44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 29, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, the member does a lot of great work on this file. We sit together on INAN and I appreciate the work he and his colleagues do on the committee.
We spoke earlier about reconciliation. We also spoke earlier, as the member opposite mentioned, about opening a door and getting out of the way and ensuring that self-determination would be first and foremost when we embark on this new committee.
Frankly, the key to that is to ensure that decisions that are being made are not being made necessarily from the House. Yes, we are creating that foundation and, yes, we are giving an opportunity to move forward with this council. However, with respect to self-determination, it would be up to members of this committee to move forward with what they think should be a seat at the table as well as the actions being taken ultimately by the committee and the mandate it has before it.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do apologize for directing my earlier answer directly to the member. I have a habit of talking eye to eye and straight on.
For the member opposite, again, a member who does great work and who has a passion for indigenous issues on the committee as well as in her daily work in the House. The short answer is yes.
Again, with respect to self-determination and reconciliation, a lot of the composition and those who will be part of this committee will be brought forward by the committee itself. The minister has put the foundation in place, but the expectation is that we will be getting out of its way, as I mentioned earlier, to ensure that it is not abiding by any of the old practices of government when it comes to colonialism, that, in fact, it is opening the door for it to make its decisions through self-determination, the composition being a part of that effort.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very honoured today to rise on behalf of survivors, community members and elders who had to unfortunately live through the traumatic experience of Canada's horrific residential schools.
Today we are talking about an issue that is living in the hearts of children, their parents and their grandparents. Today throughout this debate we heard from the government about the importance of finally tabling this much awaited legislation, legislation for which survivors and their families have been calling for years now.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission travelled across our country, spoke to survivors and families about the importance of finally building an independent body that would be tasked with seeking justice on behalf of indigenous families that are still with us today.
That is the need and goal of the call to action we are speaking of today.
We also heard from the Conservatives. We heard about the need for economic reconciliation. Although much of what they are advocating for ignores the reality and plight of survivors, I do recognize the need to see true economic opportunities for indigenous people, but they must go beyond resource extraction. They must truly need indigenous people and their values, and truly lead to a better outcome for indigenous people led by them through self-determination processes.
This work is real. Right now, people across the country are deciding in their families, with their kids, in public schools and even in churches. They are having discussions with regular everyday folks about what it means when we say “reconciliation”. When I say “reconciliation”, it is important that we understand where I am coming from and where members from indigenous communities are coming from when we use that language. Reconciliation implies there was at some point some kind of conciliation that took place in Canada. It is important to recognize that indigenous people have often found themselves in the back seat of government decision-making.
Something we must avoid at all costs in legislation is the prescriptive use of government control to insist who sits at the table to guide, and maybe in some ways influence, the nature of the independent purpose of the legislation.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is new for some Canadians, but not all Canadians. Some might remember what happened in the late seventies and early eighties as indigenous people across the country organized. They built new organizations. They fought for their voice. They brought their voice into this place to demand justice, that the rights of indigenous people, their inherent and treaty rights, would be protected. We are not far from that moment in our history. Canada is a very young country, but what is needed is truly concrete action rather than words.
This is not only indigenous people saying this, it is Canada's top Auditor General. She stated just last week, “In 2011, at the end of her mandate as auditor general of Canada, Sheila Fraser summed up her impressions of the government's actions after 10 years of audits and related recommendations on First Nations issues with the word 'unacceptable'.” Five years later her predecessor, Michael Ferguson, used the words "beyond unacceptable".
She further said, “We are now into decades of audits of programs and government commitments that have repeatedly failed to effectively serve Canada's Indigenous peoples... It is clear to me that strong words are not driving change.” She has said, “Concrete actions are needed to address these long-standing issues, and government needs to be held accountable.”
Those are not the words of the New Democrats. Those are the words of Canada's Auditor General, by which I stand firmly.
The age of accountability is upon us. Indigenous people are done waiting. Indigenous people are done asking. Indigenous people are now demanding that the government take seriously and earnestly the words of its own Auditor General in echoing the facts of the failures of the government almost 10 years ago. Those words are still being echoed by the Auditor General today. We must do better.
By better, I point to some jarring statistics. Before I do that, I want to mention that when we use numbers in this place, it has to be founded with the earnest understanding that those numbers represent people, real children, people in each and every one of our communities. There is not one MP in the House who does not and is not affected by the policies of this place, in particular the policies directed at indigenous people and, most important, children. Canada's history in the prosecution of children continues still today.
Statistics Canada said that a 2021 census showed that indigenous children accounted for 53.8% of all children in foster care. This has gone up since the 2016 census, which found that 52.2% of children in care under the age of 14 were indigenous.
If I asked the government this question, which I have today, it will simply deflect and say that the provincial governments are responsible. However, that does not stop the advocates, the strong members like former Chief Norma Kassi, who said, “The doors are closed at the Residential Schools but the foster homes are still existing and our children are still being taken away.”
These are real truths, truths that may not be spoken in this place but are spoken across the country every single day, including in the courtrooms. The very honourable Cindy Blackstock, a champion and true warrior for indigenous people, fighting for the most vulnerable children, said:
...the last residential schools closed in 1997. That trauma echoed forward and then these First Nations children and families had fewer public resources to be able to deal with it. But they were often judged by Canadian public who didn’t know any better...And that perpetuated the cycle of racism and the cycle of trauma.
What she is telling us is that members of Parliament must listen earnestly to the fact that if we do not act now, this will continue generation after generation. That is how deep these wounds truly are.
We can think about the mistreatment of indigenous children, not just the residential school period but also in the sixties scoop, of which I am an intergenerational survivor. The sixties scoop was not all that long ago, and it affects families every day. Some family members we never meet. I have never met all my family members. This is not a rare story. This is a common story of many people from coast to coast to coast.
It gets even worse. Many face mistreatment, even now as we speak, such as physical, sexual and spiritual abuse. There are at least 14,100 maltreatment incident investigations for indigenous children, according to the Canadian child welfare research portal's most recent statistics. If we are not talking about the basic principles of justice in this place for the most vulnerable people in our society, what are we truly doing here? There are 14,000 children who are malnourished in Canada and we are talking about who gets to sit on a national board for reconciliation.
I challenge the government to go far beyond rhetoric, far beyond tabling legislation, but I agree with the fact that I need to use this opportunity to echo that more must be done. This is barely the first step to ensuring the government truly does what must be done.
We know these children will continue to need our support. They will continue to need indigenous people. They will continue to need their language. They will continue to need access to land. That is critical to our people's rebuilding.
I want to thank my hon. colleagues for debating this very serious topic. I hope we can unite the House, not just for the principles of fairness found within this legislation but toward justice for indigenous people, not just today but every single day in the House. That is my hope.
1341 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member touched upon the importance of the children. Several calls to action speak to education and the need to talk about the true indigenous history all across Canada, Métis history, Inuit history and first nations history.
I wonder if the member opposite could talk a little about what he sees in his province. We now have National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. We have a national council of reconciliation, $126.5 million. Could the member opposite talk a little about whether thinks the education that children are currently receiving on reconciliation and indigenous history within his province is adequate or does more need to be done?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1564 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the beautiful things about the national council for reconciliation is that its initial task is to move forward on the calls to action. However, we know we have a long way to go on reconciliation in Canada. As the national council for reconciliation knocks off all the different things we are doing to ensure better lives for indigenous people and indigenous communities, its role will change. It will be looking at things like language, overincarceration and making sure we have better processes around the justice system, but that does not prevent it from moving on in the future.
We also want to make sure we are doing exactly as I said earlier, which is closing the gap between the way indigenous people live on reserve and off reserve. That is a key part of reconciliation. We need to close the gaps, address the harm and make sure we create pathways to prosperity.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her participation at the committee. I think all parties in the House strengthened this bill and made it possible. That is how reconciliation moves forward in the House. We should move forward in a non-partisan way and together. We owe this to indigenous peoples in Canada, and when we all work together, great things happen.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a critique of what I have been hearing today.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission went all across this country hearing from survivors. We heard about the abuses. We heard about the mental, physical and sexual abuses. We heard about the addictions. We heard about the need for mental health resources. We are hearing about communities trying to establish their connection with their language.
However, the Conservatives seem to think that instead of listening to the survivors and the 94 calls to action of what they have laid out as a blueprint moving forward, what we really need is for indigenous people to adopt more of a capitalist approach to how they do things moving forward. If they just had a little more money in their pockets, they would not worry about the loss of their language and the abuse their parents or grandparents had to go through.
I am trying to figure out where the Conservatives are. Do they not feel that is a little paternalistic? Instead of talking about the 94 actions that are actually within the calls to action, they keep talking about the term “economic reconciliation”, which is nowhere in the calls to action by survivors.
205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that question gives me the opportunity to emphasize how important economic reconciliation is.
Again, I want to quote from Mr. Ellis Ross, who said:
In my community, for example, the economic reconciliation that we participated in not only made us one of the wealthiest bands in B.C., but it also, for some reason, got rid of the alcohol parties. I think a study should be made in that respect.
Absolutely, get people to work and they will live healthier lifestyles, and they will promote their children's future. To quote Mr. Ross, “They're going on vacation. They're planning futures for their children.”
That is what it looks like. That is what a good job would do for a person.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and represent the people from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, and today as I speak to Bill C-29 and the creation of a national council for reconciliation, I suggest to this place that this is a continuation of a journey that all Canadians are to be part of as we create a better future.
Speaking previously, in September, I made it clear that it was important to use a consensus-building approach to improve the legislation. Bill C-29, in its formation, deserved a responsible look at areas where it needed improvement, and I have to admit we have heard much testimony today that this was the work that was done at committee with the help of everybody there.
At second reading I pointed out a few issues that I thought needed to be addressed. I talked about the transparency and independence in the selection process of the board of directors. I talked about some words that seemed purposely vague to avoid accountability. I talked about the lack of any measurable outcomes. I talked about the fact that it took over three years to bring the bill to the House in the first place. Finally, I spoke about how the Prime Minister should be the one responding to the council's annual report, as that was the direction in call to action number 56.
In response to those concerns and the testimony of witnesses, we brought forward reasonable amendments to strengthen Bill C-29, and I am very proud today to report that 17 of the 19 amendments we put forward were passed at committee. It is the job of the official opposition to improve legislation and to make it truly representative of all voices, and that is exactly what we did at that committee.
I must admit, however, that I am a bit disappointed today to realize that the government, and specifically the minister, would not accept the democratic will of the INAN committee on the amendment to add a seat at the table for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. This is a national indigenous organization that represents over 800,000 urban indigenous people.
A second concern I have coming out of that committee debate is that there was one amendment we proposed that was disappointingly voted down by all the other parties, and that is the one I want to spend a few minutes talking about.
As many of my colleagues have talked about today, we put forward an amendment to add a seat on the board of directors for someone from an indigenous organization that is focused on economic reconciliation. With many options available from the FNFMB, or the First Nations Financial Management Board, NACCA and the CCAB, there are many great organizations doing good work in this sphere, and finding a well-established organization that historically has done great work would have been very easy. It would not have been a barrier to find somebody to sit at that table.
However, the lack of support for this amendment, it should be pointed out, came at the expense of not listening to multiple witnesses who clearly voiced their approval for the inclusion of an economic lens as part of this board. We did not advocate for that to be the only voice; it would have been only one voice at the table. To ignore these voices discredits the very process of reconciliation.
I have observed, over the last few years, Liberal and NDP MPs aggressively challenging indigenous leaders who have appeared as witnesses at the INAN committee to advocate for economic reconciliation. I often find myself questioning why. Why is there an aversion to even having this discussion? Something does not add up. What is it that they dislike about indigenous people being the masters of their own destiny? What is it that they dislike about the creation of a healthy, strong and vibrant community through prosperity? What is it that they dislike about using own-source revenue from true partnerships that address long-standing social issues? What is it that they dislike about leaving behind the destructive grip of poverty to offer hope and opportunity for future generations?
The sad answer is that they are more interested in political power and control. By imposing their own views rather than listening to indigenous voices, they create the same environment that indigenous people have lived under in this country for far too long.
It is time for a fundamental change to that approach. In fact, for those who are listening and watching closely, the change has already begun on the ground. Economic reconciliation plays such an important role in the overall discussion. Let me begin by sharing a few stories from my own riding in northern Saskatchewan.
As I returned home this September for this year's National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I spent time at Pelican Lake First Nation with Chief Peter Bill. As we arrived in the community, I was greeted by Chief Bill, a member of the RCMP and two of Pelican Lake's own community safety officers. With first nations policing being a very important topic the day after the tragedy at James Smith Cree Nation, I asked how their newly established community safety officer program was going. Chief Bill was happy to report to me that the community now has six full-time employees and its own fully equipped vehicles, and that they were in the process of hiring more officers. The RCMP officer explained to me how helpful the program had been in achieving safety in their community.
How did Pelican Lake first nation pay for this community safety officer program? They paid with their own sourced revenue. They invested profits to assist in the overall health and safety of their community instead of waiting for years for government and bureaucrats to plan and meet, develop frameworks, do benefit assessments and feasibility studies, or use the signing of MOUs for photo ops.
Later that day, I was at Flying Dust First Nation. After the formal speeches were done, we all left the hall and participated in a walk of solidarity with residential school survivors. On that walk, if I looked one way I could see a hockey rink that was built a few years ago and just beside that was their brand new 6,000-square foot sporting goods store and facility called “Snipe and Celly Sports Excellence”. If I looked the other way, out by the highway there was the brand new Petro-Canada gas station.
This was a visual reminder of what my friend Vice Chief Richard Derocher had mentioned earlier in the speeches when he spoke positively about reconciliation. He shared his wish that, when people were either visiting or driving through our communities, they would not be able to recognize when they were leaving Flying Dust First Nation and entering Meadow Lake or vice versa. How does that happen? It is by generating prosperity through economic development, which is something that Flying Dust First Nation and the Meadow Lake Tribal Council have a proud history of doing.
In northern Saskatchewan, there are many examples of these success stories. Whether it be Athabasca Basin Development group, the Des Nedhe Group of English River, Pinehouse Business North, Kitsaki Management Limited Partnership from Lac la Ronge, Sakitawak Development Corporation from the Métis village of Île-à-la-Crosse or the Peter Ballantyne Group of Companies, each is creating prosperity and capacity through the ownership and development of business opportunities. These opportunities give their people employment and a sense of pride.
These are groups on the ground that have already started the change. Their approach is the new way forward. It is their stories that the national council for reconciliation should also be reporting, along with many other things, and sharing with all Canadians.
Often Conservatives are labelled as only caring about the economy. Maybe that is our own fault because we do not explain the why. Let me try to do that. One of those community safety officers of Pelican Lake I talked about is named Dalton. I had the privilege of coaching Dalton when he played AA midget hockey in Meadow Lake. He was a sturdy, dependable defenceman who understood his role. He never missed a practice or a game. He was a player whom any coach would love to have on his team.
Dalton took those attributes and applied them to his first career choice to become a power engineer. He was supported in that choice by his mom and dad, and he would have had many options going forward in where he wanted to work, but something inside of him called him home to Pelican Lake. It was an opportunity to go home to get trained as a community safety officer and to be a leader in his own community, to be a driver of change and to set the example for the next generation.
I could not have been prouder of Dalton as I watched young kids come to him in his uniform and ask if he had any more tattoos. They felt comfortable around him. He provided them a sense of safety. He is a quality young man who is providing leadership within his community because the opportunity was there to take. That is the why. That is the outcome of economic reconciliation.
Conservatives promote and believe in economic reconciliation because it is the solution to eradicating poverty and with it the social ills that poverty creates. By putting control back in the hands of indigenous people, they get to begin to manage prosperity instead of poverty, and they get to take concrete steps toward healing through self-determination.
To conclude, I am proud of the work that our team did in making Bill C-29 a better version than when it originally came to the House in June. Many concerns that we expressed at second reading were addressed and have been improved. That is how we follow up words with action.
1687 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to this debate all day and this is the first time that I have gotten up to even ask a question. I cannot help but reflect on the fact that, time after time, every Conservative who gets up to speak to this links the concept of economic reconciliation to fossil fuel extraction. It is as though that is the only part of reconciliation that the Conservatives are interested in.
I have heard very few comments about anything other than this idea of economic reconciliation. I know the member is extremely proud of the fact that he thinks that the Conservatives think a lot about the economy, as he indicated in his speech, but is there any other part of this bill or, indeed, the reconciliation process that the member or any Conservative member would like to talk about other than economic reconciliation?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this member has an abridged version, but I will try.
I am just going to briefly summarize a couple of the things that we improved in the bill. The first was accountability, through the governance model that was there.
The second thing we improved was to remove some questionable language, which was vague and left room for wiggle space. We want to improve accountability, and we removed some of that language to make the government more accountable to the national council for reconciliation.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that economic reconciliation is foundational. There was a situation not so long ago, with the northern gateway project, where every first nation was in support of the project, including 80% of elected members and chief counsel of the Wet'suwet'en, yet the Liberals found some spokespeople. There were some people against it, as one would expect in a democracy, but they basically nixed the entire project, which negatively impacted first nations people across British Columbia.
I wonder if the member could comment on the gap between what the Liberals say, how they are saying they were trying to help, and what is really happening on the ground.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, let me digress for a moment to talk about language learning. A few years ago, in 2018, in an effort to reconnect with my roots, I was able to take classes in the Wendat language from an office in Montreal, even though Wendake is in the Quebec City area. I salute the efforts that the Wendake officials made at that time to spread their language to their diaspora. I say bravo to them.
Now, I am entirely in favour, and we are all in favour, of this national council for reconciliation, despite the reservations some may have about the word “reconciliation”, as my colleague said.
That being said, it is all well and good to begin speeches with references to unceded territory and all that, but as long as the Indian Act, a title that is racist in itself, remains in place, what is the point?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
