Bill C-29 (Historical)

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.

Indigenous Affairs

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre for his commitment to reconciliation.

We will always be there for indigenous people, and we will keep working with them in full partnership. As a government, we created the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. We appointed the first-ever indigenous Governor General and indigenous Supreme Court justice, and we created the indigenous languages commissioner. We also recently passed legislation, Bill C-29, to keep future governments accountable on the path of reconciliation to work with indigenous peoples.

We are all excited to celebrate National Indigenous Peoples Day with indigenous communities later this week.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the different results we hope for are for Conservatives to stop voting against the series of measures we put in place to solve the very problems the member professes to care about. In particular, it would be great if we could pass the doubling of the top-up of the rebate on the price on carbon, so that rural residents in this country from one coast to another could benefit from that additional affordability measure as we continue our fight against climate change, which is affecting them, it must be said, disproportionately. I assure my hon. friend we are very committed to passing what is an exceptionally good, aggressive and helpful budget for all Canadians.

We will continue debate on the budget this afternoon.

Tomorrow, we will conclude debate on the motion concerning the amendments proposed by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Upon our return from the constituency week, and I wish all members a good week of work in their constituencies, we will deal with the budget debate on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, with whom we have, of course, ongoing co-operation and good work.

I can assure the hon. member that we will continue today with the report stage of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, despite the 20,000 automated, AI-generated robo-amendments that the Conservatives put up to obstruct this bill. We will take up third reading debate on that bill on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.

The budget presentation will take place later that afternoon, at 4 p.m., with the first day of debate on the budget taking place on Thursday of next week.

On Wednesday, we hope to resume debate on second reading of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Lastly, on Friday, we will resume debate on 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.

I thank all members for their co-operation.

Bilingual Documents in the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the second matter relates to the deliberation on the NDP opposition day motion that took place on Monday, March 18. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier alleges that his privileges were breached when the government House leader moved an amendment to the motion during the debate and the translation delays prevented members from considering the amendment in French.

I submit that there are two matters to be considered in this case. The first is that the events took place on Monday, March 18 and the member raised the argument two days later. This was not the first opportunity to raise the matter.

Second is the fact that the events of the debate of March 18 simply do not support the allegation raised by the member. The member did not raise his question of privilege at the first opportunity, as required.

Page 145 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

There was no requirement for the member to have time to marshal sophisticated arguments or to substantiate his allegation. If I were to speculate, the member either did not take the matter seriously or did wait to raise the argument on Wednesday for the simple objective of disrupting proceedings related to the consideration of Bill C-29 on that day.

There is no procedural limitation on when an amendment may be proposed to a motion before the House while it is under consideration. The House was under Government Orders when the amendment was proposed. It is a well-established practice that amendments may be moved in either official language.

Citation 552, subsection (3), of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms addressed this matter. It states, “Every motion that is duly moved and seconded is placed before the House by the Speaker as a question for the decision of the House. All motions must be presented to the Speaker in writing in either of the two official languages.”

I will concede that the amendment was moved later in the day, but this was the result of good-faith discussions between members of Parliament that lasted until shortly before the motion was moved, which is why it was moved in one language.

That is how the House of Commons is supposed to work: rigorous debate and discussions to come to consensus.

It is always the practice of the government to provide all parties with information in both official languages. However, in this case, it was not possible to provide a written copy in both official languages in the time provided, which is why the members of the House were provided with simultaneous interpretation of the proceedings of the House in both official languages.

Third, while the House was suspended to the call of the Chair, the table officers circulated to all parties the text of the amendment in French to ensure that members could understand what had been proposed as an amendment and what they were voting on.

Finally, when the House resumed, after the amendment had been made available in both official languages, the Speaker entertained additional points of order on the admissibility of the motion, which would have offered the opportunity for any member to intervene on the amendment in either official language.

When the Speaker put the question to the House on the amendment, it included text of the motion in French, clearly demonstrating that the text was available in both official languages.

The government strongly believes in the importance of both official languages in the Parliament of Canada. To demonstrate this, the House passed amendments to the Official Languages Act in Bill C-13. Bill C-13 would implement a series of proposals that promote the progression toward the equality of status and the use of English and French. Several provisions of the enactment are therefore concrete illustrations of the constitutional principles set out in subsection 16(3) of the charter.

The facts contradict the assertion by the member that he did not have access to the text of the amendment in both official languages, nor did he meet the test that the matter must be raised at the first opportunity. Therefore, I submit that the matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

Bill C-29—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, let me just illustrate a point. On February 12, there was scheduled debate on Bill C-29. That day, the Conservative Party moved a concurrence motion meant to derail the debate and derail a vote on Bill C-29. That is what I am talking about.

This has been going on since September 2021, when we had the first debate on the bill. It is now closer to two years. It is time to move on. I do not think there is anything more to be added to the debate. Many aspects of it have been considered by committee. Very thoughtful conversations have been had in the Senate. It is back here for final approval.

I encourage my colleagues to reflect on what they have done to obstruct the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I do think we need to make Parliament work better. I do think that certain things we do sometimes, like all-night voting for example, are not good for our health. Unfortunately the process we have right now, the one that is not working sometimes, is prolonging bills that are very important to Canadians.

Bill C-29 is such an example. We have had 58 hours of debate. This is almost unprecedented for legislation of this nature. I believe that everyone will be voting in favour. We have had multiple meetings at committee. At what point do we say that we have no other choice? I believe that point for me was on February 12, when it could have been disposed of with a vote. We had a concurrence motion, and it derailed the debate. There is definitely frustration on my end, but there is greater frustration for communities that have been waiting and have been demanding that we put forward and implement the TRC calls to action.

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

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that the Liberals would impose time allocation on this.

One of the real challenges that has been highlighted time and time again in Bill C-29 is that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, although acknowledged as a national indigenous organization, has been left out of the proposed council. The organization has been very vocal about the disappointment in that regard.

While there have been continual calls to ensure that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is included in the council and the conversations surrounding Bill C-29, that organization has been specifically excluded. This means that many indigenous peoples across Canada, who are not necessarily represented by the other organizations that will have a seat at the table, are excluded.

To the minister, very specifically: Why has the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples been excluded?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, a national council for truth and reconciliation is an essential step forward. It is right in line with the calls to action.

I was very proud to have my first committee experience with the hon. minister, who was the parliamentary secretary at the time. We discussed the preambles to Bill C-29 in meetings. Actually, it is disappointing that we are still discussing it after four and a half years, when indigenous communities right across this country are relying on us for action.

The Conservatives will use attacks to say we cannot get this done, while they simultaneously delay. I want to ensure that Canadians are aware of the fact that there are members of the House of Commons who claim that the government cannot get things like this done but simultaneously extend and prolong debate, complaining when closure is the necessary next step in order to get it done.

Could my colleague, the hon. minister, speak to the importance of this for indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast?

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

Madam Speaker, I question whether my friend opposite actually read either the TRC calls to action or Bill C-29. This is essentially about implementing four calls to action that speak to the establishment of a national council for truth and reconciliation.

The notion of economic reconciliation is something our government has been working on. In fact, the loan guarantee program in the fall economic statement, which the opposition voted against, is one of those elements. Therefore, I find it a little rich when colleagues are opposing the bill without even reading it, because we need to move forward.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have said before that there are two bloc parties in the House of Commons: the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party, which is the Conservatives. Over the course of the last few years, they have tried to block the dental care the NDP brought to Canadians. A million seniors have signed up for the dental care program, including thousands of people in each of the Conservative ridings.

Conservatives tried to deny dental care to seniors, pharmacare and affordable housing funding. All those good things that the NDP is forcing the Liberal government to do, Conservatives have been blocking.

Now we see the latest example of this with Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Conservatives are blocking it. They are refusing for the vote to be held on this legislation and for the bill to move forward. It is simply incomprehensible, I think, to most Canadians that Conservatives would be so mean-spirited as to block every piece of legislation, every bill and every law that is going to help Canadians.

To my colleague: Why do Conservatives seem to want to block everything?

Bill C‑29—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news today. We have announced a whole bunch more homes being built in Canada. We have reduced taxes on the middle class and increased them on the one per cent, and those guys voted against it. The budget is the best in the G7, and we have a great record on reducing poverty. All these things are well in hand without the bad track record of the previous government.

Later today, we will have the final vote on the motion regarding the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Tomorrow will be an allotted day.

When we return following the constituency weeks, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. On Wednesday of the same week, we will continue debate on the motion relating to the Senate amendments to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Tuesday, March 19, and Thursday, March 21, shall be allotted days.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I would first like to thank my hon. colleague and his colleagues in the official opposition for finally letting Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, come to a final vote. That is good news for Canada and our Ukrainian friends, with whom we stand in solidarity.

As for the business of the House, we will continue to have ongoing discussions that would see us dealing with Bill C-62, medical assistance in dying, next week. We are, of course, well aware of the deadlines that are looming. I remind all members of this House that there is a March 17 deadline attached to this very important legislation.

I would remind the House that we wanted to allow all parties in the House, as well as in the Senate, to participate in a process that could guide the government's choices on medical assistance in dying. We produced a report that resembled a consensus, and the bill reflects that consensus.

We will also give priority to bills that have been examined and amended by the Senate and are therefore now in the final stage of debate in the House. These include Bill C-29, which would create a national council for reconciliation, and Bill C-35 on early learning and child care in Canada.

As I said at the outset, we will continue to consult with the opposition parties. My door is always open. If necessary, we will make adjustments so that the House can continue to work in an orderly fashion.

Indigenous Services

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

Mr. Chair, Bill C-29 was introduced on the last day of the June 2022 session, which was about the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Bill C-38 was introduced on December 14, 2022, and not revisited until 11 months later, again on the last day of a session. Bill C-53 was introduced on the last day of the session in June of 2023, and today we have the introduction of water legislation, not on the last day but the last week of a session.

Does the member believe that the government is serious about its promise to indigenous people when, at the last moment and at the end of the last four sessions of Parliament, the government chooses to introduce indigenous legislation?

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, with amendments, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Indian Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an important piece of legislation.

I would like to identify some of the time frames we see around indigenous legislation. Let us go back a couple of years to when Bill C-29 was introduced on June 22, the second-last day of the parliamentary session in 2022. Bill C-38, which we are talking about today, was introduced on December 14. We are now 11 months down the road and are finally starting to debate this very important piece of legislation. Bill C-53 was introduced on June 21, 2023, the very last day of the parliamentary session. In our office, we have a running comment about how we address indigenous legislation from the government: It is the “last-minute Liberals”. They are doing it at the last minute all the time.

The parliamentary secretary identified that there are some issues that still need to be dealt with. She identified the second-generation cut. There are several others that are identified in the engagement kit presented by this bill. If it was going to take 11 months to actually get this bill to the floor to debate, can she identify why we did not solve some of the other issues at the same time so we could speed up this process and solve some of the challenges she identified?

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Historic Places of Canada Act

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as the Bloc Québécois critic on indigenous affairs to shed some light on the bill currently before us, namely Bill C‑23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage.

I will not talk about everything in the bill. It is an update and a reworking of an act from 1985. As the indigenous affairs critic, I would like to draw specific attention to its reference to indigenous peoples. It is in the bill's preamble, in fact. It is one of the biggest changes to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I forgot to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my invaluable colleague, as my leader would say, the member for Terrebonne. Now back to my speech.

As I was saying, one of the major changes in the bill is the voice given to indigenous peoples. There is a reference to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, in the bill's preamble.

More specifically, the bill refers to call to action 79, which is quite long. To paraphrase, the idea is to work more and more with first nations so that they feel like they are active participants in everything that has to do with heritage. We are talking about parks and all the historic sites of commemoration or national interest.

There is also a reference to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The preamble is meant to respond to articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the declaration, which should, in theory, be implemented in the next few months. I know that the consultation process is over. This is a first step.

There are structural changes in the bill, for example, on the issue of powers and on the legislative framework for offences. I would like to focus on the issue of structure for the sake of consistency and out of respect. This still relates to what I just mentioned, specifically, the TRC's call to action 79 and articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That said, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill. The perfect is the enemy of the good, but we can improve it. In any event, that is the purpose of second reading and referring the bill to committee, where changes can be made. Even though we are in favour of the bill, I would like to raise a few points about its structure.

I want to clarify that I will be talking about two major changes. One of them is representation. Previously, the act did not give first nations representatives a seat at the table. Three positions are now being added to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Three new members will sit on the board. That is the first thing. It is in subclause 9(2) of the bill, which reads as follows:

Representatives for First Nations, Inuit and Métis

(2) The representatives appointed under paragraph 8(2)(b) are to be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister made after the Minister has consulted with a variety of Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of entities that represent the interests of Indigenous groups and their members.

That is the first thing. We are seeing some progress. I will come back to it later to suggest improvements that could be made with respect to representation.

Then there is also the issue of tenure of office. The relevant clause reads as follows:

10 (1) A member appointed by the Governor in Council holds office during pleasure for a term fixed by the Governor and Council of up to five years, but they continue to hold office until their successor is appointed.

Reappointment

(2) A member may be reappointed.

As I interpret it, a reappointed member would have no time limit or term limit.

Clearly, the fact that the board will have first nations, Métis and Inuit representatives is in itself an important change. Of course there are places of interest to them that they wish to preserve and that are meaningful for them and the population at large. We must also identify these places, learn about them and recognize their existence and importance.

That said, I worked on Bill C‑29, which provides for the establishment of a council whose purpose is to monitor the progress of reconciliation efforts. I thought that Bill C‑29 went much further than Bill C-23. Obviously, Bill C‑29 also stated that indigenous representatives needed a seat at the table, but first nations, Métis and Inuit communities were guaranteed a seat too. This bill mentions first nations, Métis and Inuit representatives, but the wording of subclause 9(2) does not guarantee that the Inuit, Métis and first nations will be represented. It is a possibility, but there is no indication that everyone will be at the table. That is something I wanted to raise.

There is also the issue of the process. Will all due respect, I find that the process is unclear. Of course, the Governor in Council will be able to take part in the recommendation, but we still do not know which indigenous governing bodies will be consulted. Once again, does this mean that the Métis, Inuit and first nations peoples will all be consulted, or just a few groups chosen at random? The same applies to the question of indigenous interest groups. We have no idea how inclusive this will be. The preamble says that one of the aims of the bill is inclusivity. Yes, there is some opportunity for inclusivity, but there is no guarantee that each of the various indigenous interest groups or governing bodies will be represented.

Then, there is the tenure of office. Individuals will be appointed rather than elected. In my view, the fact that there may be changes and that the deck may be shuffled at some point is a good thing, it could create new energy and at least give the impression of greater representativeness. In this respect, I would like to make a comparison with the clauses of the current version of Bill C-29 regarding nominations. It is not exactly the same thing, but there is a guarantee that a member of the board may be elected only after being nominated by the Assembly of First Nations, by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, therefore the Inuit, by the Métis National Council, and by the Native Women’s Association of Canada.

In Bill C-29, there is an attempt at representativeness, and there is also a guarantee that specific groups will be consulted. Nothing is left to chance. I am not saying that it is perfect, because it is not up to me to say whether indigenous groups feel represented or not. It is up to them to decide. However, here we are at least trying to cast the widest net possible, and we are offering guarantees to all three groups. That is something.

The same applies to the term of office. Bill C-29 allows for a maximum of two terms. After that, there will be changes to the board. I feel that Bill C-23 might be stronger if it was modeled on Bill C-29. This is only a small part of the bill, but I wanted to mention it because of the whole issue of consultation, which is crucial for the first nations. Out of respect for the first nations, and for the sake of inclusivity and transparency, I think that, when it comes to Bill C-23, we would be wise to look at the work done on Bill C-29 to ensure a fair and diverse representation of all three groups of indigenous peoples.

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this context, independent oversight is absolutely key. I welcome the House's support of Bill C-29 to create a national council for reconciliation, which would be able to monitor, in particular, the TRC calls to action.

The government is also open to appointing an ombudsperson, in the right context, to monitor specifically the calls for justice from the final report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. This work will have to be done in partnership. The Government of Canada cannot single-handedly impose that ombudsman without doing the engagement that is necessary. I think people's patience is quite thin in making sure that there are independent mechanisms to verify what we are doing as a government, but we would welcome that initiative.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to stop the supports we have for Canadians. In fact, I would suggest to the member opposite that making sure our most vulnerable are protected is critical. That is why we have a number of things we are going to be doing in that regard, which I will illuminate in a moment.

As to the other question that was put, I do seriously want to ask, if the Conservatives are opposed to action on the climate, whether they have reflected about what the costs are. These are not costs that will be borne for a year or two but for all time. It is something to reflect on regarding the questions that were posed to me.

I am pleased that this afternoon we are going to complete the second reading debate of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Tomorrow, we will go back to the second reading debate of Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act. On Monday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022. For Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, which was reported with amendments from committee earlier this week.

Mr. Speaker, I see you moving in your chair, so you will be happy to know that, finally, for next Thursday, our plan is to commence second reading debate of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in relation to Bill C‑29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Government Business No. 22 Resumed

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

I will answer the question the Conservatives asked about having quorum in the House and it being in the Constitution. The unfortunate reality for the Conservative member who asked the question is that he should know that he has participated in unanimous consent motions in the House to waive that provision in the past. He has already set the precedent himself, so has the Conservative Party and, as a matter of fact, every single person in the House has set the precedent to waive the requirements for quorum.

We cannot be selective as to when we want to interpret the Constitution to our benefit, which is what the Conservatives are trying to do now. The reality is that there has been a long-standing precedent to waive the requirement for quorum under certain conditions, and that is exactly what we are seeing in this motion. There is the same consistency that comes with that.

However, I think what we really have to do with this motion is get to the heart of what is going on. At the heart is the Conservatives' partisan interest and allowing that to supersede the needs of Canadians. That is exactly what is going on here, and I will demonstrate in my speech today how they have routinely done that, not over the last seven years of my being in the House and watching it, although they have done it over the seven years, but five examples just in this fall session alone when they have done that. They have done it on multiple occasions using multiple different tools.

Any individual who has participated in or is well versed in how the Westminster parliamentary system works knows that the one tool the opposition has is to delay. That is its sole tool, and it is important for the opposition to exercise the use of that tool when it can to garner support, or whatever it might be, when they find those issues to be so important. When the opposition feels the issue is the hill it will die on, it will fight, delay and filibuster if it has to, because it feels something is not right.

That is the main tool opposition parties have in a parliamentary system like this. The problem is that Conservatives are using it all the time. They are using that tool for everything. They are saying absolutely every piece of legislation that comes before the House is a hill they will die on, and the problem is that this diminishes the value of the tool they have. It also affects directly, and this is what I do not understand, their credibility on the issue. When they stand up to delay things they are fully in support of, do they not understand that the public sees that? They are doing the same thing, and their partisan interest in seeing the government fail is more important to them than actually providing supports for Canadians.

Let us review some of the legislation from this fall alone. With Bill C-29, the truth and reconciliation bill, the Conservative Party blocked a motion to sit late to try to pass the bill at second reading before the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which is what the government, and I think all Canadians, would have loved to have seen. It was not until pressure was mounted on them by the public that they backed down from that position.

Another one was Bill C-30, the GST tax credit. This is a bill that needed to be passed in a timely manner to get real supports to Canadians. They were real supports for Canadians that needed to be done in a timely fashion to line up with when the GST payments were made. The Conservatives, again, blocked a motion to sit late on the second reading of that important piece of legislation. They only backed down again and changed their minds on how they would vote on that particular piece of legislation based on public criticism and the public holding them accountable for playing the games they are playing. That is the reality of what we are seeing.

Bill C-31 is the bill that afforded very important measures regarding dental care and housing supports. The Conservative Party, again, blocked the adoption of the legislation to help the most vulnerable, forcing the government, with the help of the NDP, to have a programming motion to get it passed, and this is what we see time after time.

The next is Bill C-9, which would amend the Judges Act, and I will remind members this is all happened during this fall session alone.

We had technical issues with interpretation with that bill. The Conservatives are always standing up and using the interpreters as one of their arguments for making sure we have the best quality of debate in the House. When there was a problem with interpretation, which delayed the debate of the bill, the Conservatives refused to support a motion to add time to the debate that day.

The Conservatives say that they want more time to debate. We literally said that we lost 30 minutes of time because of a problem and we had to temporarily suspend, so how about we add that 30 minutes onto the end of the day. The Conservatives said no. This is the group that is now sitting before us saying that they are in favour of doing absolutely everything to increase democracy and that they want more speakers on every issue.

The one glaring example of this happening in this fall session was with Bill S-5. The bill is on environmental protections, and it is a bill everybody in the House supported. It was unanimously adopted. Conservatives put up 27 speakers on it. I want to provide a comparison for those who might be watching. Compared to that number, Liberals put up six speakers, the NDP put up four speakers, the Bloc put up five speakers and the Green Party put up one speaker.

What is even more telling is that, if someone goes back to look at Hansard or watch the videos—

Indigenous Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge my hon. colleague from Nunavut for raising this very important question. I would like to start off by saying that I am speaking from my home in Eskasoni First Nation on unceded Mi'kmaq territory.

The member is right that this is an important issue, and our government certainly needs to do more. That is why, as part of our commitment to the many Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action that talk about justice, health and the need for us to do more on burial searches, we have made available the funding that coincides with them.

Further to that, my colleague and I share the same passion in making sure that we are following through on our calls to action. That is why Bill C-29, which we are currently moving forward with, would ensure that we have an independent oversight committee that is funded for years to come to ensure that it is not just the government holding itself accountable; it is the survivors themselves.

We owe this duty to the survivors. We owe this duty to indigenous communities across Canada. I come from a family that has been affected by residential schools. My oldest aunt went to those schools, as did my cousins and my uncle. We owe them healing. We know that our communities need more of it and we know there are important areas around healing.

Budget 2021 announced $43.7 million over five years, starting last fiscal year, to move forward with this work. We are currently working with the Assembly of First Nations on not only making sure that there is healing but making sure that our communities are safe and that we put money, almost $1 billion, toward indigenous justice and indigenous policing. We are beginning to meet with stakeholders. We are in the process of talking with stakeholders to make sure they are part of the process, because we do not want paternal, government-knows-best solutions. We want solutions that are brought by the indigenous communities themselves.

I would also like to talk about some of the achievements of our government. Before I end my time, I want to make sure to recognize that we are also moving forward on murdered and missing indigenous women. One of my proudest moments was a call I made to the Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association to let them know they would get the funding they requested for a resilience centre in Nova Scotia, the first of its kind in this country, to keep indigenous women safe in the Atlantic provinces. I remember the tears on the other side. They were saying they had been waiting for this for 30 years. I would also like to acknowledge that our government just recently announced $8.4 million for Velma's House, in Winnipeg, for a 24-7 safe space in emergency shelters and transition homes for indigenous women.

Initiatives like these show the difference we can make when we work together on a common goal. Much more needs to be done, and I look forward to working with the member opposite to do that.

National Ribbon Skirt Day Act

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-219, an act respecting a national ribbon skirt day. This bill aims to further educate Canadians about the role of indigenous women and indigenous culture and heritage, and to celebrate those contributions. The ribbon skirt is a symbol of womanhood, identity, adaptation and survival. It is a way for indigenous women to honour themselves and their culture.

While national ribbon skirt day is an opportunity to celebrate indigenous women and their fortitude in the face of paternalism and colonialism, we can and must do more. The Indian Act perpetuates racism and sexism, and we must address this archaic and broken piece of legislation if we truly want to see all indigenous women and girls realize their vision of freedom, their vision of independence and their vision of honour.

The Indian Act was created by the federal government in 1876, a very different time with very different thoughts on the role of women and girls in society. The 1876 Indian Act explicitly stipulated that any first nations woman who married anyone other than an “Indian” or “non-treaty Indian” would themselves cease to be “Indian” under the meaning of the act. It adopted many of the concepts of its precursor legislation, including the ideas of assimilation and enfranchisement and the changing definition of “Indian”.

The 1951 Indian Act continued in this vein, introducing several sex-based rules governing entitlement to status, including the “double mother rule”, which revoked the status of individuals at the age of 21 in instances of two consecutive generations of mothers who were not born with entitlement to status; the “illegitimate female child rule”, which permitted the male children of status men born out of wedlock to register, but which did not entitle their female children to status; “the marry-out rule”, which caused first nations women to lose their status upon marrying a non-status person, but which permitted first nations men to extend status to their non-status wives; and involuntary enfranchisement, which revoked the status of first nations women and their children when their husbands became enfranchised.

Often led by the legal challenges of indigenous women, it was not until 1985, under then Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, that discriminatory parts of the Indian Act began to change. Thankfully, we have matured as a nation since then and we recognize and respect the power and potential in women and girls. However, many aspects of the Indian Act still perpetuate its 1876 paternalistic vision of indigenous women and girls.

The Indian Act denied women the right to possess land and marital property. Only widows could possess land under the reserve system. However, a widow could not inherit her husband’s personal property upon his death. Everything, including the family house, legally went to his children. Previous governments, including the previous Conservative government, have made amendments to update the act to eliminate sex-based inequalities. I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the work of the Minister of Crown Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Indigenous Services, who continue this important work, most recently on enfranchisement, deregistration and natal band membership.

In my previous roles as the critic for families, children and social development and the critic for indigenous services, and in my two previous stints, and now my current stint, as the critic for Crown-indigenous relations, I have met with hundreds of stakeholders, women’s issues advocates and indigenous leaders over the years. On the Indian Act, the message, sadly, is always clear: The act is outdated, broken and paternalistic and it must go.

The government, the opposition, advocates and indigenous people all agree, so one question remains: What is next? How do we get to where we all want to be? As my colleagues in this place all know, that is never an easy answer. Indeed, there are many different approaches we could take: complete abolishment, a new act or a transitionary approach. There are many options, and many people have their own ideas.

However, all hope is not lost. We know a few important things. We know where we all want to be. We all know what we are willing to do and what needs to be done to get there. On this side of the House, the Conservatives support reconciliation and we support a proactive, inclusive process that puts a clear plan in place to achieve the results everyone wants.

While I know my colleagues across the way support reconciliation, and they have said so many times, there appears to be more reaction than planning from the government. As I have heard many times from community leaders, their faith in reconciliation with the government is sadly waning. One does not have to look far.

For example, in the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, we are currently examining Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, a piece of legislation that has ignored the voices of indigenous women and girls.

Yesterday, the Native Women's Association of Canada president, Carol McBride, told the committee that she was disheartened to see that indigenous women were not included in Bill C-29. In fact, that bill only guarantees the seats of the AFN, ITK and MNC. Indigenous women literally do not have a seat at the table.

The Native Women's Association of Canada plays a unique role and could provide invaluable insight to the national council by providing culturally relevant, gender-based analysis; the lens of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls; and specific expertise related to the concerns of indigenous women and girls.

Establishing a national council on reconciliation without the voices of indigenous women and girls is an oversight. It is an oversight Conservatives will correct and we will be putting forward amendments to ensure indigenous women and girls and their voices are heard on the council.

It has been three years since the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report and the Liberal government has made little progress in the past year on its plan to end violence against indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people.

While there have been funding commitments, there has been little action. For example, the CEO of the Native Women's Association of Canada said this about the Liberal government’s record: “The National Action Plan, as it was drafted, was actually a recipe for inaction, and the people represented by our organization are paying the price.”

A poll conducted by Nanos Research last June found that Canadians are three times more likely to say the government has done a poor job addressing the MMIWG than a good job.

Hilda Anderson-Pyrz, chair of the National Family and Survivors Circle, lamented, “Without the political will to create transformative change, this genocide will continue.”

The continuous blunders and inaction are undermining indigenous faith in the Crown. Therefore, in the spirit of Bill S-219 and what it proposes, Conservatives will work very hard to put a plan in place.

On day one of forming a new Conservative government, we will hit the ground running. We will achieve this by listening and planning with indigenous leaders, national organizations and grassroots community members on what they need to achieve true reconciliation.

We will not confine ourselves to one aspect of reconciliation or another. Instead, we will take a holistic approach to reconciliation, one that recognizes the importance of economic reconciliation and what it has on restoring the honour, self-dignity and power to indigenous people.

We will facilitate a plan that empowers indigenous people to not only make their own decisions on water treatment, child services, public safety and entrepreneurship, just to name just a few, but also provide the economic power to achieve those objectives themselves.

We will, once and for all, eliminate the Ottawa-knows-best approach to indigenous relations, and we will do so with the principle that indigenous decisions need to be made by indigenous communities. We will ensure that those decisions include the voices of indigenous women and girls.

Canada Disability Benefit Act

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

Madam Speaker, look at the facts. This fall, the House has sat for about three weeks and the Conservatives have given unanimous consent to expedite two pieces of legislation, Bill C-29 and Bill C-30. That is a pretty impressive, breakneck speed for the opposition to agree to the option of certain pieces of legislation.

This is only the second half day that we have debated Bill C-22, and yes, it needs to be debated. We support the legislation and want it to move forward, but we want the government to do better, and debate in Parliament is part of the process.

Indigenous Affairs

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, reconciliation is not easy. It is neither linear nor free, but we are determined to right past wrongs and address their impact on indigenous peoples, an impact that is still felt today.

Tomorrow, we encourage all Canadians to reflect, to listen and to show compassion for indigenous voices. Tomorrow is a day for residential school survivors and indigenous communities and leaders to have their say.

Bill C‑29 will respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 to 56, while also promoting the implementation and independent review of the 94 calls to action.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the motion for second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, be deemed adopted on division, deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I too always look forward to the Thursday question.

Let me first take the opportunity to thank the member for Barrie—Innisfil for his service in the role as opposition House leader. It was a pleasure to work with him.

I will also welcome the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to his new role as opposition House leader. We have had some fruitful conversations. I look forward to more of them.

First, of course, I reject the characterization that supporting Canadians in their retirement while making sure EI is there for them in case they lose their jobs is a tax increase. We have a fundamental difference with regard to making sure we invest in Canadians, and we will see that play out in legislation.

If I could, because the question was asked of me, I am excited to say that this afternoon we are going to start second reading debate of Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act.

Tomorrow morning, we will resume debate on Bill C-31, which provides for the establishment of dental benefits for children under the age of 12 years old and a one-time rental housing benefit. Then we are going to switch back to Bill C-30 following question period. If further debate is needed, we will continue will Bill C-31 on Monday.

On Wednesday, we will return to second reading of Bill C-29 concerning the establishment of a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization.

Finally, I would like to inform hon. colleagues that next Tuesday and Thursday shall be opposition days.

Indigenous Affairs

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his important question about the national council for reconciliation.

Today we are set to begin second reading of Bill C‑29, a bill that will establish an independent, permanent and non-political council to monitor long-term progress on reconciliation and implement the commission's 94 calls to action.

Bill C‑29 fulfills calls to action 53 to 56. I urge all parliamentarians to support this bill and take concrete steps toward reconciliation.