44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 29, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying I am very concerned with the Liberals' proposal to remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from this legislation. I recently had the opportunity to visit Prince Edward Island, not too far from where the hon. member is. I met with both the Mi'kmaq Confederacy of P.E.I. and the Native Council of P.E.I., which I am sure the hon. member is well acquainted with. The Native Council of P.E.I. specifically works in conjunction with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples quite frequently. In fact, its representatives told me in the meeting I had with them that they felt their voices were amplified through that organization. The Native Council of P.E.I. represents over 1,000 off-reserve indigenous peoples across the province.
I want to ask the hon. member why the Liberal government feels those voices should not be heard in this legislation.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are three distinct groups that make up aboriginal people under the Constitution of Canada, which are the Métis, the first nations and the Inuit. They are represented by the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.
We made sure we heard from these voices, but we wanted to make sure this was a non-political group. We did not want parties to come in and say that they really liked an organization and wanted a certain person to have a seat or that they really like what another person had to say. We tried to keep the politics out of it, stick with the constitutional nature that is represented in section 35 and make sure that we were consistent with what we were putting forward with the Constitution of Canada and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is why we have moved forward with those three groups.
As part of the committee and part of the discussion, we heard some great discussion about the need to include indigenous women as part of our calls to justice in the aid of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. We believed that because of gender parity, because of the things we wanted to do to show them we were moving forward on the calls to justice, we would move forward with the Native Women's Association of Canada. However, those were the only groups we felt were the appropriate—
255 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of working with my colleague from the Bloc previously on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. To that end, I want to talk a bit about the amendment that was put forward by the Liberal Party to remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from having a seat on this council. The Conservatives proposed that initiative at committee and we had support from the NDP and the Bloc to include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
How does the Bloc Québécois feel about the inclusion of the congress?
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to add a couple thoughts. When the member makes reference to names, I think of individuals such as Diane Redsky, Sharon Redsky, Cindy Woodhouse and Amy Chartrand.
These individuals have committed so much of their lives and efforts toward indigenous people on the issue of reconciliation in a real way. There are obviously many others. I am referring just to Winnipeg North, and it is a relatively small number of individuals that I could recognize.
I would like to pay a compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on how effective he has been as an indigenous caucus chair. He has provided advice to the Prime Minister and to members of Parliament, such as myself. He has provided us very valuable information to ensure we continue to be on the right track.
Back in 2015, when the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party in third-party status, the 94 calls to action were tabled here. The then leader of the Liberal Party made a solemn commitment to indigenous people from coast to coast to coast, and beyond, to implement and work toward getting all 94 calls to action moving in a positive direction.
Upon the election results later that year, we made it very clear that our priority was indigenous reconciliation. That was something that was not optional. If one were to check the mandate letters provided to ministers, they would see a very clear indication on indigenous people. This is something that is of a strong personal nature for our Prime Minister. It has been a priority for our entire caucus, with the guidance of individuals like our Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.
If we look at budgetary measures or legislative measures, virtually from day one to today, we will see calls to action being responded to in a tangible way. We hear some members of Parliament say we are spending too much, implying there is too much waste. Others will say we are not spending enough.
What is clear is that we have never before seen a government invest so much in financial resources, and other resources, to deal with truth and reconciliation and justice for indigenous people in Canada. There should be no doubt about that.
When I was in opposition, I on occasion made reference to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls from indigenous communities. That is an issue I recall asking for a public inquiry on. That was before the calls to action.
I would like to read call to action 41. It states:
We call upon the federal government, in consultation with Aboriginal organizations, to appoint a public inquiry into the causes of, and remedies for, the disproportionate victimization of Aboriginal women and girls. The inquiry’s mandate would include:
(i) Investigation into missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls
(ii) Links to the intergenerational legacy of residential schools.
I raise that because one of the very first actions of this government was to call for the public inquiry. We have many actions being requested of the government that have come out of that public inquiry.
Fast-forward to today, and we are talking about Bill C-29. If we look at what Bill C-29 is all about, let there be no doubt that it is specifically in response to calls to action 53, 54, 55 and 56. Call to action 53 states:
We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal Peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members. Its mandate would include, but not be limited to, the following....
Call to action 53 then goes on to list five points.
Call to action 54 states:
We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.
Call to action 55 states, in part:
We call upon all levels of government to provide annual reports or any current data requested by the National Council for Reconciliation so that it can report on the progress towards reconciliation. The reports or data would include, but not be limited to....
It then lists two items.
Finally, call to action 56 states:
We call upon the prime minister of Canada to formally respond to the report of the National Council for Reconciliation by issuing an annual “State of Aboriginal Peoples” report, which would outline the government’s plans for advancing the cause of reconciliation.
Those four calls to action are in this legislation, in the amendments that were brought forward. I highlighted call to action 41, which we took action on immediately after we became government back in 2015, and today we are debating those four calls to action.
It is not only budgetary and legislative measures that the government makes on a daily basis. If we focus our attention strictly on truth and reconciliation, we can talk about not millions, but billions of dollars that the government has allocated in working in partnership with indigenous people, whether it is on issues such as systemic racism, health care, housing and so much more.
In terms of legislation, we can talk about enactments to support indigenous child welfare. We can talk about legislation to support indigenous language. We can talk about Bill C-15, the UNDRIP legislation that was brought forward. What about the statutory holiday that was brought forward in legislation? There is legislation dealing with the oath of citizenship. When we hear that every child matters, calls to action 72 to 76 are ongoing. We can talk about the lobbying that took place and call to action 58, which was the formal apology from the Pope here in Canada.
If we look at the 94 calls to action in total, well over 80% of them have been acted on in one form or another, and many of them have been completed. It is important to recognize that, as a national government, where we have responsibility, we act on it. That is a commitment that the Prime Minister and Liberal Party made before we formed government, and now that we have the reins of government, we are implementing these calls to action because it is the right thing to do.
I recognize there is a lot more that needs to be done. I suspect if we were to check with the Prime Minister, cabinet or any individual member of the Liberal caucus, we would find the same sentiment.
1152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my Liberal colleague's speech. He talked specifically about the need for diverse voices around the table, including voices of those who would share hard truths.
I hope that member is familiar with the Daniels accord and the Daniels decision related to the legal battle between the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Government of Canada and the associated issues surrounding ensuring that both status and non-status indigenous peoples are recognized by the government.
Specifically, I am very disappointed. I am wondering if the hon. member is going to support his government's amendment put forward today, an amendment passed at committee and brought forward in the House at report stage, that would remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from this council.
I am very concerned. Although the hon. member talks about hard truths being shared from voices around the table, I am wondering if he supports his government's agenda to remove those voices.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member opposite just mentioned a very critical part of this act that I hope will benefit the dialogue of all members of Parliament on this incredibly important topic.
The Constitution of Canada was mentioned several times in defence of the government, as to why it chose three national organizations. The Constitution under section 35 is explicit. It says that we will protect and affirm the existing aboriginal inherent treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis. Not once does it make mention of the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council or the ITK. These three national organizations were, in many cases, incorporated after the Constitution in 1982 was ratified.
The question really is about why the government chose those three national organizations. It cannot use the Constitution, because that is not what it says.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a couple of fronts, those projects are happening as we speak, even in my own jurisdiction in B.C.
Call to action 92 actually says, at the end of the paragraph, “Ensure that Aboriginal peoples have equitable access to jobs, training, and education opportunities in the corporate sector, and that Aboriginal communities gain long-term sustainable benefits from economic development projects.”
If that is not economic reconciliation, what is?
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I asked this question of another Liberal member earlier here today. It is about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. I hope that the parliamentary secretary is aware of the Daniels decision related to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Government of Canada, and the long legal battle between the two with the recognition that the federal government is legally accountable for Métis and non-status Indian interests.
That is key because, over the course of debate at committee, additional and important interests, including national indigenous organizations, were added to this council, yet we see an amendment, dropped on the table here today by the Liberal minister, which would remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. It is an important voice for indigenous concerns, many of which are not represented by other forums. Does this member support removing CAP from this commission?
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think that is important as we determine what the mandate of the council is going to be. As I said in my address, if we do not know what the mandate is going to be, then it will be very hard to measure what the outcomes are and what it is that we have achieved.
Of course, I know that there was a great amount of work done in committee. We found out this morning that the Liberals put an amendment forward to remove the seat of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples on the board of directors. I am sure that has come as a bit of a shock to the NDP members who were there and to the Bloc, which had also supported this.
It is not very often, but in this case, I feel sorry for the NDP if its coalition forces threw it under the bus while its leadership searched for a justification to prop up the Liberal betrayal.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, absolutely not. When I was on the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, I was in the territories speaking to leaders. Those leaders were asking for opportunities to bring their people out of poverty. That was it. It was not because of any political party. It is not because of who belonged to whom. It was a case of them saying that it needed to be done.
They had some of the most amazing individuals who I would love to have running a company if I was that sort of an individual or person. That is what we have in our northern communities. We have to get off this dependency approach. We cannot allow this eco-colonialism to continue. I think that is what Calvin Helin has indicated and, certainly, it is time now for us to give them the opportunities that they deserve. That is what I am standing up for.
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
It is a pleasure to begin report stage debate on Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
We have concluded an in-depth, detailed study on Bill C-29 at the INAN committee. Over the past month, a total of 32 witnesses gave their testimony during seven meetings on Bill C-29. Witnesses included representatives from national indigenous organizations and indigenous groups. The members of the transitional committee were also invited as witnesses. We worked together in a collaborative spirit and listened to the many witnesses with open minds.
During clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, 41 amendments were proposed and 26 were adopted to strengthen the bill in terms of diversity, representation, transparency and accountability. These amendments respect the council as an independent indigenous-led organization. The vision of the council was set forth by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the interim board, and the transitional committee has been strengthened, not changed.
I would like to highlight some of the key amendments that were made by the committee to this bill.
Many of the amendments that have been adopted focused on strengthening the composition and representation of the board of directors of this council. The original bill outlined that the board should include first nations, Inuit and Métis, as well as other people here in this great nation; other indigenous organizations; youth, women, men and gender-diverse people; and people from various regions of Canada, including urban, rural and remote regions. Amendments have been adopted that include two directors from the territories to ensure representation of the north.
All parties submitted amendments to have the Native Women's Association of Canada nominate a director to the board in recognition of the need to respect women's voices, contributions to policy and research, and, more broadly, to respect reconciliation. This includes the implementation of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls calls for justice.
There was also broad consensus that the committee must include representation of elders and survivors of residential schools and their descendants, in recognition of the knowledge they carry and the origins of the National Council for Reconciliation, in the TRC calls to action. We know that elders are central figures in indigenous cultures and, equally as important, individual communities. Survivors and their descendants are important voices in the advancement of reconciliation.
Finally, the committee added representation for indigenous persons with French as their first or second language learned.
These amendments ensure that the board of directors is representative of the diversity and plurality of indigenous peoples.
The bill has also been updated to recognize that the revitalization and celebration of indigenous languages is part of reconciliation and, more importantly, the resurgence of reconciliation. The functions of the council now include protecting indigenous language rights. This includes supporting the participation of indigenous peoples in the work of the council through translation and interpretation services.
As members will recall, the House passed the Indigenous Languages Act to preserve, promote and revitalize indigenous languages throughout this great country. Ronald E. Ignace was appointed as the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages. These amendments align with our government's commitment to implementing the Indigenous Languages Act in order to reclaim and strengthen indigenous languages.
It would be the national council's work to monitor, to evaluate, to conduct research and to report on the progress being made toward reconciliation. To do so, it would need to access information from all levels of government as outlined in call to action number 55. The original bill included the development of an information-sharing protocol that would obligate the government to share with the council information that would be relevant to its purpose.
Establishing this protocol through legislation is an innovative tool to hold the Government of Canada accountable for supporting the council's needs to efficiently as well as effectively implement its mandate, while also preserving its independence from government. It would be developed within six months of incorporation of the council.
Another amendment has been adopted, which requires the government to provide the council with the information identified in the Truth and Reconciliation call to action 55, such as the number of indigenous children in care compared with non-indigenous children and data on comparative funding for education, health indicators and the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the justice and the correctional systems. Like other amendments adopted at INAN, this respects the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, the legislation would obligate the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to table the council's annual report in both Houses of Parliament and, as amended, the Prime Minister to formally respond to the council's report. This responds to call to action 56, which calls on the Prime Minister to formally respond to the report of the national council for reconciliation by issuing an annual state of aboriginal peoples report, which would outline the government's plans for advancing the cause of reconciliation.
It is important that the council's report leads to action. The Government of Canada is committed to reconciliation, but recognizes the important role of other levels of government and sectors in supporting this work.
Finally, I would like to discuss the amendment that was introduced today. As I previously mentioned, the bill now includes a provision to ensure inclusion of indigenous persons whose first or second language is French. The government is proposing revised wording to the amendment in clause 12 to remove the term “mother tongue” as it is a gendered term. This would ensure that the wording is clear so the council would know how to interpret and implement it.
Before I conclude, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and to express my sincere appreciation to the residential school survivors once again for sharing the truths of their experiences. Without them, we would not be where we are today.
I would encourage each and every member of this Parliament and our colleagues who worked together to bring this forward to move quickly to pass this important legislation and to move forward once again with reconciliation.
1060 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Griesbach for his comments. I have appreciated the opportunity to work with him on a number of files over the last year.
I want to go back to the amendment that has been proposed by the Liberals. In 2018 the government signed an accord recognizing the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples as one of the five national indigenous organizations, which is why at committee the Conservatives brought forward a motion to add a seat at the table for this organization. That passed with the support of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois members.
Given that the Liberals are now bringing forward an amendment to remove that seat, I wonder if the member for Edmonton Griesbach can clarify if the NDP members will vote, as they did at committee, in favour of reserving a seat on this board for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
154 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
