44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 21, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, while it is always an honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of the people of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, this week as we return to Parliament, especially as a member from northern Saskatchewan, I come with a heavy heart. As I begin today, I want to acknowledge the recent tragic events in northern Saskatchewan in the communities of James Smith Cree Nation and Weldon. As the healing journey begins for so many, it is important that in the days and weeks ahead we do not allow our focus to be lost from what is going to be a long and difficult journey for many. Often as the media attention diminishes, so can the help and support. The heavy burden these communities will carry will require a resolve, a resolve to continue to be there for family, friends and neighbours. We must not allow them to walk this journey alone.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I rise to speak on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. The work of truth and reconciliation needs to be viewed as a journey rather than a destination. Relationships are not easy, especially ones that have a long history of distrust. That distrust is the reason why a bill like Bill C-29 deserves to be looked at through a lens that focuses on a consensus-building approach. This will create better legislation. It is what is needed and, quite frankly, deserved.
Bill C-29 attempts to honour calls to action 53 to 56 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by creating an accountability mechanism on the progress of reconciliation across the country. Our party supports accountability. In fact, as the party that established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we welcome it. We will support this bill to go to committee and work there to make improvements.
With the purpose of building better legislation and in the advancement of reconciliation, there are a few matters that I feel should be addressed, some concerns, some questions and some suggestions we will make. I would like to take the next few minutes to speak to some of those concerns.
The first concern I will address is around the appointment process of the board of directors of the national council for reconciliation, its transparency and its independence. To help explain this, I want to speak to some of the steps and timelines that led up to Bill C-29 being tabled in the House.
In December of 2017, the Prime Minister announced that he would start the process of establishing a national council for reconciliation by establishing an interim board of directors. By June 2018, only six months later, the interim board of directors presented its final report, with 20 very specific recommendations. It is worth noting, and it was confirmed by the technical briefing last night, that those 20 recommendations were the basis for the draft legal framework. One of those recommendations also included setting up a transitional committee to continue the work that was started.
I want to read a quote from that final report. It states:
As indicated in our interim report, the interim board believes it is important that a transitional committee be set up to continue the work proposed in the interim and final reports. During our tenure, we have heard from various organizations and community members that we need to move forward with speed and maintain the momentum to establish the NCR.
However, inexplicably, it took three and a half years, until December 2021, for the minister to finally get around to appointing the members of the transitional committee. Again, let us be clear. The development of the basis for the legal framework of Bill C-29 was already finished in June 2018. Why the delay?
The current government, time and again on indigenous issues, makes big announcements, holds press conferences, takes photographs and then proceeds to ignore the real and difficult work. Now we fast-forward to June of 2022, when the minister finally tabled Bill C-29, with just two days left in the spring session I might add. That is four years after the recommendations.
It is not just the unacceptable time frames, but the lack of independence and transparency of the selection process that is concerning. From the interim board of directors to the transitional committee to the board of directors of the council, the process of selecting members has been at the sole discretion of the minister. In June, while Bill C-29 was being introduced, there were indigenous organizations that were very public with their own concerns about this process. These concerns are valid, because according to the TRC’s call to action 53, the national council for reconciliation is supposed to be an independent body. I have a simple question. How is it independent if, per clause 8 of this bill, the first board of directors is “selected by the Minister”?
Does the government really expect us to believe, based on its history, that it deserves the benefit of the doubt, and that it would never put forward any undue pressure to get what it wants? Finally, there are the minister’s own words when explaining how this oversight body is needed. He said, “It isn’t up to Canada to be grading itself.”
I think the concerns around the selection process require the minister to be very clear in the House and, more importantly, to indigenous peoples on why he is comfortable in having so much direct control and influence on a body that will be tasked with holding his own government to account on advancing reconciliation.
My next concern is that there is nothing in Bill C-29 that has anything concrete as far as measuring outcomes. Quantifying reconciliation is difficult, I admit, but a close look at call to action number 55 will show that it includes several items that are, in fact, measurable. I will give a few examples: the comparative number of indigenous children to non-indigenous children in care and the reasons for that; the comparative funding for education of on- and off-reserve first nations children; the comparative education and income attainments of indigenous to non-indigenous people; progress on closing the gap on health outcomes; progress on eliminating overrepresentation of indigenous children in youth custody; progress on reducing the rate of criminal victimization in homicide, family violence and other crimes; and, finally, progress on reducing overrepresentation in the justice and correctional systems.
The concern is that, if we want to measure accountability, we must set targets that determine success from failure. Like the axiom, what gets measured gets done.
The PBO recently released a report in response to a Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs request that was very critical of the departments of ISC and CIRNAC for spending increases without improvements in outcomes. I am going to quote from the report: “The analysis conducted indicates that the increased spending did not result in a commensurate improvement in the ability of these organizations to achieve the goals that they had set for themselves.” That paragraph ends with, “Based on the qualitative review the ability to achieve the targets specified has declined.”
Maybe this is what the government is afraid of. Not only is there a lack of measurable outcomes in Bill C-29, but the wording seems to be purposely vague, just vague enough to avoid accountability. Chief Wilton Littlechild, who sat on both the interim board of directors and the transitional committee, when referring to the bill, told CBC News that the wording needs to be strengthened.
For example, the purpose section of the bill uses the text “to advance efforts for reconciliation”, but Littlechild said the word “efforts” needs deletion. He says the bill should instead say, “advance reconciliation” because it is building on work that has already laid a foundation. The preamble of the bill states that the government should provide “relevant” information, which Littlechild says leaves the government to determine what is important or not. “We could've taken out those kind of words,” he said.
When added all together, it seems that there is a pattern of reducing the risk of accountability in the wording of the bill and in the lack of measurable outcomes that would require the government to follow through on its words and actions.
My final concern is around who responds to the annual report issued by the national council. Subclause 17(3) of the bill states that the minister must respond to the matters addressed by the NCR’s annual report by “publishing an annual report on the state of Indigenous peoples that outlines the Government of Canada’s plans for advancing reconciliation.” This does not honour the TRC’s call to action number 56, which clearly and unequivocally calls on the Prime Minister of Canada to formally respond.
The Prime Minister has consistently said that, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples.” Actions speak louder than words and the Prime Minister should be the one responding directly, not delegating that responsibility to the minister.
In closing, as I stated earlier, our party will support Bill C-29 and, in the spirit of collaboration and in response to the minister's own words of being willing to be open to “perfecting” the bill, will work with the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and will offer some amendments that we believe will make this bill better.
It is now our duty to ensure that Bill C-29 is a piece of legislation that truly advances reconciliation.
1652 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his dedication and passion as a member of the indigenous and northern affairs committee. He is incredibly dedicated and collegial, and I think that is needed in this space when we talk about such important things.
Unfortunately, that has not been your party's historical approach to indigenous peoples. I will highlight, as a measurable outcome, the creation of the Idle No More movement under the Harper regime. I am wondering if you can point to an example of how your new leadership will perhaps change his own beliefs and some of the comments he has made about indigenous people in regard to residential schools. Can we expect to see a shift in the rhetoric and a more supportive tone from your Conservative bench?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/22 4:40:37 p.m.
- Watch
I really have to say that members need to speak through the Speaker and not directly to other members. With the usage of “you” and “your” and those kinds of things, are you questioning my authority? I am seeing some questioning.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/22 4:41:00 p.m.
- Watch
I have your back, Mr. Speaker.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the opportunity to work at committee to make some improvements and add some teeth to this bill. I have several ideas that I would like to propose when we get there.
I would like to remind the member that it was actually the Conservatives who established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. If it was not for that, we would probably not be having this debate today. If it was left to the Liberal bench to establish the TRC, we would have probably witnessed more announcements, some press conferences and more studies instead of moving on real progress.
I can assure the members that our new leader is committed to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/22 4:41:00 p.m.
- Watch
There you go.
The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for his very thoughtful speech and his statement. I really appreciated it.
I do agree with the member that there are some gaps in this bill and I think we are going to need to make sure amendments are made. I wonder if the member could share with us whether one of the gaps is that it does not take a rights-based approach to ensuring that indigenous rights are being protected and better served in Canada?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work my colleague and I do together on committee. I look forward to the work we can do.
Our team has a number of ideas that we are going to put forward as amendments. We are going to be listening. If you have some ideas, we are more than happy to consider those and work together to improve this bill.
Let us be fair; this is a good starting point. There are some ways we could improve this bill and move it a little farther down the road to advance reconciliation for all people across our country. I am happy to work with you on any of the ideas you would put forward.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/22 4:43:02 p.m.
- Watch
Again I am going to remind folks to work through the Chair. On the usage of “you” and speaking directly to other members, just do not do it quite as much.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been here for some time. I had very dark hair when I first came. I think the importance is in making sure that we are not referencing each other or actually referencing young sheep, because I am not sure, when they keep talking about “you”, whether it is “you” plural as we would say in northern Ontario or “ewe” the little sheep.
Mr. Speaker, could you please clarify the importance of speaking through you so there is no misunderstanding. People might be thinking we are talking about little sheep. I would, if I was referring to the Conservatives say “youse guys” because that would be more the second person plural, but I am not going to do that. I would speak through you.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/22 4:43:49 p.m.
- Watch
Thank you for that clarification to work through the Chair and on the usage of “you”. It is probably best not to use “you” when we are dealing with questions and answers in this chamber.
We still have some time for questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we have a very significant day coming up next week. It is a statutory holiday. It is part of truth and reconciliation. There is this expectation that maybe there is something that we could do here. I believe there is.
When we take a look at the support that seems to be implied in the comments and questions, it would be a wonderful thing to see this legislation pass. Would the member provide his thoughts on the significance of the legislation in terms of its passage before the statutory holiday next week?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my understanding would be that the legislative calendar is controlled by that side of the House, not by us. I have not been here that long but that is my understanding of how this works.
I have been very clear about my desire and intention to have some conversations about this at committee and about proposing some amendments that we think would improve the bill. I guess I would throw that back at the other side of the House. It is on them, not us, to determine the schedule.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act. This bill is the government's attempt after six and a half years 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, has only fully implemented 11 out of the 94 calls to action and only eight of the 76 calls that actually fall under its jurisdiction.
Bill C-29 is long overdue, and the rush by the government to implement something has produced a flawed bill. If we are to continue down the path of reconciliation with indigenous people, a robust and inclusive response to calls to action 53 to 56 is needed. Unfortunately, the government has failed to produce that response. Bill C-29 provides a framework for the implementation of a national council for reconciliation, but the foundation is cracked and will need some care and attention at committee if the government hopes to provide a workable council that is respected by all indigenous leaders, communities and organizations across Canada.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended that the government establish a national council for reconciliation in call to action 53. Bill C-29 would address this through the creation of a not-for-profit corporation that would have between nine and 13 members who would monitor and report the progress of the government on their efforts for reconciliation with indigenous people. The council would not be an agent of His Majesty in the right of Canada, nor would it be governed by the Financial Administration Act. It would be, in every practical sense, an independent body, or at least it should be.
Here we find the first of several issues I have with Bill C-29. How independent would this council be if the members of the board are picked by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations? The bill stipulates that the first board of directors would “be selected by the Minister in collaboration with the transitional committee”. However, let us not forget that the transitional committee was selected by the minister in December 2021. Why is this important? First, the board would have the vital task of establishing the articles of incorporation and other founding documents that set aside how future boards would be elected and who would constitute a member. In other words, the minister and his hand-picked transitional team would determine the future of this so-called independent council, and its job would include taking the minister to task over their failed record on reconciliation.
Call to action 54 calls on the government to provide multi-year funding for the national council. The government did so in budget 2019 through the allocation of $126.5 million, yet the act would not require any accountability on the expenditure of this money, and not one financial report would need to be filed by the council.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission recognized the importance that relevant and timely information be provided to the council for it to actually do its work. This was enshrined in call to action 55, where all levels of government are required to provide annual reports and current data on a wide range of areas related to indigenous matters, including but not limited to child care, education, health, incarceration rates, criminality and victimization rates. It would be interesting to hear from provincial and municipal authorities how they are able to implement this requirement. I hope, for the council's sake, that a lot of the work to streamline these requests has already taken place between the crown-indigenous relations ministry, including Northern Affairs Canada, and their provincial counterparts. I also hope that there will not be any undue burdens placed on our already taxed municipal governments with respect to extra reporting requirements.
Call to action 56 calls on the government, the Prime Minister in fact, to formally respond to the report by issuing a state of indigenous peoples' report that outlines the government's reconciliation plan. Bill C-29 utterly fails here, designating the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, rather than the Prime Minister, to make the response.
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 MNC, three national organizations that the Liberal government almost exclusively deals with when it comes to indigenous issues, yet they are not the only national indigenous organizations in Canada. In fact, large swaths of urban and poor people would be ignored. There is no representation of women or children designated on the council. There is no acknowledgement of the work of the on-the-ground community organizations that do the work day in and day out for indigenous people.
The Liberals will argue that those organization could get elected by the membership, and sure they could, but why do some organizations get guaranteed spots and not others? Why have important national organizations, such as the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or the National Association of Friendship Centres, been designated as second-class organizations by the government? Where are the other Métis and indigenous voices?
What about organizations focused on the important work of economic reconciliation? 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 to also to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour to people who have had it stripped away by a paternalistic, archaic, and irreparably broken Indian Act.
If the government of Canada is serious about true reconciliation, we need to address the elephant in the room. I believe that we need to immediately, and in partnership with indigenous leaders, do a comprehensive review of the Indian Act with the intent of removing the legislative barriers to participation in Canada’s economy and developing a long-term plan to fully transition away from the Indian Act.
Some indigenous communities are already there. Some are in the process, and some are not ready for that conversation. That is why we need a cautious approach to supporting the abolition of the Indian Act by providing indigenous communities that are prepared for self-government with the legislative avenues to do so, while also ensuring that a robust and national dialogue on the plan for what is next is held inclusively with indigenous and non-indigenous people and ensuring that any new legislation is based on consultation relating to autonomy, taxation, transparency, accountability and property rights.
At the same time, it is my belief that we need establish a 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 the goal of phasing out these government bureaucracies all together. There is no reason why indigenous communities and organizations cannot deal directly with finance or health or any other government entity without consulting the gatekeepers at those two ministries.
We need to modernize the land treaties system to initiate economic prosperity for indigenous communities; provide the tools for indigenous communities to determine their own destiny while balancing the rights of Canada; ensure the need for certainty and finality of terms, so as not to impede the overall governance of the nation; and provide future certainty for governments, industry, and indigenous and non-indigenous people.
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 people, not what is in the best interest of this Liberal government. By modernizing our approach to indigenous partnerships through the eventual abolition of the Indian Act, we modernize Canada, and we usher in a new age of economic prosperity and equality for opportunity.
Bill C-29, which disregards the important counsel of organizations devoted to indigenous people, women's and children’s issues, urban and poor first nations, and self-sufficiency and equality is a symptom of a much larger issue. Conservatives support reconciliation with indigenous people, and we are ready to have conversation.
1395 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would love to comment on the member's approach here, which was very constructive. Many great things were put forward. I sincerely look forward to working with the member again on the indigenous and northern affairs committee to work through some of these issues.
I, too, want transparency and accountability for indigenous peoples across this country. I wonder if the member could comment briefly on the complex nature of the TRC calls to action and this incredible work that we need to do. Perhaps we cannot oversimplify this work, but really need to go slowly and make sure that it is done properly, while also recognizing the urgency.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's work on the committee.
Yes, obviously we want to ensure everything is done properly. It is why my colleague from northern Saskatchewan and I just outlined in our speeches some improvements we would like to see made. At the same time, there are less than nine calls to action under federal jurisdiction that have actually been completed, and we have been at this for a great number of years.
There is a lot of work that can be done faster. We know how the government likes to drag things out. We want to push it a little more to actually get the job done, and that is what we will continue to do.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to make an interesting note about one of the comments the member made about abolishing the Indian Act. This was something proposed by the other bench by the then prime minister Trudeau Sr. A strong activist and indigenous leader from my province of Alberta named Harold Cardinal responded by saying that we should not demolish and do away with the Indian Act until such time as we have a proper and measurable response to indigenous claims of rights and land.
Would the member agree that indigenous people need to have a pathway to sovereignty and recognized rights before we contemplate abolishing the Indian Act?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, it is exactly what I pointed out in my speech. We should first of all be ready to have this conversation, and there are many who are ready to have this conversation. Many acknowledge the barriers the Indian Act has imposed upon communities right across the country.
There are communities, as I mentioned in my speech, that are ready for this conversation now. There are some considering it, and there are some that are not willing to have this conversation. That is why we are very cautious to say that maybe we can have this conversation with the inclusion and the very real input of indigenous communities, but also provide the off-ramps for those who are ready to have this conversation today.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑29 states that the purpose of the council will be to monitor the progress being made towards reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada. That is a broad scope.
Which sectors does my colleague think should be prioritized? Should the monitoring be limited to federal institutions? Should the council also monitor federally regulated private companies?
I would like to hear his thoughts on that.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we want to, as I mentioned in my speech, respect the various jurisdictions, such as provincial and municipal governments, and work with them in partnership when there is an opportunity to do so. We also do not want to overstep and be the federal government that knows best.
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
