Congratulations, Senator Miville-Dechêne.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act, as the official critic. This bill is the government’s attempt, after nearly seven years, to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action numbers 53 through 56.

Bill C-29 provides a framework for the implementation of a national council for reconciliation, a framework that was flawed when presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. The committee worked hard to repair Bill C-29, yet two issues remain that will require the close attention of senators here. I speak to the composition of the board of directors, specifically clause 10(1), and to the inclusion of the recognition of the importance of economic reconciliation as a driver for Canada’s overall efforts to reconcile with Indigenous peoples.

The bill sets aside directions for the construction of the council’s board of directors. The board will be composed of a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 13 directors. Originally, the board was to consist of three guaranteed seats, one each for the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK; and the Métis National Council.

Through witness testimony, it was heard that these three groups do not represent all the First Nations, Inuit or Métis in Canada. It was through the interventions of the Conservative members of the committee that two other national organizations were considered for these guaranteed seats: the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada gives voice to Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people in Canada, inclusive of First Nations — on and off reserve, status and non‑status, disenfranchised — Métis and Inuit. The Native Women’s Association works on a variety of issues, including employment, labour and business; health; violence prevention and safety; justice and human rights; environment; early learning child care; and international affairs.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents the interests of Métis, status and non-status Indians and southern Inuit Indigenous people living off-reserve in Canada. The congress works collectively with its 11 provincial and territorial organizations across Canada to improve the socio-economic conditions of their constituency living in urban or rural areas.

Thankfully, through the advocacy of Conservative members and with support from other opposition parties, the bill was amended at committee stage to include guaranteed seats for the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, along with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council. However, at report stage in the House of Commons, the Liberal government introduced a motion to specifically remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from clause 10(1) of Bill C-29.

The Liberal government along with their coalition allies, the NDP, voted together to ensure that the motion would pass, effectively silencing the voices of over 800,000 Métis, status and non-status Indians and southern Inuit Indigenous people living off-reserve in Canada.

Truth and Reconciliation Call to Action 53 set out the conditions for the establishment of the council. Call to Action 53 called on:

. . . 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.

Of note, there is no condition that limits the government to provide a guaranteed seat, nor is there a condition to specify which organizations should be on the council. The only condition present in the Call to Action is that the legislation would establish the council that contains “national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members.”

There are five recognized Indigenous national organizations, yet only three were part of the original bill. While, thankfully, the latter two were added at committee, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, a nationally recognized Indigenous organization, was removed by a Liberal amendment in the House.

One of the most glaring issues with Bill C-29 was the lack of representation for largely urban status and non-status Indigenous peoples in this country. Conservatives advocated to address this serious oversight, but the government has chosen to deny a large swath of disenfranchised people.

Senator Brazeau stated, as a former elected Indigenous leader of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples:

If there is an exclusion of one recognized Indigenous organization, I fail to see how there is any respect, cooperation or partnership here.

Furthermore, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK as it is commonly known, has raised its own concerns regarding clause 10(1), going so far as to withdraw its support from Bill C-29. ITK President Natan Obed fears the council created by the bill could undermine ongoing Inuit work to build a direct relationship with the federal government and advance Inuit rights and interests, adding that the bill as it stands also does little to make the federal government accountable for fulfilling its obligations on reconciliation.

According to ITK, the proposed council would force Inuit — who have constitutionally protected Indigenous rights — to sit with organizations that are not rights holders, and that the bill could compel the government to pick and choose the people it listens to and how it does its work.

ITK has now officially withdrawn their support from Bill C-29, stating that the Liberal government’s claims that this legislation was co-developed are wrong. As President Obed stated:

It has been debatable on the Inuit side on whether or not we would describe how we’ve interacted with the federal government as co-developed.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief RoseAnne Archibald has stated that Bill C-29 is “not within the spirit and intent of reconciliation, and it’s very paternalistic.” The AFN is very concerned that the federal Crown-Indigenous Relations minister would get to appoint the majority of the proposed national council for reconciliation’s first board of directors.

This issue was raised by Conservative members at the committee, asking how independent this council will be if members of the board are picked by the Minister of Crown‑Indigenous Relations. While the bill does state that directors will be chosen by the council and not the minister, Bill C-29 does stipulate that the first board of directors will be selected by the minister in “collaboration” with the transitional committee. But let’s not forget that the transitional committee was also selected by the minister in December of 2021.

Why is this important? The first board will have the vital task of establishing the articles of incorporation and other founding documents that set aside how future boards will be elected and who will constitute a member. In other words, the minister and his hand-picked transitional team will determine the future of this “independent” council whose job includes taking the minister to task over their failed record on reconciliation.

The other flaw in this bill that I would like to draw senators’ attention to is the lack of economic reconciliation as a factor of true reconciliation inherent in the bill.

What is economic reconciliation? According to Reconciliation Canada, an organization that, though partnerships and community outreach programs, delivers reconciliation workshops across Canada, economic reconciliation:

Aims to create meaningful partnerships and mutually beneficial opportunities based on a holistic, values-driven approach to attaining community economic prosperity.

This shared-prosperity approach draws on the values of the community to inform the structures, processes and environments to stimulate action toward community resilience.

The Assembly of First Nations says that economic reconciliation is a process wherein First Nations benefit from the resources extracted from their lands and waters to build their own wealth and have access to the wealth derived from those resources.

The First Nations Financial Management Board, an Indigenous-led organization that aims to provide the tools and guidance that will instill confidence in First Nations’ financial management and reporting systems to support economic and community development, says that Indigenous economic reconciliation creates pride in Indigenous ownership, nation building and Indigenous individuals’ self-actualization.

Article 20 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

Simply put, economic reconciliation is about free, prior and informed consent, and about partnerships that create opportunity for Indigenous peoples for their benefit that support pride and individuals’ self-actualization.

Economic reconciliation is an important pillar in overall reconciliation. It represents Canada’s efforts to reverse the Indian Act’s deliberate purpose to remove First Nations from the national economy. The Indian Act contained specific restrictions on education, on how one could leave a reserve and how to obtain permission to do so, severely hampering efforts at trade and commerce. It shrank resource-rich areas to tiny reserves, and it prevented First Nations from hiring lawyers to fight for their rights. While Indigenous people fell into poverty and squalor, the rest of Canada grew and prospered — yet the principle of economic reconciliation is completely left out of the bill.

To right the 155 years of policy failure for Indigenous peoples that have contributed significantly to socio-economic gaps in housing, infrastructure, water and much more, economic reconciliation must be considered.

Indigenous peoples want to address their own issues with their own resources and to return to a sense of self-sufficiency and honour that has been stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act.

Conservatives recognized this and attempted to rectify this through proposing an amendment to clause 12 by adding, “(f) Indigenous organizations that focus on economic reconciliation and prosperity as the path to self-determination.”

Clause 12 outlines the representatives of the council’s board. It includes such categories as Indigenous elders; First Nations, Inuit and the Métis; youth, women, men and gender-diverse persons; and Indigenous organizations as defined in section 2 of the Department of Indigenous Services Act. Yet it does not include organizations that promote economic reconciliation.

The silencing of over 800,000 Indigenous voices and the discounting of the importance of economic reconciliation do nothing but hamper our efforts to support true reconciliation in this country. With the concerns raised by the AFN and the withdrawal of support by the ITK, I urge all honourable senators to seriously consider when deciding to support this legislation or not.

Reconciliation must be centred on the future of Indigenous peoples, not what is in the best interest of the current government.

Honourable senators, there is more work that needs to be done on this bill and this important issue. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who have contributed to the debate at the second reading of this bill and for their thoughtful analyses, consultations and efforts thus far. Senator Anderson stated:

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to examine, question and use sober second thought to ensure that when we are considering a bill that not only arises from TRC Calls to Action but impacts Indigenous peoples, we are not repeating the historical wrongs of Canada in the guise of reconciliation.

I agree. It is also our duty to carefully review and re-examine bills from the House when there are glaring gaps and issues identified. I am confident the Indigenous Peoples Committee will do just that, and we, as a chamber of sober second thought, will do what is in the best interests of all those whom this bill will affect.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Martin, for your excellent speech. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate our colleague Senator Miville-Dechêne for the passage of her legislation into law.

I want to thank you for drawing our attention to governance because governance and, as we know, misgovernance have a serious impact on reconciliation, in this case.

You pointed out that the transition team and the first board are necessarily political because they will be appointed through a political process. I can’t disagree with you. What is the solution, or do you think this whole matter of independent governance should be something for the committee to study?

Thank you for the question, Senator Omidvar.

Not being an expert, and this topic being of such importance, I was very careful in what I raised as my concerns. The concern of who is represented on this board and the fact that over 800,000 voices represented by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples are missing are to be considered.

If members of the committee want to explore the importance of that economic reconciliation pillar, that is something the committee will need to look at carefully.

I know we have a robust draft plan that has been in the works. There are many witnesses who will be called. Being on the Indigenous Peoples Committee, I have a sense of confidence in the work of the committee. We will aim to look at that carefully at committee.

Would the senator agree to answer a question?

Yes.

Thank you. Senator Martin, I listened closely to your intervention and I thank you.

Regarding your second point, you say that there is no mention of economic reconciliation. When I look at the definition in clause 12, since you referenced it, it reads as follows:

(c) Indigenous organizations, as defined in section 2 of the Department of Indigenous Services Act, to reflect the diversity of arrangements that govern relationships between Indigenous communities and the Government of Canada;

In section 2 of that act, an Indigenous organization is defined as an “Indigenous governing body or any other entity that represents the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.”

Do you think the current wording of clause 12, which refers to section 2 of the Department of Indigenous Services Act, is not broad enough to include organizations that deal with economic reconciliation?

Thank you.

I don’t have the answer to whether we need to make the language broader, but I think, as a committee, we can look at whether having representation of a group that focuses on economic reconciliation — one or two perhaps — would be suitable. Again, that’s something we will consider carefully, and perhaps amendments will be put forward by me or by someone else.

Good answer.

Yes.

Senator Coyle, do you have a question?

Yes. My answer is “yes.” We have heard from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples that they have a large membership and they have the provincial and territorial bodies they work with. So yes, absolutely. This is something I hope our committee will look at very carefully and that all the recognized national organizations will be represented on this council.

Yes. I am not the expert in this chamber, but this is based on my conversation with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, and I know that Senator Brazeau represented the group — he was an elected leader. The organization has been established for decades, and they should equally have a place on the council. I think that they represent all those who are off‑reserve, as well as Métis, status and non-status Indians and southern Inuit Indigenous people living off-reserve in Canada.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)