Debates of Nov. 29th, 2022

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote with Conservatives voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the result of the previous vote, voting in favour.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

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

Vote #227

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in the process of applying the vote, before we applied the final vote, the member for Saint-Laurent happened to leave the chamber. I wanted to raise this, because I believe that impacts the count of the vote.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for her point of order, and the vote count will be adjusted accordingly.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 19 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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