Debates of May 3rd, 2018

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, the moratorium would provide the highest level of environmental protection for B.C.'s northern coastline. A particular moratorium has been in place since 1972. We have reinforced it. We have made it such that it would be the highest level of environmental protection.

I am wondering what my hon. colleague would say to young people in his riding. I know there are young people in Whitby who are Earth Rangers ambassadors who are looking to our government to protect the environment. What does he say to the young people in his riding about why he opposes such a critical piece of legislation that would protect the regions of our coasts?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us talk about what the Liberals promised. Remember Prime Minister Chrétien? He went to Kyoto and signed the deal, then Prime Minister Martin said it did not make sense. The Liberals keep coming back time after time with a different moratorium, a different point of view. At the end of the day, the children in my riding and in the member's riding, and the children in the 338 ridings throughout the country, do not want an accident. We want to make sure that we do what we need to do to make it accident-free and spillage-free in any shape or form.

Other countries are doing it. These are our resources. This is the only way we can take our resources to the Asia-Pacific. Otherwise, we are getting, as I understand, 70% of the crude price for the United States alone.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate at this late hour.

“He who looks for light work goes very tired to bed.” That is a Yiddish proverb and is often used to tell people who are looking for an easy way out of a hard day's work that at the end what happens is people actually work much harder. There is no such thing as easy work. There is no such thing as an easy way out.

We heard earlier from the member for Lakeland, who added that this was part of the Liberal Party's platform. The Liberals rolled this out right after the last election, and there was very little time for evidence-based policy-making to review whether this was the best thing to do. The Liberals committed to it, but it is an error in commitment. I would consider that the concept that the hard work of balancing the economy and the environment can be done with a quick moratorium is the easy way out.

If we look at the contents of the bill, we see that a blanket exemption could be provided by cabinet for anyone at any time to ship through those lanes. American tankers will still be able to go through this area, as long as they do not stop at a Canadian port. It simply shifts some of the tanker traffic further west off of the coast. It does not apply to where 95% of the tanker traffic is, which is on the southern part of the coast.

I have a lot of constituents who ask me what is wrong with the British Columbian government. They want to know why it is harassing oil and gas companies and pipeline companies. I am sure that some day it will start harassing railway companies as well for trying to ship a product that Vancouverites, people of the Greater Vancouver area and the entire Lower Mainland, want to use. People want a tank of gasoline, they want diesel, and they want to be able to heat their homes. These are products that everyday Canadians need to use. We live in a colder climate, and it is a necessity.

For people in my riding, this is twofold, because they work in the oil and gas sector. I have a great many white-collar employees and a lot of blue-collar workers—riggers, guys and women who used to work on the rigs—for whom this was their livelihood. They moved to Alberta or grew up in a small community in Alberta and went out to work on the rigs, and they earned an amazing income and were able to provide for their families.

Decisions like this, a tanker moratorium ban—which truthfully should be called a pipeline ban, because that is effectively what it is going to do—puts those people out of work. It is just one part of this grand Liberal strategy to phase out the oil sands, but also, in great part, to phase out the oil and gas industry, the lifeblood of Albertans. To phase it out, Liberals are going to have to do things like these moratoriums, cancelling pipelines, and making it so much more difficult to upgrade the product right here at home.

Today—and I checked the Library of Parliament—we pretty much upgrade and refine most of the product that we produce right here in Canada. It is about a 2,000-megalitre difference between the two. In the Greater Vancouver area over the past 30 or 40 years, there were refineries that closed, and new ones did not open. It is pretty easy to see. Most provincial governments and the federal government have been imposing carbon taxes, and they fall very heavily on large emitters. It turns out that it is not free to produce a refined good. It produces large amounts of carbon emissions. Therefore, they get taxed at an excessive rate. It is not that easy.

There is no such thing as easy work or an easy job. I think that through this piece of legislation, the government will find that it will not achieve its goal of balancing the economy and the environment. It is actually going to hurt the economy much more than it is thinking.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have just a little over 16 minutes the next time this matter comes before the House.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Historic Sites and Monuments Act

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

moved that Bill C-374, An Act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act (composition of the Board), be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-374, an act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, composition of the Board.

I would like to begin by recognizing that we are gathered here today on the traditional land of the Algonquin people. This recognition is a small but important way in which to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Bill C-374 shares the same objective of advancing reconciliation and to ensuring that the perspectives of indigenous peoples are incorporated in our decision making processes federally. I am extremely privileged to have Bill C-374 make it to third reading in the House and thankful for cross-partisan support of this legislation.

Bill C-374 seeks to include a much-needed indigenous representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The board, which is responsible for advising the Government of Canada through the Minister of Environment on the designation of people, places, and events of national historic significance, currently lacks formal statutorily mandated representation of indigenous peoples on its board.

The fact is that we cannot hope to accurately commemorate issues of historical significance if we do not fully include the perspectives of the first peoples of this land.

My personal motivation to put forward Bill C-374 is rooted in a career spanning more than three decades with Parks Canada. I had the opportunity to live and work with indigenous communities in a variety of settings and it helped inform my opinions about the need to do things differently with indigenous communities. When I was elected, I came across the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In the TRC's Summary of Final Report, there is a section on commemorations which spoke quite personally to me about the need in the commemorations field to do things differently. Drawn out of this section were calls to action to change and improve upon the ways in which we commemorate our past.

Bill C-374 is specifically intended to implement call to action 79(i), which states, “We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal organizations, and the arts community, to develop a reconciliation framework for Canadian heritage and commemoration. This would include, but not be limited to”, and this is the section that is covered in Bill C-374, “Amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its Secretariat.”

The implementation of call to action 79 was also put forward by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. In our report, “Preserving Canada's Heritage: the Foundation for Tomorrow”, the committee recommended the implementation of several of the TRC calls to action, including 79, as reflected in our committee's 17th recommendation of the report.

Our government has made clear our support for the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action. Implementation of over two-thirds of the calls to action under federal responsibility is ongoing, and Bill C-374 continues in this spirit.

We have endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, without qualification, and committed to its full implementation. This includes support for Bill C-262.

In February, the Prime Minister announced in this place the creation of a recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework. This will ensure that the recognition and implementation of rights is the basis for all relations between indigenous peoples and the federal government going forward. To ensure the protection, preservation, and revitalization of indigenous languages in the country, we are working with first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities to co-develop an indigenous languages act.

In this spirit of indigenous language preservation, I have also worked with Senator Jaffer on a bill to designate February 21 as international mother language day. The bill has been tabled in the Senate and debate has already started on it, another small step toward reconciliation.

This week, we witnessed all-party support for a motion respecting TRC call to action 58, calling for a formal papal apology for the role of the Catholic Church in the establishment, operation, and abuses of residential schools.

These are important steps forward, but the work does not end here. Reconciliation is a complex and difficult journey that grapples with the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. The TRC summary of the final report discussed this complexity:

To some people, reconciliation is the re-establishment of a conciliatory state. However, this is a state that many Aboriginal people assert never has existed between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. To others, reconciliation, in the context of Indian residential schools, is similar to dealing with a situation of family violence. It's about coming to terms with events of the past in a manner that overcomes conflict and establishes a respectful and healthy relationship among people, going forward. It is in the latter context that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has approached the question of reconciliation.

To the Commission, reconciliation is about establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in this country. In order for that to happen, there has to be awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour.

The report goes on, and this is important in the context of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and the changes that Bill C-374 would make. It states:

Too many Canadians know little or nothing about the the deep historical roots of these conflicts. This lack of historical knowledge has serious consequences for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, and for Canada as a whole. In government circles, it makes for poor public policy decisions. In the public realm, it reinforces racist attitudes and fuels civic distrust between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians.

Too many Canadians still do not know the history of Aboriginal peoples' contributions to Canada, or understand that by virtue of the historical and modern Treaties negotiated by our government, we are all Treaty people. History plays an important role in reconciliation; to build for the future, Canadians must look to, and learn from, the past.

Bill C-374 would ensure that indigenous perspectives are fully incorporated into our commemorations process federally. Indigenous peoples' participation in our commemorations decision-making process will help us move beyond the colonialist and paternalistic approaches of the past and allow us to engage in a more frank and authentic manner.

This bill is not a criticism of the work of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board over the past 100 years of their existence but shows that there is a need to evolve by creating structural inclusion for indigenous perspectives in how we commemorate the persons, places, and events that are of national significance.

Our history is as messy and complex as the process of reconciliation itself. The legacy of our residential school system is a stark and tragic reminder of this. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission explored this complexity:

For Survivors who came forward at the TRC's National Events and Community Hearings, remembering their childhood often meant reliving horrific memories of abuse, hunger, and neglect. It meant dredging up painful feelings of loneliness, abandonment, and shame. Many still struggle to heal deep wounds of the past. Words fail to do justice to their courage in standing up and speaking out.

There were other memories too: of resilience; of lifetime friendships forged with classmates and teachers; of taking pride in art, music, or sports accomplishments; of becoming leaders in their communities and in the life of the nation. Survivors shared their memories with Canada and the world so that the truth could no longer be denied.Survivors also remembered so that other Canadians could learn from these hard lessons of the past. They want Canadians to know, to remember, to care, and to change.

During our heritage study at the environment committee, we heard the powerful testimony of Mr. Ry Moran, the director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, who discussed the intricate and delicate nature of commemorating residential schools. Our report stated:

Mr. Moran is particularly concerned about the state of conservation of the 17 remaining residential schools if nothing is done to preserve them. He explained to the Committee that some Indigenous communities want to preserve these residential schools as evidence of history. However, he said it is easier to obtain funding to demolish these schools. Mr. Moran noted that Indigenous communities wanted to be able to choose whether they preserve or demolish these buildings. Moreover, he emphasized the need to commemorate the places where demolished residential schools once stood, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended

That includes the burial locations of the missing children.

The committee heard that the inclusion of indigenous people was a priority and a necessity for the heritage community; that today's heritage organizations, departments, and agencies were ill-equipped to protect and preserve indigenous heritage; that indigenous people must be involved in defining, designating, commemorating, and preserving their heritage; and that indigenous communities, governments, and organizations wanted to have a voice and a place for their people to have a voice in heritage conservation.

During my 32-year career with Parks Canada working with heritage spaces, I similarly encountered the often difficult nature of commemorations. I witnessed both successful and unsuccessful approaches to commemorating people, places, and events of historical significance.

I have spoken about those in the House, including the great success of retelling the story of the place of Yuquot, originally commemorated as Friendly Cove and celebrated as the first point of European contact. That location was actually the birthplace of the Nuu-chah-nulth people. The repackaging and rethinking of that designation showed it as a place of welcome by the indigenous people, who had lived there since the beginning of time, and a place of welcome to the Europeans when they arrived in Canada. It was the indigenous people's voice that helped with the retelling and reframing of that story.

I am proud that Bill C-374 has made it to third reading with unanimous support at report stage. This is a proud reflection of the non-partisan nature of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not an indigenous issue. It is truly a Canadian issue.

The success of Bill C-374 and this opportunity to advance reconciliation would not have been possible without the support of the government and a royal recommendation to deal with remuneration provisions in the bill. I am grateful to the government for supporting Bill C-374 and for granting it a royal recommendation, which is the third of its kind since 1994, to the best of my knowledge. This support reflects our government's commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on a recognition of rights, mutual respect, co-operation, and partnership.

The road to reconciliation is a long and difficult one, but with Bill C-374 we have the opportunity to advance this objective by improving upon the ways in which we commemorate our past. I am hopeful that all members will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Bill C-374 is poised to move to the Senate, where I am proud to have the support of Senator Murray Sinclair, who has agreed to sponsor the bill in the Senate. Members will no doubt know that Senator Sinclair has a distinguished 25-year career in the justice system and served as the chief commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I hope members of the other place will recognize the importance of this legislation and work, as we have in this place, to continue advancing reconciliation.

I would like to thank all members for their consideration of this bill and ask for their support at third reading so this important piece of legislation can move one step closer to becoming law.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the bottom of my heart for introducing this bill. It is also heartwarming to see a majority of MPs inclined to support it. I ask the following question with tongue firmly in cheek.

Does my colleague not think that, in a few months or years, people will see how obvious this all was and wonder why we even needed to legislate in the first place?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I had a slight problem with the volume on my translation. I will do my best to answer the question.

It really is important that we start now and work toward reconciliation. I appreciate the support of all parties and their work in advancing this discussion and moving forward in a concrete way through their support of Bill C-374.

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

Madam Speaker, I am so glad to be able to get in on private members' business. Given my status in this place, I am not allowed to make a speech on the bill, but I am very proud to be a seconder of this private member's bill. Bill C-374, an act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, is an important step in reconciliation. I would like to thank my friend from Cloverdale—Langley City for bringing it forward.

I wonder if my colleague would like to explain how he sees the process of selecting indigenous participation once this goes forward. I sure hope it has the support of enough members of Parliament to go forward.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, should this become legislation, I think the intention is to have the process overseen through a Governor in Council appointment process.

To me, what was really important in the legislation was to respect the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation that we not limit it to one indigenous voice but that we truly make it inclusive. Therefore, the proposed legislation includes a representative from first nations, from Métis, and from Inuit. When the legislation comes into play, that would go into the formal appointments process, which will be transparent as our government has committed to and as we are delivering on for other government appointments.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for bringing this important bill forward.

We understand that this is not only part of the reconciliation, but by having composition on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, I wonder how this can also unite Canadians in understanding that history and position us as we go forward. I wonder if my colleague could speak to that.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I noted in my comments, this is a Canadian story. Reconciliation is not just an indigenous issue, but something we all need to understand and work toward. In that spirit, understanding the history we have as newcomers to the land about the indigenous peoples who have lived here since the beginning of time is a way to understand some of the past wrongs and the legal frameworks we live with, such as treaties and constitutional guarantees. It is about fostering the discussion with Canadians about how we can co-exist and support each other. That is really what reconciliation is about. That is how we can make a stronger Canada and ultimately achieve reconciliation for all of us living in this amazing country.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in support of my colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City's Bill C-374. I would also like to add that I am very pleased with the overall support this legislation is getting from both sides of the House. It is unusual for a private member's bill to pass second reading with unanimous support.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. Since we are discussing inclusion and participation of indigenous peoples on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, I think it is very important that we recognize regularly the historic site that we are right now standing on.

Bill C-374 seeks to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. The bill addresses call to action No. 79 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report. There are two further recommendations under the “Commemoration” heading that have not been discussed in this bill.

The mandate of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada is:

...to advise the Government of Canada, through the Minister of the Environment, on the commemoration of nationally significant aspects of Canada's history.

Following a thorough evaluation process and recommendation by the Board, the Minister declares the site, event or person on national historic significance.

It further states:

The Board is composed of a representative from each province and territory...[with] appointments of up to five years with the possibility of additional terms...[there is also] the Librarian and Archivist of Canada, an officer of the Canadian Museum of History and the Vice-President of Parks Canada’s Heritage Conservation and Commemoration Directorate, who also acts as the Board’s Secretary.

Presently, quorum sits at 10. With the passage of Bill C-374, that number would rise from 10 to 13.

During the second reading debate on Bill C-374, the author and the member for Cloverdale—Langley City said this, which stuck with me:

As it stands today, Canada's historic designation system is outdated. Many past designations, along with the board's composition, are rooted in this country's colonial history. We should celebrate Canada's entire past. We should tell a broader, more inclusive, and more accurate story.

He is absolutely correct. We cannot hope to achieve reconciliation if we continue to deny portions of our history. The three additional voices representative of our indigenous population on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board will be a significant step in bringing new ideas and a fresh perspective to the board, as well as a comprehensive history going forward.

As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, my home province of Saskatchewan has many national historic sites, some of which are in my community of Saskatoon. I spoke about the Wanuskewin Heritage Park, and I believe it is worth repeating here today that on that 240 hectares there are 19 sites that represent both the active and the historical society of northern plains people. Six thousand years ago, indigenous peoples from across the northern plains gathered there to hunt bison, gather food and herbs, and escape the winter winds. The story of Wanuskewin is just beginning to be uncovered in my home province of Saskatchewan.

Another fine example of a national historic site in my own backyard is the Saskatoon Forestry Farm Park and Zoo. The area called the Sutherland Forest Nursery Station played a vital role in the settlement and development of the Prairies from the years 1913 to 1966. Shipping 147 million trees over that span of 50 years, the nursery supplied the northern part of the prairie provinces with an abundance of ash, along with maple, elm, and willow.

When the nursery was closed, a portion of the site was reopened as the Forestry Farm and Park by the City of Saskatoon in 1966. Designated a national historic site, the forestry farm continues to strengthen the roots of our community, while providing an awe-inspiring landscape for the park and zoo. The zoo is home to 300 animals, including two mobs of meerkats.

Another national historic site right in our province would be the legislative building in Regina. I spoke about that earlier in my remarks. I also mentioned its resemblance to where we are right now. Both buildings were built by the same Montreal company, Peter Lyall and Sons Construction Co. Ltd., and the fine craftsmen he employed back then, not only for the city of Regina's legislative building but the House of Commons in Ottawa. Both buildings are truly beautiful.

I know we are going to have at least a 10-year shutdown of the House of Commons to refurbish it, but I encourage anyone visiting Ottawa or Regina to tour them quickly and get to know two of our most beautiful sites in the country.

I have served on the Canadian heritage committee, and I currently sit on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. My experience on both committees, along with the opportunity recently to tour communities in Nunavut with Senator Dennis Patterson for a week this spring, have given me a pretty good perspective on what we can do to bring a much more inclusive attitude to our non-indigenous population.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise for the third time to speak in favour of Bill C-374. Once again, I would like to extend my compliments and gratitude to the member for Cloverdale—Langley City for his work bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor of the House.

When that member and I listened to witnesses speak to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Climate Change regarding issues of national heritage, we learned that our treatment of indigenous heritage has been severely lacking, consistent with much of our treatment of indigenous peoples. The committee heard that the federal government offers funding to tear down former residential school sites, but no funding to preserve them. That is a shocking disregard of an important, though dark, time in Canada's history.

To quote Ry Moran, director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, when speaking of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report's calls to action:

Central within those calls to action are a number of calls related directly to commemoration. Those commemoration calls relate directly to the creation or establishment of a “national memory” and our ongoing need as a country to make sure we continue to shine light into the darkest corners of our history.

We are fortunate in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia that the former St. Eugene Mission residential school has been converted to a hotel, visitor centre, casino, and golf course operated by the Ktunaxa Nation Council. Visitors to the centre can take a tour to learn the grim history of the building. We almost lost this important building. The first idea was to tear it down, and of course we know how much anger many indigenous people have toward residential schools. The plans were well under way when one of the Ktunaxa elders came forward and said that we needed to stop the demolition, that we needed to take a dark piece of their history and turn it into a positive future. It is a good thing we did. It is a magnificent resort.

In my riding, first nations bands include the Aq'am, whose chief is Joe Pierre, Jr. The name of the band means “deep dense woods”. There is the Akisqnuk, led by Chief Alfred Joseph. The band name means “place of two lakes”. Chief Mary Mahseelah leads the Tobacco Plains Band, which is also known as Akan'kunik, meaning the “people of the place of the flying head. Chief Michael “Jason” Louie leads the Yaqan Nukiy, meaning “where the rock stands”, otherwise known as the Lower Kootenay Band. They are all members of the Ktunaxa peoples.

I would be remiss if I did not mention one other Ktunaxa leader, Chief Sophie Pierre. Chief Sophie Pierre served on the council of the St. Mary's Indian Band, now known as Aq'am, of the Ktunaxa Nation for 30 years, 26 of them as chief. She is a recipient of the Order of Canada, the Order of British Columbia, and the National Aboriginal Achievement Award, as well as two honorary doctorates of law, from the University of British Columbia and the University of Canada West.

To the north, the Shuswap Indian Band is led by Chief Barbara Cote. Shuswap is derived from a phrase that means the “trout children”. Chief Wayne Christian leads the Splatsin Band Council, also part of the Shuswap people. Splatsin is a Salish word that may mean “meadow flat”. The Shuswap tribe is thought to be a related but distinct people from the Ktunaxa.

I bring them up because they are all great leaders who would make great additions to fill a seat on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board once this act is passed. I say this because the histories of these people are interesting and they are important, yet we spend little time and less money on indigenous history because we do not fully understand it or appreciate it. That is why one of the calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report was to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include first nations, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its secretariat. Of course, Bill C-374 would fulfill this call to action.

The Historic Sites and Monuments Board's mandate, according to its website is:

...to advise the Government of Canada, through the Minister of the Environment, on the commemoration of nationally significant aspects of Canada's history.

Following a thorough evaluation process and recommendation by the Board, the Minister declares the site, event or person of national historic significance.

That is, the board members evaluate the importance of sites and monuments and decide whether they are significant enough to merit federal protection and support. Currently, the Directory of Federal Heritage Designations includes 3,613 sites and monuments across Canada.

It is difficult to tell how many of those are dedicated to indigenous sites, because often the site will have a name that appears to be related to first nations, Inuit, or Métis, but the site itself is only recognized because of its relationship to the development of our country by Europeans. That is simply unacceptable, and we need to do better. Only by including indigenous people in our decision-making can we expect that their cultural, spiritual, and historic places, activities, and beliefs will be properly respected and honoured. This is precisely what Bill C-374 hopes to achieve. In the context of the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the evidence presented to our committee, passage of this very fundamental bill makes tremendous sense.

Bill C-374also improves the board's composition to ensure that all members have the knowledge and experience that will assist with the business of the board.

As pleased as I am and as hopeful as I am, I have serious concerns that government is slow to accept the critical importance of indigenous history and culture.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued 94 calls to action. They were grouped into categories of child welfare, education, language and culture, health, and justice. I am proud to say that earlier this week the House supported one of those calls to action in a resolution moved by my colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay.

That resolution said in part that in responding to the call of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to move our nation on a path of true healing for the crimes of the residential school era, the House “...invite Pope Francis to participate in this journey with Canadians by responding to call to action 58 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report and issue a formal papal apology for the role of the Canadian Catholic Church in the establishment, operations, and abuses of the residential schools”.

According to the CBC, as of March 2018 only 10 of the calls to action had been completed. Bill C-374, if passed, would be number 11 of 94. I congratulate my friend across the floor for bringing this piece of legislation forward. Bill C-374 would advance our nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous people while providing opportunities to preserve critical heritage that we can all learn from.

I look forward to seeing the passage of this important bill. It is a positive step forward for heritage in Canada, but there is much more to do.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I stand today to express the support of our government for Bill C-374,, an act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, composition of the Board.

I begin by acknowledging that our debate today takes place on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. As my hon. colleagues recognize, acknowledging the traditional territories of indigenous peoples represents a small but significant step in our journey towards reconciliation.

The legislation now before us proposes to take another step in this journey by improving the way that Canada commemorates the persons, places, and events that have shaped Canada's history since time immemorial. I commend my colleague, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, for bringing this private member's bill forward. I believe this is only the third time ever that a private member's bill has received royal recommendation, and it is a testament to my colleague's hard work that the bill received unanimous support from this chamber in the report stage vote.

For my colleagues to fully appreciate the context of Bill C-374, it is important to note that the Historic Sites and Monuments Act was first proposed in a Speech from the Throne in November 1952 to give a statutory basis to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, which had been established in 1919. The act was put forward in response to recommendations in the Massey Commission report of 1951. The bill received royal assent in 1953.

The mandate of the minister responsible for Parks Canada includes deciding which sites, events, or persons are commemorated for their national historic significance. To help make these decisions, the minister relies on the recommendations of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

The current board includes a representative from each province and territory and one representative from Library and Archives Canada, the Canadian Museum of History, and Parks Canada.

Under the proposed legislation, the composition of the board will now include one representative each for first nations, Inuit, and Métis. To appreciate the impact of this change, it is important to have an understanding of how the board operates.

The board's main role is to receive and analyze nominations for historic designations. Each year, the board receives about two dozen nominations from members of the public, community groups, and other organizations. The vast majority of official designations originate with nominations sent in by the public, which reflects the interest of Canadians in the history of this land.

The board meets about twice a year to review nominations and make recommendations to the minister as to whether a subject merits designation. In making their recommendations, the board considers whether a person, place, or event has had a nationally significant impact on Canada's history, or illustrates a nationally significant aspect of our history. In virtually all cases, my predecessors and I have accepted the board's recommendations.

Once an official national historic designation is bestowed, Parks Canada organizes a ceremony, and installs and maintains the bronze plaque, which is the usual form of commemoration. This process serves Canadians well.

Today, our country's network of heritage designations includes nearly 1,000 sites, 700 persons, and 500 events. Canadians and visitors to our country appreciate these designations because each one represents one part of the larger stories of Canada. They honour our roots and accomplishments. They reckon with darker chapters of our history. They also describe our aspirations: how we have seen ourselves in the past, how we see ourselves in the present, and how we want to be seen in the future.

In this way, they link past, present, and future. This idea is particularly relevant at a time when so many Canadians are re-thinking the country's relationship with indigenous peoples. For millennia, indigenous peoples thrived in communities across the landscape we now call Canada.

Since the arrival of Europeans a few centuries ago, much of this history has been either ignored or downplayed. There can be no doubt that indigenous peoples have made and continue to make important contributions to the country. Yet, if one were to travel across the country and visit every historical plaque or historic site, I am confident that person would get an extremely limited sense of the history and contributions of indigenous peoples in the country.

The simple truth, of course, is that Canada's network of historic designations reflects a rather narrow view of the past, a view rooted in our colonial history. In recent years, however, Canadians have begun to take a more critical view of our history. Many now recognize that indigenous peoples have long been prevented from participating equally in and contributing fully to this country's prosperity. We must change this sad reality to unlock Canada's full potential. Through reconciliation, I am confident we can achieve this goal.

Our government is committed to achieving reconciliation with indigenous people based on the recognition of rights and through mutual respect, co-operation, and partnership. Reconciliation involves a multi-faceted, deliberate, and ongoing process—a journey. That is why our government is committed to implementing the 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission helped to educate Canadians about Indian residential schools and to raise awareness of how past policies continue to harm this country today.

Budget 2018 proposes to provide $23.9 million over five years, starting this fiscal year, to implement call to action 79, regarding the commemoration of heritage in Canada. The funding will support the integration of indigenous views, history, and heritage in the heritage places and programs managed by Parks Canada.

The legislation now before us is an essential step in the journey to implement call to action 79 by establishing ongoing first nation, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Along the way, we must acknowledge the wrongs of the past, learn more from our history, and work together to implement indigenous rights. Bill C-374 is a step in that direction in the area of historical commemoration.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development reviewed Bill C-374 and endorsed the proposed legislation with a series of technical amendments. The amendments clarify a few points about expenses incurred by board members and the expertise of board candidates. I am convinced that these amendments would strengthen the bill and serve the best interests of Canadians.

I expect that every person here today supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, but I am convinced that we will make little progress toward this goal until we critically re-examine our history and take stock of the stories we have told and those we have not.

The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada plays an essential role in the commemoration of our history. The inclusion of indigenous peoples and indigenous representation on the board would help us bring greater perspective to the telling of the stories of Canada and foster reconciliation with indigenous peoples across this land. For these reasons, I urge all members of the House to endorse Bill C-374 at third reading.

Meegwetch.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City has a five-minute right of reply.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to close by once again thanking all members for their contributions to and consideration of this important bill. I would also like to take a brief moment to recognize and thank Kyle Harrietha for his support, guidance, and hard work in helping get Bill C-374 to this crucial stage.

I also thank the indigenous caucus for its valuable input and support for Bill C-374. No relationship is more important to our government and to Canadians than the one with indigenous peoples, and support for Bill C-374 is a proud reflection of that. I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership toward reconciliation and his support for implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, including item 79(i) covered in Bill C-374.

In closing, I humbly ask all members on both sides of the House for their support of Bill C-374 at third reading. This bill offers us, as parliamentarians, the opportunities to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and I am hopeful that it will receive the full support of this House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 9, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.