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

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, kwe, kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour.

First, before I begin the more formal parts of my speech, I want to acknowledge that we are on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

At this time, I would also like to seek unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Sydney—Victoria.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to begin third reading debate on Bill C-29, an act that would provide the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

First, I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties in the House who supported this bill and expressed their comments and concerns about the bill at second reading. We heard their input.

Many of these comments were taken up in committee and amendments were adopted. In this regard, I would also like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for their thorough consideration of Bill C-29. In the past month and a half, during the seven meetings on this bill, the committee heard from 32 witnesses.

I would like to acknowledge all the witnesses who took the time to present their perspectives and answer the committee's questions. Every piece of testimony was critical. It allowed us to make important amendments to strengthen the bill before us today.

Following the advice of the transitional committee, on June 22, 2022, we introduced Bill C-29, which seeks to establish a national council for reconciliation.

The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs' study was extensive. It is worth noting once again that 32 witnesses provided testimony to the committee, including representatives of national, provincial and territorial indigenous organizations, councils and governments, a former commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, federal officials from the departments of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Justice Canada and four of the national council for reconciliation transitional committee members.

Through their testimonies, many witnesses proposed concrete suggestions on how we can strengthen this legislation.

Many of these amendments are now included in the version of the bill that is before Parliament today. I can say that these amendments are consistent with the general legal and policy objectives of Bill C-29, that they do not raise legal risks and that they do not have immediate financial implications.

I will explain some of the major changes we have made together.

First, we made several changes to ensure that the board promotes diversity and inclusion. One thing that was stressed to us on many occasions, as part of our engagement with indigenous peoples and organizations, and again when the committee reviewed the bill, was the importance of having a board that is representative of the realities of indigenous peoples in Canada.

The original bill provided that the board of directors should consist of 9 to 13 persons, two-thirds of whom would be indigenous. It also provided for the inclusion of individuals from the following groups: first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, as well as other peoples in Canada; Indigenous organizations, including a representative from the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council; youth, women, men and gender-diverse persons; and people from various regions of Canada, including urban, rural and remote regions.

Throughout the committee process, we worked with partners and committee members to increase the diversity of the board. We had to ensure the participation of additional voices, including those from the territories, elders and, very importantly, survivors of residential schools and other discriminatory policies, and their descendants.

There was also an amendment to ensure the board must ensure and equitably reflect gender diversity. Gender balance is vital for respecting the rights of women and making progress on issues faced by women and gender diverse peoples. Adding the Native Women's Association of Canada to the list of national indigenous organizations ensures women's voices will be centred and attention will be given to the MMIWG calls to justice.

While the bill already guarantees regional representation, more was needed to ensure the inclusion of a northern perspective based on the fact that indigenous peoples represent a higher percentage of territorial populations. The amended bill provides that at least two of the board's members must be from the north. This is a good development.

In all indigenous cultures, communities and organizations, elders are central figures. As such, an amendment has been made to ensure elders are included in the composition of the council.

Finally, reconciliation cannot happen without including the voices of survivors of residential schools and other discriminatory policies and their families. This ethos was central to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's work and needed to be reflected in the composition of this council, which is why we have made an amendment to guarantee their participation.

When I was in Winnipeg earlier this month, I had the opportunity to speak with survivors, elders and many indigenous peoples at the groundbreaking of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. Those I listened to reminded me of the importance of education for everyone in Canada about the truth of the residential school system. The council and Canada will benefit from hearing from a diversity of experiences, perspectives and voices. I truly think we have accomplished that with this bill, and I thank the House.

These amendments were put forward on the advice of opposition party members, committee members, and indigenous peoples themselves. Taken together, these amendments will ensure that the council's composition reflects regional, gender and cultural diversity.

We added key provisions about respecting, protecting and promoting indigenous languages. Our goal is to support the participation of all indigenous peoples in the council's work and the revitalization of indigenous languages.

This measure is consistent with the government's commitment to fully implement the Indigenous Languages Act in order to maintain, promote and revitalize indigenous languages in Canada. It contributes to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Protecting and promoting the rights of indigenous people, including indigenous language rights, is part of reconciliation. It is therefore a natural extension of the council's mandate.

As I mentioned earlier, the national council for reconciliation would provide a structure for advancing reconciliation in Canada. Inclusion of measurable outcomes will support the council by demonstrating progress. To ensure the council is as effective as possible at advancing reconciliation, we have clarified its core duties and functions, allowing the council to determine measurable outcomes and monitor and report on progress toward those outcomes.

Placing this responsibility on the council reinforces its autonomy and authority to choose the best indicators for measuring progress on reconciliation. Maintaining the autonomy of the council is a top priority, and the government supports the independence of the council as a foundational principle.

To uphold the autonomy and authority of the council, we have modified the selection process for the first board of directors. To remove some of my own authority, the board of directors will be jointly selected by the members of the transitional committee and myself in my role as Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

This change enhances the independence of the council by strengthening the role of the indigenous-led transitional committee. It also helps ensure the selection process to determine the council's first board of directors is open and fair.

As we strengthen the roles and responsibilities of the council, we must also ensure it has access to the information it needs to carry out its work. Even with the amendments we have proposed, I recognize this bill is not perfect. I would like to highlight something that was raised during the committee's study of this bill: More engagement with indigenous communities and Canadians will be done after the council is established as they build their action plan and goals for the council.

Throughout the development of this bill, our government has ensured that members of indigenous communities and political leaders have the opportunity to express their views on the creation of the council. However, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission made it clear in its final report that reconciliation does not just involve indigenous peoples, but all Canadians.

The responsibility for educating people like me often falls on indigenous people, but that should not be the case. There is still a lot of work to be done and a lot of ignorance to be fought. Reconciliation is something that all Canadians, including all levels of government and all areas of the country, must be involved in. The work must be done not just by indigenous people or the federal government, but by all of us.

During the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs' study of the bill, Michael DeGagné, a member of the National Council of Reconciliation Transitional Committee, stated that “reconciliation is not a political process. Certainly it involves politics, but it is not solely a political process. It's a way to engage both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians in a dialogue around going forward in a good way”.

That is what the council aims to achieve. It will open up lines of communication and connect various sectors of society. It will offer criticisms and make recommendations on ways to improve things. It will hold our government and future governments to account and ensure that the dialogue on reconciliation continues.

It has now been four years after the interim council's final report and eight years since the TRC released its final report and the 94 corresponding calls to action. Creating a national council for reconciliation is long overdue, but we are hoping it will happen now with this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at committee, all parties supported the inclusion of someone on the board of directors of the national council for reconciliation with regard to diversity and various regions. This included the northern regions that were added, the language addition and the survivors of residential schools. Conservatives put forward an amendment to include somebody with expertise on economic reconciliation. We did that because we believe that the solution to eradicating poverty, and with it the social ills that poverty creates, is very important.

I am curious as to why the government chose to vote against having one single voice on this board that would represent economic interests and making sure we strive for the eradication of poverty in indigenous communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on all of the board members to fight precisely what the member opposite is highlighting. There are a number of difficult choices that we have to make when the committee appoints members. We are within a structure that has been imposed on indigenous people, so there is an inherent contradiction in sitting here, appointing board members and deciding who goes on what board for what reason.

This is not a slight on any notion of economic reconciliation. In every interaction I have with indigenous peoples and communities, one of the main points of their economic reconciliation is making sure that they are dealing with someone who has paid the bills over the last 100 years, and in a lot of cases we have not. There is a basis of it that has fuelled the poverty that exists in communities today. The suspicion with which they treat the Government of Canada and anyone they interact with is well justified in hundreds of years of not paying the bills.

It starts with that premise, but it moves on into many other areas of closing the capital gap that exists between non-indigenous and indigenous investors and investments. It spans a much broader range than was normally understood as simply the purview of the economy.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about diversity on the board, such as elders, survivors and those who have been intergenerationally impacted, but that is not what is being reflected in the debate that I have participated in all day. I think we are forgetting why we are here. It is because of the courageous stories, which were told by survivors, that brought forth the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and they are why we are even talking about this bill today.

How will the minister ensure that the voices of survivors and those intergenerationally impacted will not be outshone with all the other discussions that I have listened to in the House today?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely this type of commission that will allow us to make sure we are focused on survivors and their families.

It is not lost on anyone that the vast composition of the House is non-indigenous. We sometimes superimpose our own views of what we think is good or not good for indigenous peoples. Having a commission like that to remind us, particularly in the wake of the last year and a half of discoveries in and around unmarked graves, will be an opportunity and a catalyst to keep reminding the House of the importance of putting survivors and families first, knowing that this is trauma that has passed on from generation to generation.

There are still survivors who are speaking for the first time, courageously. There are also people who are courageously choosing not to speak out about their experiences. We need to honour them and their silence as well. This is a very difficult time still for communities and will be for some time. However, having an institution like this, which will be able to radiate across Canada, will be key in keeping survivors and their families front and centre in this ongoing national tragedy.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech.

The bill before us responds to calls to action 53 to 56 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. As we know, this relates to residential school survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives and those responsible for setting up the schools. I would like to know whether the minister could tell Canadians what happened at residential schools. My colleague talked about this earlier.

Does the minister want the bill dealing with calls to action 53 to 56 to be properly reviewed, approved and passed in committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the committee has a duty to adhere to calls to action 53 to 56. The Prime Minister will report on reconciliation every year.

Certainly, let us talk about the tragic story of residential schools. As my colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have said, it will be very important to continue to focus on the survivors and their families, and the traumatic legacy that continues to affect indigenous communities across Canada to this day. A council will allow us to reach out nationally across the country, to raise these issues and to keep highlighting the importance of responding to calls to action 53 to 56.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by acknowledging that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would like to continue the third reading debate on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Reconciliation is not a new idea or process. This is something that has been actively working its way through our country for the last 50 years: in 1982, through changes to recognize and affirm indigenous rights in the Constitution; in 1996, with the report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples; and in 2015, with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action.

Today, after careful consideration at second reading and through study by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, we are considering the national council for reconciliation in response to the TRC calls to action.

Although the INAN committee has made some important amendments to the legislation, this bill, at its core, remains much the same. Bill C-29 would establish a national council for reconciliation as an indigenous-led, permanent and independent non-partisan oversight body to monitor, evaluate and report on Canada's progress on reconciliation. This is significant.

It responds to calls to action 53 to 56, and it supports the Government of Canada's commitment to accelerate and implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Many of my hon. colleagues are familiar with origins of this legislation, but let me provide an overview.

Since the TRC released its final report, our government has responded to the calls to action through reconciliation efforts. We committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. We established a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. This year, we witnessed the Pope offer a historic apology to the residential school survivors in an indigenous community.

This is supplemented by the work done at the grassroots level. There are many encouraging initiatives under way across Canada and across many sectors, but no one is monitoring or reporting on that activity on a national scale.

As was pointed out in the committee study, thus far, we have not had the mechanism to share emerging best practices and create a dialogue to celebrate progress and provide recommendations for improvement. We lack a formal structure for monitoring reconciliation work at all levels of government and society in Canada. Such oversight is critically important for making progress and leaving a lasting and meaningful legacy. That is exactly what the national council for reconciliation would do.

As envisioned by the TRC, an indigenous-led, non-political, independent and permanent national council for reconciliation would provide a structure to monitor, evaluate and report on reconciliation efforts.

This was laid out in four of its calls to action: 53 and 54, which call for the creation of a national council for reconciliation through legislation and funding; and also in 55 and 56, which further clarify the expectations for the council in various levels of government on data and information sharing and reporting on the progress.

Since the TRC released the calls to action, we have been working with indigenous partners, leaders and communities to develop this proposed legislation. We have strived to uphold the principles set out by the commission. Keeping indigenous voices and survivors at the heart of our work is a key part of this legislation.

Front and centre in our process to establish a national council for reconciliation has been the leadership by the interim board and the transitional committee. Both independent bodies were composed of first nations, Inuit and Métis members who provided their advice on a path forward, taking into account a wide range of diverse voices and perspectives.

I will take a few minutes to outline the process we used to develop the bill and the engagement that was done at each stage.

Five years ago, we set the wheels in motion to establish the council with the creation of an interim board of directors. The board comprised six indigenous leaders representing first nations, Inuit and Métis, including the former truth and reconciliation commissioner, Dr. Wilton Littlechild.

Its mandate was to make recommendations on the creation of a national council for reconciliation. To formulate its recommendations, the interim board engaged with community members; academics; business, arts and health professionals; and other interested parties to gather their input.

In 2018, the board presented its final report to the minister, which contained 20 specific recommendations related to the name, vision, mission, mandate, structure, membership, funding, reporting and legislation of the national council of reconciliation. The interim board's recommendations formed the basis of the bill.

To continue this process, in December 2021, the transitional committee was appointed. It has done important work to date convening discussions on the council's functions, identifying key milestones and timelines, and proposing an engagement approach. It also reviewed a draft legislation framework developed by the Department of Justice based on the interim board's recommendations. It led preliminary engagements on the framework with indigenous partners and non-indigenous experts, including lawyers, data specialists and financial and reconciliation experts. It also gathered feedback and advice in areas such as reconciliation, law, data, organizational finance, information sharing, governance and accountability.

In March 2022, the committee provided its recommendations on how to strengthen the draft legislative framework. The committee also suggested that this proposed legislation be brought forward as quickly as possible, amplifying the wishes of survivors, who want to see this council become a reality during their lifetimes. This fall, it passed second reading and was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on October 6, which brings us to today.

I would encourage the swift passage of the bill. As hon. members here know, this is something that I am personally passionate about. We must do more when it comes to implementing the calls to action and advancing reconciliation. I am committed to doing everything in my power to ensure the council has the support it needs to do the work of monitoring the implementation of the calls to action. I hope that other levels of government across the country can commit to working with the council as we have committed to doing.

As we debate this bill at third reading, we cannot take our eyes off the end goal and what this legislation would truly accomplish, which is advancing reconciliation in this country. I encourage my hon. colleagues to consider how they can support the council once it is established and how they can connect the council with initiatives or community members at home.

Advancing reconciliation is something that must be done hand in hand with indigenous people across the country. Reconciliation is not linear and will not come easy, but in our work we will always strive to advance progress and address the existing gaps. This is the goal of Bill C-29.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General report that was published two weeks ago points to the abject failure of the Indigenous Services Canada department to implement any of the concrete changes related to how it handled the emergency planning for first nations communities. They were recommended in the audit of 2013.

In 10 years, the department could not change its approach to make the lives of indigenous people better. How confident is the member of the Liberal government that it would act on any of the recommendations made by the national council for reconciliation?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we not confuse Indigenous Services Canada's Crown-indigenous relations with the work we are doing on reconciliation. When we are talking about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we are talking about survivors who attended residential schools and who made suggestions on how we move forward. That is the blueprint for the calls to action.

While the national council for reconciliation would remain focused on implementing the calls to action, in the future it is also important that we do all of the things we need to do to close the gap between indigenous Canadians and the rest of Canada and to address the harms created by colonization. Only then do we get to the pathways for prosperity that we need for all indigenous people across Canada. However, as a starting point, we owe it to survivors to make sure that the first things we do are in relation to the calls to action that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission moved forward on.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech.

I would like to know his views about the council's governance and representativeness within the council.

In terms of governance, the bill proposes that the board of directors be composed of a minimum of nine and a maximum of 13 directors.

In terms of representativeness, the bill proposes that the board of directors include representation from first nations, Inuit, Métis, other peoples in Canada, indigenous organizations, youth, women, men and gender-diverse persons.

I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks of the council's governance and its representativeness.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think the important part of our government's working hand in hand with the transition committee is to make sure that indigenous leaders and indigenous communities themselves are taking on a key role. What we want to do is open up the door for them to take the wheel and drive the bus, not for us as a federal government to be overly prescriptive and say how we are going to do this step by step. It is up to them. We want to put it in their hands, and that is the process we are going to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has broken many promises to indigenous people over the last seven year, such as the promise to lift long-term drinking water advisories across the country by 2021. If this body had been set up before, would it have helped? If so, why did we not do this earlier?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the beautiful things about the national council for reconciliation is that its initial task is to move forward on the calls to action. However, we know we have a long way to go on reconciliation in Canada. As the national council for reconciliation knocks off all the different things we are doing to ensure better lives for indigenous people and indigenous communities, its role will change. It will be looking at things like language, overincarceration and making sure we have better processes around the justice system, but that does not prevent it from moving on in the future.

We also want to make sure we are doing exactly as I said earlier, which is closing the gap between the way indigenous people live on reserve and off reserve. That is a key part of reconciliation. We need to close the gaps, address the harm and make sure we create pathways to prosperity.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this may be received as more of a comment than a question.

Quite frequently, due to motions passed before committees, I am able to go before committees instead of bringing up my amendments at report stage, which is what normally would occur. In the case of Bill C-29, I want to put on the record that I have never had a more collaborative, supportive and open process with the minister responsible and with the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. I felt that the first reading of Bill C-29 failed to deliver on the calls to action, particularly the specific information requirements set out in call to action 55. My amendment, with very few modifications, was accepted at committee, and I am very grateful for that.

I know the hon. member comes from the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy nation. I say to him wela'lin, and thank him and the minister for their openness to opposition amendments.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her participation at the committee. I think all parties in the House strengthened this bill and made it possible. That is how reconciliation moves forward in the House. We should move forward in a non-partisan way and together. We owe this to indigenous peoples in Canada, and when we all work together, great things happen.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I am asking for unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about reconciliation between the Crown and first nations people. I want to focus on the concept of economic reconciliation.

Canada is a wealthy nation, wealthy in natural resources, in human resources, in technological and industrial advances and in many other metrics that economists use to measure the wealth of nations. However, unfortunately this wealth is not shared by all people, and that is unjust.

Just to be clear, I am not here to promote the government's ill-conceived wealth redistribution tax plans involving the carbon tax, which it masks as an environmental plan, or its focus on the middle class and those striving to get into it despite tax policies that are pushing people out of the middle class. I am not talking about its ill-conceived housing policies, which apparently are designed to help people get into homes, even though those policies are driving first-time buyers out of the market while the dream of home ownership is evaporating for many young families. I am talking about the creation of wealth.

The former finance minister, Mr. Bill Morneau, after he left the government and was cut loose from the Liberal Party's talking points, pointed out what is obvious to many of us in the House: The problem with the government is that it is overly focused on wealth redistribution and not focused enough on wealth creation. I agree with that. That is obvious to me and to many others in the House.

There is no better way for a nation to create wealth than for all the people in the nation to work, to do what they are good at, to trade with each other and to enjoy the dignity that work brings. In pursuing their economic self-interest, the whole nation becomes wealthy.

Adam Smith did not invent that concept 250 years ago; it is an ancient concept. Just to prove that, I am going to quote from the ancient and wise King Solomon, who several thousand years ago had this to say about work and the dignity it brings: There is nothing more rewarding for people than to eat, drink and enjoy the fruits of their labour. That is what I want to talk about today as we talk about reconciliation. All people should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

That brings me to the topic of the day: the setting up of a national council for reconciliation, as called for in the 2015 truth and reconciliation report by the commission that the previous Conservative government appointed. We appointed that commission to tackle the ongoing and deeply embedded societal challenges plaguing our development as a nation caused by the ill-conceived government policies of previous decades. Those policies failed. Separating children from their families is indeed very bad public policy, and many people are still suffering today. This is Canada's shame. How do we fix it?

I have spoken with many people in my community of Langley, in Fort Langley to be specific, who are residential school survivors. The announcement coming out of Kamloops a couple of years ago triggered memories. The memories are fresh, the pain is real and the anger is just below the surface. The sad thing is that the news is not even news. We have known about this for a long time. As a matter of fact, six of the 94 calls to action of the truth and reconciliation report talk about unmarked graves under the heading “Missing Children and Burial Information”. The report is now seven years old and not enough progress has been made. It is time to get the job done.

Bill C-29, which is what we are debating today, is an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. It is a step in the right direction. This council will be tasked with monitoring and reporting on the government's post-apology progress on reconciliation.

I believe there is full agreement on both sides of the House that we need to correct and compensate for the misguided policies of the past, but we are not all agreed on how we get there. The Liberals like to make announcements and boast about how much money they are spending on programs. The Conservatives, on the other hand, want action. We want to get everyone to work. We want to remove barriers to the full participation of indigenous communities in all sectors of society.

That is why Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs put forward a motion to amend Bill C-29 to incorporate the concept of economic reconciliation. Inexplicably, members from the other parties on that committee voted against it. I hope that in debate today we can convince them otherwise, because without economic reconciliation, there is no reconciliation.

In British Columbia we have a very good example of what economic reconciliation can look like. The Coastal GasLink LNG project is a provincially regulated project that is going to link the very rich natural gas fields of northern British Columbia to the LNG Canada processing plant on the coast in Kitimat. The pipeline route runs through 20 first nations communities, and all 20 of them will benefit economically from this project.

The project has signed benefit agreements with all 20 nations. It has signed option agreements to sell at 10% equity interest in the project to those nations. It has issued many contracts to indigenous subcontractors, service providers and local businesses, and it is funding job training. This is a long-term economic benefit for first nations communities. That is what reconciliation looks like.

I want to end with a real-life example of what economic reconciliation looks like for first nations peoples. To do so, I am going to read testimony given by Mr. Ellis Ross, a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and a first nations person, when he appeared at the committee on indigenous and northern affairs last month. I will read from his testimony, which I think zeroes in on exactly what the issue is. 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...made us one of the wealthiest bands in B.C.

He continued:

[W]e 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.

In discussing previous governments' attempts of reconciliation, this is what Mr. Ross had to say:

Well, government, you can't; if you could fix it, it would have been fixed long ago. If you're going to do something, then do something in partnership with first nations that can make their band councils—and, more importantly, their band members—independent.

Mr. Ross ended with this invitation, which I believe is still an open invitation to anybody in the House who is interested. He said:

If you want an example, come to my village, Kitimaat Village, B.C. I'll show you around.

To sum up, we in Canadian society have made a lot of errors in the past. We can learn from our mistakes, but we can also learn from our successes, and there are a lot of successes. This is just one example that I raised. Let us learn from them. Let us move ahead with indigenous communities and reconciliation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a critique of what I have been hearing today.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission went all across this country hearing from survivors. We heard about the abuses. We heard about the mental, physical and sexual abuses. We heard about the addictions. We heard about the need for mental health resources. We are hearing about communities trying to establish their connection with their language.

However, the Conservatives seem to think that instead of listening to the survivors and the 94 calls to action of what they have laid out as a blueprint moving forward, what we really need is for indigenous people to adopt more of a capitalist approach to how they do things moving forward. If they just had a little more money in their pockets, they would not worry about the loss of their language and the abuse their parents or grandparents had to go through.

I am trying to figure out where the Conservatives are. Do they not feel that is a little paternalistic? Instead of talking about the 94 actions that are actually within the calls to action, they keep talking about the term “economic reconciliation”, which is nowhere in the calls to action by survivors.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that question gives me the opportunity to emphasize how important economic reconciliation is.

Again, I want to quote from Mr. Ellis Ross, who said:

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 the alcohol parties. I think a study should be made in that respect.

Absolutely, get people to work and they will live healthier lifestyles, and they will promote their children's future. To quote Mr. Ross, “They're going on vacation. They're planning futures for their children.”

That is what it looks like. That is what a good job would do for a person.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure I understood my colleague's speech.

What has to be done to create more unity and inclusiveness in society is to get rid of taxes and lower income taxes so that one day there will be a trickle-down effect that will unite everyone in Canada and Quebec.

Have I correctly understood the underlying Conservative mentality in the speech my Conservative colleague just gave?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where that came from. I am not talking about more taxation. I am talking about less taxation. I am talking about promoting free enterprise. I am talking about promoting resource development. I am definitely talking about allowing the people in whose traditional lands these resources are developed to be able to participate economically. I believe that was the emphasis of my talk.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is well-meaning in his suggestions in terms of economic development, so I do not mean to suggest anything other than good intentions.

However, the reality of the Trans Mountain pipeline is that it is neither economical, nor are there markets, nor is there anything long term for any part of our population. I will say to him that in terms of the hearings that were held before the National Energy Board, the Kinder Morgan corporation put forward that it plans to create through its project fewer than 100 permanent jobs. It also put forward that it was going to be the 100% backstop for costs. The corporation then carved off its Canadian operations, kept the money it had raised towards building the pipeline and used it to pay off the debts of the parent corporation, at which point it told the federal government it was not going to build it. There is no case that it is economically viable.

Meanwhile there are many nations all along the pipeline route that want it stopped because it violates their rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I would just suggest to the member that the particular example he gave is rather fraught.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there was a question in that, but I will attempt to respond to the hon. member's comments.

She and I have a difference of opinion on what resource development could do and what liquid natural gas could do for British Columbia and also for global climate challenges. We say to promote clean-burning, ethically produced liquid natural gas to replace much dirtier-burning coal. There is a market for it. That is clear if we take a look at what is going on in Europe today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and represent the people from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, and today as I speak to Bill C-29 and the creation of a national council for reconciliation, I suggest to this place that this is a continuation of a journey that all Canadians are to be part of as we create a better future.

Speaking previously, in September, I made it clear that it was important to use a consensus-building approach to improve the legislation. Bill C-29, in its formation, deserved a responsible look at areas where it needed improvement, and I have to admit we have heard much testimony today that this was the work that was done at committee with the help of everybody there.

At second reading I pointed out a few issues that I thought needed to be addressed. I talked about the transparency and independence in the selection process of the board of directors. I talked about some words that seemed purposely vague to avoid accountability. I talked about the lack of any measurable outcomes. I talked about the fact that it took over three years to bring the bill to the House in the first place. Finally, I spoke about how the Prime Minister should be the one responding to the council's annual report, as that was the direction in call to action number 56.

In response to those concerns and the testimony of witnesses, we brought forward reasonable amendments to strengthen Bill C-29, and I am very proud today to report that 17 of the 19 amendments we put forward were passed at committee. It is the job of the official opposition to improve legislation and to make it truly representative of all voices, and that is exactly what we did at that committee.

I must admit, however, that I am a bit disappointed today to realize that the government, and specifically the minister, would not accept the democratic will of the INAN committee on the amendment to add a seat at the table for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. This is a national indigenous organization that represents over 800,000 urban indigenous people.

A second concern I have coming out of that committee debate is that there was one amendment we proposed that was disappointingly voted down by all the other parties, and that is the one I want to spend a few minutes talking about.

As many of my colleagues have talked about today, we put forward an amendment to add a seat on the board of directors for someone from an indigenous organization that is focused on economic reconciliation. With many options available from the FNFMB, or the First Nations Financial Management Board, NACCA and the CCAB, there are many great organizations doing good work in this sphere, and finding a well-established organization that historically has done great work would have been very easy. It would not have been a barrier to find somebody to sit at that table.

However, the lack of support for this amendment, it should be pointed out, came at the expense of not listening to multiple witnesses who clearly voiced their approval for the inclusion of an economic lens as part of this board. We did not advocate for that to be the only voice; it would have been only one voice at the table. To ignore these voices discredits the very process of reconciliation.

I have observed, over the last few years, Liberal and NDP MPs aggressively challenging indigenous leaders who have appeared as witnesses at the INAN committee to advocate for economic reconciliation. I often find myself questioning why. Why is there an aversion to even having this discussion? Something does not add up. What is it that they dislike about indigenous people being the masters of their own destiny? What is it that they dislike about the creation of a healthy, strong and vibrant community through prosperity? What is it that they dislike about using own-source revenue from true partnerships that address long-standing social issues? What is it that they dislike about leaving behind the destructive grip of poverty to offer hope and opportunity for future generations?

The sad answer is that they are more interested in political power and control. By imposing their own views rather than listening to indigenous voices, they create the same environment that indigenous people have lived under in this country for far too long.

It is time for a fundamental change to that approach. In fact, for those who are listening and watching closely, the change has already begun on the ground. Economic reconciliation plays such an important role in the overall discussion. Let me begin by sharing a few stories from my own riding in northern Saskatchewan.

As I returned home this September for this year's National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I spent time at Pelican Lake First Nation with Chief Peter Bill. As we arrived in the community, I was greeted by Chief Bill, a member of the RCMP and two of Pelican Lake's own community safety officers. With first nations policing being a very important topic the day after the tragedy at James Smith Cree Nation, I asked how their newly established community safety officer program was going. Chief Bill was happy to report to me that the community now has six full-time employees and its own fully equipped vehicles, and that they were in the process of hiring more officers. The RCMP officer explained to me how helpful the program had been in achieving safety in their community.

How did Pelican Lake first nation pay for this community safety officer program? They paid with their own sourced revenue. They invested profits to assist in the overall health and safety of their community instead of waiting for years for government and bureaucrats to plan and meet, develop frameworks, do benefit assessments and feasibility studies, or use the signing of MOUs for photo ops.

Later that day, I was at Flying Dust First Nation. After the formal speeches were done, we all left the hall and participated in a walk of solidarity with residential school survivors. On that walk, if I looked one way I could see a hockey rink that was built a few years ago and just beside that was their brand new 6,000-square foot sporting goods store and facility called “Snipe and Celly Sports Excellence”. If I looked the other way, out by the highway there was the brand new Petro-Canada gas station.

This was a visual reminder of what my friend Vice Chief Richard Derocher had mentioned earlier in the speeches when he spoke positively about reconciliation. He shared his wish that, when people were either visiting or driving through our communities, they would not be able to recognize when they were leaving Flying Dust First Nation and entering Meadow Lake or vice versa. How does that happen? It is by generating prosperity through economic development, which is something that Flying Dust First Nation and the Meadow Lake Tribal Council have a proud history of doing.

In northern Saskatchewan, there are many examples of these success stories. Whether it be Athabasca Basin Development group, the Des Nedhe Group of English River, Pinehouse Business North, Kitsaki Management Limited Partnership from Lac la Ronge, Sakitawak Development Corporation from the Métis village of Île-à-la-Crosse or the Peter Ballantyne Group of Companies, each is creating prosperity and capacity through the ownership and development of business opportunities. These opportunities give their people employment and a sense of pride.

These are groups on the ground that have already started the change. Their approach is the new way forward. It is their stories that the national council for reconciliation should also be reporting, along with many other things, and sharing with all Canadians.

Often Conservatives are labelled as only caring about the economy. Maybe that is our own fault because we do not explain the why. Let me try to do that. One of those community safety officers of Pelican Lake I talked about is named Dalton. I had the privilege of coaching Dalton when he played AA midget hockey in Meadow Lake. He was a sturdy, dependable defenceman who understood his role. He never missed a practice or a game. He was a player whom any coach would love to have on his team.

Dalton took those attributes and applied them to his first career choice to become a power engineer. He was supported in that choice by his mom and dad, and he would have had many options going forward in where he wanted to work, but something inside of him called him home to Pelican Lake. It was an opportunity to go home to get trained as a community safety officer and to be a leader in his own community, to be a driver of change and to set the example for the next generation.

I could not have been prouder of Dalton as I watched young kids come to him in his uniform and ask if he had any more tattoos. They felt comfortable around him. He provided them a sense of safety. He is a quality young man who is providing leadership within his community because the opportunity was there to take. That is the why. That is the outcome of economic reconciliation.

Conservatives promote and believe in economic reconciliation because it is the solution to eradicating poverty and with it the social ills that poverty creates. By putting control back in the hands of indigenous people, they get to begin to manage prosperity instead of poverty, and they get to take concrete steps toward healing through self-determination.

To conclude, I am proud of the work that our team did in making Bill C-29 a better version than when it originally came to the House in June. Many concerns that we expressed at second reading were addressed and have been improved. That is how we follow up words with action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to this debate all day and this is the first time that I have gotten up to even ask a question. I cannot help but reflect on the fact that, time after time, every Conservative who gets up to speak to this links the concept of economic reconciliation to fossil fuel extraction. It is as though that is the only part of reconciliation that the Conservatives are interested in.

I have heard very few comments about anything other than this idea of economic reconciliation. I know the member is extremely proud of the fact that he thinks that the Conservatives think a lot about the economy, as he indicated in his speech, but is there any other part of this bill or, indeed, the reconciliation process that the member or any Conservative member would like to talk about other than economic reconciliation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my hon. colleague was listening to my story about Dalton, the young man of Pelican Lake, but do members know what? That was not from the extraction of any oil and gas. Their businesses are from the forestry business in northern Saskatchewan.

I can tell members 20 other stories of communities in northern Saskatchewan that are not only about extraction. It is about opportunity that gives those young people hope for a better future.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Rivière Churchill for his speech.

I sit with him on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and I must say that his diligence, his tireless efforts—we see that there is work behind each of his interventions—and his openness make him a great colleague to work with.

I have a question for him because his work goes beyond what was said a few seconds ago, for example when it comes to including the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. It is an idea he could have debated.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on this and anything else he would like to add to improve the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Bloc and I do work a lot together on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I hope I got the context of the question accurate in the translation.

Some of the things we did to improve the bill that we worked together on, which I believe was the crux of her question, was that we definitely improved some of the accountability measures within the act.

We heard the minister speak earlier about better governance, where, with regard to some of the authority that was granted to the minister in the original draft of the bill, we actually shared that responsibility with council members so that governance was better. It was not just in the hands of the minister.

That included the appointment process. That included many other things. For example, there was a number of areas in the bill where the language was very questionable in the requirement to create the protocol to provide information to the council so that it could do its great work.

Those are a couple of examples of the things we did to take away some of the fluffy and vague language to make this bill stronger, so that there would be greater accountability of the government to the council.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Shefford is rising on a point of order.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but there is no interpretation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Okay.

I am going to allow the member to respond to the question once again, in an abridged version, so the interpretation can happen.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this member has an abridged version, but I will try.

I am just going to briefly summarize a couple of the things that we improved in the bill. The first was accountability, through the governance model that was there.

The second thing we improved was to remove some questionable language, which was vague and left room for wiggle space. We want to improve accountability, and we removed some of that language to make the government more accountable to the national council for reconciliation.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that economic reconciliation is foundational. There was a situation not so long ago, with the northern gateway project, where every first nation was in support of the project, including 80% of elected members and chief counsel of the Wet'suwet'en, yet the Liberals found some spokespeople. There were some people against it, as one would expect in a democracy, but they basically nixed the entire project, which negatively impacted first nations people across British Columbia.

I wonder if the member could comment on the gap between what the Liberals say, how they are saying they were trying to help, and what is really happening on the ground.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the frustrations that we sometimes talk about in our circles, this gap between words and actions. We see that often. We can talk about the Auditor General report that was released this week.

Every time we ask a question of the government, the response is, “Look how much we have spent on this. We must have fixed it”, but the Auditor General said that the government is good at measuring outputs but not as good at measuring outcomes. Our party is about outcomes.

To the hon. member's specific example, I think the other thing that we always have to be aware of with those projects is that we have to respect the right of people along the way. It is their right to say yes and their right to say no, and we want to respect both of those.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my party's critic for indigenous and northern affairs, I am pleased and proud to rise today to speak to Bill C‑29. Being critic for indigenous and northern affairs takes humility and perspective. Certainly the same goes for every portfolio, but I like to mention it.

I rise to summarize everything I heard from witnesses in committee and from people I have talked to about Bill C‑29. It is a bill that is important to indigenous peoples, meaning first nations, Inuit and Métis people. I want to talk about it as respectfully as possible, as I did during the committee study with my colleagues who are here today.

My thoughts are with the first nations living on the North Shore, the Innu and Naskapi. I send them my greetings. They know that I want to do my work very respectfully while keeping their wishes in mind. Even though sometimes first nations individuals and families do not all want exactly the same thing, there is a consensus, and that is what we tried to focus on when studying this bill in committee.

Having said that, I will divide my speech into several small components or several different subjects. These are the subjects that we discussed in committee and that, in my view, really stood out.

The purpose of the council that will be created by the bill will be to monitor the progress and advancement of work done as part of truth and reconciliation efforts. First, I would like to address something that was raised by several witnesses at the committee with regard to the word “reconciliation”. A few minutes ago, some of my colleagues spoke and tried to qualify the term “reconciliation”. They tried to categorize it and say that it must not be this or that.

I must say that, before all that, many indigenous people and members of indigenous communities said that they did not agree with the word “reconciliation”. If we stop and think about it even a little, we realize that that word basically implies that there is already some sort of conciliation and relationship, that something has already been created. However, we have been told that there was nothing at the start, that there was no “us”.

When we talk about reconciliation, we are starting off using a false term, one that I must point out is not even defined. We are working on a bill about truth and reconciliation, but the term “reconciliation” is not even accepted, because it is not considered the appropriate word for the situation and, on top of that, it has not even been defined. As legislators, when we study a bill, we also need to start from that point. At the very start, before we even begin, there is already a stumbling block, a problem, and we need to take that into account throughout our work. I spoke about the word “reconciliation”. That seems really simple, but it is the first principle.

I would like to move on to another subject, namely consultation.

I was surprised to learn that the Innu and Naskapi in my riding, along with members of other communities elsewhere, had no idea that consultations had taken place for this bill. They were not even aware that it existed. At committee, we learned that only a few communities had been consulted. Based on the information I have and my perception, which is not necessarily the truth, I get the impression that the consultations were hastily cobbled together. Clearly, not many people were consulted, but all the communities could have been systematically consulted to get a broader picture. That way, more people would have been consulted, not just those who are more informed than others or who have a network of contacts that allows them to be more aware of what is going on.

That came up in committee too. I will have more to say later about representativeness, because I see that as a very important part of the bill. I am not saying that the consultations were kept quiet, but not everybody was consulted. Only a very small percentage of people were consulted. Furthermore, it was not necessarily representative of what first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples want to see in the bill. For me, that was a concern. It was also a red flag about what else was in the bill, such as the issue of representativeness.

Actually, I want to talk about this right now. I do not mind skipping two or three points that I will come back to later, because this is definitely connected to the issue of representativeness.

The bill creates a board of directors. There was an interim board and a transitional committee, and now there will be a board of directors where positions are assigned to different entities, namely national organizations that represent indigenous people. The committee wanted to make the board more representative. We wanted to know why only three organizations were mentioned in the bill, when there are five that represent indigenous peoples nationally. That was a problem for us. I wanted to know why three were mentioned, when there are five. Not only did we not get a satisfactory answer, but we did not get one at all. We wanted those groups to be included.

People came to testify and said that they did not feel represented by such and such organization and that it was another organization that represented them.

Take the Native Women's Association of Canada, for example. Half the indigenous population is made up of women or people who identify as female. They should also be represented. They were not included. We often come back to the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women, and we are currently talking about the whole issue of violence, including sexual violence, but those were nowhere to be found in the bill either.

From the standpoint of equity and representativeness, I would be remiss if I did not say that this is part of the work the committee did. It was done as a team. Earlier, I heard comments about how people were antagonistic, but we really did have some very interesting discussions, including some with my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. There were some good discussions; it was remarkable.

There are other groups that were not represented. Although I am not an indigenous person myself—I am white—I do spend time with people, I have friends, I am aware and open, so I have absorbed some indigenous culture, including Innu-aimun and Innu-aitun in my riding.

Consider elders, for example. When we think about reconciliation and residential schools, elders were not automatically represented in the bill. That was the first thing that occurred to me. I did not stop there. I consulted people. Witnesses were also asked whether the bill ought to include elders, or rather survivors. They said that we were talking about elders, but that we should be calling them survivors of colonial practices and policies. This was also included in the bill.

I am talking about elders. I also talked about women. Basically, we wanted to ensure that membership on the board was not limited to certain groups selected by the minister himself from the outset.

This brings me to a point that I have not yet mentioned, but it is something that I do want to talk about: independence. I am not talking about Quebec independence. I am talking about the independence of the board. Independence is important to us.

Of course we need to start doing something, and we understand that the minister is involved, because this is his bill. Of course we want him to start the work, but we also want the board to eventually become autonomous and independent, with members appointed by the members of the transitional board. That is what we want, and we have talked about making the council more independent. The word “independent” was a key word in our discussions.

“Transparent” was another a key word. My Conservative Party colleague made a very worthwhile proposal that the Bloc Québécois completely agrees with, because we believe that the nations are nations unto themselves. The leaders are leaders of nations and should therefore be able to address their Quebec or Canadian government counterparts.

We wanted the Prime Minister himself to be required to respond to the report that will be tabled by the council every year. That was extremely important to most of us. There is talk of a nation-to-nation relationship, but such a relationship requires that the Prime Minister himself be held accountable for responding to the council's requests.

As we come to the end of the process, I must say that the opposition in particular has done a lot to strengthen Bill C‑29. It has improved representativeness by enabling more indigenous people and more indigenous groups from different backgrounds to add their own colours to the council.

Earlier, we talked about economic reconciliation. Yes, the Conservatives are talking about it, but some indigenous groups are also talking about it. We need to look at reconciliation from all angles. In short, sectoral committees may be struck at that time, and the council itself would be responsible. I really think we have improved the bill in terms of transparency, independence and representativeness.

I would really like everyone to keep in mind that everything can be improved. I hope that the voice of indigenous people will be heard through this new mechanism, which will have significant power because it will be able to monitor the government's progress.

Symbolism is something that comes up a lot. Previous speakers talked about it. Other people generally get the impression that actions vis-à-vis indigenous groups and individuals are merely symbolic. I said “other people”, because I was not thinking of myself as part of that group, but I could be part of it.

Symbolic gestures may cost money, but they do not cost the government anything. They do not have a negative impact on the government or force it to take more meaningful and nuanced action. Admitting wrongdoing is one thing, but making it right is another. Saying sorry is not enough.

All I want to say is that we really hope to see more action. We hope indigenous people themselves will get really involved in this. We hear talk of a nation-to-nation relationship on the one hand and “by indigenous people for indigenous people” on the other. They are the ones who will be able to assess, draw conclusions and make recommendations. That is what will enable us to go beyond symbolic gestures, which may confer a temporary halo upon the government but do not really change anything in the day-to-day lives of indigenous people. It may have an impact on those who are close by, but not on those who are far away.

I would like to invite all members of the House to visit my riding. Kawawachikamach, Matimekush‑Lac John or Unamen Shipu are far removed from statues and celebrations. I completely agree that we must celebrate indigenous cultures, but they face other difficulties. I used the word “difficulties”, but that is an understatement because these communities have major problems that must be resolved. Naturally, the council could speak to that.

In closing, I would like to again address my constituents to point out that even though it is quite simple, the testimony and the fact that consultations are held, and not just superficial consultations, really help improve bills.

I am thinking, for example, of Marjolaine Tshernish of the Institut Tshakapesh, an organization that promotes Innu culture across Quebec, but also in Labrador, because there are Innu communities there. She told me that it was difficult for her. She was concerned about what would happen next, for example with the council. For some, Innu is their first language, but for others living elsewhere, their first language may be French or English. She said that she did not yet have that information and that she was concerned that she did not have it. Innu is her language. She also speaks French, but she does not speak English. She said she wanted to ensure that there would be a francophone presence on the council.

I also worked to ensure a francophone presence on the council. For me, that is a big win in terms of representation. Some may say that I thought about French or francophone issues because I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, but that is not even the case. I must humbly admit that this idea did not come from me. It was the people at the Institut Tsakapesh who pointed it out to me. In short, it is thanks to them that we managed to amend the bill. I apologized to them for not thinking of it myself, but it is something that could have been brought to light through consultations with people and communities whose first, if not second, language is French.

I would like to close by telling you about a very witty Innu chief, Mr. Piétacho, from Ekuanitshit on the north shore. Mr. Piétacho has been a chief for over 30 years. I appreciated his quick wit when he appeared in committee. We all sometimes run into minor technical difficulties in committee. In short, he forgot to take himself off mute and, as soon as he began to speak, our chair told him that he could now speak. Chief Piétacho told the chair that he had been on mute for 500 years but not to worry, he was going to speak.

I hope that this council will give all indigenous people a chance to speak and that this will enable the government to respond and take real action.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Small Business; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Taxation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member. I think there was great teamwork shown at the INAN committee. We worked positively and collaboratively. On this legislation, we did a lot of work together that we were all in agreement with.

A lot of the discussion we heard focused on the importance of languages, indigenous languages as well as the French language, in making sure that different people who speak different languages had the ability to speak those languages as part of the input they give to the national council for reconciliation.

Could the member speak about the importance of ensuring that not only the French language is protected, but indigenous languages are protected as well in the legislation, which we strengthened with the amendments?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I believe that he knows my love for indigenous languages. Aside from the emotional aspect, it is clear to me that language is part of our identity. Protecting indigenous languages is certainly as important as protecting French.

I would like to share a story. I read part of an Innu dictionary and quickly realized that it contained words that presented realities that I had a hard time understanding because I did not have access to the land, to this history with the land. A language is much more than a vehicle; it is an identity, it is the entire person. I know that in communities near where my colleague lives, there are young people relearning the Mi'kmaq language.

Naturally, I will always be an ally. I think we are all simply better for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from the Bloc at committee. We did get a lot of good work done.

My question is very simple. Bill C-29 originally came to the House without any concrete measurables, without anything to measure. We talked a lot about the fact that if we want to measure accountability, we must set some targets that determine success from failure.

Call to action 55 included a number of those quantifiable measurable items. Why does the member believe those measurable goals were excluded in the first place?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of questions when we see the first iteration of a bill. We always notice things that are missing. We often draw a comparison with the private sector. If a company wants to meet goals, it needs specific targets, deadlines and, in short, the means to achieve these goals. I did not get an answer to that question or several others, but I do believe it is necessary in order to get things done and meet goals.

As my colleague stated many times, what we want is not just to make some progress, but to make efforts to move forward. That word was taken out, incidentally. We got the word “efforts” taken out because it should already be understood. All we want is to make progress. I believe that having clear, specific goals to meet is absolutely necessary.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me digress for a moment to talk about language learning. A few years ago, in 2018, in an effort to reconnect with my roots, I was able to take classes in the Wendat language from an office in Montreal, even though Wendake is in the Quebec City area. I salute the efforts that the Wendake officials made at that time to spread their language to their diaspora. I say bravo to them.

Now, I am entirely in favour, and we are all in favour, of this national council for reconciliation, despite the reservations some may have about the word “reconciliation”, as my colleague said.

That being said, it is all well and good to begin speeches with references to unceded territory and all that, but as long as the Indian Act, a title that is racist in itself, remains in place, what is the point?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I think of the indigenous people I represent, when we talk about systemic racism, the Indian Act is perhaps the most obvious example, and certainly for all of us, it is shameful that it still exists.

Obviously, it is bad to be out of step with the times, and this is something that needs to change. I spoke of symbolism. We are talking about concrete actions, but we will have to go further and tackle the relics of colonialism, although the word “relics” is too weak.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important in the sense that we have before us legislation that would establish a national council. That council has been in the makings now for a while. We have had an interim council that has been advising the government and which has assisted in getting us to the point where we are today.

The member made reference, as have other members, to a number of indigenous-related issues, especially the issue of reconciliation. I am wondering if the member could expand her thoughts on the 94 calls to action and the fact that a lot of those have a shared jurisdiction. Not all of them are federal. The council would play such a critical role going forward in terms of ensuring how that reconciliation would be best achieved.

Could the member provide her thoughts on the significance of that fact?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to try to sum up my thoughts on the importance of the council with respect to the calls to action and how effective the council itself will be, I would say that it is going to be up to the indigenous people themselves.

One of the things I forgot to mention in my speech is that one of the government's responsibilities will be to provide all the information that indigenous people feel is necessary to do this work.

That is important, but the government will not be able to free itself of all its responsibilities, either. It must ensure that it does not prevent the council from functioning properly.

On the one hand, the council must be independent, but at the same time, the government is responsible for providing everything that is needed for concrete action to be taken until the Indian Act and all colonial practices are completely abandoned.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for her speech.

As the critic for seniors, I was touched that she mentioned them in her speech and that she addressed the issue of indigenous women and girls.

Bill C-29 deals with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. However, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. What is stopping the government from implementing them?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am entering my eighth year as the MP for Manicouagan. I have seen some great successes over the years, but at times I become cynical. When that happens, I tell myself that it is a question of willingness.

We have seen it many times: Large sums of money are spent, very easily, without any criteria. It is not always clear which numbers go with what. There can be some secrecy there.

There are some real concerns right now. We have concrete demands that everyone agrees on, but nothing is happening. We talk about elders, women and girls, and housing is part of that as well. It is one of the factors that keeps this violence going. Then there is the fact that seniors are facing difficulties and health is an issue.

I totally agree with my colleague. It is a question of willingness. That is perhaps one of the only things I cannot give the government as an opposition member.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nunavut.

It is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act. We would not be here today without the stories of survivors who gifted us with stories so that people across Canada could learn the truth about Canada's history, that what happened in residential schools was an act of genocide, something that was acknowledged unanimously in October in the House, a recognition that what happened in these institutions against children was an act of genocide and the experiences of survivors' abuse and abhorrent human rights violations are no longer left up for debate. I want to share that I am so thankful for that. I lift up survivors, descendants and communities every day. Let us not lose sight of this while we debate this bill.

We must not lose sight of this. The voices of survivors must lead the path forward, not organizations and not government bureaucrats, but survivors and their descendants, elders. I am glad that this is reflected in the bill, but I am hoping that this is reflected in the debate we are having in the House as we move forward because we have to remember that we would not be debating this legislation today if it had not been for survivors who courageously shared their stories. We must not lose sight of that. Their voices must never ever be overshadowed, because they are the reason we are discussing how to move forward in a manner that achieves real justice while addressing ongoing injustices that continue to be perpetrated against indigenous peoples.

Progress is slow, which is one of the reasons that I keenly support implementing call to action 53 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to establish a national council for reconciliation through the establishment of federal legislation. Call to action 53 calls on the government to establish the council as an “independent, national, oversight body” that will monitor, evaluate and report to Parliament on the progress that is being made with regard to reconciliation.

The accountability mechanisms that have the potential to be provided by the council are crucial, because we know that without sufficient accountability, progress implementing the calls to actions has been unacceptably slow. Since the calls to action were released in 2015, only about 13 of the 94 have been implemented. For a government that has repeatedly identified reconciliation and the new relationship with indigenous people as a top priority, this is simply not good enough. One wonders if this legislation was introduced seven years ago whether we would be further along completing all of the calls to action.

Nevertheless, the fact that we are close to this bill becoming law is an important step forward. Enshrining this legislation into Canadian law is critical. Having this council act as a watchdog to ensure the effect of advancement of reconciliation is crucial and will make it more difficult for the government and all MPs to lose focus on the implementation of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

However, here is the reality. Monitoring is not enough. We need the government to do the work and put significant investments behind concrete acts of reconciliation, and there is so much more work that needs to be done. I have often said that we cannot have true reconciliation in the absence of justice. Across this country, indigenous peoples are denied justice each and every day in painful and humiliating ways.

We have a housing crisis that can only be described as dire. According to the 2021 census data, one in six indigenous people live in crowded housing unsuitable for the number of people who live there. To put this into perspective, that means indigenous people are almost twice as likely to live in crowded housing compared to non-indigenous people. This is shameful.

While I acknowledge that budget 2022 made new investments in indigenous housing, it does not come close to meeting the unmet needs in indigenous communities, in spite of the Conservatives' claim today of record spending on indigenous peoples. According to the AFN, $44 billion over 10 years would be required to meet current needs on first nations' communities. Budget 2022 allocates $2.4 billion over five years to address gaps in on-reserve housing.

We are also facing what the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged as a genocide against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. My own city of Winnipeg was described as “ground zero” for the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls by the former minister of crown-indigenous relations, yet since the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls issued its final report and calls for justice in 2019, we have not seen this ongoing genocide addressed with anything close to the level of respect and urgency required.

For example, in budget 2022, the Liberal government put in zero new dollars to help put an end to this crisis of violence. Worse yet, it was shocking to learn that hardly any of the federal government's $724.1-million violence prevention strategy, first announced in 2021, has been spent. Not a single new shelter has been built nor a single new unit of transitional housing.

While I do want to acknowledge the federal government’s recent announcement in my riding of $6.9 million to support the expansion of Velma’s House, which will operate as a low-barrier, 24-7 safe space in Winnipeg Centre, there are still so many indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people who do not have a safe place to go to in their community.

We also continue to see resource extraction projects imposed on indigenous communities without their free, prior and informed consent. An egregious example of this took place almost two years ago on Wet'suwet'en territory, where land defenders, women, were met with police dogs and snipers, and the RCMP used an axe and a chainsaw to cut down the door of a tiny house where two unarmed indigenous women were inside. This is the exact opposite of what reconciliation looks like.

I have become quite concerned about the Conservatives hyper focus on economic reconciliation with their history of opposing the right of free prior and informed consent, which is enshrined in Canadian law and articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous peoples have a right to make decisions free of intimidation, and to be informed about all aspects of projects prior to development occurring. This cannot happen down the barrel of a gun. It also is not acceptable to state that communities that choose to build economies outside of the resource extraction sector have no desire to improve their local economy. On these and so many other issues, including the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice and child welfare systems, and the fact that 27 communities still have boil water advisories, so much work must be done to overturn colonial policies and practices that are preventing us from achieving real reconciliation.

I am hoping that this legislation will help. I want to acknowledge the work of my wonderful colleague and MP for Nunavut in helping to strengthen this legislation at committee. We will be accompanied by a renewed focus from the government on what the Prime Minister has described as the “most important” relationship in Canada. I am confident that the council will do its job in ensuring that the government is accountable for progress being made on implementing the calls to action, but the onus is on the government to respond to accountability with real action.

To all the survivors who share their stories, to all survivors who did not tell their stories, I lift them up. May the bill assist in delivering them the justice that has been denied for far too long.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad the member opposite mentioned the survivors. We should never lose sight of the survivors when we are looking at Bill C-29. I think about so many of the survivors who have come to me in my community and said that what we really need to move forward are healing centres and healing for their communities. They have given me the example of wanting the trauma to stop with them.

I am wondering if the member opposite could speak to some of the people in her riding or in her nation who have inspired her in this journey of reconciliation. Could she talk a bit about the need for us to continue the journey of healing and investing in healing in indigenous communities and urban communities across Canada?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to mention my wonderful partner, Romeo Saganash, who is a residential school survivor and has spent his life fighting to achieve that reconciliation. I think, when we are looking at this, and certainly having the privilege of being blessed with such a good partner, the truth and reconciliation is based on the stories of survivors.

They set the path forward. Those are the stories. Now the government has to respond to those stories with action. It needs to stop stalling, and I am hoping the oversight that would be provided by this council would allow survivors, such as my beautiful partner, Romeo, to get the justice that is long overdue.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, this is precisely what we are working for. The council will be independent. It will need to engage with provinces, territories and different jurisdictions on all 94 calls to action, and it will report its findings and recommendations back to the government. It will be an independent process. We will be accountable for supporting the council's needs.

The House resumed from November 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, be read the third time and passed.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-29 at third reading.

This is quite critical legislation and I will start with some preparatory comments. Our government is committed wholeheartedly to pursuing all avenues possible in the advancement of reconciliation in this country. It goes without saying that when we speak about reconciliation, a cornerstone of this concept is the idea about accountability, that the government, the country, needs to be held accountable for historical wrongs that have been perpetrated against indigenous peoples for literally centuries on this land.

Residents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto have spoken to me regularly over the past seven years about the importance of reconciliation, the need to advance it and to address the TRC calls to actions. I am very pleased to note that the TRC calls to action, five of them in particular, are really at the heart of this legislation.

What my constituents and people around the country have told me is that we need to ensure we are doing everything in our power as a government and as a Parliament to remedy the wrongs that were inflicted upon generations of indigenous people, particularly indigenous children who, through the residential schools program, were robbed of their families, their culture, oftentimes their language and, indeed, their history.

Going back seven years to 2015 before we came into power as government, we campaigned on a platform that called for a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples, one that would be based on the recognition of rights based on respect, co-operation and partnership. An important cornerstone of any nation-to-nation relationship as it is being advanced is basic respect for the autonomy and self-determination of the various indigenous peoples that we engage with, being first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This is important on the international stage, but it is also important right here in Canada.

The reconciliation process that I am speaking of has to be guided by the active participation and leadership of indigenous peoples. I will digress for a moment. We had an example of that in the legislation I was privileged to work on, which, if memory serves, was either Bill C-91 or Bill C-92 two Parliaments ago. However, the important piece is not the number of the bill that we advanced at the time, but the indigenous languages legislation that we advanced and passed in this Parliament, which is now firmly part of Canadian law.

In that context, we co-developed the legislation in that spirit of reconciliation, in terms of giving full participation and leadership in the development role to indigenous communities, first nations, Inuit and Métis. That is an important aspect of reconciliation and how it manifests, but so too is this bill. With this bill, we would put in place institutional mechanisms that are called for in the TRC calls to action for indigenous peoples, so they can hold Canada and the Canadian government to account for meeting goals on the path toward reconciliation.

What is Bill C-29 about? It is called “an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation” and, like the indigenous languages bill that I was privileged to work on two Parliaments ago, it has been driven by the active participation of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, organizations and individuals right across the country. What it would do is establish a permanent, indigenous-led, independent council with a mandate to monitor and support the progress of reconciliation in this country, including progress toward the full implementation of the TRC calls to action.

Let us talk about those calls to action. I mentioned them at the outset of my comments. The calls to action call on the government to create a non-partisan body that would hold the Government of Canada to account on the journey toward reconciliation. Specifically, calls to action 53 and 54 call for the establishment of this national council for reconciliation and for permanence of funding, which is very critical. We need to not only create the body, but adequately resource it.

Call to action 55 calls on the government to provide relevant information to the council in support of its mandate, providing it with the tools so it can execute its functions. Call to action 56 calls on the government to publish an annual report in response to the national council's annual report covering what the government is doing in terms of advancing reconciliation, another key component.

I will digress for a moment. I know there were some very useful amendments proposed at the committee stage, which I believe were universally adopted and it was unanimous coming out of committee. One of the components was for the government's response to be led by the Prime Minister himself, which is really critical in terms of emphasizing the prioritization and importance of this issue about advancing reconciliation. It is critical to not underestimate the impact that this kind of council will have on fostering the type of relationship with indigenous peoples I mentioned at the outset of my comments.

Through the annual response report, Canada would be consistently required to account for progress being made and also progress that has not yet been made, including identifying challenges, hurdles and obstacles.

It would be the people most impacted by such policies, the first nations, Inuit and Métis people on this land, who would have the power and wield that power to hold the government of the day to account.

That is really important. This is not about partisanship. This is not about what the Liberal government will be held to account for. This is what any government in the country would be held to account to do, going forward, with respect to advancing reconciliation, which is very critical in terms of such a pressing matter.

It is clearly only the beginning of some of the work we need to be doing. We know that, in Ontario, in my province, the median income of an indigenous household is 80% of that of a non-indigenous household. We know that the life expectancy of an indigenous person is over nine years shorter than a non-indigenous person on this land.

We know that while fewer than 5% of Canadians are indigenous, indigenous women represent over half of the inmate population in federal penitentiaries. We know that when we account for male participants, while indigenous men represent 5% of the population, they represent 30% of the prison population. Those are really chilling statistics.

I can say, parenthetically, that TRC call to action 55 has several subcategories. Two of the subcategories, and I will just cite from them, talk about the council ensuring that it reports on the progress on “reducing the rate of criminal victimization of Aboriginal people” as well as, in call to action 55, subsection vii, “Progress on reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the justice and correctional systems.”

I think one important facet of what the council will be doing, and also how the government will be responding, is highlighting some of the initiatives we have already started to take.

I am very pleased to say that, about two weeks ago, we secured passage and royal assent of Bill C-5. The bill addresses mandatory minimum penalties in the country, which have been in place for far too long, and how those mandatory minimum penalties served to take low-risk, first-time offenders and overly incarcerate them, disproportionately impacting indigenous men and Black men in Canada.

That is an important facet, in terms of how we advance this fight for reconciliation and how we advance some of these terms that are specifically itemized in the calls to action. That is exactly the type of thing I would like to see reported on by the council and included in the responses by the Canadian government, as to what further steps we can take to cure such instances, such as overrepresentation.

There are lasting effects. All of these statistics I have been citing demonstrate the lasting effects of the intergenerational trauma in Canada that has been inflicted upon first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. They are the result of enduring systemic discrimination and systemic racism in this country. That is critical to underline. It should be an issue that is really incontrovertible in the chamber.

We cannot begin to address such serious issues until we put into law a mechanism for holding the government of the day accountable, consistently accountable, for the actions, both past and present, and for what we are doing to remedy these historical injustices.

I was quite pleased to see this bill get the support of all parties at second reading. I am very confident that, hopefully, it will get support, once again, of all of the parties in the chamber.

I note, again, some of the important amendments that were made. I mentioned one of them right at the start of my comments. Other useful amendments presented by a multi-party group at committee included having elders and residential school survivors and their descendants populate the board of directors for this council. That would be a really critical feature.

I will say, somewhat subjectively, that I was quite pleased to see the fact that the importance of revitalizing, restoring and ensuring the non-extinction of indigenous languages also forms part of the amendments that were suggested by the committee, something we have wholeheartedly adopted already in Parliament.

As I mentioned earlier, the response to the annual report will be led by the Prime Minister himself.

That being said, this bill would do more than place obligations on the government. It would compel the government to continuously hold a mirror to itself, to urge us to never stop striving to do the best job we can vis-à-vis reconciliation. It would urge us to take ownership of the wrongdoings of the past and of the challenges of the present, and to work toward a commitment to do better going forward.

I think this type of honesty and accountability has been long sought after, and Bill C-29 is a step in the right direction.

I commend the bill and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same and ensure its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, the process was a very collaborative one at committee and I appreciate that process.

The hon. member spoke a couple of times about the amendment that was made to call on the Prime Minister to respond to the annual report, rather than the minister, as was in the original legislation. It was agreed upon at committee that we would do that.

I am just curious if the member has a reason why that was not included in the draft legislation in the first place, as that was very specifically a response to call to action 56 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his work on the committee. I have reviewed the calls to action myself and I recognize what is in call to action 56. I could simply say, without having in-depth understanding of the genesis of the bill, that I presume it was probably deemed appropriate at that time for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who led off debate yesterday at third reading, to be leading the response. That is the key ministry that was involved in generating the legislation.

However, I take at full value what is listed in call to action 56 and also the fact that the government has supported that very useful amendment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

It really is nice to see everyone rallying around this bill. I am glad all members want to see it pass so we can head in the right direction.

This bill refers to all sectors of Canadian society and all governments in Canada. It is not very precise. Will federally regulated private corporations be subject to this legislation? Will an independent aviation company be subject to it? Would the member please clarify some of these things?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Repentigny asked a very good question.

This is my personal opinion, but I believe it is everyone's responsibility to fight discrimination against indigenous peoples, including federally regulated private corporations. I think this is a challenge that all companies, even private ones, should take up. However, I cannot provide a specific answer. I will follow up, and we can talk about it later.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. The fact is that the government was found guilty of wilful and reckless discrimination against first nations children and the broken child welfare system. The government has gone back to court. It spent about $15 million fighting Cindy Blackstock and the children. This is not reconciliation.

The opportunity to get this right is before us, but it requires that the government stop putting the threat of the money being taken off the table, sit down and negotiate, make sure that it puts the interests of children first and have a timeline that is reasonable. A deadline of the end of March is not going to make this thing work. We have to end the discrimination and it has to be done right.

I am asking if the government is willing to call off the lawyers and sit down and negotiate with the first nations experts to make sure we get a plan in place that leaves no child behind in this country.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question, and I obviously note his advocacy on behalf of indigenous communities in his riding and generally in Canada. It is an important question.

With respect to the litigation, what I would simply say is that obviously any discrimination, whether it is in the child welfare system or not, is something that needs to be rooted out in this country. I think the litigation had various aspects to it. It went through various permutations and combinations, so to speak. What I am very pleased about is the final settlement reached. It is a historic settlement in Canada of $40 billion, $20 billion of which went to the litigants and $20 billion to communities for the entrenchment of programs that would seek to avoid ever having repetition of that kind of discrimination within the child welfare system.

As to his specific question about the timing of resolving the payment allocation, I do not have that information at hand, but as I mentioned to the Bloc MP, I am more than happy to follow up on that going forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Elections Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate in this place and address some of the most pressing issues facing our nation.

First, I would like to start off by saying how important it is to ensure that, as we have discussions in this place, we do so under the pretext and with the understanding that meaningful reconciliation is so absolutely essential to the conversation we must have within this place and the work we all do as parliamentarians.

I find so often we see its importance when it comes to indigenous concerns and the issues faced, whether it be the tragedies that quite often make headlines, the host of other concerns we deal with through our offices with Indigenous and Northern Affairs or Crown-Indigenous Relations, or simply the concerns that come across our desks and come up in conversation as regular Canadians.

Indigenous people in this country deserve more than photo ops. They deserve more than just words. They deserve that meaningful reconciliation. As we have talked about Bill C-29, and specifically addressing calls to action 53 through 56, we see how absolutely essential that conversation around meaningful reconciliation is.

I am going to repeat a statement shared with me when I addressed this bill at second reading, which is that indigenous peoples in this country deserve to not simply be stakeholders, but shareholders. Whether it is with respect to the specifics around this conversation, and I will get into some examples of that here in a moment, they deserve to be shareholders in the future prosperity of everything that Canada is.

I think that meaningfulness in everything we do is so absolutely essential, and I have been concerned as I have watched since being elected first in 2019, but also since the Trudeau Liberals took office with grand platitudes to address so many of the concerns that—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member, on reflection, realizes what he did wrong. He is not supposed to be using the name of the Prime Minister, but rather his title.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will have to support the hon. parliamentary secretary on that one, so maybe the member could back it up a bit and start again.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to start my speech again. I meant the Prime Minister and his party. However, I would reference that the parliamentary secretary was using a prop in his speech yesterday, and I did not call him out for that. I will simply leave that there.

I also note that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague for the constituency of Louis-Saint-Laurent.

There was one conversation that I found somewhat troubling here yesterday. In that conversation there seemed to be some fairly significant opposition to the idea of economic reconciliation. I have a whole host of quotes from committee testimony. The conversation led to not only addressing past wrongs and not only addressing how we deal with those today. It was also about how to truly address the future so that indigenous people in this country have everything that is required to prosper, to succeed and to see that reconciliation that is so absolutely essential.

I find it concerning that this seems to have become a hang-up with some on the left in this country. I pose a very general question to all those who are listening: Why is there so much opposition by certain political entities in this country to the idea of ensuring that indigenous peoples in this country are given every tool necessary to succeed and to prosper?

I hope it would be the goal of every single member of this place. I am so pleased that in my home province of Alberta there are many examples where first nations and band councils have partnered in resource development, whether that be traditional oil and gas or not. It was wrongly suggested yesterday that Conservatives only talk about resource partnerships when it comes to oil and gas. However, I had the opportunity to meet with a band that is not in my constituency, but just a little way to the south. It is in the process of going through significant red tape and unfortunate barriers that exist in building a solar farm.

There are some incredible innovations and advancements being brought about through indigenous creativity, ensuring indigenous people are truly a part of Canada's economic future. I note the importance of that meaningful reconciliation.

When it comes specifically to Bill C-29, which addresses calls to action 53 through 56 in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, we have highlighted through the course of Bill C-29 the importance of the democratic process. I highlighted a number of concerns, and many of my colleagues did likewise, over the course of debate at second reading. We fulsomely debated it then and sent that bill to committee.

What we saw at committee was truly the parliamentary process at work. I believe the Conservatives brought forward about 20 amendments, including one on what I hope was an oversight in addressing call to action 56. Instead of having the Prime Minister respond to the council recommendations, it would have been the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. The TRC was very clear one way. The bill mistakenly, I hope, referred that responsibility to someone else.

However, Conservatives were very productive and saw, if I remember correctly, 17 of the 20 amendments passed at committee. They are amendments that would make the bill stronger, to help address some of the concerns we heard from stakeholders and to help ensure that meaningful reconciliation can take place.

There are certainly some things that can continue to be worked on, and I dare to challenge anyone who says we have everything perfect as it stands now. However, I was incredibly disappointed yesterday when one particular amendment was passed at committee, including with the support of one member of the Liberal party. The Liberals passed an amendment yesterday at report stage of the bill that removed a national indigenous organization, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

There are members who may not be aware of some of the history surrounding why this is important. Specifically, there is the Daniels decision and a long court case between groups of indigenous people, including non-status Indians. That is important, because often the conversation circles around those who have status, but there is a whole host of indigenous peoples in this country who do not necessarily have that status card from the government. However, yesterday, the Liberals specifically included an amendment, which passed at committee, to have the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples removed from this council.

I will highlight why that is concerning. Liberals often, including today, say how important it is to have a diversity of voices at the table. However, the Liberals may find some of the positions that CAP holds to be inconvenient, along with some of the things its members say in regard to being critical about the government. However, just because they are critical about the government does not mean that they should not have their voices included. I believe it was the Native Women's Association that was also included through a Conservative amendment.

I am very disappointed to see that move against a whole host of indigenous peoples from this country. That includes many who do not fit the typical stereotype associated with those who may live on reserves and have that card from the government that suggests they are a particular member of a band or not. It is that “or not” that is absolutely key.

We have heard from so many across the country, especially since our Conservative Party leader has done a huge amount of outreach into indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast. They have a sense of hope and opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, sees and articulates the potential that truly exists for Canada's indigenous people. I am excited to be a member of a party that looks for those opportunities for meaningful reconciliation and would ensure that Canada's indigenous peoples are truly given every opportunity afforded to them to succeed and prosper in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, a big part of the reconciliation and the calls for action deal with the issue of incarceration. Part of those calls incorporate the idea that we need to reduce minimum sentencing or reduce the number of times that minimum sentencing is being utilized.

Given the Conservative Party's approach to minimum sentences, based on things like Bill C-5, does the Conservative Party support calls for action that deal with the reduction, in any way, of minimum sentences?

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

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister was at James Smith Cree Nation a few days ago. We saw a failure of the justice system. We saw somebody who had, I think, close to 100 charges with outstanding warrants. There was a call to law enforcement the day before with an explicit request for intervention because of fear. I find it absolutely tragic that the Liberals would be so blinded by ideological activism that they would ignore those victims, like the many we see associated with those tragic events in Saskatchewan.

Victims, including indigenous victims of crime, deserve to have justice served in this country, because they do not see it. We have a clear example where the Prime Minister was this week that justice was not served. Indigenous people deserve better.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my remarks will come across more like a request or a wish or maybe even a demand. We know that indigenous affairs are under federal jurisdiction. However, certain things, such as health care and education, fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Quebec had its own commission, the Viens commission, which made hundreds of recommendations. Quebec has already invested $125 million in upgrading, enhancing and ensuring the long-term viability of public services and establishing cultural safety.

We already have a committee with first nations and the Inuit. We have another committee with university researchers. The point is, we want to see this council tackle federal issues in Quebec, not issues that are under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the way our country was created. There was the separation of powers between federal and provincial, and then the provinces designating powers to municipalities.

However, let us be very clear. There has to be an all-of-government approach. There has to be real collaboration between different levels of government to ensure there is meaningful reconciliation. That will require tough conversations and real collaborations.

One of the problems that we see with the way the government approaches things is that it likes to talk about collaboration, but then it tells stakeholders how they should feel. When it comes to ensuring that indigenous peoples are included in conversations, it is time that indigenous peoples in this country are not simply stakeholders but that they are truly shareholders.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here for this debate and to speak in support of an overdue action plan to establish a national council for reconciliation.

We know that the lack of action by the government has resulted in many different outcomes. One, for example, is the overrepresentation of indigenous children and youth in care. We can all agree that the current government has broken several promises it made to indigenous people.

Can the member clarify which sections of law or government policy he believes should be a priority for the national council for reconciliation to review to ensure the voices of indigenous peoples are heard and acted upon?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the government has not fulfilled many of the promises it made, including promises that were key parts of its previous election platforms. However, that does not seem to stop the government from pursuing a path forward regardless.

When it comes to indigenous voices being heard at the table, I find it very concerning that the member and her party voted for an amendment that specifically excludes many indigenous peoples in this country through the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. They voted for an amendment, which the government brought forward, to exclude many indigenous peoples who are traditionally under-represented in the conversations that are very important to have in this place. That is a very serious question that the NDP and Liberals have to answer.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to participate in this debate, especially after my colleague's eloquent speech. There was one line that will stay with me for a long time.

He said that they do not want to see the first nations stakeholders as real, true partners. I love that line.

We are here today for the final stage of the bill that will establish the national council for reconciliation. I am always filled with pride and emotion when I rise to speak on an issue that affects first nations. I have the great honour and privilege of being the member of Parliament for Louis-Saint-Laurent thanks to the support and assistance of the people of this riding. I represent the people of Wendake, an indigenous community in the Quebec City area that is well known and well established. We know that the Wendat have been here since the dawn of time, but they are more permanently settled in the northern part of Quebec City. They have been there for more than 300 years. As a result, ours is a fruitful, extraordinary, exemplary and, I would say, very inspiring relationship for all Canadians and all first nations. I will have the opportunity to come back to this later.

Obviously, we agree that this national council for reconciliation needs to be created. We believe that it is a step forward in order to improve the way indigenous and non-indigenous people work, grow and live together.

I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work done by my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. I am glad I got that right. If there is one thing I do not like about my job at the federal level, it is the interminable riding names. I will never run for Speaker of the House, because I will never be able to remember even two names. The current Chair occupants can rest assured that they do not have a potential opponent in me.

I think that my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River did an excellent job of properly examining this bill. In the beginning, he spoke out about the shortcomings in the original version. It is important to point out that it took a long time for this bill to be introduced, debated and passed in the House of Commons. In fact, the government first talked about it back in December 2017. We know that there was an election, and then another one. We know that Parliament was prorogued because the Prime Minister did not want us to get to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal, so the government kept putting the bill off. Now here we are five years after the first draft. It has taken way too long to get here.

My colleague also mentioned problems related to transparency and independence when it comes to the appointment of members of this national council. We are also wondering about the soundness of the results. How can we determine whether this council is achieving real, concrete, relevant and successful results when we believe there were shortcomings at that point?

It is the same thing when it comes to accountability. The definition was far too vague, in our opinion. We wanted this council to report directly not to the minister responsible for indigenous-government relations, but to the Prime Minister himself. In fact, it was one of the recommendations of the 2015 report.

My colleague led the clause-by-clause study and went about it in a positive and constructive way to improve this bill. No fewer than 19 amendments were introduced by my colleague. The fact that 16 of those 19 amendments were accepted is proof that the work was taken seriously and completed diligently. A 17th amendment was almost adopted, but unfortunately, a partner walked away at the last second.

I congratulate and thank the colleagues from the other parties, but a special honour goes to the colleague who proposed these amendments for the good of the bill and to properly advance this bill. We owe a debt of gratitude to my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. When I say “we”, I mean us parliamentarians, but especially us Canadians and the first nations, for the ability to work well with this national council for reconciliation.

Therefore, we will be voting in favour of this bill, which had 16 amendments that were proposed by my colleague from the official opposition and that improved the bill.

I think it is quite important to remind everybody we are not talking about a brand new start. It is part of our Canadian history. When we talk about first nations, we all have to recognize, as proud Canadians, as we should be, if there was something wrong in our past. There is the fact that the relations we had with our first nations were not very good, for century after century.

We could talk about the fact that, all around the world, the big countries have to address that kind of issue. Yes, that is for sure. However, it is not because the rest of the world was not good that we have to be okay with the fact that we were not good. This is why I think this is a step forward and a way to address it correctly.

I would like to remind members that I was not in the House to witness that great moment on June 11, 2008. Many people currently sitting in this House were there. For the first time in history, the Government of Canada, through its prime minister the Right Hon. Stephen J. Harper, formally apologized to first nations for the horrors committed at residential schools.

For the first time, the only time in our parliamentary Canadian history, we saw a first nation leader here in the House, listening to the formal apology and the national excuses from a Prime Minister and answering to that.

The only time a first nation leader has spoken directly to Canadians in the House of Commons was in 2008 under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Whatever we can say, whatever happens, whatever party we are, we have to be proud of this great Canadian moment in our history.

What happened after the apology? The Prime Minister made sure that it was not the last step. Rather, it was the beginning of what was to be reconciliation. He created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. For five years, this commission travelled from coast to coast, and it was both studious and thorough in its work. I remember because I was a provincial MNA, and I attended one of the hearings in Wendake.

Thousands of citizens and thousands of first nations people testified to the horrors of a shameful stain on Canadian history, our history: residential schools that were designed to kill the Indian in the heart of each child. It is terrifying to think about, to think that it happened for generations, for over 100 years. Thousands of people still bear the scars today.

Yes, what happened is serious and it must be recognized. Yes, there was an apology. Yes, the commission was created. It tabled reports and over 90 recommendations in 2015. Some will remember the reactions we had at that time: Yes, this needed to be acknowledged.

I would like to remind members that six specific recommendations, calls to action 71 through 76, directly addressed the issue of burial sites and cemeteries. When graves were discovered two years ago, everyone suddenly grasped the horror of what had happened, but where were those people when the public apology was delivered in 2008? Where were they during the six years when the commission was investigating what happened to first nations? Where were they in 2015 when the report was tabled with specific actions for addressing this problem?

That is what happens when a relationship that is unequal, disrespectful and unproductive persists for centuries. Today we are passing a law that will create a national council for reconciliation. It will never be enough, but it is a step in the right direction that we applaud.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's approach of us working collectively together.

We have seen the government fail. It has delivered on 13 of the 94 calls to action. We see the disproportionate overrepresentation of indigenous people when it comes to the justice system and the prison system, and the overcrowding of people in precarious housing situations.

Could my colleague speak to some of the changes he would like to see the government, as well as the new national council for reconciliation, address immediately regarding the social determinants on health and government policies? What would he like to see the council advance to help support the betterment of the lives of indigenous people in Canada?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite important to remind everybody that we are on the same planet. We are in the same country, and we are the same people. This is why we have to address this issue collectively instead of in a more partisan way.

The answer to this question should come from the first nations themselves. Obviously, as a member of Parliament, I have my personal point of view on that, but what is it based on? It is based on the fact that I have lived near a first nation all my life. I am 58 and a half years old and I have spent all of my life near the Wendake first nation, so I know them well. As I said earlier, they are a good example and good inspiration for everybody.

As for the issue raised by my hon. colleague, I do not see it on a daily basis in my riding with my communities, but I know and recognize that this is the fact for so many other places in this country. I hope that the national council will give a voice to the first nations, to give the government and parliamentarians the ways to address things correctly based on their perspective instead of others' perspectives.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are 94 calls to action, as every member of Parliament understands and appreciates. What I like about Bill C-29 is that it deals with four calls to action. We need to recognize that not all of the calls to action can be done overnight. It is a work in progress.

I am wondering if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts on the fact that for many of them, we have to work with other jurisdictions and stakeholders to accomplish a call to action.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a great example. He is the member for Winnipeg North, and I know there is a big issue to be addressed in Winnipeg with first nations, which is not the same issue that we have to address in the Quebec City area. Based on my personal experience and knowing them pretty well, it is not the same case. This is why we should work hand in hand with first nations, our provincial partners and our municipal partners.

The question raised by my colleague from the Bloc a few minutes ago was exactly that. If we talk about the health care system for first nations, yes, first nations are under federal jurisdiction. We also know and recognize that health issues are not only a federal responsibility for first nations, but also a provincial one, and we have to work hand in hand with our municipal partners.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to such important legislation.

Before us, we have what I believe has been a priority not only for me personally but also for the Prime Minister, as has been demonstrated time and time again when he has talked about how important our nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous people is today and will be in the future. It is in the best interests of all.

Truth and reconciliation is so important. That is why shortly after the commission's report was tabled back in 2015, the Prime Minister, who was leader of the third party at the time, made it very clear that if we were in government, we would be in favour of enacting and encouraging in any way we can all 94 calls to action.

Today, we are talking about a piece of legislation that creates the national council for reconciliation. It would be an important, powerful and influential council. The minister responsible has put forward an interim board, or a committee, if I can put it that way, to make sure that the council we are creating today gets off on the right foot.

I am a little concerned regarding what we do as legislators, what takes place in the House of Commons and how information is disseminated in our communities, especially on the issue of reconciliation. Members will try to marginalize the types of things we are doing inside the House, as if the government is not responding to the calls to action. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When members go outside of this chamber and start saying that the government is not acting on the calls to action or has only done 14 of 94, that is misrepresentation at its worst. It is misrepresentation because at the end of the day, many of the 94 recommendations are not even federal responsibility. Many of the recommendations are a joint responsibility between the federal government and provincial governments. Most of the recommendations are a work in progress, just like Bill C-29, which has been worked on for years and will, once passed, incorporate four calls to action.

Let us look at the idea that every child matters and at residential schools. The people of Winnipeg North, and I believe Canadians as a whole, recognize how important that theme, idea and reality is. If we look at it, we see the government has been actively working on that file. We are working with different indigenous people to ensure they have the financial resources to do the things that are so critically important. Those are calls to action 72 to 76 and they are in progress.

If members are trying to give a false impression to get Canadians and, in particular, indigenous people to believe that the government is not working on the calls to action, I would suggest that is exceptionally misleading, because the numbers clearly demonstrate that.

I am going to give members an example. Today is about Bill C-29. I remember debating the child welfare bill, which was, in fact, on call to action number four and was completed quite a while back. That was Ottawa's sole responsibility and we completed that call to action.

One call to action associated with that is the first one. Call to action number one deals with child welfare, which is not just for Ottawa. It includes the provinces.

To understand why I feel so passionate about this particular issue, take a look at the province I represent. Back in June 2010, I was inside the Manitoba legislature raising the fact that the child advocate was saying Manitoba was in a child care crisis situation. Children in the province of Manitoba were in a very serious situation. That was after many, many years of a government run by a political party that I will not mention. Members can look it up with a Google search.

At the end of the day, child welfare, the number one recommendation, is not just a federal responsibility. Ottawa is working with its provincial partners, setting up a council and working with indigenous leaders to deal with children. I would like to say that the recommendation in call to action number one has been achieved, but I think it would be extremely optimistic to see it achieved in the next number of weeks or months. It might take a while. It took the province and Ottawa many years to cause the problems we have there today. Thousands of children were displaced from their birth parents, and these are the types of issues that are going to take a while.

When a member goes into the community and starts espousing that we are not acting on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, it gives a false impression to people who are looking for hope. Imagine an indigenous community looking for leadership. It is looking for people to be apolitical on such an important file. In fact, for over 80% of the calls to action, there has been significant progress when the federal government has been involved. A dozen or more have been completed, and today we will pass four more when the legislation passes.

We have to take into consideration that this goes beyond the people in this room and take a look at others. It was great to see the Pope come to Canada. That was one of the calls to action. Yes, the federal government and maybe members in the opposition benches played a role, but do not let there be any doubt that it was the indigenous community that was ultimately successful at convincing the Pope to come, do the right thing and provide a formal apology. The federal government does not get the credit and the provinces do not get the credit. It was about the indigenous community working with the Pope and the Pope doing the right thing. That is how that call to action was resolved.

This is about the people in our communities, such as Diane Redsky, the executive director of Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata, who is retiring after many years of running that organization. It is at the ground level dealing with indigenous health care and social and justice issues. I wish her the very best.

At the end of the day, this is about communities, organizations like Ma Mawi and many others, and indigenous leaders. They are the ones who will hopefully be able to ensure that we continue to be held accountable. A big part of that is going to be done through the national council for reconciliation, something we are creating today.

Time does not permit me to go through all the things I would like to highlight, but I can tell members about a few others.

I like how we have responded to the statutory holiday and like what it has turned into. In my home city of Winnipeg, in year one, we had a wonderful gathering and a walk from The Forks to St. John's Park. This year, it was from The Forks to the convention centre. Thousands of Winnipeggers and Manitobans as a whole, and I suspect many from outside the province, showed up, recognizing how important it is that we achieve reconciliation.

To me, that is the essence of what we should be striving to achieve. Truth and reconciliation is not just for politicians inside this chamber, the Manitoba legislature or any other legislature. I would even dare say it is not just for indigenous leaders. It is for everyone. That is one of the reasons that I think the legislation we passed to recognize it and see how it evolves will make all of us as a nation better, because this heightens the level of awareness and recognizes the truth.

I will conclude my remarks with that in the hope that at some point today, we might see the collapse of debate so we can get the bill passed through third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North very passionately talked about all of the great work the Liberals have done since 2015 and how there was a sense of urgency.

With regard to this particular bill and the four calls to action that he speaks of, this matter was first introduced in December 2017 in an announcement by the Prime Minister. That included the formation of an interim board of directors, which did its work from January 2018 to June 2018. At that point, it issued a report with 20 very specific recommendations for the foundation of this legislation and some next steps. It also included a draft bill. That was in June 2018.

The next step taken in this process was to announce the transitional committee, which was one of the recommendations from June 2018. Guess when that happened. It was in December 2021, three and a half years later. That does not indicate a sense of urgency to me in the progress on this bill.

Maybe the member for Winnipeg North could tell us, in his eloquent way, how the three-and-a-half-year inaction on this has set us back as we get to this point on reconciliation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Conservatives are supporting the legislation. We have even seen some amendments brought forward, which shows the openness of the government to recognizing that we can improve upon the legislation. If the member was not here, although I suspect he might have been, when the minister gave the detailed explanation of how we got to this point, I think the member might benefit from looking over exactly what the minister said.

However, again I would emphasize that from day one to where we are today, given the number of legislative actions and legislative pieces that have passed through the House, the numerous budgetary measures and the obligations to consult with indigenous partners not only on the calls to action but other pieces of legislation we have brought through the House, we have done exceptionally well. That is not to mention the fact that we have just finished going through a worldwide pandemic.

There are all sorts of things at play here. If the only criticism is that we are not quite moving fast enough, I will compare our government in the last seven years to any other government in the history of our nation when it comes to dealing with indigenous issues.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I heard the member refer quite a few times to the calls to action as recommendations. I want to make very clear that these are calls to action.

I began reflecting, when I heard that, that perhaps this may be the root of why we are seeing such a lengthy delay in the government's implementation of the calls to action and, in particular, why it has taken seven years to establish a national council for reconciliation. It may be why indigenous communities continue to not have access to clean drinking water or affordable housing, as just a few examples.

It has taken seven years to get to a starting point for moving toward these calls to action, and I am wondering if the member could clarify how he will begin moving forward at a much quicker speed to have them implemented.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely totally disagree with what the member is saying.

I understand the calls to action and the truth and reconciliation report. When it was tabled back in 2015, it was the leader of the Liberal Party who stood up virtually immediately and said we would act on all 94 calls to action. Even Thomas Mulcair did not do that.

We have done this consistently from day one, both legislatively and from a budget perspective. We can take a look at the numbers and the reality.

Members of the NDP need to have a better understanding that, not only are they doing a disservice here in the House, but by spreading misinformation outside the House, they are taking away hope that the indigenous people in particular, but Canadians as a whole, have for truth and reconciliation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on some of the first comments the member for Winnipeg North raised. I find it very interesting. I would expect this kind of behaviour from Conservatives, but certainly not from the NDP. The member for Courtenay—Alberni stood up, like so many NDP members have, to basically say the government has completely failed on the calls to action. That could not be further from the truth.

All we have to do is google delivering on truth and reconciliation calls to action and we would get to a Government of Canada website that not only tells us the status, but breaks down the details as to what has been happening on each and every action, who is responsible and how the government has been coordinating things.

The NDP would like us to believe that we can wave a magic wand and suddenly all 94 recommendations would instantly be dealt with.

Could the member for Winnipeg North pick up—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want us to imagine we are of indigenous background, and we look at the calls to action. We are looking for leadership. What we see often from this House is a high sense of co-operation where in fact we are moving forward. We see a sense of hope that, for the first time, we have Canadians looking at truth and reconciliation and acting on the calls to action.

Then, we have some members of Parliament who are going out and about spreading misinformation and trying to give the impression that Ottawa does not care and Ottawa is not acting on the calls to action. That sort of misinformation takes hopes away from young people and it takes hope away from indigenous people.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a government and a House of Commons that want to deliver, and we are delivering, whether it is financially or on the calls to action. As I say, there are 94 calls to action, and we are responsible, wholly or in part, for well over 80% either being complete or in process. Hopefully after today we will be able to say four of those calls to action have passed third reading.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think instead of the member pointing at the NDP, maybe he should come to my community and ask the Nuu-chah-nulth how the Liberals are doing in terms of delivering on the 94 calls to action. What he is going to learn is that they have not been delivering. That is a fact.

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

That is not a fact. That is a lie.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was just at an announcement. There is some good news in here.

Is that member telling me that the Nuu-chah-nulth are lying—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe it is exceptionally clear in our Standing Orders that accusing someone of lying is absolutely inappropriate, and that is exactly what the member for Kingston and the Islands just finished doing in a heckle.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, actually, the New Democratic member accused me of lying, and I did not say a word. The member said it was the member for Winnipeg North. I was actually listening to everything the member said, and he just made an accusation that I was lying. I would ask him to withdraw it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Let us just take a breath here, organize ourselves and remember that we should not be accusing anybody of anything when we are sitting here speaking to something as important as this bill.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, and if he did say it, I would ask him to retract it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked him to consult with the Nuu-chah-nulth in my riding to measure how they are doing. I invite the members, really with an olive branch, to come and meet with the Nuu-chah-nulth people.

Now, there are some good things happening. Just two weeks ago, the B.C. government, working with the Huu-ay-aht First Nations, announced the creation of the Oomiiqsu mother's centre. It is creating a safe and culturally appropriate home. It is an indigenous-led model of care for women who are trying to keep their families together, who are leaving abuse, facing mental health and addiction disorders, or who are living in poverty and trauma. However, there is still no federal money. I hope that the government will live up to the council's recommendations and deliver funding.

Will the government work with the Province of British Columbia and ensure that we are delivering on that first call to action and make it a priority?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that, virtually from day one, Ottawa has been working with indigenous people, provinces and everyone who wants to listen in terms of how we can have a positive impact on the lives of indigenous people here in Canada through truth and reconciliation in particular.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lakeland.

This is a critically important bill. Despite the heated exchange that just happened, I think all members of the House can agree that this is an important bill and that seeing more reconciliation going forward is positive for our country and for our relationship with indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast. It is something that I have been very fortunate in my riding and my community to see first-hand.

Through my experience growing up in Fort McMurray, I have had the opportunity to get to see what reconciliation looks like first-hand. Many of the industrial partners in my region and specifically a lot of the oil and gas partners, big bad oil and gas, have been working with indigenous communities throughout my region for over 40 years and providing economic reconciliation in some of the most profound and meaningful ways.

I thought this was normal. I thought this was just what everyone did, because this is what I grew up with. I did not know there was something other than this. In Fort McMurray, it is really cool and I would welcome members opposite to come and visit. They could see what reconciliation actually looks like by coming to Fort McMurray and seeing first-hand what economic reconciliation means.

The members opposite, and specifically the member for Winnipeg North, were bragging about how this bill addresses four calls to action. The member is actually correct. It does address four calls to action, but only because of the absolutely spectacular work of my Conservative colleagues who brought in amendments to correct three of the four calls to action to make sure the bill actually addressed the calls to action. The bill that was presented by the Liberals failed to actually meet the calls to action initially. It failed to meet three of the four. Luckily, the amendments were accepted.

I would argue that every amendment that was put forward by the Conservatives on this bill was exceptionally reasonable and meaningful and based on testimony. I am disappointed to see that while we put forward 19 amendments and 16 of them are in this final version of the bill, there are three missing. One is very near and dear to my heart. It is economic reconciliation. This is something that the government sometimes fails to acknowledge exists. It fails to acknowledge the importance of economic reconciliation.

When we were talking about this piece of legislation, I had some conversations with my colleagues. I said that someone I would really like to have appear as a witness before the committee was the CEO of the Athabasca Tribal Council that represents treaty 8 first nations in northeastern Alberta. The CEO is a woman by the name of Karla Buffalo, who has become a friend and an adviser to me. She is wise well beyond her years. In her written brief, she said:

We believe strongly in the need for authentic and action-oriented reconciliation. In our traditional territory, in Treaty 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 people. We are here to encourage a collaborative process with all Nations, respecting their individual sovereignty and self-governance.

I read that into the record because it is exceptionally powerful. This is about actions, not words. This is about making sure we are actually advancing and knowing what we are here to do.

I have been exceptionally fortunate in my time as an elected official serving the people of northeastern Alberta to have had the opportunity to interact one on one with many elders and with many indigenous leaders throughout my region and learn directly from them what reconciliation actually means. One of the people whom I had one-on-one conversations with was Dr. Willie Littlechild.

Dr. Willie Littlechild was part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He worked tirelessly on that. He is such a strong voice for indigenous people and reconciliation. He often says that it is not reconciliation, but it should be “reconcili-action”. It needs to be action-based. That is so critically important.

While this bill is great and I will support it, it could be better. It could have been substantially better had the government been willing to understand that economic reconciliation is a way of putting action into reconciliation. It is not the only way of getting there, but it is a way we should be looking at, that we should be looking to try to find paths through. It is important.

The government could stand to learn, if it were willing to humble itself and come up to northeastern Alberta and meet with the chiefs themselves, meet one on one and hear what economic reconciliation has meant for their first nations. If members came up to Fort McMurray, they would see big coach buses that take people to and from work every single day. On the side of those coach buses, it says “Fort McMurray First Nation Group of Companies”.

One would be hard pressed to find a company in town that has not made a significant and meaningful partnership with an indigenous community or partnership. We have some of the most successful indigenous businesses in the entire country that are based out of my hometown of Fort McMurray or the first nations that are in our backyards.

This is the piece the government has failed to recognize the importance of in this piece of legislation. I am not bringing this up by way of pointing fingers, but because this is what expert witnesses brought up. This is what elders in my region brought forward. This is what the CEO of the tribal council that represents the five first nations in my region brought up. This is something they brought forward as a suggestion and a recommendation to the committee.

The members opposite like to talk about the calls to action and how they have done a great job. I heard the member say that 80% have been started or are in progress. I would love to see his stats on this, because everything I have been able to find shows a much lower number of calls to action that have been started or are in progress.

I was looking at a website earlier today, www.indigenouswatchdog.org. It compares the findings of where it thinks the government is, where the government thinks it is, and then where CBC thinks the government is when it comes to progress on reconciliation. The numbers are not as flattering, by any stretch of the imagination, as the member for Winnipeg North would have us believe.

This is something that is critical. We cannot just gloss over these pieces. There is a reason it is called truth and reconciliation, and not just reconciliation alone. There have been absolute horrors that have been committed in the past by governments of Canada, for years upon years, and somehow glossing over that something has been done that has not been done is not a way of making things better.

We need to be brutally honest about where we are and recognize that we can always do better. If someone thinks that somehow this is perfect and we have this 100% right, they are missing the forest for the trees, because the whole point of truth and reconciliation is learning where we have made mistakes and doing our best to go forward, knowing we are not always going to be perfect. It is about progress; it is about positive progress forward.

This is a piece that the government is very good about, patting itself on the back and celebrating all of its successes, but it has not provided the action required.

While the bill, in general, is a good thing, it has taken far too long to get to this chamber. It has taken far too long for us to get to this place, because the government has failed to put any importance on this.

I would urge all my colleagues to vote for this, but I would also urge any future parliamentarians who are looking at this and reading this speech in their preparation to look at putting in economic reconciliation when they are looking to update this bill, because it is critically important and it is missing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member's comments, and she mentioned the Indigenous Watchdog website, so I went and looked at that. As a matter of fact, based on my quick assessment, it is only showing, based on various different institutions, what is considered complete.

She then went on to talk about why there is no availability of what is being done on the calls to action. As I said in my previous question, she can find that very easily. All she has to do is google “94 calls to action” and the rest will pop up. They will populate by Google itself. Then she will find herself on a Government of Canada, not a Liberal Party, website where she can then see what actions have been taken and the results of each one. Every single one has the details on it. It is very easy to find.

I want to thank her for the work that her colleagues did on the committee. It does not matter to me whether the suggestions come from this side of the House, at committee, or working together at committee. I am just thrilled to see that, based on her assessment, three more recommendations could be achieved because of the incredible work of the committee, including the Conservatives who did that work, so through you, Mr. Speaker, to her colleagues, I thank them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not need the member for Kingston and the Islands to mansplain how to google to me. I do not think it is appropriate in any capacity for him to think he is doing me some kind of service by thinking I am not perhaps intelligent enough to figure out how to do a simple Internet search for information. I am more than capable of doing it. I would suggest that is something every single woman in the House is capable of figuring out, so I take a significant amount of offence at that, because I do not need someone talking down to me as if I am an absolute—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I certainly was not trying to suggest that because of the particular member's gender she was not able to find that. All I was trying to do was suggest to the House, and I brought this up with a male NDP member earlier, how easy it is to find the information if one is trying to seek it out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer and that point of order demonstrate the fact that the member does not believe that those in this chamber are capable of doing a basic Google search, and I think that is absolutely shameful. People in my riding do not trust the current government when it comes to a lot of what it has done. The Auditor General's report was pretty scathing on its actions when it comes to disaster recovery, and that is something that is near and dear to my heart coming from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. I am sorry, but I am not going to take any advice from that member.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really am enjoying my colleague's speech today. One thing I want to raise is with respect to the national council on reconciliation. It is so important to have measurements, timelines and commitments from the government, but they need to be followed up with action. My hon. colleague and I have been working together and calling on the government to deliver on its promise of a $4.5-billion mental health transfer of new money, which it has not delivered.

Call to action 19 cites:

We call upon the...government, in consultation with Aboriginal peoples, to establish measurable goals to identify and close the gaps in health outcomes between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities....

It includes mental health.

Through you to my colleague, does she feel that the government is living up to its responsibility when it comes to the calls to action, and even today with respect to the spirit of delivering to indigenous peoples to close those gaps and deliver on those outcomes?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course I think it is absolutely unfortunate the government made a promise during its election campaign and has woefully failed to deliver on it, which was to provide the Canada mental health transfer that would do so much to help all Canadians. It would do a lot to help indigenous people on and off reserves in Métis settlements and communities all across this country, and would make a meaningful difference.

Yesterday in committee I pressed the government on this issue over the fact that people are going to the emergency rooms because they have no other option for many mental health crises. I think that is absolutely shameful and would love to see that fixed.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to speak today in support of Bill C-29, which would establish a national council for reconciliation.

It was, of course, the previous Conservative government that first launched the TRC, along with other measures that sought to better the outcomes and the lives of indigenous Canadians, especially indigenous youth, the fastest-growing group of young people in Canada.

Unfortunately, it must be said that the Liberals took far too long to bring in this bill, given they have been in power for seven years and that the Prime Minister claims the relationship with indigenous people is the most important to him.

That is why Conservatives pushed an amendment to ensure that it is the Prime Minister who will respond to the national council’s annual report, as the TRC’s call to action says, unlike the Liberals’ original draft, which delegated this responsibility to a minister.

That was just one improvement of the 19 substantial amendments from Conservatives to uphold the principles of transparency and independence, to increase accountability and accelerate the timelines for government responses, and, most importantly, to implement concrete, measurable targets and outcomes.

What is crucial is ensuring that good intentions and well-meaning words deliver actions and better outcomes. It is a testament to the good will, spirit of collaboration and shared aspirations that all parties supported 16 of the 19 Conservative amendments.

I am proud to represent nine indigenous communities in Lakeland, just as I am proud to represent every Canadian in the 52 communities across the region. As always, those people and those communities are foremost on my mind, so, like my neighbour from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I will address an extremely consequential Conservative amendment that was inexplicably rejected by the MPs of all the other parties. Conservatives wanted to ensure that one seat on the board of directors of the national council would be filled by an indigenous economic national organization.

It makes little sense to talk about mutual commitments between governments and citizens to tell the truth about historical, systemic and paternalistic injustices for societal reconciliation but to also simultaneously reject entrenching economic reconciliation as a priority so communities can move from managing poverty to generating prosperity. There are so many ways that can help resolve the disproportionate socio-economic challenges that indigenous people and communities face as a consequence of generations of oppressive and discriminatory government policies and programs.

This especially matters when it comes to ongoing challenges for indigenous leaders and entrepreneurs who want to secure jobs and create jobs, equity ownership, mutual benefit agreements and other economic opportunities in natural resources development. These are a main source of employment, and often the only source, for communities in rural and remote regions. It also matters in the public policy debates and duties around definitions of decision-makers, roles in consultation, consent and consensus, identity and local impacts.

In Lakeland, four of the nine indigenous communities are Métis settlements, half of all the settlements in Canada. They are unique to Alberta, with legislated Métis land bases, local governments and infrastructure costs, like water treatment facilities, roads and schools. They pay taxes, including carbon taxes.

For years I have pushed for their recognition, and I was finally able to get an indigenous and northern affairs committee report to cite them as “distinct entities with unique needs”.

In September I urged the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to include the settlements in Bill C-29, because it is an obvious hindrance to reconciliation if they are excluded from meaningful participation in the council, but I am still waiting for a response.

Representatives of the settlements in Lakeland often tell me they feel abandoned and forgotten by the government. Lee Thom, a Kikino Métis Settlement councillor, says that the Métis settlements must have a seat at that table to advocate for their indigenous communities, which are stand-alone and not a part of existing Métis nations in Alberta and nationally.

Still, the settlements have never been mentioned in a federal budget and are often excluded from federal initiatives. To me, this remains a glaring omission.

It is particularly relevant to the pursuit of economic reconciliation because the Métis settlements in Lakeland, along with most of the first nations, are currently, and have been, heavily involved in energy and natural resources development for decades. Many have previously met all their community needs with their own source revenue from their businesses and contracts.

The NDP's and Liberals' anti-energy agenda and aim to phase out oil and gas, which have already driven away investment, cost over $150 billion in lost projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs, have hit indigenous communities as hard as everyone else.

Last year, the indigenous and northern affairs committee tackled barriers to indigenous economic development. We heard from dozens of witnesses and one thing was clear: Empowering indigenous communities to set up businesses, develop their natural resources and create wealth for their communities and surrounding areas is crucial.

In later work, witnesses said that housing, health care, governance, infrastructure and emergency preparedness challenges all come back to the core concept of economic reconciliation. Several elected leaders from Lakeland participated.

Chief Gregory Desjarlais, of Frog Lake first nation, talked about the importance of access to capital to get projects built, like the carbon capture proposal led by Frog Lake and Kehewin, both in Lakeland. Frog Lake is heavily involved and invested in energy operations, whether through jobs or their community-owned Frog Lake Energy Resources Corp.

The benefits of indigenous-owned businesses are many. As Chief Desjarlais put it:

Look at these projects.... Look at indigenous ownership. If you involve the first nations, you allow them to build homes. You allow them to send kids to school. You allow them to send people to treatment. You allow them to deliver water to these homes. You allow them to remove mould. That's problem-solving. That's a takeaway, instead of all the money leaving Canada and still having poorer first nations living on CFAs and begging for handouts.

These benefits were echoed by Stan Delorme, chair of the Buffalo Lake Métis Settlement, as they would help to meet their major infrastructure needs for the disproportionate number of unemployed youth and to lift Buffalo Lake’s average annual income of $27,000 a year.

The ever-increasing carbon tax hurts them even more, as the cost of lumber, fuel, and home heating skyrockets, and the accessible oil and gas jobs that used to exist for them have disappeared because of the Liberals’ anti-energy agenda. Lee Thom says, “Our settlements are communities—living, breathing—with roads, schools and water, with everything that comes with a small municipality and are in dire need of funding.”

Those are three of the nine indigenous communities in Lakeland who are now part of the 23 communities that are now all proud owners of over a billion dollars' worth of pipelines in the Athabasca region.

Many other indigenous-led and indigenous-owned projects and partnership projects have been outright killed by this anti-energy government, like the Prime Minister’s unilateral veto of the northern gateway pipeline, which destroyed the aspirations of and all the work of 31 communities, which had mutual benefit agreements, and he did that without consultation, or all of the projects that are at risk by anti-energy policies and activists who threaten projects and are often not even from the locally impacted area.

The outright cancellation or the deliberate policy-driven delays to force private sector proponents to abandon major natural resources development and infrastructure projects have all been major concerns, and often totally devastating to numerous indigenous communities, leaders and business groups.

Those projects are opportunities for economic reconciliation. They are tools for indigenous communities to meet their core social and economic needs, invest in their cultures, and preserve and nurture their heritage and their languages for future generations.

For example, Chief Councillor Crystal Smith from Haisla Nation opposes Bill C-48, the shipping and export ban, and supports Coastal GasLink as a way to bring her community out of poverty.

Last week, Calvin Helin, an indigenous author and entrepreneur, said that what really irks indigenous Canadians involved in responsible resource development is the meddling and interference from “eco-colonialists”, these groups whose only interest is in stopping projects, and government interference where the government is only listening to the side of the project that supports their politics.

There are countless examples of the Liberal government trampling on indigenous Canadians’ work and hope, roadblocking their pursuit of self-determination, including Eva Clayton of the Nisga’a, whose LNG export facility is on hold because of Liberal red tape; Natural Law Energy, 20 prairie first nations who lost a billion-dollar investment opportunity when Keystone XL was cancelled due to Liberal inaction; the Lax Kw’alaams, who are litigating against the Liberals’ Bill C-48 export ban, which violated their rights and title and ruined their plans for a deep-water port and oil export facility without consulting them; and the 35 indigenous communities with the Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor proposal, whose work and hopes for economic benefits were quashed by Bill C-69, the no more pipelines act.

The Liberals and the anti-energy activists’ anti-resource, anti-business and anti-energy agenda, usually outside and far away from the local indigenous communities, sabotages all their efforts to benefit from natural resources development and to participate in their local economies.

These actions look a lot like those of a centralist, colonialist government imposing its views against the goals and priorities of the majority of directly impacted indigenous people and leaders, like those in Lakeland.

While Conservatives will support this bill, the Liberals still need to fix their own paternalism that prevents economic reconciliation to ensure that indigenous voices, not just those that align with Liberal political priorities, are all represented in reconciliation efforts.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I think about the importance of this bill and how incredible the opportunity is for indigenous people to finally see a national council for reconciliation, it is unfortunate that we have to debate this because that means we actually need accountability. This body is tasked with that because the government is unable to monitor and track which calls to action are truly there.

I want to turn directly to the challenges that reconciliation faces. We see a challenge in my home province of Alberta right now. There is a premier there, Premier Danielle Smith, who, with her tabling of the sovereignty act, is harming and putting at risk indigenous treaty rights. The treaty chiefs and their members in Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 along with many Métis communities have stated openly their opposition to the sovereignty act.

It is important that across the country we stand united with indigenous people and we stand united with the chiefs. What would the member say to the chiefs?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent my colleague's many friends and relatives in a Métis settlement in Lakeland.

I agree with the member about the importance of establishing this national council for reconciliation. I wonder what he has to say, though, about the Liberals' creating this federal bill for this national council for reconciliation in federal jurisdiction, which is our responsibility as elected members of Parliament in the federal Parliament of Canada. I wonder also what he has to say to the Liberals, whom he is propping up in a coalition, about their exclusion of the Métis settlements from this bill as well as the rejection of the Conservatives' amendment to include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, representing off-reserve and urban indigenous Canadians right across the country.

I think he should push his partners in the Liberal Party a little harder to get them all involved in actual reconciliation efforts.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague for mentioning the importance of holding the government accountable. That is exactly what New Democrats do every single day in this House. We are here and were elected on a promise to make sure that we actually make things better for our province back home.

I will ask my question very directly. What does the member say to the united chiefs of Alberta in Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 who oppose the terrible bill of the sovereignty act tabled by the United Conservative Party? What does she say to those chiefs? She is a federal member of Parliament. She has an obligation to stand up to ensure that indigenous rights are upheld in our province. Every treaty chief in the entire province that we represent has opposed it.

Will the member stand up for treaty rights and will she stand with the chiefs?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, a fundamental core principle that I believe in is respecting provincial jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of provincial governments. Therefore, I will leave that conversation to Albertans and to the Government of Alberta.

I suggest that what the member should do is focus on our work here in the House of Commons and the changes that he can directly impact as a federal member of Parliament. I would hope to see his focus on improving this bill, Bill C-29, establishing this national council for reconciliation, which is an aspiration that I know the member and I both share. I look forward to seeing the member bring the exact same passion and dedication and steadfast advocacy here to the House of Commons on federal legislation and federal issues in his federal role as a member of Parliament, and maybe actually hold the Liberals to account instead of being in partnership with them and propping them up.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am very pleased to see that there is a consensus in the House, that everyone pretty much supports this bill.

I would like to know if she believes that the government has done enough since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada tabled its report. We know that a huge number of calls to action were published. This bill responds to a few of them, but there are many that have not yet been addressed.

Does my colleague believe that the government has done enough?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sure did enjoy working with the hon. member on the public safety committee. She is an extraordinarily talented member of Parliament.

This is the unfortunate thing about this conversation. We have a duty in this debate to ensure that actions follow all of the well-intentioned and good-spirited words that federal politicians and the government in particular share about our joint responsibilities in bettering the outcome and futures of indigenous people. Unfortunately, it is quite obvious that the Liberals have come nowhere near keeping the many promises they made to indigenous people and communities in this country. Therefore, it is our job to keep pushing—

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

I have to call for resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Thursday, December 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:55, so we can start Private Members' Business.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:11 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-29.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #230

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a colleague voted by the app, encountered some technical difficulties and could not log on in time to switch his vote. I am wondering if the House would allow, as we have done in the past for other members, for the hon. member for Foothills to change his vote. His intention was to vote in favour. If the House would grant consent for that change, this would be a unanimous vote in favour of the bill.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Do we have unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

We now have the Thursday question.