National Council for Reconciliation Act

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

Sponsor

Marc Miller  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-29s:

C-29 (2021) Law Port of Montreal Operations Act, 2021
C-29 (2016) Law Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2
C-29 (2014) Law Appropriation Act No. 1, 2014-15
C-29 (2011) Law Appropriation Act No. 3, 2011-12

Votes

April 29, 2024 Passed Motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation
March 20, 2024 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation
Dec. 1, 2022 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation
Nov. 29, 2022 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation
Nov. 29, 2022 Passed Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation (report stage amendment)
Nov. 29, 2022 Passed Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation (report stage amendment)
Nov. 29, 2022 Passed Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation (report stage amendment)

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10 a.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree LiberalMinister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, kwe kwe. Ulaakut. Tansi.

I would first like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

This has been a very important week for reconciliation in Canada. I want to begin by acknowledging and recognizing the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that came out this morning. In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that Bill C-92, as a whole, is constitutionally valid.

The essential matter addressed by the act involves protecting the well-being of indigenous children, youth and families by promoting the delivery of culturally appropriate child and family services and, in so doing, advancing the process of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. The Supreme Court decision represents a significant step in that direction, because it clearly affirms that principle. I want to thank many colleagues, particularly the Minister of Indigenous Services, for advancing this.

Yesterday morning, we had the opportunity to meet with indigenous business leaders, as well as the major financial institutions in Canada and other major corporations, to discuss the notion of economic reconciliation. Once again, the meeting was convened by the Minister of Indigenous Services. It was a very moving engagement that really spoke to the need to move forward in advancing economic reconciliation, and we look forward to working with those who were at the table, as well as those who continue to work to advance this issue.

Yesterday and the day before, we hosted the second indigenous federal-provincial-territorial meeting on missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people. This is a very important gathering of voices of families, survivors and people who are on the front lines of this crisis; they are at the centre of everything we do.

We must put the voices of families, survivors and people on the front lines of this crisis at the centre of everything we do.

We invited them to Ottawa, and we listened, we learned and we pledged to redouble our drive toward solutions.

What is important is that the provinces and territories were represented, and we are very pleased that they participated. The Province of British Columbia, the Province of Alberta and the Government of Yukon made presentations on what they have done to advance this work in their respective jurisdictions. We are making progress.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to be in the gallery of the Senate, as the president of the Council of the Haida Nation, for the introduction of a new bill, Bill S-16. This bill would recognize the Haida's inherent right to self-governance and self-determination. Bill S-16 is grounded on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or, as I sometimes call it, the road map to reconciliation.

The Haida people did not wait for the Government of Canada to wake up and realize that they have the right to govern themselves. They have been doing so for years, and it is time we enact legislation to recognize that inherent right.

These are a few small steps we made just this week alone, but they are indicative of a much larger charge towards redressing the past and repairing our relationship with indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have a government on this side of the chamber that is listening to them and wants to advance their priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time giving my speech. I would really encourage my colleagues to—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:05 a.m.

The Speaker Greg Fergus

Order. I know there are lots of members here this Friday morning, but I would ask them to lower their voices.

The hon. Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, we cannot go back to those days.

This brings me to the legislation at hand. Bill C-29, which we are here to discuss today, represents another crucial step in this ongoing, sustained effort. Despite this effort, the road to reconciliation is sometimes a winding road. Today's government and every single government that comes after it need to be held accountable to indigenous people along that path.

This bill would establish a national council for reconciliation to provide oversight and monitor progress on reconciliation across Canada in all sectors. As members may recall from when we previously discussed this bill in the House, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission envisioned an indigenous-led, independent and permanent national council for reconciliation to ensure long-term progress on reconciliation in Canada.

The role of the council would include overseeing progress towards implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

I thank my hon. colleagues for their past work on Bill C-29; today, I would like to invite them to pass the amendments from the other place, which I will present now. In doing so, I would like to thank the senators for their care and diligence in reviewing this legislation.

I would also like to thank members of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples for their work. They came from the position of wanting to support the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, and all members were very engaged in truly understanding and reflecting on the legislation. They introduced amendments they believed would strengthen the bill, and I thank them for their hard work.

I will start with the amendment whereby the national council for reconciliation would not impact permanent bilateral mechanisms between rights holders and the Government of Canada. In 2017, we created these mechanisms for levels of formal engagement never seen before. These bodies are vital to ensuring a productive working relationship with rights holders. They support the direct nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown and government-to-government relationships that section 35 rights holders expect.

To quote the committee's report, “The Council should not interfere with these mechanisms; bilateral mechanisms, however, could be complemented by the work of the Council.” This is a valuable amendment, and I would like to thank many national indigenous organizations and senators for working together and bringing forward this clarification.

Other Senate amendments include better alignment in terminology on how legislation is evolving to reflect the different government arrangements of indigenous organizations and communities and a strengthening of the Government of Canada's accountability. We welcome these amendments. In the study of the bill, senators underscored the importance of the council being able to receive information from the government in a timely way.

We agree that it is vital for the council to be able to fulfill its mandate to monitor and conduct research on the advancement of reconciliation within Canada. To impress this point upon us, the other place included an amendment whereby, should the Government of Canada not meet the obligations set out in a joint information-sharing protocol with the council, the council could have recourse to the federal court. We support this amendment.

Finally, to ensure greater clarity on when the minister would submit the required report to council, a reference to March 31 and not the end of fiscal year was introduced to prevent confusion on timing.

In closing, as amended, this bill would strengthen the accountability of governments to respond to council concerns in terms of measuring progress. This bill would ensure that indigenous peoples would lead discussions on what reconciliation should look like now and in the years ahead. The council would spark new ideas, foster meaningful conversations and encourage proactive steps forward. It would also connect the people across Canada to further reconciliation.

The calls to action fundamentally recognize that residential school survivors and their descendants are integral to the governance of the council. They have been waiting for this moment for so many years. Elders, youth and all indigenous peoples have been waiting. Let us embrace this historic moment and move forward by passing this bill with the Senate amendments. In this way, survivors, their descendants and indigenous peoples can finally see the realization of this long-awaited change without further delay.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:10 a.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, the hon. minister started his speech by saying that the Liberal government is listening to indigenous peoples and their calls to action.

Seven years ago, it promised sunny ways and an improved relationship with indigenous peoples. If it has been listening, why did it take seven years for the Liberal government to introduce this table?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, since we took office in 2015, we have been working to advance reconciliation across the board. It is the number one priority for the Prime Minister. He has reiterated that on a number of occasions.

In 2017, we established the interim council that, over the last several years, has been working towards establishing and bringing forward this bill. We have been debating this bill now for over a year.

Now is the time to move forward on this particular piece of legislation. I will admit that we do have a long way to go, and we have to accelerate the work of reconciliation. I look forward to working with my colleague and all colleagues in this effort. Although reconciliation takes time, it needs to be sped up.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:10 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech and his work. I feel he is sincere.

He said something in his speech that bothered me a bit. He mentioned the summit that took place yesterday, which he himself organized. It was about an issue of critical importance: missing and murdered women and how we approach reconciliation and grief. So many indigenous mothers and fathers are intimately familiar with that kind of grief.

However, I witnessed the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples being denied entry into the summit. At a time when we are supposed to be working toward reconciliation, it is deeply disturbing to see the government decide who is indigenous and who is not, especially since statistics show that the murder and disappearance of indigenous women occurs more often in urban areas than on reserves.

The government decided to exclude one group because it is part of a group called the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, but refusing to recognize urban indigenous people in the context of a conversation about sharing grief and suffering makes no sense to me, so I have a lot of questions about what happens next.

How are we going to achieve reconciliation if certain groups are marginalized like this, especially groups that are grieving?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that we had a very critical discussion during the two days of conversations we had at the IFPT round table. It was the second round table we had; we brought together many different national indigenous organizations, survivor groups and those who represent urban indigenous people. We also brought provincial and territorial governments to the table.

We had a number of senior ministers with different portfolios who were represented there. It was a very robust but difficult conversation, where we talked about the ongoing tragedy and crisis involving missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people.

It is an ongoing challenge for us, but we are determined to work together across jurisdictions with indigenous people at the centre of this, particularly women who have been so impacted, to ensure that we end this tragedy.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:15 a.m.

Labrador Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Yvonne Jones LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for tabling this important legislation and for the hard work he has done on getting to this point. I know that it has been a long, drawn-out process, but I think it is important to consult with people, to understand what their priorities and goals are, in order to really reflect what they need in this bill.

How is this new form around reconciliation going to help support communities, families and children in Canada?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Labrador for her long-standing advocacy and work on reconciliation.

What I can confirm with this bill, which has been strengthened by the other place, is that we now have an additional measure of accountability where the minister, as well as others, need to present annualized reports to the council. It will have the opportunity to assess and report back to Canadians on the work that has been completed, but also the work that lies ahead. It is an additional tool that is critical, I believe, to hold all governments to account, not just our government, but all future governments. That is why it is so important that we get this bill through today and pass it so we can start the hard work ahead to constitute the new council and get it off the ground so it can do the work that is required.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain how the carbon tax is tied to reconciliation when we have the Chiefs of Ontario, which represents 133 first nations, and the Assembly of First Nations taking the government to court asking for a judicial review with respect to their view that the carbon tax is discriminatory against our first nations.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:15 a.m.

The Speaker Greg Fergus

The hon. minister.

Did I miss something?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I hope my silence reflected the need for me to not answer that question. It is a deeply offensive question when we are talking about the passage of Bill C-29, which is meant to establish a national centre for truth and reconciliation.

I cannot believe that we cannot have a non-partisan discussion about an important issue without the Conservative Party bringing up the carbon tax, which it seems to be so embroiled in.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:15 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am really saddened by the reaction from the members of the official opposition. They should take this legislation seriously. They should take all legislation seriously in the House of Commons. I felt that question was highly inappropriate.

I want to come back to the minister, who I hope is seeking to move things forward in a much more forthright way than what we have seen over the last eight years with the government. We have many indigenous communities that do not have access to safe drinking water and experience discrimination in health care, housing, education, social services and so on. It is a crisis the government has been very slow to move on.

On the by indigenous, for indigenous housing, which the interventions by the member for Nunavut and the member for Vancouver East forced the government to finally move forward on, I am profoundly saddened by the fact the government has not, until now, taken this seriously.

I understand the minister is endeavouring to change that, but why has the government been so slow to take action in so many areas?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I shared the frustration that the pace of reconciliation is probably not where we want it to be. We want to advance things in a very expedient and fast way.

If we look at, for example, Bill C-92, which was a piece of legislation we brought forward, it was passed in 2021, was challenged, and today we have a resolution on it from the Supreme Court. Therefore, some of these issues take a bit of time.

I appreciate the question and look forward to working with the member opposite.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I feel like we are a bit of a broken record in this House, because we constantly come back to the issues that Canadians are facing every single day. Those are, of course, the cost of living and its challenges. The ineffectiveness of the Liberal government makes life more difficult.

I have to say Bill C-29 is just another example of a government that is interested in window dressing. It is interested in the photo ops. It is interested in sounding good. However, we have already heard from some of its coalition partners about how long this is taking. This was talked about seven years ago and we are just now finally getting to it.

There are a number of first nations organizations that certainly our side has encouraged the government to include in this process that were not included. Here we are, debating yet another example of a Liberal government that has come up with half-measures, a day late and a dollar short.

When I speak to issues of the Liberal government, I think back to my own experience when I was a mayor. I, like many Canadians, did not really know a lot about the Truth and Reconciliation report at that time. It was brand new and fresh. During the process of getting ready to take over the new administration, at the inaugural one of the staff came to me said that she would like me to read something at the beginning of my speech. I read it, and I did not understand it. I asked what it was. She explained to me that it was a land acknowledgement statement. I asked her to tell me more about it. She said it was from the Truth and Reconciliation report and some of its recommendations. I said that I needed to learn more about it.

I, of course, read lots. I read about all of the recommendations. I was so moved by it, frankly, I realized that in her effort to encourage me to adopt these recommendations, I felt like we had missed an opportunity. I went back to her and said that I thought maybe, if we were going to have a land acknowledgement statement for the Corporation of the Town of Huntsville, we should try to write that collaboratively with the first peoples who live on this land.

We reached out to the Chief of Wasauksing First Nation in Parry Sound and the Chief of Shawanaga First Nation, both on Georgian Bay, and the Chief of Rama First Nation. We invited them to come and meet with us. We arranged that, and it was an amazing visit. We had lunch. I basically sat there as a new mayor and learned. It was incredible, probably one of the most incredible lessons I have ever had. Those three chiefs have become friends, and we continue to talk today. In fact Chief Tabobondung from Wasauksing First Nation and I chat most frequently. I see him here in Ottawa regularly.

The reason I tell that story is because reconciliation is about relationships. It is about listening, hearing and understanding. My sense is that, once again, we have a government that says it is listening. It promised the moon. We see all kinds of examples where it has failed, because it just keeps adding to the bureaucracy. It keeps adding and spending more and achieving less. There are lots of examples of it.

We look back to when the government first came in and said it was going to eliminate all boil water advisories, and it has made some progress. However, we have found out that the departments are actually not very effective at it. In fact, in 2017, when the Liberal government made that promise, the Parliamentary Budget Officer actually laid out a plan to get the job done by 2020. Of course the Liberals ignored the plan and came up with their own. As we all know, it has not eliminated all boil water advisories. There are still many first nations that do not have potable drinking water.

Instead of working with indigenous leaders to tackle these systemic inequalities that hold first nations back from achieving prosperity and their own destiny, the Liberals continue down this “Ottawa knows best” approach. This is something that has gone on forever in this country, the “Ottawa knows best”, top-down approach. As a case in point, there are 6,600 employees in Indigenous Services. The government divided it up into two ministries, and now, of course, we have even more bureaucrats. That is about 10 bureaucrats for every first nation in the country, and we are still not listening.

Even the Auditor General has reported that these departments are ineffective and we have a Liberal government that just keeps spending money and keeps coming up with its “Ottawa knows best” approach and not listening to all first nations.

Maybe one of the reasons that the government changed the agenda today and put this up is that its members are aware of a pretty intelligent idea that first nations themselves came up with and presented to the Conservative Party and to the leader of the Conservative Party, and that is true reconciliation in action: economic reconciliation. Just yesterday, the leader of the Conservative Party announced a new program where we would take the situation of the Indian Act that handed over all reserve land and money to the federal government to be dealt with, and when first nations wanted their money they had to come to Ottawa and ask for it. This outdated system put power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists here in Ottawa, not in the hands of first nations. The direct result of this “Ottawa knows best” approach, as we know, is continued poverty, substandard infrastructure, substandard housing, unsafe drinking water and continued despair in too many first nations.

Therefore, the leader announced support for a first nations resource charge. It is a great idea that first nations themselves came up with that would enable first nations to take back control of their resources and their money. Putting first nations in control of their money instead of this “Ottawa knows best” approach, this top-down approach from Ottawa, lets the first nations keep that resource money. It allows them to master their destiny and take control of their own lives. This is an example of how a Conservative government would actually achieve reconciliation, by listening and by giving control and power back to first nations as opposed to building bigger and bigger bureaucracies here in Ottawa that have this “Ottawa knows best”, paternalistic, top-down approach to how it deals with everything, including first nations and the housing crisis.

The current government has generally believed that the bigger the bureaucracy, the better the solution. What we have learned, of course, is that while the Liberals have grown the bureaucracy some 30%, they have spent $20 billion on consultants and outside consulting firms and the results continue to be worse and worse. It is no different in first nations. It is no different in any first nations community. The Conservative Party believes that this is just more window dressing from a party that is out of ideas. Frankly, every idea the Liberals have come up with has just made the situation worse, from dealing with the true need for reconciliation with first nations to the housing crisis to the opioid epidemic. We hear it all over the country.

I know that the minister was offended to hear about the carbon tax, but there are a number of first nations that are suing the government over the carbon tax because they recognize that this “Ottawa knows best”, top-down approach of bigger government and tax-more government thinks that is going to solve the climate crisis. However, it is a tax plan; it is not an environmental plan. First nations know this. Conservatives know this. We believe in listening, working collaboratively, building relationships and getting Ottawa out of the way. We wish the Liberal government understood that too.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member made some recommendations on behalf of his party that seem rather good in theory.

However, the devil is in the details and it is easy, two years before an election, to say that one party would be better than another, particularly when it comes to relations with first nations.

I would like the member to talk about the notion of overlap. How will he be able to determine who is indigenous and who is not? Do the Conservatives have a position on that?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure how to answer that question. I am not sure who is the arbiter of who is indigenous and who is not. I really cannot answer the member's question.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, we had a number of calls for action that were being placed on the Government of Canada. Stephen Harper was the prime minister at the time. We were sitting in the position of third party. We had made a commitment to work on and fulfill those calls for action. The Conservatives had consistently been dragging their feet on it. I wonder if the member could just provide his thoughts on recognizing the importance of the calls for action and why we support this particular piece of legislation. Can he be clear in terms of how he is going to be voting with respect to the amendments?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, if this were not such a serious topic, that would literally be laughable. It is rich to hear the member talk about the urgency of these things, when it has been seven years in the making. The member has been part of a government for seven years, during which we have been talking about this, and now finally there is a race to get it done all of a sudden.

I do not think the government understands the word “urgency”, and I find it rich that its members would suggest that we do not understand it. Seven years is an awfully long time to take to put together the council.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments on his vision forward are very important. He talked about economic reconciliation. I think this is one of the most important things that the current government has ignored. On the carbon tax issue, Ontario first nations are having to sue the government.

The member spoke about the excellent announcement that our leader gave yesterday with respect to the importance of giving back certainty and control to first nations. I was wondering, with his experience as a mayor and with his leadership, how important it is for a government, and a government-in-waiting like the Conservative Party, to listen to first nations and come up with viable things to give economic reconciliation to first nations.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I actually think that what the leader of the Conservative Party announced yesterday is very much like how a municipality would operate. We need to listen, and we need to act and get it done. What I love is that what he has announced is a first nations model. It was presented to him by first nations, and it is an optional model that would simplify the negotiation between resource companies and first nations, and give first nations control, which makes complete sense. It is their idea, and we have committed to implementing it. That is action. That is leadership, and there is an absolute dearth of leadership on the other side.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is genuine in wanting to work toward reconciliation. I do wonder, though, about the Leader of the Opposition. There are indigenous community members in my riding who have said that they do not think there is a possibility of reconciliation with the Leader of the Opposition, when he still has not apologized for meeting with residential school deniers. However, I was heartened to hear some of the things the member spoke about. In particular, I would love to hear a bit more about how it is important to have an arm's-length, permanent organization that could hold the government accountable to these promises.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I guess it comes down to this: It is important not just to listen to first nations and pretend to hear but to actually hear and to deliver results and action. In the Conservative Party, there is a commitment to do that and a demonstration of how we would do it if we do form government. First nations across this country can be reassured that they would have real leadership and real reconciliation. A government led by the leader of the Conservative Party would actually deliver results.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:35 a.m.

Green

Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in my friend from Parry Sound—Muskoka's speech that he could not resist talking about the carbon tax. He of course did not mention the rebates that go with the carbon tax, the extra two cents a litre in the last year.

What he also did not mention is the exorbitant gouging by oil and gas companies of 18¢ a litre. Is he concerned that there are no rebates whatsoever for the gouging by oil and gas companies across the country?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that I truly believe there would be no need for rebate cheques if the government did not take the money in the first place. Frankly, this is classic Liberal government operation; they take more and more and then give a little back. It is the Ottawa-knows-best, top-down approach in which the government decides who wins and who loses. Conservatives believe that Canadians should keep more of their own money and that we should be incentivizing clean energy, not demonizing people for using the only energy they have available to them.

Things like carbon taxes punish people. I see the punishing effects of the carbon tax in my riding when I talk to proud people who have worked hard their whole life to buy their own home, and they own their home. When they go to fill their propane tank in November or December, they have to go to a food bank. They are now a client of the food bank they used to support. We are talking about people who cannot afford to wait four months for a rebate cheque that might cover some of their costs.

Things cost thousands more in this country, and that is a result of inflationary spending and the carbon tax. No amount of rebate, no matter how popular the government will try to make it, is going to solve that problem.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:35 a.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I am quite concerned about some of the Conservative responses when they say they will listen to first nations. When the Conservatives were in government, they were the ones who cut funds to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which was very important for healing between first nations, Métis and Inuit. Even though they were told not to cut the program, they did.

Therefore I will ask the member this: Is this how the Conservative Party describes “listening” when it comes to making to cuts? How do the Conservatives actually listen when it comes first nations, Métis and Inuit and ensuring the well-being of our societies in Canada?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely appreciate the question from my colleague from Nunavut, but I think it is fair to say that this country, including every government in its history from the time it was founded, might not be judged positively on its relationship with first nations.

What we are talking about today is not the history; it is the future and what the Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party are promising. I know the Leader of the Opposition; he is a man of integrity. He believes what he says and he is going to deliver. It is not going to be easy to clean up the mess of the current government, but do not judge the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party today on the history of this country's relationship with first nations. This is a new day; we are moving forward, and it is real reconciliation and true partnership.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:35 a.m.

The Speaker Greg Fergus

We have time for a 25-second question followed by a 25-second answer.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 2022, the Conservatives joined all members of the House in voting in favour of Bill C‑29. Perhaps it is the member for Carleton's appointment as the Leader of the Opposition that has changed the dynamic in the House since then.

It is certainly not the amendment that says that we recognize “since time immemorial, First Nations and Inuit peoples — and, post-contact, the Métis Nation — have thrived on and managed and governed”. That is basically the amendment that was presented.

Now, the Conservative member—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:40 a.m.

The Speaker Greg Fergus

I would ask the member to get right to his question. I will give him three seconds to ask it.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:40 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to the end of what I was saying. I should not have been interrupted.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question. I heard a lot of rambling, so I do not know what to say.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:40 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. This council will monitor progress being made towards reconciliation across all sectors of Canada and support the sustainable implementation of measures to foster long-term reconciliation. I believe these elements are important, particularly in the context of the ruling that has been handed down, which somewhat neglects the long-term aspect.

There is no question that the current government has adopted a reckless strategy. One could argue that it has gotten off to a rocky start. Bill C‑29 still suffers from a serious flaw: The national reconciliation council is woefully lacking in representation. In its current form, three seats are reserved for national organizations, and this Liberal government collaborates with them almost exclusively on indigenous issues. That is not enough. Other voices, notably those of urban and disadvantaged populations, are being left out. Reconciliation cannot move forward if we continue to divide and exclude certain groups of people. The government should not play the role of judge and jury in deciding who is indigenous and who is not. The Supreme Court already ruled on that issue in the 2016 Daniels decision.

This government, which claims to be committed to a reconciliation process, only recognizes persons affiliated with the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami or the Métis National Council as indigenous. By placing indigenous peoples in an order of priority, the Canadian government is openly pursuing a divide and conquer strategy. It is fuelling internal discord by favouring some groups over others. This deplorable approach stands in stark contrast to the spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect that we aspire to achieve as a society. When most murdered and missing women come from urban centres, why is the government relegating crucial entities like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to the back burner?

As we know, members of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples were prevented from participating in the summit. They had to fight for it. I joined them in the same room yesterday so that they could attend via Zoom. Both the summit and the Zoom meeting took place in the same building, the Shaw Centre. People went there to mourn, yet had the doors to an event organized by the federal department shut on them. Where are the voices that should be representing the full scope of Métis and indigenous interests?

Of course, funding is always an important issue. However, when it comes to Bill C‑29 in particular, it is clear that this is about more than just money. It is about representing all women and giving them a voice, especially those who are marginalized and experience violence in urban centres. They deserve not only to be heard, but also to have justice served. The same goes for young people, seniors and two-spirit people. It is ironic to talk about reconciliation while actively excluding certain individuals. This approach reinforces the hierarchy of groups that is not only unfair, but also profoundly destructive to our social fabric. As observers of this situation, it is our duty to denounce these practices and to promote a true spirit of justice and reconciliation. We must remain vigilant and never lose sight of our common goal, which is to create a society in which every individual is respected and included.

As I was saying earlier, there was unanimity on Bill C‑29 when it was passed. Again, there should be consensus on what the Senate brought to it. I am having a hard time figuring out the Conservatives' position. They have become very critical of the government regarding a bill that they supported roughly a year ago. The amendment, which was adopted in the Senate by a vote of 36 to 32, with six abstentions, provides that Bill C‑29, as amended, be amended again in the preamble, at page 1, by replacing lines 2 and 3 with the following: “Whereas, since time immemorial, Indigenous peoples—and, post-contact, the Métis Nation—have thrived on...their Indigenous lands”. The text continues unchanged from its previous version.

Essentially, this amendment modifies the preamble by setting out the timeline of when the Métis nation appeared, which was later than the first nations and Inuit in America. This amendment has no legislative impact in itself. However, it is interesting to see that it is important for certain first nations who seem to want to emphasize the fact that they were here first, as though the Métis are a little less legitimate. That said, it is still a form of inclusion, and the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this amendment.

I want to reiterate the principles behind our support for Bill C‑29. The Bloc Québécois is a strong advocate of a nation-to-nation relationship between Quebec, Ottawa and indigenous nations. Giving indigenous peoples an additional voice in the reconciliation process is entirely consistent with the Bloc's position. The Bloc Québécois works with indigenous nations on the federal level to strengthen and guarantee their inherent rights. The Bloc Québécois is committed to ensuring that the federal government fully implements the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in areas of federal responsibility.

The Bloc Québécois has also come out in support of indigenous nations receiving their due, and we will continue to put pressure on the federal government to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. On June 21, 2021, the Bloc Québécois secured the unanimous passage of a motion to ensure that indigenous communities have all the resources needed to lift the veil on the historical reality of residential schools and to force the churches to open their archives. This bill is a step forward in that regard. The Bloc Québécois also announced that we want to ensure that there will be predictable and sustainable funding for programs to help residential school survivors heal, such as the health support program that was specially designed for that purpose. This bill would establish a council to provide ongoing follow-up for this file. Since the bill proposes the creation of a council that can only make recommendations, there is nothing binding in this bill. Supporting this bill only confirms our position as an ally with the indigenous nations of Quebec and Canada.

As far as matters regarding truth and reconciliation are concerned, I want to note that there are different groups that are interested in those, including back home in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. A committee made up primarily of university researchers and people from civil society was formed to independently document the implementation of these calls to action. The committee specifically focused on the Viens commission, which was held in Quebec because a discussion was needed in order to understand what had happened. There have been several defining events, including what happened to Ms. Echaquan.

That committee is based at the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and I applaud the university's leadership. Not only is it our very own university, but it is one of the first in the world to adopt a decolonial vision of relations with indigenous peoples. I think this very forward-thinking approach is definitely part of the solution in the context of reconciliation.

Yes, I have only recently taken on this responsibility, but I contacted my university to make sure I understood all the nuances and subtleties well enough to play this role. I feel this is also about being a facilitator or intermediary. Our role as elected members of the House of Commons is important, especially when it comes to relations with indigenous peoples. Right now, reconciliation is an issue that should matter to us all, regardless of where we are or where we come from. I commend the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue for its leadership.

I am sure there will be recommendations we will have to take into account. For this bill, we will support the government on this amendment and its inclusion. However, I urge the government to be open about its next steps so we can all be as inclusive as possible within our own territory while respecting the jurisdiction of the governments of Quebec, the provinces and Canada, as well as the indigenous communities themselves, which aspire to greater autonomy within their territory.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:50 a.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree LiberalMinister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for all his work and congratulate him on his new role as the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous relations and northern development.

I know that the member has indigenous communities in his riding.

Can he talk to us about the importance of consulting indigenous peoples to make progress on the path to reconciliation?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister. I am quite moved by the quality of his French. One of the challenges that comes with this new responsibility is that it seems like many things happen in English, so being able to talk about these issues in French makes me happy and is an acknowledgement that is not insignificant.

Obviously, in the context of reconciliation, the issues of the first nations back home are important. I have had many discussions with people close to the minister about this acknowledgement.

Abitibi—Témiscamingue is home to the Anishinabe nation. Some indigenous community leaders make a lot of demands and are very eloquent. They want to protect the soul of their territory. I want to talk about one of the things that the Kebaowek First Nation and its leader, Lance Haymond, have been making a strong claim for. There is something going on there. When we talk about reconciliation, the fundamental issue for me is respecting traditional lands. We can share a territory. We can work together on economic development. However, when it comes to an issue as critical as water quality and the potentially devastating effects that a nuclear waste storage facility in Chalk River could have on their land, then I completely understand why the Kebaowek First Nation and the other indigenous nations that support it are strongly opposed to this project.

It is absolutely fundamental that the government think about whether it will follow the recommendation of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and I would invite the government not to do so.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his new position.

How does the member square off voting in favour of applying a carbon tax on first nations when first nations in Ontario are saying it is anti-reconciliation to be charged a carbon tax?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, the way I see it is that the first nations feel as though the Conservatives are using them for political purposes on the carbon tax issue.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:50 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, earlier I referred to the 94 recommendations, the calls to action, and Bill C-29 addresses a very important call to action. We recognize that the federal government plays a very important lead role, but there are other jurisdictions, provinces and others, that also play a role. We have seen a significant percentage, I believe it is well over 80%, that have been acted upon or are in process, from a federal government perspective.

I would ask the member to provide his thoughts on overall reconciliation and the calls to action.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, the bill specifically sought to address calls to action 53 to 56 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada report.

With this in mind, I would like to focus more closely on call to action 54, which reads as follows:

We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.

As I see it, predictable funding is absolutely essential. This is true not only for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, but for the various diversification funds for indigenous peoples as well. Reconciliation goes beyond the work of this committee. It has to apply coherently to all government action.

I recently met with an economic development group interested in developing indigenous entrepreneurship from the ground up, in the communities, through various models such as co-operatives and registered charities. That is fundamental. The federal government has not guaranteed the group's funding for the coming weeks. To cement good relations, predictability is essential.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Mr. Speaker, the process of reconciliation must move forward in our country, and the federal government must absolutely fulfill its obligation.

In my riding, a number of first nations are talking about the need for concrete measures on the ground. For them, reconciliation means putting an end to the third-world conditions that exist in their communities. Some clear examples include the housing crisis, the lack of infrastructure, particularly in the context of the climate crisis, and the lack of clean drinking water.

Does the member agree that reconciliation with first peoples also means improving the daily living conditions in first nations communities?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I could not have described the consequences of these problems better myself.

Indigenous housing is at the heart of self-determination issues. In Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, there are sometimes two, three or four families living in the same space. I have heard horror stories about families who have to take turns sleeping during the night. They wake up every two, three or four hours to be able to get a bed, or to offer their spot to a brother, sister or neighbour. It is a major social issue. Human dignity is a fundamental aspect that has been pushed aside in the housing file, and the problem is worse among first nations than anywhere else.

It is obviously easy to turn a blind eye, but there are fundamental issues here, and, all too often, the government allocates funding in the various budgets so it can make some nice announcements. However, when it comes time to disburse that money, it comes with strings attached. First nations, however, are unable to meet the conditions because they live in rural or remote areas, and they do not have access to engineers, consulting engineering firms or others whose fees are often higher than they would be elsewhere. The government is therefore not meeting its objectives of providing decent housing for everyone.

We are going to have to think about these issues in a much more holistic and inclusive way.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the council's scope. We are talking about all sectors of Canadian society and all governments in Canada, but we are concerned about the impact that this might have on certain private companies. That is the crux of the issue. Obviously, that applies to corporations under federal jurisdiction, but during our study at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we found that the problem exists in private corporations. This is where we see the disproportionate impact of resource development on indigenous women and girls.

What does my colleague think we can do to avoid that and ensure that it can also—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

The Speaker Greg Fergus

The hon. member for Abitibi-Témiscamingue has time for a short, 15-second response.

The hon. member.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 9th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for being so thorough and taking an interest in intersectional issues affecting women. The example she gave is an excellent one. I think the government will be judged by its actions, and the council will be a great example of that.

The House resumed from February 9 consideration of the motion.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:15 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, before I begin, I would like to thank the member for Kings—Hants for his apology; I accept it, as he is correct that I abstained. Just to clarify, I abstained, along with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, with the full support of the whole NDP caucus, because we felt quite strongly that the Liberal government had been failing on indigenous peoples' issues and that we need to keep fighting hard for indigenous peoples.

Representing Nunavut in the House has been a huge honour. I have learned so much more about first nations and Métis in Canada.

I acknowledge that we are on unceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory, and I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, for doing more land acknowledgements, because what they mean are that, before Ottawa, first nations thrived on these lands for thousands of years before these Parliament buildings were ever built. Acknowledging that we are on unceded territories also means that first nations still exist, despite government and religious efforts to erase them. I am thankful for the strength of first nations that continue to host and welcome us.

I thank the former minister of Crown-indigenous relations, who is now the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, for tabling Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, in June 2022. The introduction of the bill had been anticipated by indigenous peoples for years.

Before speaking to the bill, I am compelled to retell some of the experiences of indigenous peoples, in order to form the context of what would become the national council for reconciliation. Once I complete some of the context, I will speak to Bill C-29 and the amendments from the other place and conclude with remarks about the greater sense of hope I have for Inuit, first nations and Métis.

I recognize the strength and courage of first nations, Métis and Inuit, who have been waiting far too long for the bill's passage. I am guided by indigenous voices in my support for Bill C-29. I honour the survivors of residential schools. I honour their parents, who were robbed of raising their children. I honour the students who died in residential schools.

First nations, Métis and Inuit children who suffered from genocidal policies continue to ensure that Canada reconciles with indigenous peoples. Canada must do its part. Inuit, first nations and Métis experienced child sexual abuse and physical, emotional and spiritual abuses. These traumas continue to show in the form of intergenerational traumas suffered by children and youth today.

Just last week, I had conversations regarding education. Despite having explained what education was used for, genocide, I was expected to be okay with how it was described. I repeat: Western education was used as a genocidal tool against indigenous peoples. It is still used to keep indigenous peoples at the fringes of Canadian society. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls gathered important evidence. I implore all Canadians to read these reports, to incorporate them into school curricula and to ensure that all work in all of Canada is trauma-informed. These are important ways that Canadians can reconcile with indigenous peoples.

The national council for reconciliation was part of the 94 calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to action 53, 54 and 55, specifically, call on the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with aboriginal peoples, to establish the national council for reconciliation.

The Liberal government not only took seven years to table the legislation but also failed to collaborate with indigenous peoples. I recall specifically the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami dropped support for Bill C-29 based on the concerns not addressed by Parliament.

Call to action 53 will have been implemented when there is monitoring, evaluating and reporting on Parliament's responses. Call to action 54 will have been implemented when multi-year funding is sustained for the national council for reconciliation so it has the financial, human and technical resources to function appropriately, and when an endowment of a national reconciliation trust is created. Call to action 55 will have been implemented when progress on closing the gaps in indigenous peoples' health indicators, on eliminating overrepresentation in the justice system, and on other areas is reported.

The important work of the national council for reconciliation would ensure a non-partisan approach to hearing what the issues are and the changes that need to be made. It would fulfill an important role in monitoring government programs and policies. I think all members of the House can agree on the merits of this work and the pressing need for the establishment of the national council.

Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people continue to go missing. Families on and off reserve live in overcrowded, mouldy homes that make us sick. Communities lack access to fresh water and affordable, healthy food. Suicide rates, especially among youth in Nunavut, remain among the highest in the world. The scars of residential schools and other sinister tools of assimilation persist through intergenerational trauma. Too often the government stands by. I have hope that the national council would help pressure the government to end these injustices and many others.

Reconciliation is an important process that demands the highest standards of implementation. When the Liberals tabled the original Bill C-29, it required some work. This is evidenced by the many amendments that were passed at committee stage and now by the Senate.

I am proud of the NPD's amendments that were passed at committee. We ensured the inclusion of important advice to be drawn from survivors, elders and indigenous legal professionals. We fought for language that would ensure that the national council would use a rights-based approach to its work on advancing reconciliation. These amendments would make the national council stronger.

I thank the committee in the other place, which took great care in its deliberations on Bill C-29, some of which I will outline. The inclusion of the word “post-contact” in the preamble differentiates Métis from first nations and Inuit. This acknowledges the fact that first nations and Inuit existed before the arrival of settlers. It is an important and welcome change. Next, adding a definition for “indigenous governing body” keeps Bill C-29 more consistent with other legislation. It is more accurate language than the previous use of “government”, as not all indigenous groups are considered governments.

Senate amendment 3 expands on whom reconciliation may be with. It would not be just between government and indigenous peoples but would also be expanded to between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples. Senate amendment 4 provides greater clarity on what the national council for reconciliation would monitor and report, including education.

Amendment 5 clarifies the importance of the federal government's obligations with respect to the duty to consult. It clearly outlines that the duty to consult, which is owed to first nations, Inuit and Métis, would remain, and that consulting with the national council for reconciliation would not mean that indigenous peoples were consulted. This is an important distinction that would ensure that the national council for reconciliation would remain arm's-length and non-partisan. It reaffirms the section 35 rights of indigenous peoples. New Democrats agree, looking to amplifying the rights of indigenous peoples at every possible opportunity.

Amendment 6 is particularly important as it would enable the national council for reconciliation to seek clarification if the minister fails to comply with obligations set out in the act. Senate amendment 7 changes what the minister would be required to do, from a one-time activity six months after the national council is established to annually. This would be important for keeping the minister accountable always. One of the main flaws of the original bill was that it was overly vague. I am glad that the other place agreed and has added more prescriptive language around the national action plan that helps clarify the national council's research scope and follow-up actions. I am hopeful this would ensure more robust work and reporting.

Senate amendment 8 makes a small but meaningful change. The government's progress towards reconciliation would be reported, and progress by all levels of government and society would be reported separately. This would give the national council more flexibility in its reporting by not lumping the two together.

Overall, as I said, the amendments are welcome additions that would help strengthen Bill C-29. I remind parliamentarians that much work is still required in order for indigenous peoples to acknowledge government efforts in reconciliation. Reconciliation must remain at the core of our work. The passage of Bill C-29 would be another step. So long as indigenous peoples are deprived of their right to self-determination, their right to housing and so much more, reconciliation must continue. I am encouraged by the amendments that were made by the other place and I am encouraged to see the strength they would add to the national council for reconciliation.

To the future board members of the national council for reconciliation, expectations will be high. Inuit, first nations and Métis all across Canada will look to them to keep the governments accountable. It is not easy to challenge the established colonial structures and to hold the government to account on injustices. If anyone will be able to do it, it can be the national council for reconciliation. I urge all parties to support the Senate amendments so the national council for reconciliation can be established.

Finally, as I said in the beginning, I will conclude by sharing the hope I have for the future. I express my gratitude to the Supreme Court of Canada, which has upheld indigenous peoples' right to self-govern over children, youth and families. Indeed, prior to the damages caused by Canada's genocidal policies, Inuit and first nations, and later the Métis, exercised their own laws in areas that include well-being for children, youth and families.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Bill C-92 is an important milestone in Canada. It has acknowledged that indigenous peoples can make our own laws. It has affirmed the importance of implementing UNDRIP. I thank the 42nd Parliament for having tabled Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed sitting on committee with the member for Nunavut thus far. It has been a collaborative and rewarding experience. I am wondering if she can speak a bit further to the importance of this being indigenous-led and to the importance of this being an opportunity for indigenous peoples who have, for so long in our country, through a variety of different mechanisms, been left out of the conversation.

Why is it critical that this important piece of legislation be indigenous led? How does she see that being of benefit to the process?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:30 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I also enjoy sitting in committee with that member. It is critically important for the national council on reconciliation to be indigenous-led because it will need the experience of first nations, Métis and Inuit to guide its work in the accountability that is demanded of the government. If there is anyone who can express the failures of federal governments and provinces in the best way, it is indigenous peoples, because we are the ones who are subject to these policies. We are the ones who are subject to this legislation, and we feel, every day, all the injustices we are experiencing. Because of what we have experienced to date, we are in the best position and have been already saying for years that we are the ones with solutions. Our solutions have been ignored for far too long, and the national council for reconciliation will be an opportunity to ensure that those solutions are being heard.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, this is an extremely important and delicate subject that needs to be handled with great intelligence and diplomacy.

I do not know whether my colleague will be able to answer my question. In 2002, an agreement known as the peace of the braves was reached between the Quebec government and the Cree nation in northern Quebec. That agreement resulted in a better partnership. This is not entirely the same thing, but that was constructive change. The standard of living for those in the Cree nation has risen considerably since then. Of course, it is not perfect, and we are still a long way from perfection. However, it fills me with pride to see that we have managed to accomplish something.

The council will generally monitor progress across Canada. Does she think this kind of initiative is a positive thing? I would like to hear her perspective on this.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:30 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I am not too familiar about the work that was done before. I am aware that it was led by my colleague, the former NDP MP, Romeo Saganash. I very much always appreciated his leadership because he is also a former residential school student and one of the people that I very much look up to, being able to be a leader despite all the atrocities he experienced.

I learned from him that partnerships are so important between indigenous peoples and settler governments. We need to make sure that focusing on those partnerships are for the overall well-being of all. If that is the focus, then that is why there is always going to be better success.

I think the national council for reconciliation is not supervising what Canada is doing; it is making sure that Canada will be accountable. It will be reporting on what Canada is not doing. I think there is a huge difference between those, so I do look forward to Canada's accountability toward indigenous peoples improving. That is why I support Bill C-29 so wholeheartedly.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nunavut blows me away every day in this place.

She mentioned the SCC ruling on Bill C-92. In terms of self-determination, there are concerns I have had lately about child welfare matters impacting our kids. At committee, I pushed an amendment forward to an adoptive care bill, an EI bill, to include kinship and customary care to ensure that the bill was consistent with Bill C-15, meaning that all future legislation has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Winnipeg North member said the other day that they are in the process of trying to throw out those amendments, which, once again, with the SCC ruling, affirm the need for amendments to the current EI bill.

I was wondering what my colleague's thoughts were about the government's continual fight to not allow us to bring our kids home.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I always appreciate my colleague's fierceness in the House. I always learn from her.

It has definitely been very disappointing to sit here since 2021 and to see the Liberal government not respect UNDRIP after passing Bill C-15. A very important aspect of UNDRIP, as she mentioned, is the importance of free, prior and informed consent. If the Liberal government, for example, had used free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, in developing the Métis bill, I think first nations in Ontario would have been a lot more supportive in helping to ensure that the bill is supported by all.

I think that ensuring free, prior and informed consent is something that helps to unite all indigenous peoples. It has been quite unfortunate to see the Liberal government dividing first nations, Métis and Inuit against each other. We need to see the examples set by the Supreme Court of upholding the constitutionality of Bill C-92.

In order for us to do better for first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families, free, prior and informed consent must be at the core of our work. That is how we will make sure that our relationships are respectful, that we are working toward an overall sense of well-being for now and for the future of all of Canada. With Canada being founded on indigenous peoples' lands, if we work together, we can make sure that legislation is meeting the needs of first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Nunavut for providing me with a chance to speak to Bill C-29.

This is a bit of an explanation and background, and a bit of mea culpa, because when Bill C-29 came forward, I recognized it of course as being in response to one of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, specifically found in paragraphs 53, 54 and 55. I compared Bill C-29 at first reading to the language in the TRC report and found it quite lacking. It was quite thin, so I made amendments.

As members know, when one goes into committee and one is not a member of the committee, but one tries to make amendments, it is very difficult. However, I took the language from the TRC call to action that was missing and brought forward an amendment, which got widespread support, to add in all the words that were in paragraphs 53, 54 and 55 of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the Green Party amendments were accepted. However, I then came to find out, from indigenous peoples in my community of Saanich—Gulf Islands, from first nations, that it seemed to them I had participated in approving a bill that had not been properly consulted with indigenous peoples before first reading. Therefore, I am grateful to the Senate for the additional amendments as outlined by my friend, the hon. member for Nunavut. It is very important—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I have to allow the hon. member to answer.

The hon. member has just taken a minute and a half to ask her question. I will allow her to wrap up very quickly.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, please forgive me. I thank the hon. member for Nunavut.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I do remember when you came to our committee, and I thank you for coming to our committee at that time.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Members should address all questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to members.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I do recall the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands coming to the indigenous and northern affairs committee to help make those amendments.

As well, I have learned in this whole process that the colonial process of first reading, second reading, third reading and sending bills to committee, even though it is 150 years old, is still a very foreign process for indigenous peoples. When we call on witnesses to speak to us to share their testimony, doing it for five minutes as a first point and then for another two and a half minutes later is not a form of consultation for indigenous peoples. Therefore, even those processes are flawed, and I think that is why free, prior and informed consent is so important.

The duty to consult, as a standard, is too late. We need to make sure that we hold governments to account and ask them to please exercise free, prior and informed consent for indigenous peoples so that they do feel engaged, and to ensure that legislation that does come to them is something they recognize and is not a foreign instrument that is yet another legislation they have no idea about.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

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 Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Housing; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Carbon Pricing.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and talk about such an important piece of legislation. It is not the first time I have had the opportunity to debate the legislation. We have seen a great deal of effort by the current ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and those who held these positions previously. I believe they have followed the lead of the Prime Minister of Canada.

Even before he was Prime Minister and we sat on the opposition benches, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report was presented with all 94 calls to action, he made it very clear, before any other political party or leader, that we recognized the injustices that have been done and that it was important that we get behind and support all 94 calls to action. From day one, that has been the approach by the leader of the Liberal Party. Back then, we felt it was very important. I stood in my place while I was in the third party to talk about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and said that we needed a public inquiry.

In late 2015, we saw a change in government and there was an affirmation of a commitment that the Prime Minister talked about while he was the leader of the Liberal Party, as the third party. The Prime Minister and the government, with its different ministries, have worked diligently and followed indigenous leadership on a wide spectrum of issues. As a direct result of that, we have seen many calls to action implemented. This is not the first time I have stood in my place to talk about legislation that is rooted in the calls to action that the government has brought forward.

The member for Winnipeg Centre referred to children. I take a lot of pride, in the area I represent, in being a strong advocate. I work with people like Cindy Woodhouse and Sharon Redsky, and many others to deal with an issue that is so very important. I can understand and appreciate its importance to indigenous leaders, and that is one of the reasons we brought in the legislation regarding children.

The member for Winnipeg Centre has to be careful when she makes accusations about me carrying out my responsibilities as a parliamentary secretary with regard to legislative suggestions that are outside of the scope. That is what the member was referring to when she referred to my comments to another member. It is somewhat unfortunate because I have been very diligent on this issue as it is an important issue to my constituents also.

When I think of reconciliation, this is a significant step forward, but it is not the first step, nor will it be the last. When we look at the holistic approach of the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, many of us follow, in a very real and tangible way, what indigenous leaders are telling us, and we are acting where we can. We have seen things, such as the statutory holiday, brought in under this government.

We have seen the opportunity enhanced significantly due to the leadership of indigenous people in regard to children, in the form of legislation. We have seen the reinforcement of things such as language, as part of heritage, brought in.

In fact, if we look at the 94 calls to action, when we look at the total number, we are probably talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of just above 80%, where the federal government has the entire scope or shares responsibility. On a vast majority of those, either significant progress has been made or they are done.

Some might try to paint a dark cloud over the calls to action. I would suggest that those members who paint that dark cloud need to take a look at what other previous governments have done, to show some contrast—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I just want to remind members that there will be an opportunity for questions and comments. I know this is a very important issue, as well as a very passionate issue. I would just ask members to please wait for the appropriate time to make comments or to ask questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I am pointing out the fact that all of the calls to action are important. Not only it is important that we work on the ones that we are solely or jointly responsible for, but that we also do what we can for those that we are not responsible for.

It was not that long ago, for example, when call to action number 58, in regard to the Pope's apology, where the Prime Minister and others—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is offensive that a parliamentary secretary refers to other members having to reflect on themselves, especially when he can park that himself—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

The hon. member is raising points of debate, not points of order.

I do want to remind members to please be cordial in the House. As I indicated a while ago, this is a very sensitive matter, and I would hope that there would be respect within the House, whether individuals are supportive or not supportive of what is being said.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Winnipeg North is referring to me, and I will take the time to respond during questions. I would just like to remind the member of his colonial behaviour. He is telling an indigenous woman that I should be thankful for his government's continued violation of our rights, including not respecting and fighting against EI amendments that would make this legislation align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Again, I want to remind the hon. members that these are not points of order. They are points of debate.

It is a very sensitive matter, but it is also a very important piece of legislation. I know the changes and impacts it would have are great. I just want to remind members that they will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I would also ask, in terms of decorum in the House, that as a white male, maybe he needs to check his privilege at the door. He is lecturing an indigenous woman about how we should feel about bringing our kids home, but maybe because he represents a riding with the highest number of kids in care, and he drops names of women in our community that I also work with, he should not objectify indigenous women in the House of Commons.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Again, I just want to remind members that there are opportunities for questions and comments. These are points of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, the matter we are debating today is a good, positive story. There are indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast that have worked alongside and in many ways led the initiative with the Government of Canada in bringing forward the national council for reconciliation.

I emphasize the importance of the recommendations in all the calls to action because that is one of the issues the council will continue to monitor. Everything I have talked about, the council itself will be looking at. Ultimately, it will hold governments of whatever political stripe to some sense of accountability with respect to indigenous-led reconciliation and issues. I believe that is a positive thing.

I believe this government has been very progressive in moving forward with good intent, often following the leadership of indigenous people, in dealing with the calls to action.

Today, we are looking at call to action number 53, which states:

We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members. Its mandate would include, but not be limited to, the following:

i. Monitor, evaluate, and report annually to Parliament and the people of Canada on the Government of Canada’s post-apology progress on reconciliation to ensure that government accountability for reconciling the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown is maintained in the coming years;

ii. Monitor, evaluate, and report to Parliament and the people of Canada on reconciliation progress across all levels and sectors of Canadian society, including the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action.

iii. Develop and implement a multi-year National Action Plan for Reconciliation, which includes research and policy development, public education programs, and resources;

iv. Promote public dialogue, public/private partnerships, and public initiatives for reconciliation.

Although that is call to action number 53, it also deals with calls to action 54, 55 and 56, if not in entirety in good part. I believe that that has been driven through indigenous leadership, which is why we are at the point we are today.

There were amendments brought forward by the Senate to further enhance Bill C-29. I will quickly highlight them. They are as follows: the use of the term “indigenous governing body”; the purpose of the council; narrowing and defining the scope of the council's functions; clarifying English and French; indigenous governing bodies and duty to consult; bilateral mechanisms; tabling of the annual report; functions of the council; disclosure of information by the Government of Canada; and the preamble to use first nations, Inuit and Métis. There has been a great deal of effort that has gone far beyond any one individual or political party.

As I have said in my comments thus far, this has been led and driven by indigenous community leaders. What we are debating today are the results of that. Not only did the House hear the legislation, review it, debate it, have it go to committee and then ultimately pass it, but also the Senate of Canada has recognized, through its process, how this legislation could be further enhanced. I believe that the Senate has done a wonderful service in working with indigenous people and making sure that the legislation is healthier as a direct result.

There are many members in the chamber, including myself, who would like to see this legislation pass sooner as opposed to later. We recognize that the legislative agenda is fairly packed. There are a lot of things on the government agenda. We have called this legislation and, even though we have had debates on it, hopefully we will get some sense from all members of its general support.

Once all is said and done, there is a lot more we can do. I believe the location of the office has yet to be determined. I would like to see it in the city of Winnipeg. I suggest that because, as a government, we have committed just under $60 million to a permanent home for the national centre. That is something that I believe will be a great resource going forward.

I have had the opportunity to take a look at how all of us can play a role in reconciliation. I was really quite impressed when one of the local schools, just recently, in Seven Oaks School Division, decided that it wanted to fly an indigenous flag alongside the Canadian flag at the front of the school. This was actually driven by children. Children started that campaign and wrote to the school superintendent. The superintendent first came back, as is my understanding, saying that they could maybe just put up a flag stand, attached to the school.

The children of this elementary school said that, no, they would like to have a permanent pole. The superintendent ultimately took it to the school division as an idea that came out of the classroom, out of the school. That flag is flying there today, alongside the Canadian flag.

There was a wonderful feeling in that gymnasium, within the elementary school. They brought back a couple of the students who were in grade 6 when they initiated the letter campaign. Throughout the individuals speaking, I felt that the most touching part was when children going up to the mic talked about reconciliation and why it was important.

For me, education is an important aspect of reconciliation. All people of all backgrounds need to be engaged in the process, like on the statutory holiday when I walk along with indigenous people and others and when I go to the St. John's Park in recognition of indigenous reconciliation. It is more than indigenous people who are there. I think that is an important component to this.

We see that in the makeup of the proposed council itself. There would be the opportunity to recognize, through education, accountability and transparency, how we can continue to move forward, no matter what political entity is in power. I would like to think that we all have a role to play.

I look forward to continuing the debate, whether it is on the national council, children, language, the statutory holiday I just made reference to, or the murdered indigenous women and children. There are still indigenous women and children who are going missing and who are being murdered. These are issues that I would like to think most, if not all, members of the House give serious thought to, and by doing that, they can get behind positive legislation such as what we are debating today.

I hope the legislation passes quickly and passes with unanimous support.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is right. I agree the children are the future, and it warms my heart to hear the children of Aamjiwnaang singing O Canada at the Remembrance Day ceremonies in Sarnia—Lambton.

However, I think we need more. We need more action. There has been very slow progress on the 92 truth and reconciliation recommendations, and slow progress on the murdered and missing aboriginal women recommendations. How would this council, outside of the government, do anything to press the government to accelerate its efforts in reconciliation?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, one of the powers within the council would be to get a proper recording from departments and to provide reports. There would be, I believe, indigenous-led accountability to the different levels of government. As I indicated, this would not just be Ottawa.

There are things that happen within our provinces, our municipalities, and communities of all sizes and aspects. We all need to play a role in this, and I believe the council would be in a wonderful position to ensure there would be accountability at all levels. I honestly believe, at the end of the day, that is going to be the greatest value in this particular call for action.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, reconciliation is essential. When I read the bill, I see the mission, but there is something that is still not clear. The most racist legislation in Canada is the Indian Act.

Can my colleague tell me if this bill will allow the council to suggest changes to the most racist legislation in Canada, or even abolish it?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I was first elected back in 1988, and I can tell members that, even as far back as April of 1988, people were talking about the Indian Act and it being racially imposed legislation. I do not fully understand the rationale for it even existing today. I would like to think that the council would, in fact, play some role in the future in dealing with the Indian Act.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North tried to boast about how much progress his government has made, especially when talking about the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. By the way, the Yellowhead Institute just reported that the government completed zero calls to action in 2023.

I will go back to the amendment I proposed in committee, which would make sure the legislation conforms with Bill C-15. It reads:

For greater certainty, in this Part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a claimant for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a claimant, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the claimant primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.

It would mean we could keep our kids in our homes. The core of reconciliation, the reason we have it in the first place, is that they kidnapped our kids and brought them into residential schools. There are more kids in care now than at the height of residential schools.

If this member is so dedicated to reconciliation, I am wondering why he will not bring our kids home and support this amendment.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I left the Manitoba legislature in 2010. A child advocate at that time said that Manitoba was in a child care crisis. Well over 10,000 children were in foster homes or being taken away from biological parents. I will remind the member that that was an NDP government. At the end of the day, not much has changed in the province of Manitoba.

It is one of the reasons we needed the legislation as a part of the call to action. That is why we brought forward the legislation, to better enable the communities, the indigenous leaders, to be able to take more control. It is because provinces and some governments, such as the provincial government when I was in opposition, did not do anything to address the issue. They had the opportunity—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I want to remind members they have an opportunity to ask questions, and they should wait for the answer. I know it may not be the answer they are looking for, but if they wish to add to their question, they should wait until it is time for questions and comments again.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has, in congratulating his party and his government for bringing in UNDRIP, invited the inescapable question of how the government ignored and violated UNDRIP by giving the Crown corporation we own, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, permission to drill right through and dredge right through the most sacred territory of the Stk’emlúpsemc te Secwépemc Nation, right through the area called the “Pipsell”, which Trans Mountain promised it would never touch, until it changed its mind.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, we have to bring it back to the focus of the national council, and its primary responsibility, in good part, would be dealing with the calls to action. The reason I raise the calls to action is that there are 94 of them, and out of those 94, a majority of them are the sole or joint responsibility for the federal government. It is not only the federal government, but also other levels of government and other stakeholders, if I can put it that way, that need to be held to account.

The federal government continues to work. We can still do more. I am not saying that as government we have done everything we can. We continue to work and will continue to work on this critical file. The national council would ultimately complement and ensure a high sense of accountability and transparency well into the future because, in good part, its job would be to ensure that the calls to action are not only reported on but ultimately implemented. That is a good thing, and we need to remain focused on that.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on this very important bill. In my colleague's speech, he said how important it is for all people to be engaged. I agree with him, so my question is why the Liberals are excluding the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

This group was founded in 1971. It is the largest group representing aboriginal peoples in Canada who live off reserve, and as of 2011, over 70% of aboriginal people lived off reserve. If we really believe all people need to be engaged, why would they not allow such a large group to be participating in this? Will that affect the legitimacy? Could he please explain why this extremely large groups was left out?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, in many different ways over the last while now, a considerable amount of work and consultation has been done, and not only by the Government of Canada. Indigenous communities that, in good part, led the way also did a considerable amount of consultation, from what I understand. If the member has something very specific, as he just said, I would suggest that he bring it up with the current minister, to see if anything can be done on it.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, in the parliamentary secretary's speech he was talking about the specific location of the national council for reconciliation. He suggested Winnipeg. I wonder if he can expand on why he thinks that Winnipeg would be the best choice for that.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I suggested that because of the University of Manitoba and the efforts it has put into working with the federal government and indigenous leadership. It is now going to be investing tens of millions of dollars, and it is going to be on site, dealing with truth and reconciliation. It is not for me to make that decision, but I am hoping it lands in Winnipeg.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Madam Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise and speak to Bill C-29.

This flawed bill was the government's attempt, over nine years in office, to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 through 56. Indeed, since 2015, the Liberal government, for all its rhetoric on reconciliation, continues to ignore indigenous voices. It breaks promises and perpetuates the archaic, broken and paternalistic “Ottawa knows best” approach to indigenous issues.

We do not have to look very far to see this.

The Chiefs of Ontario, which represents more than 130 first nations in the province, filed for a judicial review because this Liberal coalition government refuses to listen to indigenous communities and axe the carbon tax. The first nations argue that the imposition of the price on carbon is leaving their communities worse off than others in Canada and breaching the principles of true reconciliation.

Abram Benedict, the Grand Chief for the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne said, “People feel that their rights are being violated.” The chiefs want the federal government to redevelop the policy with their communities by either exempting first nations people from the price on carbon or allowing them to recoup all the costs associated with the system.

Many first nations members cannot benefit from the rebates delivered under the pricing mechanism, because the payments are linked to income taxes, which are not collected from individuals working on reserves. The leadership also argues that the price on carbon places a burden on their constitutionally protected rights to hunt, harvest or fish on their traditional territory because of the added fuel costs for all-terrain vehicles, trucks, boats and snowmobiles.

Furthermore, with respect to the long-anticipated national loan guarantee program, the Liberal government has remained silent on the details. Indigenous leaders are very concerned that oil and gas will not be included, sidelining over $300 billion in projects over the next decade and $40 billion in LNG projects ready to go next year. Indigenous leaders are asking for details, but this government refuses to engage with them and give them the details they actually need to plan.

This is not reconciliation. This is alienation.

This leads me to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act. Speaking previously, I made it clear that it was important to use a consensus-building approach to improve this piece of legislation. Bill C-29 deserved, in its formation, a responsible look at areas where it needed improvement.

At second reading I pointed out that Bill C-29's foundation was cracked and would need some care and attention at committee if the government hopes to provide a workable council that is respected by all leaders, all communities and all organizations across Canada. I wanted to make sure that all five indigenous national organizations were represented, not just the three that were in the original bill, notably the Native Women's Association of Canada, NWAC, and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, both of which were ignored.

My colleague, the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, added that he wanted the following addressed: The transparency and independence in the selection process of the board of directors; words that were purposely vague to avoid accountability; the lack of any measurable outcomes; the fact that it took over four years to bring the bill to the House in the first place; and, of course, lastly, that the Prime Minister should be the one responding to the council's annual report, as was the direction in the call to action 56.

In 2015 the Prime Minister claimed that building a good relationship with indigenous peoples would be the government's top priority. I am not sure what the word “priority” means to the Liberal Prime Minister, but to me it does not mean tabling any indigenous-related legislation at the last possible minute. Bill C-38 was introduced December 14, 2022, the last sitting day of a House sitting session. Bill C-53 was introduced on June 21, 2023, the last day of a House sitting session. Bill C-29, of course, was introduced June 22, 2022, which was the last day of a session. I do not know about my colleagues, but the trend certainly does not scream “priority” to me. Indigenous people deserve more than a last-minute Liberal effort.

Need I say that, while the Prime Minister would love to take credit for being the first to advance reconciliation, it was actually the previous Conservative government that finally issued a formal apology on behalf of Canada to all indigenous people across the country? Actions speak louder than words, which is why I remind the House that 17 of the 19 amendments Conservatives put forward were passed at committee. It is the job of the official opposition to improve legislation where possible and to make it representative of all voices, and that is exactly what members on this side of the House did. Unfortunately, there was one amendment we proposed that was disproportionately voted down by the other parties, and that is what I would like to discuss for a few minutes.

One of the most glaring issues with Bill C-29 is the lack of representation on the national council for reconciliation. The bill sets aside three seats for the AFN, ITK and the MNC, three national organizations that the Liberal government deals with almost exclusively when it comes to indigenous issues across the country. It chose to ignore the other two major organizations, NWAC and CAP.

At committee, Conservatives got a motion passed to have both organizations recognized in the same manner as the AFN, ITK and the MNC, yet when the bill was reported back to the House, the Liberal-NDP coalition chose to deliberately vote against the will of its members on committee and remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from the bill. The Liberal-NDP coalition chose to ignore the voices of large swaths of urban and poor people. CAP represents over 800,000 off-reserve indigenous voices, yet it has no voice when it comes to reconciliation. It has been alienated by the government and its supporters.

The Conservative senators in the other place tried hard to rectify this, but again the Prime Minister made sure his Liberal senators defeated that amendment. I often hear in meetings with indigenous leaders about the importance of economic reconciliation, not just to address their own issues with their own resources but also to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour to a people who have had it stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act.

Conservatives also 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 a whole list of organizations that are all doing great work in this sphere, finding a well-established organization that has done historic work in creating economic opportunity for indigenous people would not have been a barrier. 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 being a part of this board. To ignore these voices discredits the very process of reconciliation.

As the shadow minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, I hear regularly from indigenous groups and leaders across the country how important economic development and prosperity are to reconciliation. Having members with fiscal expertise on a commission directly focused on advancing reconciliation seems like a key component to ensuring an economic lens is at the forefront of their work.

Instead, obstruction comes from the Liberal-NDP coalition, which looks down upon Conservatives who encourage economic reconciliation. We need to establish an economic national dialogue with indigenous leadership and organizations to remove the bureaucratic barriers to economic prosperity that exist at Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, with a goal of phasing out these government bureaucracies altogether.

Conservatives are moving in this direction, with the recent announcement of the grassroots, indigenous-led first nations resource charge. Common-sense Conservatives are ready to dismantle the “Ottawa knows best” archaic and paternalistic way of doing things. For hundreds of years, first nations have suffered under a broken colonial system that takes power away from their communities and places it in the hands of politicians in Ottawa.

The Indian Act hands over all reserve lands and money to the federal government. This means that first nations must go to Ottawa to ask for the tax revenues collected from resource projects on their lands. This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists, not first nations. The direct results of this “Ottawa knows best” approach have been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, and unsafe drinking water.

The first nations resource charge is a signal to indigenous peoples that the Conservatives recognize the need to correct the fiscal imbalance between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. This would ensure that they receive stable, annual fiscal benefits and to advance reconciliation by promoting first nations self-determination and economic development.

We tried to do this with Bill C-29 as well, yet the Liberals were not interested in hearing the voices of off-reserve indigenous peoples or even considering economic reconciliation on a national committee tasked with reconciliation.

Conservatives continue to observe Liberal and NDP MPs aggressively challenging indigenous leaders who appear as witnesses at the indigenous and northern affairs committee, advocating for economic reconciliation. Unfortunately, I find myself asking why. It seems there is an aversion to even having a discussion on economic reconciliation. This tells me that something does not add up.

What is it about indigenous peoples being the creators of their own destiny that Liberal MPs dislike? What is it about empowering the creation of healthy, strong and vibrant communities through prosperity that they do not like? What is it about using own-source revenue from true partnerships to solve long-standing social issues that they dislike? What is it about leaving behind the destructive grip of poverty to offer hope and opportunity to future generations that they dislike? Why will the Liberal government not listen to what indigenous people are trying to tell them? Sadly, the answer is that they are more concerned with political power and control.

By imposing their own views, rather than listening to indigenous voices, they create the same environment that indigenous peoples have lived under for far too long in this country. One group's world views and political opinions are forced upon another group.

This past week, on many different occasions, I heard the Minister of Indigenous Services claim that her department is focused on co-development with first nations. The Prime Minister even stood in this House and used the term “co-develop” as well.

This sounds like another Liberal buzzword used to create the illusion of equal partnership between indigenous leaders and Canada. In fact, in response to the use of the term, first nations leaders have pushed back and said that they are not sure who the Liberal government is co-developing with, because it is sure not them.

We heard from the national chief, Chief Elmer St. Pierre, of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples that “Reconciliation must start with inclusion”. He added, “Despite the existence of five National Indigenous Organizations, the Liberal Government seems to be engaging in partisan politics by excluding CAP and the voices of urban Indigenous peoples.”

“The government's attempt to divide and conquer by selectively recognizing certain indigenous groups is deeply concerning,” stated Kim Beaudin, CAP national vice-chief. He went on: “Reconciliation cannot be confined to reserves alone, as the majority of Indigenous peoples now reside in urban and rural areas, demanding their voices to be heard.”

What an embarrassing indictment of the Liberal government this is. To make matters worse, one of the three original council members, the ITK, an organization that represents Inuit peoples, has withdrawn its support of Bill C-29. The ITK's president, Natan Obed, fears that the reconciliation body created by the bill could undermine ongoing Inuit work to build a direct relationship with the federal government and advance Inuit rights and interests. He says that the bill, as it stands, also does little to make the federal government accountable for fulfilling its obligations on reconciliation.

On this issue of “co-development”, which the Liberals insist is how they do business, President Obed said: “It has been debatable on the Inuit side on whether or not we would describe how we've interacted with the federal government as co-developed.... These terms are largely subjective and we wanted to make them more clear.”

Chief St. Pierre was much less forgiving, saying, “This extraordinary move by the Liberals is a slap in the face to thousands of survivors who live off-reserve.... For seven years now, the Liberals have trumpeted the importance of reconciliation, but this exclusion reveals their true colours.”

It is time to fundamentally change the approach. Much of my work on this file was shared by my colleague, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. In fact, it was that member who shepherded Bill C-29 through the House, and I wanted to take a moment to thank him for his work on this file.

Out of respect for his work, I would like to share a story from his riding, which really highlights the changes that are already happening on the ground in northern Saskatchewan. Having spent time with Pelican Lake First Nation's Chief Peter Bill, RCMP and two of Pelican Lake's own community safety officers, the member asked how the newly established community safety officer program was going. Chief Bill replied that the community now has six full-time employees and its own fully equipped vehicles, and it is in the process of training more officers. The RCMP also explained how helpful the program had been in the overall safety of the community.

How did Pelican Lake First Nation pay for this community service officer program? In fact, it was their own-source revenue, which was generated from their forestry business. They invested the profits to assist the overall health of the community, instead of waiting around for years while the government and the bureaucrats plan; meet; make frameworks, charts and graphs; do benefit assessments and feasibility studies; or use the signing of MOUs for photo ops.

Later that day, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River was at Flying Dust First Nation to participate in a walk of solidarity with residential school survivors. On that walk, he saw the hockey rink that was built a few years ago and, beside it, the newly built 6,000-square-foot sporting goods store and facility called Snipe and Celly. If one looks in the other direction, one finds the new Petro-Canada gas station located right on the highway. For the member, it was a stark reminder of what the MLTC Cree vice-chief, Richard Derocher, had mentioned to him earlier that day, when he spoke positively on reconciliation. He shared that his wish was that, one day, when people were either visiting or driving through the area, they would not be able to recognize when they were leaving Flying Dust First Nation and entering Meadow Lake.

Generating prosperity through economic development works. It is a shame that this was not recognized by the government. The existing model of federal public servants determining who is and who is not ready for self-governance needs to change. Reconciliation must be centred on the future of indigenous peoples, not what is in the best interest of the Liberal government. By modernizing our approach to indigenous partnerships, we will modernize Canada and usher in a new age of economic prosperity and equality of opportunity.

Conservatives promote and believe in economic reconciliation. It is the solution to eradicating poverty and, with it, the social ills that poverty creates. With control put back in their hands, indigenous peoples can begin to manage prosperity instead of poverty and take concrete steps toward healing through self-determination.

Conservatives support off-reserve and non-status indigenous peoples. Unlike the Liberals and the NDP, we have demonstrated this publicly with our support of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples' inclusion on the national council for reconciliation. The Liberals and their NDP coalition partners effectively silenced the voices of the 800,000 off-reserve and non-status indigenous peoples when they voted against amendments that would have included CAP on the council. Let the record show that it was the Liberal, NDP and Bloc members who stood against the addition of economic reconciliation to the national council, while Conservatives recognized the importance of consultation and of hearing from as many diverse indigenous voices as possible.

To conclude, I am proud of the work our Conservative team did in making Bill C-29 a better version than what originally came to the House.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:35 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to remind the member that the bill speaks to requiring the national council for reconciliation to have a minimum of nine members and a maximum of 13. Just because it names four organizations does not mean it excludes others from becoming board members.

Does the member agree that there is nothing in this legislation stating that CAP shall not be a member of the national council for reconciliation?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's work on committee. She is correct: There is nothing really saying that CAP cannot be on this board. The point is that there were spaces set aside for ITK, MNC, the AFN and the Native Women's Association of Canada, NWAC, for guaranteed spots on this panel. The point that we are trying to make is that, with respect to first nations, for sure, the vast majority live off reserve. CAP is a group that represents not only off-reserve indigenous peoples but also Métis and other indigenous peoples. Therefore, we have a governing body that represents so many voices that may or may not be guaranteed a seat on that committee. With respect to the structure, and this is the overarching body, it is important to have those voices on this board. Our point was that they should be included, not excluded.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague across the way. I have enjoyed my time in committee with him. I am a little disappointed that his speech was verbatim from what appears to be a Conservative staffer, because there were a few things written in there that he may want to reflect on. If I understood correctly, there was reference to aggressive questioning at committee by members on the Liberal and New Democrat side. In his speech, the member referred to obstruction or interference with economic reconciliation; phrasing it as a question, he asked what they do not like about allowing indigenous people to be creators of their own destiny.

I note that, on that committee, which I am proud to sit on, the member for Nunavut, the member for Northwest Territories and the member for Sydney—Victoria are all indigenous. I just want the member to clarify: Is he suggesting that the three indigenous members of the committee are interfering with the ability of their people to create their own destiny?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, the point was that the government itself is creating policies that prohibit or severely stunt the growth of the oil and gas sector and even the mining industry and lumber, our natural resources. A lot of these are on first nations land and have the ability to create wealth in those communities, with jobs and opportunity. Bills such as Bill C-69 and others are hampering that growth. The government is using policies behind the scenes to stop investors from investing in the first place and creating jobs, opportunity and wealth there. This is creating the continued dependence on the government for handouts, in the form of program funding, that I am talking about.

When they do have a project, they have the resources leaving the community; the community then has to turn around and go to Ottawa to ask for them back. We think that system is broken, and the status quo is not working. We think there is actually a better way, which is listening to first nations themselves and these leaders in the community, such as the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Financial Management Board and many others. They are doing amazing work, and they want to change how the status quo operates. That is what we support.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.

Bloc

René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague's passionate speech here, as well as that of my colleague across the way, and I have a question.

Where will the funding for this national council for reconciliation come from? There were some figures provided in 2019, but now we are talking about adding investigators, monitoring and recommending measures. Where will this budget come from? The bill does not mention that.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, we are not actually sure. The member is right; the bill does not mention that. That is one of the many questions we had in committee with respect to this piece of legislation. We tried our best to bring it up. As I said, there were lots of voices in committee that talked about putting a reserved seat for an organization that focused on economic reconciliation for indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, that did not go through, but I still think the point is the same. It is important to have that lens when we are talking about reconciliation. Otherwise, we still have this broken system that is failing indigenous people, and it is time to change.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech and his excellent work. I want to ask him a question about economic reconciliation as it relates to procurement. One of the ways we advance economic reconciliation is that we seek to ensure that government procurement is available to indigenous-owned businesses as well as to businesses owned by other historically disadvantaged communities, and that there are not aspects of the procurement system that are excluding people who have been historically disadvantaged.

One of the problems we have seen as we have unravelled the Auditor General's arrive scam report is that there are systems built into government procurement that are designed to advantage incumbent players; that is, someone has to have had a certain number of contracts with the Government of Canada already. This means that if someone has not dealt with the government before, has started a new business or has had other governments as clients but has have never sold products to the federal government before, they are systematically disadvantaged.

In the past, I have heard from stakeholders asking, for example, why we are not meeting our targets in terms of indigenous-owned businesses' getting government procurement. We then find out, in the context of the procurement ombudsman's report, that one of the reasons is probably that there is a systematic advantage, as a result of the way the system is designed, that steers toward incumbent players and insiders, even if other people have innovative ideas.

I would be curious to have the member's thoughts on how we can advance economic reconciliation by addressing some of the issues in the arrive scam scandal, and more broadly, on what prevents new entrants from participating in government procurement.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Alberta has a great question and a great point. We, as a party, believe in reducing and eliminating these barriers to entry and to competition, but the people who believe in big government quite enjoy these barriers. There are big companies, and the government department has to deal with only a few of them. This is why economic reconciliation is so important.

When we are creating jobs, opportunity and wealth, other businesses will spark up. As long as we create the environment for them to do so and create the entry to the marketplace by reducing barriers, there will be opportunity and jobs sparking up in oil and gas, lumber, and mining. There are many opportunities here in Canada. We just have handcuffed ourselves to the point where for businesses, unless they are big players, as my friend mentioned, it is very difficult to get into the field. Abundance equals peace; let us have more jobs, opportunity and wealth for all.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his dedication to advancing reconciliation in all ways as he moves forward.

Could he talk more about the innate nature of economic reconciliation and what it means for indigenous people he discusses with?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for her leadership on this very important file. It has been great serving with her on the committee the last few weeks, and I appreciate her views.

She points out something really important. Even in my speech I mentioned the fact that indigenous peoples are then able, with the wealth and the revenue stream, to create their own paths and not have to ask Ottawa for permission to do so. That is the way it should be.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:45 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise today to talk about Bill C-29. I want to let the House know that the NDP wants the bill to pass. I am always very honoured to work with my good colleague, the member for Nunavut. She has put a lot of effort in to amend the legislation to make it much stronger.

If we want to reconcile in this country, we must focus on children and families. I say that because I want to go back to why we have to have these discussions in the House to begin with; it is for the country to try to reconcile, as was affirmed in the Haida Nation case, the sovereignty of indigenous people with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown. I share that because it was an assumed sovereignty that began a violent genocide of indigenous people in Canada, which began with the dispossession of lands and led to the dispossession and kidnapping of our children and taking them off to resident schools, where they experienced all kinds of abuses.

It is important to note that, as we sit here in the House debating the bill before us, there are more kids now in the child welfare system than there were at the height of residential schools. We will not reconcile in this country until all governments make a concerted effort to bring our kids home. However, I worked on the legislation in committee making amendments, and that does not happen in real time, even though in the last session the Liberal government passed Bill C-15.

I would like to read article 5 of Bill C-15, under the title “Consistency”. It says, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” I share that because at every turn on matters impacting children, the Liberal government continues to not support the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people to make decisions about our own children. I will give an example: The national child care strategy, until the NDP amendment, did not support the inclusion of honouring the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples to make decisions on matters impacting our children.

Why is this significant? First, it is because the government is now obliged to ensure that all legislation is compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Second, it is because one of the most serious violations that has reverberated in our communities and has had lasting impacts is when they robbed us of our children and shipped them off to residential schools. I have said in speeches before that, as a mother, I cannot even imagine the pain that reverberated in our communities when those communities fell silent each September when they stole our children, many of whom never returned home.

I share that because every day, even now, there is a growing movement of residential school denialism, where survivors and descendants have to confirm the fact that genocide did occur in residential schools and that many of our children did not in fact return home but are buried around schools around the country. What school needs a graveyard? What school is built with a graveyard attached?

There was nothing about the residential schools that was about education. I say that because although the government talks a good game of reconciliation, and although it passed Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, it is one thing to pass a bill but another thing to change colonial behaviour, a tradition of colonial violence in this place. That includes something I had to experience today, having the member for Winnipeg North lecture me about the dark cloud I place on this place when I talk about the ongoing genocide of indigenous women and girls, and when I complain about the fact that the government has not moved fast enough around the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will continue to listen to what she is saying, but I did not attribute anything to the specific member.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has risen on a point of order that is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. If he thinks that the member is mistaken in some substantive point she made in her speech, the appropriate time to raise that would be during questions and comments. We should not be using points of order to make points of argument.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:50 p.m.

The Speaker Greg Fergus

That is noted.

I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre's very poignant speech, but the hon. member for Windsor West is rising on a point of order.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:50 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was here at that time, and one could feel it.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:50 p.m.

The Speaker Greg Fergus

That is not a point of order.

I would like the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre to please continue.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 5:50 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing out that the member did mention Winnipeg Centre. I assumed the comments were made toward me when he said my riding, but let us leave that.

Going back to what I was saying, the fact that he felt a need to defend himself in the middle of my speech is another example of what I had requested in my point of order, which was for him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to leave his white male privilege at the door and not to tell indigenous women what to talk about when they are talking about indigenous kids.

We are here today because of the violent kidnapping of our kids, which has had lasting impacts on our families. It goes back to the dark cloud our parents and families felt when they robbed our kids, leaving our communities silent. Can members imagine being in a community without laughter and without play? I cannot imagine that and not to have the privilege of being able to raise my son. For no reason other than who I am and where I was born, the government is able to steal my child and to have that legislated. That is why these amendments are so critical to legislation if we are going to reconcile and to honour this new bill, Bill C-29. That is why amending legislation so it is compatible, especially on matters impacting our children, is so critical. I would argue, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the government violating its own law and its own constitution by not ensuring legislation is compatible with Bill C-15, as we saw with the child care legislation in the last session that we managed to get through committee.

Now the government is going against amendments to make the legislation compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is trying to overturn it in the House. If the Liberal government is not willing to give our kids back when we have more kids in child welfare than we did at the height of residential schools and when we know that 90% of kids in care are indigenous and that all this new adoptive care legislation will probably not apply to 90% of parents, which once again will leave the financial burden on families to care for their children, then the government is not ready to reconcile.

The government took over 13 non-compliance orders in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling to let them know that it was intentionally racially discriminating against indigenous and first nations kids on reserve on matters impacting child welfare. It finally came up with a settlement that was $17 billion less than what was ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling. Then, I have to listen to the government talk all the time about how it wants reconciliation, when we constantly have to fight for the fact that our kids deserve the same as other kids in the country, and I have to go to committee and fight for the EI legislation.

I would like to, once again, read to the House the amendment that would allow us to uphold Canadian law and that was passed at committee, even though the Liberal members abstained from the vote and outright voted against it during the national child care legislation. They are now trying to overturn it in the House because it was passed at committee.

I will read the amendment, which states:

For greater certainty, in this Part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a claimant for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a claimant, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the claimant primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.

I will refer to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the NDP's attempt to make this legislation compatible. It says:

Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Article 20

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.

That would include equal benefits under EI.

It goes on to state:

Article 21

1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.

2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

Once again, like The Twilight Zone, I am here fighting to bring our kids home. I am here having to plead with the government as to whether it is really ready to reconcile or not. I have been told there is a bill, Bill C-54, that the government will put forward and that it wants to consult with indigenous people. My reply is for the government to find me one indigenous person who would argue against the right for them to raise their children in their own traditions and customs. The kinds of things we have to consult on, basic human rights, being used as a stalling mechanism is another form of institutional racism. I will provide a couple of examples.

How do indigenous people feel about clean drinking water? Let us consult on that for four years. How do indigenous people feel about toilets and how fire trucks are going to get to their communities so their houses do not burn down? The government asks them to say how they feel about that. Find me one indigenous person who feels they need to consult about human rights and life and death matters at every turn. I can provide a whole list. I can give an encyclopedia of them, in fact. I can point out the Indian Act that the government developed without the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

I can name a million resource extraction projects where militarized police are smashing in the doors of indigenous women, being called out by the United Nations where there was no consultation, yet when we ask to bring our kids home, when we say we want to uphold Canadian law so this new legislation is aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, something the government is obliged to do, what does it say? It thanks me for my work and says it needs to consult on it.

What do I call that? I call it systemic racism. What do I call child welfare? I call it a pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. What do I call that? A pipeline to the justice system. What do I call the sixties scoop? I call it a loss of identity, the disruption of our families that we will never get back and the ongoing genocide of our families.

This is shameful, and I am going to call out this shame unapologetically, because it is time for all governments, without excuse, to bring our kids home, period. It is time for our kids and our families to get the same resources that are afforded to other families in this country.

Do you know what I think the problem is, Mr. Speaker? I am going to be fully transparent here. It is money. Because 90% of kids in care are indigenous, the government is going to fight it every step of the way, like it did the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Do you know what that tells me? It tells me that we are less than, still, in this country. Our kids are not as valuable. Our women and our 2SLGBTQIA+ people will continue to go missing and be murdered. Why? It is because the government has completed zero calls for justice in 2023.

They finished 13 altogether out of the 81 that they are responsible for as the federal government, yet I had to hear a speech about the dark cloud that I place over their heads. I will tell you something. I will tell you a dark cloud.

I have a friend whose loved one was just murdered in an incident involving grotesque police brutality. That is a dark cloud. That is called systemic racism.

If that is dark, if people say, “Oh, you want your clip, Leah. There, you got your clip, I heard,” and if that is what they think it is about, I do not care. We are going to bring our kids home, and I am going to fight this government or any other government that comes in its place to give us the resources we need to bring our kids home.

I will not be questioned by a member whose riding has the highest number of kids in care in the whole country, justifying and celebrating how well his government is doing, when I am now, once again, fighting his government so that our families do not have to live in poverty. That is disgusting, and it is racist.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:05 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a bit about the Indian Act. That word itself is a violent, racist word that harkens back to an extremely violent colonial history. The previous name was even more repugnant, if such a thing is possible. The current Indian Act is an amendment to an old law whose name I would not even dare utter.

What does my colleague think about the fact that today, in 2024, a supposedly modern and contemporary country that claims to be open, multicultural and progressive can still have a law called the Indian Act?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:05 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, we passed legislation in the last Parliament. In fact, I worked with the current Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, amending it, putting this bill forward. We have something, in fact. It is not a lack of legislation. It is now a fact of pushing for a change of colonial behaviour.

We have the TRC's 94 calls to action. We have the 231 calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which provide a framework and a path forward.

We have legislation, Bill C-15, to make sure any legislation going forward respects the human rights of indigenous peoples, because we know, globally, that we needed a declaration because there has been a universal, global violation of the human rights of indigenous peoples throughout the globe.

I am just heeding the government's call to act on the very legislation that it supported.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask this member a specific question about anti-indigenous violence and reconciliation. One of the sad, continuing examples of anti-indigenous violence that we have seen in this country has been a series of attacks on churches in indigenous communities. Many churches in indigenous communities, sacred spaces for indigenous Christians, steeped in personal and familial traditions and sometimes containing important community records, have been vandalized or burned down. These acts of arson are not just damaging to property; they are also very dangerous to human life. I have noticed that we have not heard anything from the NDP on these incidents.

Will the hon. member join me in condemning these attacks on churches that we have seen in indigenous communities?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:05 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of concerned with this question, because there seems to be a presumption of who has done it. I am not sure who is burning the churches and why the member is relating it to this speech, but is he insinuating that it is indigenous people? Does he have proof of that? If he does not, I would say that is a stereotype. I would also call that racist. I would first ask the member if he had proof, and then I would be willing to discuss it, because without knowing what the answer is, it is really hard for me to answer what the root of that issue is.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:05 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention in today's debate and for making it relevant in so many ways, not only to the history but to the future.

My question to the member is about the future. She mentioned residential schools, in particular, and finding gravesites. The reality is that there is so much more work to do, and I would like to know from her a recommendation of what we can do to kind of get past that or at least acknowledge it. A school should not have a record of youth being buried at it.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:05 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is not about getting past it. History is important, but I would say that this history continues with the child welfare system, and it is about justice. We cannot get past things when things are still in our way that impact our ability to receive justice. For example, the fact is that we still have a crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. Where is the justice?

We need to implement those 81 calls to action specifically, and I would call for all of them, but specifically the 81 still tasked to the federal government to complete. We need to not just read and talk about reconciliation, but implement and lift up the 92 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We need to ensure that all legislation is compatible with Bill C-15, especially on matters impacting our kids. Ninety per cent of kids in care are indigenous. Do members know why? It is because of the “inter-generational impact of colonization”, most specifically residential schools.

This government has to allow this amendment to go through. It has to if it is serious about reconciliation.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree LiberalMinister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the conversation about missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. I know that, right now, it is an area particularly being highlighted. There is work that we have been doing for the last several years in order to get both the calls for justice as well as the implementation. However, the member mentioned 81 items that are still outstanding from a federal perspective. I wonder if she could talk about how the Red Dress Alert, for example, is part of that, because it is one of the things that she had advocated for for many years.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with the minister very much on the Red Dress Alert. I have to say that I have appreciated, since he has been appointed, that in very short order he has actually pushed things forward. That is reconciliation to me. That is justice.

The Red Dress Alert will save lives. However, it needs to be implemented. We have had a number of consultations to date, and we need to get it implemented in short order. We know that it is a crisis. Through the consultations, we found that there is wide support in figuring out what it is going to look like, but the sooner we get it in place, the sooner we will save lives.

Again, we should never have to use a Red Dress Alert. We need to deal with the root causes so that we do not even have to use the system. However, right now, we are in a crisis, and we need something to deal with the end game, because the system is so broken that is has resulted in this. We need to respond to those 81 calls for justice. I look forward to working with this minister to get the Red Dress Alert out the door as soon as possible.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, just to follow up to my previous question, I thought my question was fairly clear. I characterized those attacks on churches as a form of anti-indigenous violence. That is, somebody has, in many cases, burned down churches in indigenous communities, and I see that as attacks on those communities. I thought that was clear in my initial question, but I will repeat the point. I am in no way making any assumptions or suggestions about who is doing that. I am concerned not only about how those attacks on churches undermine religious freedom, but also about how they are an aspect of destruction of the cultural property of those indigenous communities. We have not heard statements from the NDP condemning those attacks on churches.

Again, in the spirit of condemning anti-indigenous violence, I wonder if the member would be willing to join me, to join us, in condemning those various attacks we have seen on churches in indigenous communities.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:10 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, again, I will give him the same response. I do not know what the motive was or who burned down the churches. Second, because I do not know that, I cannot call it anti-indigenous violence. I have not heard him debate anti-indigenous violence when he talks about residential school denialism. I know what the motivation is for that. I know where it is coming from. They are very public about it. I do not have the facts, so I cannot assume the motive. That is a basic premise in law. I think as legislators, we can understand the basic premise in law, that I cannot read into an action where I have no facts, and I do not know what the motive is. Maybe he should do some research. Maybe he would understand potential motives, or he could talk to officials.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is really outstanding that we are still debating this bill. I consulted my notes from the last time I addressed the chamber to speak to the bill, which was November 30, 2022. At that time, I highlighted the fact that the bill was missing some important pieces. Specifically, it was missing economic reconciliation as a factor. Economic reconciliation was heard about throughout testimony on the bill. It is something I bring up because it went through and was brought forward by a number of witnesses, yet the bill still contains no actual piece on economic reconciliation. I believe strongly that economic reconciliation is going to be an integral part in how we go forward and move with these kinds of pieces.

The fact that the bill is still here, and that we are still in the process of debating it after having numerous amendments, speaks to the failure to do consultations in advance. I am very proud of my Conservative colleagues and all members of the INAN committee who worked hard to make the bill so much better in the committee process. Then the bill went to the Senate and was amended further. It was amended because the government failed to do adequate consultations before bringing it forward.

In my estimation, and from everything I have been able to ascertain, that tells me that the bill was not done properly to begin with. Typically, good bills with adequate consultation do not actually require that many amendments or need to be in the chamber for this length of time. This speaks to the government's overall failure to consult, and its having a very paternalistic approach to pieces. I am frustrated tonight that we are still here debating the bill. I am frustrated, on behalf of many indigenous people I have talked to in my riding, that economic reconciliation still has not come to pass.

I think this is an important piece because the track record on the legislation before us should be noteworthy. Even though there is cause for some congratulations, and indeed I truly believe this is an important step forward, it has been very frustrating that we brought forward indigenous partners and we brought forward stakeholders who highlighted a missing piece of economic reconciliation, and it was completely blindsided.

We also heard that a not-for-profit organization would be established to monitor, evaluate and report the progress being made toward reconciliation, and that it would respond to call to action number 53 made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is worth noting that during the entire year of 2023, the Liberal government that purports to be there for indigenous people and says that is its number one relationship, did not accomplish a single TRC call to action. In fact, there are 94 calls to action, and 81 are still unfulfilled. The piece of legislation before us, had the Liberals put the work in from the beginning, would have fulfilled one of the calls to action.

The problem was not stalling by the Conservatives; Conservatives worked quite collaboratively with many members of the House to ensure that things were going forward so the bill would be the best possible piece of legislation. It is just frustrating that we see there would be an oversight body, yet we are still missing the mark when it comes to some of the pieces. Conservatives have been supportive of the legislation and the very concept around it from the very beginning. I want to highlight that fact. My speaking poorly of this is in the hopes that at some point, when a future parliamentarian looks at this piece of the bill, they will see there were concerns being raised when it was first brought forward that highlight the missing piece.

I have had the great fortune, in my time as an elected official, to get to know Dr. Willie Littlechild. He was a chief. He is now a Companion of the Order of Canada. He was a member of Parliament for Wetaskiwin—Rimby. He is truly such an amazing, wonderful man. He is a great hockey player. He has pretty much done it all.

Dr. Wilton Littlechild, when this bill was first introduced in 2022, said the council will be an important tool for Indigenous Peoples to hold the government accountable to achieving meaningful change for our peoples.” He also said, “We need to know where we are today as far as reconciliation and how do we measure the advancement of reconciliation”.

As with almost all Liberal initiatives, the establishment of this council sounds like a very good thing. Indeed, in many respects it is, but now we come to the first problem with Bill C-29. The act stipulates that the first board of directors would be selected by the minister in collaboration with a transitional committee. However, the transitional committee was selected by the minister in December of 2021, so this raises some pretty serious questions about how independent the new council would be. I have seen the body of this council. It is made up of members such as Dr. Wilton Littlechild, so I do not have any concern with the members who have been put on this council. However, I believe the mechanism by which it was done was not right.

When I was a kid, my mum used to say the ends do not justify the means. One has to do things with the right intention along one's path for it to be ultimately good. I try, in every step I take, to remind myself of the important words of my mom that the ends do not justify the means. While I think that the committee and the composition of that council have some amazing, wonderful people who will really help our country move toward reconciliation, it was not done in a consultative way, in a way that would move us further toward reconciliation. That is problematic to me because the ends do not justify the means.

There have been so many concerns brought forward by my Conservative colleagues. I know the NDP brought forward many amendments when it went to committee, as did others. It seems to have been almost rushed. It is whatever is the most convenient for the government at the time.

I understand that this is complicated. Reconciliation is not static. One phrase Dr. Wilton Littlechild has used frequently has really stuck with me. He said that it is not reconciliation, but “reconciliaction”. It is the idea that we need action. We cannot just sit here and continue to consult, continue to get stuck in the bureaucratic processes and the red tape. We really need to reach past that. How can I make things better?

The fact that we are still here in this chamber more than a year after I gave my last speech on this, still having these conversations about how this bill is better than it was, but still not as good as I believe it could be, is very frustrating. If it is frustrating to me, it has to be intensely frustrating for those who have been working toward this.

One interesting piece about this bill is that it is very prescriptive. It sets aside three permanent seats, one for the Assembly of First Nations, one for the ITK and one for the MNC. They are three national organizations that the Liberal government has almost exclusively dealt with when it comes to indigenous issues in the country.

One thing that I have heard very clearly in my role as the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is that the AFN does not speak for the first nations, specifically in Treaty 8. They speak more broadly, but chiefs who I have chatted with, who I have had an opportunity to sit down with and have conversations with have told me that the AFN does not represent them, so consulting with the AFN is not consulting with them. They believe that is an issue when it comes to their inherent treaty rights. I believe this is indicative of the overall issue we are facing when it comes to how the government is approaching some of its dealings with indigenous people. It is going to some of these larger, umbrella organizations rather than having what could be sometimes some very tough conversations.

We have to do very difficult things as people, but people, I believe, are able to do tough things. I try to live in a space where, if I have something difficult ahead of me, I try not to kick it down the road. I try to deal with it in the moment because the faster I can deal with something difficult, the more likely I am going to learn and the more likely I am going to stop and live in that space of discomfort until I can find a space of magic.

The fact that the government is looking to these big national organizations rather than sitting down with each and every chief to have these conversations, to me, highlights perhaps a lack of reconciliation. I know that would require a whole bunch of work, and I do understand that there are some pragmatic challenges with this, but the fact that there is not representation of women or children designated on the council is problematic.

I have had an opportunity, through the years since I was elected and in my time just casually growing up in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, to have many important conversations with a variety of first nations elders and hear how important the relationship of women was in their society, how the matriarchs of the community help guide how the decision-making processes are, how sacred women are and how sacred the power of women is. The fact that there is no space for women specifically in this takes away from that sacred recognition that exists in many indigenous communities of the power of women, the power of children and the power of these positions.

It is really frustrating that there are not on-the-ground communities, because when someone is sitting there and making the decision from Ottawa, they do not necessarily understand the reality on the ground in a community like Fort McMurray or Thunder Bay or Timmins. They are a bit further insulated from those nitty-gritty minutia problems. It is often in the nitty-gritty minutia that we can find the simple solutions.

They failed to include them, despite the fact that Conservatives put forward many amendments trying to include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which represents the 800,000 off-reserve indigenous people in this country. That failure overlooks the important fact that indigenous people do not just live on reserves. Many have chosen to move off reserve, and many have not chosen to move off reserve but were forcibly removed from their reserves. The reality is that there are over 800,000 people in this country who are first nations who do not live on reserve. Through this process, their voices are not prescribed into this bill as being included, so it is very frustrating. In fact, Kim Beaudin, vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, noted, “Bill C-29 is really very, very disappointing...the federal government has ghosted the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.”

“Ghosted” is the term being used. That is a slang kind of comment meaning when someone just stops talking to a group. I do not understand how a government that is trying to move forward with reconciliation would leave aside the voices of people who are living off reserve because theirs perhaps are more difficult to include.

In fact, Kim Beaudin later said that exclusion from the council was more than just simple oversight by the government. He said it was part of an ongoing strategy to exclude off-reserve and non-treaty status people from the decision-making process. Again, I quote: “One thing that is really frustrating is that this is a divide and conquer policy that’s been around for hundreds of years by the federal government and these organizations—ITK, MNC, AFN—they’re playing right into that playbook.”

Those are not my words. Those are the words of the vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Kim Beaudin.

As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, Conservatives support this bill. We believe that reconciliation is critically important, but it is worth highlighting the fact that the ends do not justify the means. I believe that the means of preparing this legislation are part of why we are still here, more than a year later, still having these conversations and still in this space, because the work was not done before the legislation was brought forward.

They did not make it clean and neat, because it was easier not to. As was pointed out, it was divide and conquer. I do not know if that necessarily was the case, and I do not want to assume why members made certain decisions, but it is now pointed out. It has been pointed out many times by members of various parties in this House that voices were excluded.

I am just going to continue laying it down there, because it is important to highlight. Sometimes a mistake is not made intentionally. Sometimes it is an unintentional mistake. However, I was taught that if one has made a mistake, whether it was intentional or not, then one has to do better. When we know better, we do better. When something has been brought to our attention as not as good as it could be, we try to make it right. The fact that the government has failed to do what it can to make it right is frustrating. It is frustrating to a number of indigenous people who have brought forward their concerns to me on this bill. They feel like they have not been heard, that this is not their version of reconciliation.

As important as this bill is, it also highlights the failure of the Liberal government to listen to Canadians, and to listen meaningfully and to consult with indigenous peoples. This is, of course, not the first time we have spoke about the Liberals' inability to consult and listen.

Most recently, the Chiefs of Ontario and Attawapiskat First Nation filed a lawsuit against the federal government over what they allege is discriminatory and anti-reconciliatory application of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to first nations.

This is a troubling pattern that we have been seeing, over and over again, with the government, where it is not spending the time to understand what its jurisdictional space is. It steps over the line, and then instead of correcting it, it waits until it goes all the way to a court, the most expensive option. We are seeing increased costs. We are seeing a space where people are waiting in limbo for court decisions to be made, because the government went too far. It goes too far, time and time again.

In this particular case, while non-indigenous taxpayers get approximately 90% of charges refunded through tax rebates, this is not the case for first nations members, because property and income on reserve are tax exempt. Most indigenous people do not use the income tax system if they are living on reserve. Therefore, chiefs are now demanding a judicial review of the policy, something that they said would have been unnecessary if federal officials had bothered to engage with them to begin with.

We are in an expensive, costly court battle over something that probably could have been avoided had there been some actual meaningful consultation and dialogue. That is the difference. Consultation does not necessarily mean that everyone is going to get their way. It means that there is an understanding of the arguments, and perhaps someone can make a change to identify those concerns and prevent them from having to go to court, time and time again.

However, the Liberal government seems to be more keen on satisfying its agenda than sitting down and doing the tough work, and actually having those tough conversations.

In contrast to the Liberal government, Conservatives are listening to first nations. Last week, we announced support for an optional first nations resource charge that would enable first nations to take back control of their resources and their money. This is a first nations-led solution to a made-in-Ottawa problem. First nations and the First Nations Tax Commission developed the plan, brought it to the Conservatives, and we accepted.

Putting first nations back in control of their money and letting them bring home the benefits of their resources would help get local buy-in for good projects to get ahead. Only common-sense Conservatives would fight for real economic reconciliation by supporting first nations taking back control of their money and their lives.

Bill C-29 is deeply flawed, as I have pointed out. Conservatives have proposed numerous amendments to improve it. I am very proud of the work that my colleagues have done to improve this legislation. Many of the amendments have been rejected by the Liberal-NDP government, which continues to implement an “Ottawa knows best” policy, which generally fails to accomplish their goals, no matter how laudable they might be.

On this front, we will continue to support Bill C-29, but not without some very serious reservations on this very seriously flawed bill.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the member spent a lot of time in her comments dealing with the makeup of the national council itself. It is important to recognize that the minister did work in collaboration with the transitional committee, a committee whose membership she made reference to. The very impressive group of people in the membership of that committee came up with the terms of the future board, including the four identified groups that would ultimately get appointments.

I wonder whether the member could add her further thoughts on what specific groups she would suggest should be incorporated into the legislation, or whether she is okay with the four that are listed.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been paying attention to my speech, he would know that I made it pretty clear that we believe that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples should have been included; I have mentioned on a number of occasions the fact that it was not.

The ends do not justify the means. I have looked at the composition of both of the councils, and there are some truly stunning people who will do some amazing work. I have no issue with the composition of either council. However, it was not done in ways that advance reconciliation, but in a top-down approach, where the minister got to name people. I do not believe that if we are actually trying to work on reconciliation, old paternalistic approaches to the problems are the best ones going forward. I truly believe that if we want to have transformational change when it comes to reconciliation, we are going to have make a transformational difference.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's riding has a very large number of indigenous people within it. It is also central to Canada's energy sector, and she spoke a bit about that in her speech in the context of the carbon tax.

It seems to me that when the government talks about reconciliation, what it actually means is listening only to some indigenous people who share its views on resource development and environmental issues, and that in the process it very often ignores indigenous people who are looking for economic reconciliation and opportunity, and who are part of the development of Canada's resource sector. I have posed this question to the government in the past with respect to what reconciliation means in the context of the indigenous communities that are asking for and benefiting from energy development and wanting the projects to proceed instead of being blocked. The response I always get back is essentially that it claims indigenous people agree with it.

We recognize that there is a diversity of perspectives within indigenous communities, but many are involved in the resource sector. I wonder whether the member could share a bit about what she is hearing in her riding on economic reconciliation and the role indigenous peoples are playing in energy development.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague rightly pointed out, I very proudly get to represent a majority of Canada's energy industry, in the Fort McMurray—Cold Lake riding in the oil sands.

It is really interesting that, last week, the member for Timmins—James Bay brought forward a piece of legislation, a private member's bill, Bill C-372, that would make it illegal for people to talk positively about fossil fuels. Just today in the National Post, there was an op-ed by Stephen Buffalo, who is the CEO of the Indian Resource Council and also a member of the Samson Cree Nation. He is a really wonderful man. He stated, “In other words, it would make it illegal for anyone with a connection to the fossil fuel industry, including First Nations involved in oil and gas development, to discuss the benefits this will bring to Indigenous communities.”

It is a pretty sad state of affairs that the NDP thinks that is the way toward reconciliation with first nations.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:40 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague publicly on the arrival of an addition to her family.

There was a lot of discussion in her speech about resource extraction. I have said many times in the House that I firmly support the human right to free, prior and informed consent. Often, I hear the Conservatives talk about nations that choose to participate in resource extraction.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague supports, with the same level of enthusiasm, the free, prior and informed consent of communities that do not wish to participate in the resource extraction sector. If so, how would her Conservative government, should they ever form government, deal with that?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:40 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:40 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

February 12th, 2024 / 6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:05 a.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

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

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:10 a.m.

Bloc

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

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:20 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:20 a.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, this is a just a friendly reminder not to refer to indigenous people as “our indigenous people”, because we are not pets.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing that out. I sincerely apologize. It was a mistake on my part.

Notably, the board of directors, primarily composed of indigenous members, will include representatives nominated by major indigenous organizations, ensuring a broad and inclusive range of voices in guiding the council’s mission. This legislation empowers the council to monitor and evaluate our nation's progress in addressing the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The annual report produced by the council, and the Prime Minister’s mandated response, would ensure transparency and accountability, providing a clear measure of our progress. By incorporating the council under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, we would also ensure that it has a solid structural and legal foundation to operate effectively and independently.

The path to reconciliation is long and challenging. However, with the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, we would reaffirm our commitment to a just and equitable future. Let us move forward together, with renewed dedication and hope.

In the coming years, the status of indigenous peoples in Canada is anticipated to reflect significant advancements in reconciliation and self-determination. Building on current trends, there will likely be greater acknowledgement and implementation of indigenous rights, with increased political representation and leadership across various sectors.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:25 a.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, while this bill is important, it is definitely not enough. It was unfortunate that, when the Minister of Finance gave her budget presentation, she did not even mention indigenous peoples or reconciliation.

The government is not even increasing enough what needs to be done to lift indigenous peoples out of poverty. He mentioned marginalization; that did not end when residential schools ended. It is allowed to continue because governments, such as the Liberal government, continue to underinvest in indigenous peoples.

Does the member agree the Liberal government needs to show action and not just use symbolism when it comes to working with indigenous peoples and reconciliation?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this legislation is not enough. This is a path towards doing what is right and just, and we have been doing it for the last eight and a half years. We have shown a real commitment to taking concrete steps and implementing a lot of steps. I agree there is still much more work to do.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:25 a.m.

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, a few moments ago, my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles asked a question and received an answer.

Given that we are not doing enough and that there is an urgent need for action on the Indian Act, does my colleague agree that we need to prioritize this issue to show that we really want things to change? Does my colleague agree with his colleague who spoke before him?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Madam Speaker, I repeat that we have shown a real commitment, not just with words but with actions. We have made it a point to do so. The things that we have done during the last eight and a half years, the things we are doing with this particular bill, show a real commitment to doing what is just and right.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:25 a.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I would have to disagree with my hon. colleague's bragging about everything the government did.

The budget just came out. There is no mention of indigenous people, and the Liberals actually put more money into auto theft than they did into the MMIWG crisis. It sends a very clear message, as I pointed out to the minister, that Canada cares more about finding cars than it does about finding indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals. That does not look like reconciliation to me.

I would also point out there are more kids in care now than at the height of residential schools, partly because of ongoing systemic racism, which has been reported. The government has been in power eight years since the truth and reconciliation report was released in 2015. It is just now putting in place an oversight body, after 10 years. Madam Speaker, give me a break.

Is my colleague willing to be honest and admit that his government needs to do more if we are going to achieve reconciliation in this country?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Madam Speaker, I have to respectfully disagree with the member. The cumulative amount that we have invested in indigenous peoples' needs during the last eight and a half years is out there; it is public. We can see the commitment we have shown and what we have done.

I agree that more needs to be done. We have been doing it, and we will continue to do it.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last night I referenced four documents in a speech concerning wet, limp and utterly useless paper straws. I would like to table the four studies showing that it is worse for the environment—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

An hon. member

No.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

There is no unanimous consent.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Thank you.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

Kevin Lamoureux

You're welcome.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Order. I want to remind the hon. member that he asked his question and I gave him an answer.

I also want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that, if he wishes to have a further conversation on this with the member, they should step outside.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

What does the word “reconciliation” mean? After nine years of the current government, what we have seen is that it has become a buzzword. Reconciliation is about walking shoulder to shoulder, listening, learning and being open to admitting that wrongs were done.

Bill C-29 is a response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 to 56. I will remind the House that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was founded by our former prime minister, Stephen Harper, in the former Conservative government. Throughout these conversations, there is always finger pointing that goes on, but I would hazard that there is enough blame to go around on all sides.

We have seen, in the last nine years, the government picking winners and losers, pitting first nations against first nations, first nations against non-first nations, Métis against Métis, and Métis against non-Métis. We have seen our Prime Minister thank indigenous protesters who were simply protesting the fact that the boil water advisories in their communities are ongoing. What did he do when he was at his fancy function? He thanked them for their donation. We have seen him cast away the first indigenous female Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould. She spoke truth to power and was cast aside.

We have seen the Prime Minister stand there with his hand on his heart, dabbing away a fake tear with a tissue, saying that this is his most important relationship. However, as we just heard, the government has launched its ninth budget without any mention of reconciliation for indigenous peoples, so members will have to pardon me if I seem a bit skeptical about what the government is planning with Bill C-29.

Over the time of my being elected, whether with my current file on mental health and suicide prevention or my previous files on transportation or fisheries, the government likes to say that it has consulted. However, is it truly consultation and engagement, or is it merely putting a checkmark in a box on a sheet that says what they had to do and complete? True engagement means sitting at the table and fully understanding all sides.

What has brought us to this point? In recent years, we heard about the horrors of the residential school program, but the world is just waking up to what some of us have been hearing for many years. The residential school program was designed to drive the Indian out of the children, and thousands upon thousands of first nations, Inuit and Métis children were taken from their homes and never returned.

Sitting with residential school survivors and listening to their stories is horrible. The start of the ground sonar search in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George was at the former St. Joseph's Mission Residential School in my hometown of Williams Lake. I am on record saying that I grew up just down the road from this school, yet I had no idea of the horrors that were going on at that school.

These were kids that I played with. I know many of them to this day. They are my friends and family. My family is first nations as well. Watching a residential school survivor come to the lands for a ceremony marking the start of the ground sonar search and watching them shake and become so emotional as those memories come flooding back is absolutely heartbreaking.

In nine years of the government, it has only fully implemented 11 of the 94 calls to action, and only eight of the 76 calls that are the federal government's responsibility. Why did it take four years for the Liberals to implement this after the Prime Minister made the announcement about it in 2018? Why are they still not bringing in or listening to all of the indigenous groups that want to be a part of this?

There is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, an organization that represents over 800 status and non-status, off-reserve, urban indigenous peoples, and the Native Women's Association of Canada, an organization that represents women and children on and off reserve. At committee, our Conservative team, the Bloc and NDP members passed a motion to include these two national organizations. However, when the rubber hit the road, when it came time to make sure they were part of it, our NDP colleagues sided with their Liberal friends and voted to exclude the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, effectively silencing the voices of 800,000 off-reserve indigenous peoples. Why?

Reconciliation is about inclusion. Reconciliation is about recognizing economic prosperity, allowing indigenous individuals and communities to recognize their full potential. It is unbelievable that we are still debating this bill. The fact that this bill is still here, the fact that we are still in the process of debating it after having numerous amendments and speeches, speaks to the government's failure to meaningfully consult and advance this issue.

Now the Liberals are going to stand up and I guarantee that at one point we are going to hear that the bill has been blocked and there have been lots of dilatory motions from this side, but they have the majority. If the Liberals want to push something through, with their NDP colleagues they can push it through.

Our Conservative colleagues worked diligently at the committee to improve the bill. Is that not the message we always give? Just let it pass, let it get to committee and we will make it better there. However, again, we have heard that they blocked and left out two important groups.

The Liberals talk about consultation. Does Bill C-29 truly represent the work and consultation they have done? Does it truly represent all the indigenous people, or does it just simply reflect the views of those who are friends of the Liberal government?

We know that recently there are about 113 indigenous groups in Ontario that are taking the federal government to court over boil water advisories. The government talks a good game, but the truth is in its actions. As important as the bill is, it also highlights the failure of the Liberal government to listen to Canadians, to listen meaningfully and to consult with indigenous peoples.

This is, of course, not the first time we have spoken about the Liberals' inability to consult and listen. They always seem to go down the path of just ticking the boxes of the groups that are in agreement with them. They use that as their record of consultation, yet they have left a whole community of indigenous peoples out when it pertains to Bill C-29.

A concern we have is that, time and again, we see these bills that come forth, and they are not perfect, and then the consequences are faced afterwards. We will hear comments from the other side, saying that we should never let perfection get in the way of getting something done.

I have talked about winners and losers with the government. I have talked about my friend Chief Willie Sellars in Williams Lake. He is the chief of his community who, in all senses of the word, is leading by example. He is not waiting for the government to provide handouts. He has done everything to lead his nation and his community to economic prosperity.

Ellis Ross, a provincial MLA in British Columbia, walks the walk. I remember sitting at a presentation with him about 10 years ago, and he said that we do not need all these fancy words and we don't need to listen to an unelected group, the United Nations, with the calls to action. What we need, he said, is the government to get out of the way, to allow us to chart our own path forward.

Is this council going to be just another arm of the minister of the day? These are the questions we have. Will the government even listen to the national council? It has spent the last nine years over-promising and under-delivering on indigenous issues. How many communities still have the boil water advisories? It is unbelievable.

I remember the speeches we did in the House during one of the first emergency debates we had. It was on the suicide epidemic on Attawapiskat First Nation. It was heartbreaking for me to hear the stories we were hearing.

Sadly, I ask if things have gotten better for indigenous peoples in the last nine years under the current government. In 2015, the Prime Minister stood and promised that this was his most important relationship.

It is complex, I will give the Liberals that, but if this was truly the Prime Minister's most important relationship, why have they just announced so much spending in a budget in which we would spend more money servicing our debt than we do on health care? When the books were open, the safe was open, and they were throwing money at everything, yet there was not a mention of indigenous peoples or reconciliation. It is frustrating. What would be measured with this council? What gets measured, gets done.

Conservatives will be supporting this bill because we believe in the premise that we have to have everyone around the table. True reconciliation begins with understanding and, as I said earlier, listening with open hearts, open ears and open eyes. My concern with the government is that this is just here to placate. There is no real meaning or value behind doing this.

It is frustrating, as I already said earlier in my speech, that we are debating this today, when it could have been done previously. It has been nine years.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:45 a.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, I am getting heckled from the other side, but the government has had nine years to get this done, and now, at the eleventh hour, with the last few shreds of power it has, it is putting this forward. It has taken forever for it to do this.

That being said, as I mentioned, Conservatives will be supporting this bill. We hope that some amendments we put forward will be agreed to. We hope that all indigenous peoples would be included at the table. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women's Association of Canada are two organizations that we feel should be included in this. They should have a say with at least one director at the table.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:50 a.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the empathy from my hon. colleague, but the Conservatives have quite a history. If we talk about their history with reconciliation, I will start with former prime minister Stephen Harper, who said that MMIWG was not on his “radar”.

Tanya Kappo, an indigenous lawyer, wrote, “In a span of a week, the Conservative government confirmed their feelings of indifference, disregard and utter lack of respect for indigenous people.”

If we fast-forward to today, the member for Carleton, the current leader of the Conservative Party, actively fraternizes with residential school denialists. In fact, there is an article entitled “Poilievre delivers speech to a group criticized for residential school 'denialism'”, to which the former national chief of the AFN Archibald said in a media statement, “I condemn any association with denialist views and the deep hurt they cause our survivors and their families”. He has had to apologize in the past for minimizing and denying the impacts of residential schools when he was a minister.

The member wants to talk about nine years; I want to talk about before the last nine years. I am not saying the government is doing a good job, but it is pretty rich for the Conservatives, when their leader actively fraternizes with residential school denialists, to talk about how they care about indigenous people.

Will my hon. colleague acknowledge the level of denialism that his party—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:50 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I am hearing side conversations about the opportunity the Speaker allows members to speak. I want to indicate to those individuals that I look at the room to see how many members are standing up for questions and comments, and I base the decision on how much time to allow each member to speak on that. I would remind members that I am paying attention to the time, and I will actively indicate when it is time to end the question and when it is time to answer the question.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George has the floor.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to hear the comments from our colleague down the way.

I always say that those in glass houses should not throw rocks, and I would say that it was our former prime minister, Stephen Harper, who started the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

However, I have never seen a prime minister be more indignant on one hand, and stand here whenever the cameras are on to say that this is his most important relationship, but then absolutely turn away and shun our first indigenous female attorney general, a person who is a dear and close friend of mine. I have seen, over the last nine years, the damage the Prime Minister has done within indigenous communities, pitting indigenous community against indigenous community, and pitting indigenous community against non-indigenous community. I have seen the Prime Minister smirk and smile when hearing the plight of those in our gallery, or in our House, talking about their communities and the indigenous peoples within the communities they are a part of.

I will remind my colleague that this is the government that is in power. This is a government that made a tremendous amount of promises over the last nine years and has failed at every step. This is a Prime Minister who thanked indigenous protesters who were simply protesting the fact that they do not have potable water in their communities and have to boil—

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I will give the hon. member the same amount of time that I gave to the hon. member asking the question. We need to go to other questions as there are other members who are rising.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

Thunder Bay—Superior North Ontario

Liberal

Patty Hajdu LiberalMinister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with interest.

I would, first of all, say that it is encouraging to hear that the Conservatives are considering supporting this legislation, given that they did not support the passage of the UN declaration act. Having heard that from this member and other members in the Conservative Party, would the member commit to allowing the bill to carry on the voices today so that we do not have to wait another week to vote on it?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well that this is a discussion for House leadership and not one that I can speak to.

It is disappointing, as this is a minister of the Crown and minister of this file asking the question, that it has taken the Liberals four years to get to this point. However, she is one that I have a great deal of respect for in the work that we did on 988 and on the mental health of Canadians, but she has stumbled into this file and has stumbled along the way, likely because of the leadership, or lack thereof, of her Prime Minister.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for the empathy and goodwill toward indigenous people that were so evident in his speech. I think it is important to do the work required to move closer to reconciliation. We learned that he is going to vote in favour of Bill C‑29, which can only be a positive thing.

Obviously, the Conservatives are not the government. They are the opposition. However, there are things they could do right now to help with reconciliation. Not so long ago, for example, their leader held a big celebration of the well-known John A. Macdonald, who created residential schools, had Louis Riel hanged and came up with a strategy to cause famine among indigenous peoples.

Does my colleague think that celebrations like this are appropriate against a backdrop of reconciliation?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that we get these questions from the Bloc and others talking about the past when we are looking forward to the future. We are here today to talk about a bill, Bill C-29, which we all agree is important and needed. Unfortunately, we have parties who just want to continue to point fingers. They are doing everything to try to take a very non-partisan piece of legislation and turn it into a partisan hit job.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the words from my colleague from northern British Columbia. I know that he represents a number of first nations and Métis in his riding, and he does a fantastic job bringing their voices here to Ottawa. We saw that reflected in his speech.

My question to him revolves around this piece of legislation, and I am speaking about those living off of first nations who represent status, non-status and Métis. I am specifically speaking to the fact that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has been left off of the founding table, despite representing a large number of indigenous people living off reserve. That would then dictate the path going forward. That is something we advocated strongly for at committee. Unfortunately, the government did not listen, so I would like to get his comments on that.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, we know that there is a very large community of indigenous youth, status and non-status youth, living off reserve and within the urban centres, as well as families who live off reserve. Our family is one of them.

The government has chosen to leave out the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, an organization that represents over 800,000 status and non-status indigenous peoples, as well as the Native Women's Association of Canada, an organization that represents women and children on and off reserve. That is par for the course. We have seen time and time again with the government that it has chosen to pick winners and losers. They have done the same with Bill C-29, and it is disappointing.

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:25 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. If enacted, this would ensure a non-partisan, arm's-length organization that would hold the government of the day to its commitments to reconciliation. This is needed, because the government shows less of a commitment to reconciliation every year. Let us look at the Liberal record.

Last year, not one Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendation was implemented. Out of the 94 calls to action, only 13 have been accomplished. The government promised to end long-term boil water advisories more than three years ago, but there is still no end in sight. This year is looking even worse.

What has happened with the government’s most important relationship, we might ask? We can just look at this past week. The Minister of Finance could not even bring herself to utter the word “indigenous” or “reconciliation” in her speech introducing the budget. However, given her rhetoric over the last year, why would she?

Indigenous peoples spent months hearing the government threaten sunsetting and cuts to the services that they and their communities rely on. Programs, services and grants that people rely on were threatened, including Jordan’s principle and dealing with the harmful legacy of residential schools. It took NDP pressure to reverse many of those cuts.

This is how low the bar is set with the government, opposing cuts in the face of a $350-billion infrastructure gap. Instead of proposing a wealth tax or an excess profit tax on people such as Mirko Bibic, Galen Weston or Arthur Irving, the government consciously chose to spend less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis on first nations.

Despite all their bluster, big oil does not need to beg the government for handouts. Galen Weston certainly does not. Bell gets all the money it needs to give away in fat bonuses and shareholder dividends while laying off thousands of workers. However, first nations are treated as an afterthought in this budget. It really boggles the mind.

The government recently co-authored a report that made clear how badly federal governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, have just fundamentally failed first nations. If one doubled the number of homes in first nations communities, the report said, there would still not be enough to meet the housing demand. Upon releasing the report with the AFN, the Liberals decided to completely ignore it.

The Liberals know that they will not hit the 2030 goal to end the housing crisis for first nations. Their department officials have admitted as much, but the Liberal MPs will not admit it, nor will the ministers responsible or the Prime Minister.

Communities such as the ones here in northern Manitoba live this reality every day. They know it well. That is why Grand Chief Cathy Merrick said, in response to this budget, that it will be a cold day in hell before the infrastructure gap facing first nations is ended. That is why the AFN National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak is calling for a first ministers meeting this year to discuss a path forward on reconciliation, because the government is just not getting the work done.

Let us be honest about what a $350-billion infrastructure gap looks like. There is Shamattawa First Nation, where the housing crisis is so bad, the community has had to deal with tuberculosis outbreaks. In fact, here in northern Manitoba, over the last number of years, we have had higher rates of tuberculosis than have some parts of sub-Saharan Africa. There is Tataskweyak Cree Nation, where the government so fundamentally failed in delivering clean water that it had to fight the first nation in court.

There is Pimicikamak Cree Nation, which has a 2,000-family wait-list for homes. There is also the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, which has a 700-family wait-list for homes.

There is Wasagamack, one of the most isolated communities in the country. It is still waiting for the federal government to step up and work with the community and the province to build a desperately needed airport.

Communities on the east side of Manitoba, on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, are paying the price for climate change. They have no choice but to rely on ice roads, which are increasingly unreliable because of the shortened winter season. They have made it clear to the federal government that they need all-weather roads but the federal government has made no commitment to working with them to help build the roads.

There is the Island Lake region, where the population is similar to that of my hometown of Thompson. Thousands of people live in the region; they still do not have a hospital or an all-weather road.

The housing infrastructure gap, which I would call a crisis, is pervasive in first nations here in Manitoba and for many first nations across the country. Communities need housing, elders' care homes, day cares, health centres, water treatment plants and emergency preparedness-related infrastructure. They need to improve existing roads and build new ones so they can fight to survive climate change.

Many of these stories are rooted here in my constituency in northern Manitoba, on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, but we know they are repeated across the country. Indigenous peoples are almost three times more likely to live in a home in need of major repair. More than half of first nations do not have regular access to high-speed Internet, and roughly 15% have none at all.

We need to be honest with ourselves. This is keeping indigenous communities poor, and it is a choice by the federal government. Every time the government looks the other way on a tax loophole, every time we buy fridges for Galen Weston or give billions of dollars to big oil, that is money we are not spending on the people and communities most in need. The sad reality is that the government only steps up when it is court-ordered to do so. In fact, budget 2024 outlined $57 billion in settlement money, as if it were a huge success by the government and not a situation where it fought first nations, Inuit and Métis people every step of the way to deny them justice.

To be honest, it is clear that the government is laying the groundwork for future class-action lawsuits against it. One can only imagine what is coming on the housing front. The Auditor General recently released a report on the housing crisis on reserve, and it came out that Indigenous Services has been using the wrong census data, data from 2001. This has effectively robbed first nations, particularly in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, of the housing dollars they deserve, for up to a quarter of a billion dollars.

Did the Minister of Indigenous Services or the Prime Minister rush to right that wrong, to get that money into the hands of communities that had a right to it? No, when he was asked about it, the Prime Minister instead refused to even entertain the idea that they ever would. That is another example of the government fundamentally failing first nations and one that will likely end in a class-action lawsuit, something it deeply deserves.

In contrast, we have a Conservative Party that never saw a tax break for billionaires it did not love. The last time the leader of the official opposition was in government, the Conservatives gave away $60 billion in corporate tax cuts.

On the day the previous prime minister delivered a public apology to survivors of residential schools, years ago, the current Conservative leader, the leader of the official opposition, said that he was not sure Canada was “getting value for all of this money”. It was money being spent to compensate survivors, and his view was that “we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self-reliance. That's the solution in the long run—more money will not solve it”.

I challenge the leader of the official opposition to come to first nations like the ones I represent, where kids were abused, where kids died and where families are still dealing with the poisonous and destructive legacy of the residential school system. I challenge the leader of the official opposition to look people in the face and to say that Canada is the victim here and that Canada is the one that did not get its value. Shame on him.

However, it is not just him who does not understand the harmful legacy of residential schools. The reality is that we are now approaching three years since Canadians learned what first nations across the country already knew: the existence of mass grave sites near residential schools. However, the government is still not supporting communities with the resources they need to bring their children home.

Communities like Cross Lake and others wanted to work with the International Commission on Missing Persons. The work has already begun. However, before it could move forward, the government ended the contract, and now Cross Lake and other communities are forced to start over; it is justice delayed.

Despite his claims that he wants to support communities, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has done virtually nothing to assist first nations that want to work with the ICMP, a global leader when it comes to uncovering mass graves. He has done virtually nothing to assist first nations that desperately want to work to uncover the truth and to bring their children home.

In Sagkeeng First Nation, an employee recently found bones while digging a trench for a water pipe to a church addition. The area was not part of any known cemetery. The community wants to work with the International Commission on Missing Persons. They have asked CIRNAC for support, but have not received any.

People across our north see through the government's empty use of the word “reconciliation”. People across our north want to see action. The NDP will continue to call out the government when it fails indigenous peoples and when it talks a good talk, especially on reconciliation, while refusing to follow through in terms of action. We are proud to support this bill, Bill C-29, but recognize that the monitoring process, or lack thereof, will not create the change indigenous peoples need to see.

Here, in our part of the country, people are clear. Indigenous leaders, elders, youth and advocates are clear that what they need to see is action: an end to third-world living conditions, true change in the face of the climate emergency, and real investment to make life better. They deserve action. They deserve justice, and we should recognize and act on nothing less.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the member will actually be voting in favour of Bill C-29. I believe it is a commitment that is being fulfilled as one of the 94 calls for action. I have found it quite pleasing to know, as a government, that the member cannot cite any other leader of a political party who has done more to move in a substantive way than the Prime Minister of Canada has over the last nine years.

I know the moment I sit down, she is going to continue to be critical of the government, and that is what she is allowed to do. The reality is that, on the calls for action, we see 80% of them being acted on and many of them have been completed, and this is a government that, from day one, has made a commitment, with first nations, to ensure that we move forward on the calls for action.

Will she confirm she is supporting the bill?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:40 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I made clear in my speech that we are supporting the bill, but I am not sure about the member's statements with respect to the historic nature of the Prime Minister's action vis-à-vis indigenous peoples. We can look no further than the fact that the Minister of Finance did not even say the word “indigenous” once, or the word “reconciliation”, in this week's budget. As well, there is the fact that less than 1% of what is needed was invested in first nations housing and infrastructure, given that the recently uncovered $350-billion gap is nothing to write home about.

I know this member is from Manitoba, and he knows well the infrastructure gap first nations face. Clearly, his government's budget and its ongoing approach are nowhere near what we need to see when it comes to closing the infrastructure gap for Manitobans, especially indigenous peoples.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:45 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my hon. colleague was as shocked as I was by the comments of praise given to his own government by the member for Winnipeg North.

I want to build on what the member was saying about how the word indigenous was not even mentioned once by the finance minister. The fact that the government gave more money to deal with auto theft in this budget than it did to finding murdered and missing indigenous women and girls is sending a very clear message to indigenous people that it values cars more than it values us. That is how crass the government has been.

We know we are billions of dollars short to deal with the housing gap. We know there continues to be boil water advisories. However, I want to speak specifically about the north. We are in the middle of a climate emergency. The government is watching in real time resources not being able to get to communities, and it is a becoming a crisis, yet the government has failed to act.

How concerned are communities in the north about the failure of governments to deal with this growing crisis?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:45 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her championing of the calls for justice and for action for missing and murdered indigenous women. It is a stark condemnation of a Liberal plan to act on the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, as well as the fact that there is more money available for stolen cars than there is for action on missing and murdered indigenous women in this budget. It is absolutely shocking.

To the question on the climate emergency, we are on day two of what we refer to as “snowmagedden” here in northern Manitoba. We have had record snowfall, the likes of which we have never seen before at this time of year. The overall message has been that communities do not have the capacity to deal with what climate change is bringing, whether it is historic wildfires, historic flooding and this kind of precipitation.

First nations are clear on the kinds of infrastructure investments they need to prepare in the face of climate change and mitigate the devastating impacts. Frankly, the only party that does not seem to get it is the federal government, which continues to ignore calls to work on the airport in Wasagamack, calls to invest in all-weather road infrastructure and calls to invest in emergency preparedness related to infrastructure. People are bracing themselves for what the summer will bring. The bottom line is that we need the federal government to step up and work with first nations now.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:45 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, my colleague's speech was very informative in showing the realities of what indigenous peoples experience in Canada because of the decades of a lack in investments by the Liberal government and past Conservative governments, which has led to the continued marginalization of indigenous peoples.

I wonder if the member could share her thoughts on what will happen because of the budget announcement. Even if this bill were to pass, what would happen with indigenous peoples once we start seeing commitments rather than inaction?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:45 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to my colleague for the incredible work that she does on behalf of the people from Nunavut and as the indigenous services critic and Crown-indigenous relations critic for the NDP. I am so honoured to work alongside her and our incredible team.

The budget is a huge disappointment for indigenous communities. Indigenous national and regional leaders have been very clear that it misses the mark in so many ways. I will say that I am proud of the work that the NDP did to fight back against a number of the cuts that were proposed, but let us not kid ourselves. The less than 1% funding on housing and infrastructure is a serious failure on the part of the Liberal government. It continues the legacy of Liberal underfunding that we saw under Paul Martin and have seen time and time again from the Liberals and, of course, the Conservatives.

Third world living conditions in indigenous communities did not just happen. They are the result of chronic underfunding and of choices that Liberal and Conservative governments have made to prioritize their rich and powerful friends, rather than investing and working with indigenous communities to make the difference that they deserve and that, I would say, Canada is obligated to make as well.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

NDP

Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, that was a very important speech. I wonder whether the member could share a little bit more about why she feels that the Liberals, despite being in government for seven years, have made repeated promises to indigenous peoples and broken so many of them.

Could the member share why she feels it has taken us so long to get to where we are now, and where the gaps are that she was talking about? Perhaps she could provide us with her thoughts on the implications and impacts on indigenous people across the country.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to work with my colleague. She is a great defender of indigenous communities in her constituency in British Columbia.

What we are seeing from the Liberals is something we have seen from colonial-minded governments of the past, both Liberal and Conservative. Certainly on the Liberal end, government members have talked a good talk about reconciliation and their most important relationship being that with indigenous peoples. However, if we look at the lack of action on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the lack of investment in the housing and infrastructure gap, and the sunsetting of programs to support residential school survivors, this is the Liberal way, and indigenous peoples deserve far better.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Gabriel Ste-Marie

Is the House ready for the question?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Gabriel Ste-Marie

The question is on the motion.

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

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Gabriel Ste-Marie

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, April 29, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the House of Commons.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 1:30 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Gabriel Ste-Marie

Is it agreed?

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Gabriel Ste-Marie

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 29th, 2024 / 3:10 p.m.

The Speaker Greg Fergus

It being 3:15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-29.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #741

National Council for Reconciliation ActGovernment Orders

April 29th, 2024 / 3:30 p.m.

The Speaker Greg Fergus

I declare the motion carried.

(Senate amendments read the second time and concurred in)

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 14 minutes.