosive arrive scam report from the Auditor General. This report contains a variety of findings that I know we have had an opportunity to discuss and will have more opportunity to discuss in the House. Basically, the Auditor General found multiple levels of incompetence and corruption in government procurement associated with the procurement of the arrive scam app, with $60 million spent, but no certainty about how much money was actually spent; a complete lack of documentation and tracking; a two-person company that was hired, with no IT experience, to do an IT application; and on and on. Why in the world was this company hired? Who made this decision? We are still asking these questions.

However, the Auditor General's report builds on work that was done by the procurement ombudsman, who identified aspects in the procurement system that are loaded towards insiders. This is important for the discussion that I want to have in the context of the bill before us, which is diversity and inclusion in the context of procurement.

For a long time, there have been asks from indigenous business owners. I have also met with leaders in the Black business community and representatives of other communities, who are saying that they want to see more inclusion of businesses from their community in the procurement system. Governments have talked about this. They have set targets, which they have not always achieved. There has been discussion about whether we should set quotas or targets, how we should do this, and all of that.

However, if we look at the existing system, and this was revealed through the procurement ombudsman's report, we have a situation where there is actually strong protection in place for incumbent businesses. Therefore, we had a situation with GC Strategies, which is not what we think of as an incumbent business. It is not massive; it is a two-person company with lots of close connections with government. It gets the work, it subcontracts and it makes a lot of money in the process. There are a lot of problems there. However, we have this incumbent business with close relationships to the government. Then we find out that GC Strategies sat down with the government to discuss what the terms of the contract were going to be. Therefore, this company has a significant advantage, because it is sitting down with people in government that it has a relationship with, and it says, “We think you should ask for these specifications in the contract.” I think that process is effectively rigged.

The government then puts requirements in, where it says, “You have to have a certain amount of experience of having procured with the government.” This is a structure that advantages existing incumbent businesses with a lot of privilege. If a company is part of a historically disadvantaged community, such as an indigenous business owner or a business owner from another community who does not have the same privilege of access or incumbency in the existing system, then it is disadvantaged. It is not a matter of saying that people who may not have the best product should be advantaged. No, it is actually saying that, if we took out the protections for insiders who are not providing a good product, which is clear in the case of ArriveCAN, then we would probably see more diversity in procurement. If we had a more open, democratic, accessible procurement process where we were not protecting incumbent bidders, I think we would see more indigenous-owned and minority-owned businesses being able to engage in the procurement process.

When we talk about this issue of economic reconciliation, providing jobs and opportunity for people of diverse backgrounds, one easy way to do that is, to coin a phrase, to remove the gatekeepers. We can break down the systems in place that are preventing people who are in a situation where they may not have generational money, privilege or access to government, but who have good ideas and who have started their own businesses, from being able to access government procurement.

Part of economic reconciliation is to authentically democratize procurement to allow the opportunity for more businesses in Canada that have not sold to the Government of Canada before to nonetheless pitch their product as the best product. The other thing we heard from the procurement ombudsman is that they actually had a system for disadvantaging those who present low prices. It is crazy. People who did not ask for enough money when they were selling their product to the government got cut out.

One can imagine how, for someone who has not sold to the government before, but who says that they know what they are doing, that they can build this app, that they have a great product and that they are going to charge less to try to get the business, to still make a decent return but to try to charge less, with the existing system that the government has put forward, that new entrant, who might be trying to pitch at a lower price, is actually disadvantaged in the evaluation system purely because of the low price he has charged.

We want to create jobs and opportunity for all Canadians. Part of how we do that is by removing the gatekeepers that prevent authentic diversity and inclusion in our procurement system.

I might be on the verge of being done. When I come back, I will have more to say about economic reconciliation, jobs and opportunity for indigenous Canadians and how Conservatives will remove the gatekeepers to help make that happen.

I know that there is some discussion of a possible UC motion to allow me to speak more, but I think I will save the surprise for when I come back.

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nepean.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the ancestral unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Our collective journey on the path of reconciliation, healing and understanding is not merely a path we choose to walk; it is an essential step toward a better future and an acknowledgement of past wrongs. This is about acknowledging that while we cannot change the past, we have the power and, indeed, the responsibility to shape a better future, which is exactly what Bill C-29, the piece of legislation we are debating today, is all about. Simply put, it would establish a national council for reconciliation.

In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was chaired by the hon. Murray Sinclair, investigated the history and the legacy of residential schools and released its final report. It came after six years of hearings and testimonies of more than 6,000 residential school survivors and their loved ones. The report included 94 calls to action to address the legacy of residential schools and to achieve true reconciliation based on the experiences and recommendations of survivors. Our government is committed to implementing each and every one of those calls to action.

This legislation responds to call to action numbers 53 to 56. The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that “all levels of government must make a new commitment to reconciliation and accountability.” The Truth and Reconciliation Commission further noted that Indigenous peoples and Canadians will benefit from the establishment of an oversight body to evaluate and to report on progress made toward fulfilling commitments and to ensure that the necessary educational resources to advance reconciliation are available to all Canadians.

On this journey, it is crucial that we listen, truly listen, to the stories of those who have been affected by our history. These stories, though often fraught with pain and injustice, are vital in understanding the depth of the hurt that has been caused. They remind us that behind every call to action, there are human faces and stories that deserve to be heard and to be acknowledged.

To that end, this bill was brought forward after extensive engagement with Indigenous peoples and organizations. Our government as well as parliamentarians in both chambers have worked tirelessly to ensure that the bill before us today is at the heart of what indigenous people have been asking for in this country. Parliamentarians have made important amendments, and the government accepts all of them.

Walking the path of reconciliation requires consistent action and a desire to forge a new relationship based on mutual respect, trust and nation-to-nation recognition, to which indigenous peoples are entitled. This work is vital, complex and long term. That is why it is crucial that we have systems to measure the progress we are making as a country as we work toward reconciliation and that we hold the government accountable to its obligations. The council would do just that.

Reconciliation requires more than just words. It demands action. It challenges us to move beyond the mere acknowledgement of past injustices to the implementation of concrete steps that address these wrongs. While the Leader of the Opposition offers platitudes on the necessity of reconciliation, there remains a stark contrast between his rhetoric and the actions, or lack thereof, taken by his party.

That is why the National Council for Reconciliation is so important. It would be an independent, permanent body that would oversee the progress of reconciliation efforts in Canada. It aims to promote respect, dialogue and understanding between Canadian and indigenous peoples. The council would provide oversight and would hold the government accountable for advancing reconciliation with indigenous communities, including monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

We know progress has been made, but I hope that everyone in this place would agree that there is more to do. As amended, this bill strengthens the accountability of governments to respond to council concerns in terms of measuring progress. The establishment of such a council reflects a commitment to creating mechanisms for ongoing dialogue, for respect for Indigenous rights and for a concerted effort to address historical injustices and the legacy of colonialism. It signifies a step forward in the journey toward reconciliation, aiming to ensure that the actions and the policies of the future are informed by a comprehensive understanding of the past and present realities faced by indigenous peoples in Canada.

I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, as amended, as it represents a critical step toward bridging the gap between words and action.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do feel that the implementation of the calls to action certainly need oversight because the final report of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation came out in 2015, and the government has barely moved on it.

I appreciated the member's comments, particularly about acknowledging history, because we are in a time when there is a rise of residential school denialism. In fact, the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, on the day we were meeting with families searching the landfill, was doing fundraising with a group that puts out articles regularly citing residential school denialism, particularly with unmarked graves.

I am wondering what my colleague thinks about a need to put in place legislation to deal with residential school denialism as a form of hate speech.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a tough question to answer, in terms of whether legislation is required for that. Unfortunately, we live in a day and age when misinformation is spread so wildly. We do not even seem to have a standard on who is willing to distribute that information in this day and age.

At the heart of this is information and making sure that Canadians know exactly what happened. We have a very difficult past to reconcile with. We have the obligation to ensure that we do everything we possibly can. I would even go as far as saying that this is why this legislation is so important. If a council is established permanently, as an act of this Parliament, it becomes much more difficult for a potential future government to dismantle it. Therefore, that council would continue to exist in perpetuity to be able to monitor the progress of the calls to action.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am quite dismayed at the comment by our NDP colleague across the way, but I will leave that for another day. It is par for the course with the NDP team they have.

Why were the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, an organization that represents 800 status and non-status, off-reserve, urban indigenous peoples, and the Native Women's Association of Canada not included in this program?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not have an answer to his specific question in terms of the particular organizations that he referenced. What I do know, as I indicated in my speech, there was an absolute ton of work done in creating this commission and in consulting with indigenous peoples directly.

I am a partisan person. I think the Speaker would acknowledge that. When I stand in the House, I am quite partisan. I will take the shots where I see necessary. I really hope that on this particular issue, an issue as important as this, the entire House can support it. We are talking about establishing a council with oversight. I really hope that we can put aside partisanship and that we can move forward in doing what it is right because I know, at heart, every member believes that.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-29 is fully in line with what the Bloc Québécois has been advocating for a long time, namely the nation-to-nation relationship between indigenous nations, the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation. This resonates perfectly with us. We encourage it and value it enormously. I would just like to mention the agreement reached by Premier Bernard Landry known as Paix des Braves, or peace of the braves. That was a big step for Quebec.

That said, I simply want to take this opportunity to remind the government that there is still a law called the Indian Act. It is 2024. The Indian Act is totally unacceptable, unfair and discriminatory. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly off topic in terms of this particular bill, but I am happy to answer that question. I completely agree that, with respect to having an act with that name in 2024, we should be moving in the direction of replacing it and probably updating legislation in the process.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the legislation that provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. It would be an independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization with a purpose to advance efforts for reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This council would track our progress on implementing the calls to action, a road map for reconciliation.

I wish to reiterate that we are committed to implementing the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, advancing reconciliation and working in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis. We will implement all the calls to action and advance reconciliation in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis.

We recognize the crucial role played by the Senate of Canada, which is often referred to as the chamber of sober second thought. This body serves as a vital check on the legislative process, ensuring that laws enacted by the House of Commons receive thorough review and consideration.

The Senate's recent amendments to a key piece of legislation exemplify its essential function. By refining terms, clarifying language and specifying functions, the Senate has enhanced not only the clarity of the law but also its effectiveness in serving the diverse needs of Canadians, particularly emphasizing respect and precision in matters involving indigenous governing bodies.

The amendments, such as the explicit use of the terms “first nations”, “Inuit” and “Métis” in the preamble, focus on inclusivity and the acknowledgement of Canada's indigenous peoples. They also improve governance by defining the scope and functions of the new council and by ensuring transparency with the tabling of an annual report.

These adjustments are crucial for meaningful consultation and co-operation with indigenous communities. Let us value and respect the Senate's diligent work. Its amendments contribute significantly to making legislation more just, more precise and better suited to serving our society's needs. The Senate's thoughtful revisions ensure our laws reflect the voices and rights of all Canadians.

Indigenous peoples in Canada, comprising first nations, Métis and Inuit communities, represent diverse and vibrant cultures with distinct traditions, languages and histories. Today these groups face a complex set of challenges and opportunities. Socially and economically, indigenous people often experience higher rates of poverty, lower educational attainment, health disparities and limited access to essential services compared with non-indigenous Canadians. These issues are rooted in historical injustices, such as colonization and the residential school system.

However, there is ongoing progress in addressing these challenges. Recent years have seen increased governmental and public recognition of indigenous rights and sovereignty. Efforts towards reconciliation are evident in initiatives such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, which aim to rectify historical wrongs. Indigenous political and cultural resurgence is also notable, with indigenous leaders playing key roles in national dialogues about environmental protection, economic development and cultural preservation.

We can imagine a Canada where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action are fully realized, a nation defined by understanding, justice and mutual respect. The impact of implementing these calls is profound, promising a future where all Canadians, including first nations, Métis and Inuit, share equally in the prosperity and cultural richness of our country. By acknowledging and correcting the historical and systemic injustices faced by indigenous peoples, we foster a national spirit of genuine reconciliation. This means not only recognizing past wrongs but also actively working to rectify them.

Education systems would teach the true history of indigenous peoples, fostering understanding and respect from a young age. Meanwhile, health and justice systems would be reformed to eliminate systemic biases, ensuring that indigenous communities receive equitable treatment.

The economic impact would be significant as well. By supporting indigenous businesses and integrating traditional knowledge into our economic practices, we unlock new opportunities for innovation and sustainability. Socially, as barriers are dismantled, we would see stronger, more inclusive communities across Canada, enriched by the diverse cultures and traditions of indigenous peoples. This is an investment in the future not only of indigenous communities but of all Canadians, creating a society that truly reflects our values of fairness and equality.

These are the reasons I stand here to discuss the imperative of fully implementing the calls to action of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

This comprehensive report is not merely a document. It is a blueprint for healing and partnership, aimed at righting the historical injustices faced by indigenous peoples in Canada.

For too long, the voices of first nations, Métis and Inuit communities have been marginalized. The residential school system stripped away language, culture and identity and stands as a dark chapter in our national history. The calls to action provide us with a path to acknowledge these painful truths, to learn from them and to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Implementing these calls to action is not just a moral obligation but also a vital step towards building a just society in which the rights and cultures of indigenous peoples are respected. It is about creating educational programs that reflect the true history of Canada, reforming the justice system to be equitable and ensuring that health and child welfare services meet the needs of indigenous communities.

Let us embrace this opportunity to foster reconciliation, to build bridges and to work hand in hand with indigenous communities toward a shared and equitable future. The path is laid out before us. It is time for action, commitment and perseverance. Let us move forward together, not as separate entities but as united Canadians, honouring every chapter of our shared history.

The council, as outlined in Bill C-29, would be an independent, non-partisan body dedicated to overseeing the ongoing efforts towards reconciliation. It marks a profound shift toward ensuring that these efforts are led by those who understand them deeply, our indigenous peoples.

Notably, the board of directors, primarily composed of indigenous members—