Bill C-262 (Historical)

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

This enactment requires the Government of Canada to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-262 at third reading. Again, I want to acknowledge the tremendous effort of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou in bringing forward the bill and the important discussion it has generated around the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

During second reading debate, we presented a number of very specific and practical concerns. Unfortunately, in spite of further analysis at committee and detailed testimony, I continue to have reservations about the implications of enacting Bill C-262. It needs to be said first and foremost that our not supporting the bill does not mean we do not recognize the UN declaration as an incredibly important document for Canada. We recognize that it is going to require an effort from whoever is in government to live up to the standards it has set for all of us. However, we do also need to ensure that our support or non-support for any individual piece of legislation is based on a reasonable examination of the potential implications of the bill

Lawyers from Cassels Brock noted:

UNDRIP is a blunt instrument, developed in an international setting, that is not reflective of Canada’s world-leading legal protections for Indigenous rights; Canada is the only nation with an established system for limiting unilateral state action against Indigenous peoples. By simply adopting UNDRIP in its entirety into the Canadian context, Bill C-262 misconstrues Canada’s existing and sophisticated Indigenous rights regime and, by adding new uncertainties, risks hindering the pursuit of reconciliation.

They went on to say:

While UNDRIP reflects critical elements of Indigenous rights through a lens of human rights, it was designed as a global benchmark and guide, rather than a specific legal instrument to be directly implemented as law. The fact that UNDRIP is a declaration and not a convention makes this clear. Conventions are binding agreements intended to be a reflection of international law and to be incorporated into national laws. Declarations, in contrast, are statements of generally agreed-upon standards which are not themselves legally binding.

Their concerns are not inconsistent with the comments by the justice minister in 2016, when she said:

Simplistic approaches such as adopting the United Nations declaration as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work actually required to implement it back home in communities.

Clearly, she has changed her mind, but has given no explanation how something that was previously unworkable and a distraction is suddenly workable. To be frank, when the Justice officials came before us at committee, they really did not offer any further clarity as to how those comments align with the current government position.

The following areas are some of the concerns that are unresolved and, unfortunately, time is only going to allow me to highlight a few.

As noted by one witness, there seem to be three main interpretations of what free, prior, and informed consent means. To be frank, this was consistent with other testimony at committee, because when we asked people what it means, we were given a number of different definitions. One of the ways they described it was that it is not enough to seek free, prior, and informed consent, but enough that you try without actually obtaining it. I might suggest that the Kinder Morgan is a good example of where the government tried to get free, prior, and informed consent, but did not obtain it and moved ahead anyway.

A second interpretation states that it is “really about the type of process required and that it's possible to move away from talking about consent as long as one has the right type of consensus-oriented process.” I guess that is the free, prior, and informed, but no consent, model.

Finally there are many, especially among the first nation communities, who feel it is grounding rights in something analogous to vetoes, or the right to say yes and the right to say no. That has been heard time and time again by many communities. Certainly, Pam Palmater expressed very clearly in what alternate universe does consent not mean the right to say yes, the right to say no, or potentially veto.

I would suggest that prior to moving forward with a piece of legislation like this, the government needs to make sure that it has an agreed upon interpretation of FPIC with indigenous people so that we do not have the confusion that is out there right now. Again, I can use the Kinder Morgan example, where there are many communities saying that they have not given free, prior, and informed consent, and that the government is going forward anyway and not being consistent with the declaration. Not having that understanding will lead to certain problems down the road.

It was indicated by the proponent of the bill that FPIC, and again we are looking at a multi-jurisdictional project going over much traditional territory, means free, prior, and informed consent from every community that would be impacted. That is absolutely going to be a challenge down the road.

Article 19 of UNDRIP speaks of the need for FPIC for all laws of general application. In a country such as Canada, how would it be feasible to consult and try to obtain consent from Métis, Inuit, and all first nations for essentially every bill tabled in Parliament? Clearly, almost every bill tabled in Parliament has an impact under article 19. I am concerned that this would lead to paralysis and an inability by government to move forward on its agenda and commitment.

Marie-Claude Landry, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, identified the very important question of who would have access to these rights if this legislation is passed. With the recent Daniels and Descheneaux decisions and the ongoing Bill S-3 consultations, the issue of indigenous identity is increasingly complex and must be resolved.

In addition, Dwight Newman, professor of law and Canada research chair in indigenous rights, identified a number of drafting concerns and internal inconsistencies that would create significant challenges if Bill C-262 were adopted. This leads me back to second reading debate and one of my original suggestions based on the point made by witnesses that this is a quasi-constitutional piece of legislation. Certainly, I think everyone in this House should agree that a quasi-constitutional piece of legislation deserves the scrutiny a government bill would generate, a government bill that we would get to question the minister about its nuances, and that we would have a much more robust opportunity to have debate and back-and-forth on, as opposed to a very constrained debate.

Accordingly, we not only have important unanswered questions, but also legitimate drafting concerns that were expressed during committee hearings. That said, I want to acknowledge that this bill is incredibly important. It is also symbolic, as we have heard tonight, and some have identified it as an absolutely essential component of reconciliation.

For others who have expressed concerns, they have attempted to engage in a nuanced and serious discussion, but have certainly been met with condemnation. The following are just a few examples. One witness suggested that any objections to voting for this bill were simply based on a colonialist attitude of the people who would not vote for it. A Liberal member said privately that if someone did not support this bill, they were just racist. I found that incredibly insulting.

A number of witnesses were unwilling to testify, feeling that any concerns expressed would simply be construed as being unsupportive of reconciliation. When debate is constrained, so is democracy. The debate among citizens and with political leaders is crucial to building consensus. I do not think we want this place to always be an echo chamber if we really have significant concerns about what a bill would do.

I want to note that in May 2016, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations stated at the UN that the government fully intended to adopt and work to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. However, as my question indicated earlier, I would suggest there are many examples of where the government has not actually stood up to that standard.

In conclusion, international declarations are important to guide legislation and policy, but must be interpreted in the context of a country's existing legal framework, as opposed to adapting laws to the blunt instrument of a generic declaration. The real work of reconciliation is going to happen, of course, in our communities where we live, work, and play. We do, I believe, have the will and the momentum.

Thus, in spite of the fact that we will not support Bill C-262, we do support and are committed to moving forward with reconciliation.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to speak to Bill C-262 on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I want to acknowledge that we are gathered here on traditional Algonquin land.

I would like to begin by thanking my good friend, and the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, for his lifelong commitment to ensuring that indigenous rights are upheld as human rights.

For the last several months, the indigenous affairs committee has been studying the bill. We have heard from a number of different organizations. In fact, we had 11 meetings to discuss the bill, and we heard from over 70 witnesses. All of them outlined the different aspects of UNDRIP, the 46 different articles, that make up the declaration. In those hearings, we were able to hear from experts, who called on us, as Parliament, to enact this legislation. UNDRIP has become a very important call to action for many governments where there are indigenous peoples.

This year is the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Over the last 70 years, while we professed as countries to enact human rights legislation, it is fairly clear that we failed with respect to indigenous peoples. In 1982 we had the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allowed for a number of court cases to advance the rights of indigenous peoples. In the last 20 years, as my good friend opposite has outlined, we were able to engage in a multilateral forum and come together with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Regrettably, our government at that time did not sign on to the UN declaration. Notwithstanding that, much work was done in Canada by many members of civil society, many parliamentarians, and many academics to ensure that UNDRIP would be part of Canadian law.

My friend talked about going across the country and consulting. Last fall, our committee, the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, travelled across the country. Witnesses all spoke of the need for UNDRIP to be part of Canadian law. I am glad that late last year, we agreed to support Bill C-262. I am very proud to say that we are able to speak to this today to ensure that it becomes law.

This is not a one-off. It is part of a broader conversation and a broader set of commitments our government has undertaken. There is a committee of ministers reviewing legislation with respect to its effect on indigenous peoples. We also have a broader framework on the recognition of rights, which was announced earlier. That will become legislation, as indicated by our Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations today, and part of Canadian law. This broader framework includes, as a central piece, the work of our friend opposite and Bill C-262 becoming Canadian law.

I want to outline a couple of very important issues with respect to this particular legislation. It has 46 articles, and it essentially defines the minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well-being of indigenous peoples in the world.

It is part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action numbers 43 and 44. I am glad to say that we are here today and that a historic vote will take place tomorrow to once and for all enshrine this in law.

Before I finish, I want to call the attention of the House to one matter, and that is having a national consensus. I believe that this is the moment in our history, the moment in our world today, when we can actually come together on something fundamentally important to Canadians and to indigenous peoples, which is reconciliation. Bill C-262 is an essential component of that. I would implore our friends in the Conservative Party, who have done the right thing on a number of fronts in the past several months, most notably with their vote on the opposition day motion brought by the NDP with respect to an apology from the church, to repeat that this time around to make sure that we continue on this path toward reconciliation so that indigenous people know that we are together on this. This is not a Liberal issue or an NDP issue. It is a Canadian issue. For us to do that, it is very important that the Conservative Party support this. I implore the members opposite to reflect on that and support the vote tomorrow.

Once again, I would like to thank my good friend from James Bay.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on my colleague's first point, Bill C-262 would confirm that the UN declaration is a human rights instrument that has application in Canadian law. It would confirm that the declaration already applies in Canadian law. It is important to remind members of that fact. Bill C-262 only confirms its application in Canadian law already.

That being said, a lot of what we do in this place in terms of legislation must be consistent with a lot of things. It must be consistent with the Constitution, and section 35 in particular. It must be consistent with the rulings of the Supreme Court that have been handed down since 1982. Every piece of legislation needs to be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

One of the pieces of legislation, I believe it was Bill C-69 my colleague mentioned, references the UN declaration, but only in the preamble. It belongs in the text of the legislation as well. It is important to do that.

If we claim that we have adopted and implemented the UN declaration, we need to be consistent in that claim, absolutely.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was over a year ago that the current Liberal government proclaimed at the UN that it would implement the UN declaration. I have a two-part question for my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The fact that Bill C-262 has not passed has not constrained the government from acting. Would my colleague say that Bill C-69, the decision on excluding first nations from being part of the Columbia River Treaty negotiations, and the decision today on Kinder Morgan are consistent with what the Liberals committed to on the UN declaration a year and a half ago, or are these actions inconsistent with what they stated they would be doing?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to mention again, as I did during my presentation, that the previous Conservative government finally endorsed the declaration in November 2010. I read the quote into the record. It is important to remind ourselves that this is where we are.

The second point I want to make is that I wrote to the leader of the Conservative Party last week pleading with him personally for his party to support Bill C-262.

It is important to do it, because documents like the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples forge proper relationships and partnerships among governments and indigenous peoples. We can look at the history of northern Quebec, for instance, since we signed the first modern treaty in this country in 1975. Some 80 additional agreements have been signed since then. This is what happens when we recognize the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples. That leads to reconciliation, and that leads to proper partnerships with indigenous peoples.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to once again speak to Bill C-262.

My friend elaborated on the reasons we need Bill C-262 passed here today. It is probably the most important human rights document we will debate in this Parliament.

We almost have a consensus among Canadians that this is an important issue and something we need to embrace, but one party has not fully embraced it, and it would appear that it is not going to support this legislation.

I would like to ask my friend what he feels this moment presents to all of us in this Parliament as part of the process of reconciliation. What would he ask the Conservative Party to do in this important moment as we try to reset our history in a positive way and in the right direction?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

[Member spoke in Cree]

I remember very clearly when, in September 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was such an important moment in the history of the United Nations, and also in the history of 400 million indigenous people throughout more than 70 countries. Today, I would suggest, is an equally important moment for this Parliament, for indigenous peoples, and indeed for all Canadians in this country.

I say all Canadians, because Canadians stand for justice when it comes to the rights of indigenous peoples in this country. I say indeed for all Canadians, because Canadians believe in the human rights of the first peoples of this land. Canadians believe in and want reconciliation with indigenous peoples in this country. I am certain that no one in this place is against justice. No MP is opposed to reconciliation, and all want the human rights of indigenous peoples to be upheld at all times. That is part of our duty as parliamentarians in this place. There cannot be reconciliation in the absence of justice. Let us be clear about that as well.

I am honoured once again to rise in the House to speak about these issues and questions that I hold dear to my heart. I would like to start by briefly talking about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the human rights that this international human rights document enshrines.

Although it has been more than a decade since the UN General Assembly adopted the declaration, this human rights instrument is still not well known. It is the most comprehensive international human rights document that deals specifically with the rights of indigenous peoples: their political rights, their economic rights, their cultural rights, their environmental rights, and I would even add their spiritual rights. Bill C-262 proposes all of that.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the most comprehensive, as I said, but I think it is also worthwhile reminding this place that it has been reaffirmed by consensus at the UN General Assembly eight times since its adoption. In December 2010, the United States, which was one of the last remaining countries that had initially opposed the declaration, confirmed its endorsement for the declaration. Therefore, since December 2010, no state in the world formally objects to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I would remind members that the UN declaration is the longest-discussed and longest-negotiated human rights instrument in the history of the United Nations. Two decades is a long time for countries to have discussed, negotiated, expressed their concerns, and proposed drafting for the contents of this declaration.

I also want to remind members that Canada finally endorsed the UN declaration in November 2010. I will read what Stephen Harper said when he confirmed the government's endorsement. Mr. Harper said:

We are now confident that Canada can interpret the principles expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework.

I know my speaking time is running out, and I want to give other members a chance to speak on this matter. However, I want to remind the House that Bill C-262 actually fulfills two major calls to action issued by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in its report, namely calls to action 43 and 44.

Call to action 43 calls upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation. If we truly believe in reconciliation, we must use that declaration as the framework.

I also want to remind the House that the rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are inherent, meaning they supersede all other documents. They exist because we exist today as indigenous peoples.

Bill C-262 is probably the most important bill Parliament has considered in a long time. We will get to vote on this bill as of tomorrow. “If you believe in reconciliation, what are you doing about it?” That is the question I asked all summer when I was speaking to Canadians across the country, from east to west and all the way up north.

“What are you doing about it?” That is the question I asked Canadians throughout the country, both indigenous and non-indigenous. They all want justice for indigenous peoples. Every Canadian wants reconciliation. Every Canadian believes in the human rights of the first peoples of this country.

When I was travelling across Canada, many Canadians asked me questions about this declaration. Once they understood it, Canadians wanted the framework for reconciliation to be based on this document, which took two decades to negotiate and to be drafted. That is why I am saying that Canadians want reconciliation. They believe in the importance of justice for Canada's indigenous peoples. It is 2018 and they believe that it is finally time to recognize that indigenous rights are also human rights. A country such as Canada must support the rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Bill C-262 is a bill of reconciliation. All parties in the House have expressed their support for the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its 94 calls to action. This bill proposes to implement two of the most important calls to action of the report. That is what Bill C-262 attempts to do, and that is what all parties also wanted to accomplish with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you.

Madam Minister, I apologize for that. I know we're short on time now.

Can we talk about UNDRIP? I know that Bill C-262 will be debated today for the third hour. One difficulty we have is that two major parties are supporting it; our government's supporting it. It would be a good sign if we had all three major parties supporting this legislation. I'm wondering what you have to say to the Conservatives on this, because I think this is the time to set the history right.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Thank you.

Bill C-262, related to UNDRIP, is weaving its way through the parliamentary process. Can you perhaps offer some thoughts on how that bill will intertwine with or relate to the rights framework you just talked about?

Motions in amendment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak to this bill. It is very important that we strengthen sustainability legislation in this country. We have taken a few baby steps forward, but regrettably, this bill has not gone far enough. It is not enough for the government to simply say the word “indigenous”, say it cares about indigenous people, and then not take the step it promised, which is to actually incorporate that declaration into the law of the land.

It is important at the outset to recall that the Federal Sustainable Development Act was initiated in 2008 as a private member's bill with, frankly, much stronger measures. It was transformed by the then Liberal government into the law as it exists today. Second, it is important to recognize the earlier decision in 1995 to create of the office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development within the Office of the Auditor General. A requirement was also imposed on departments to prepare and table sustainable development strategies. The commissioner was mandated to audit and publicly report on the government's delivery on these responsibilities. During the 1990s, a cabinet directive was also issued requiring ministers to provide an environmental assessment of any policies, plans, or proposals submitted to cabinet. As my colleague mentioned, that would include pipeline approvals.

In 2015, Canada joined other nations in signing a United Nations resolution, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. This agreement committed the signatories to take bold and transformative steps that are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. Two months later, Canada also committed, in Paris, to deeper actions to address climate change.

Finally, Canada has declared its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which I will refer to as the UNDRIP from now on, much of which deals with the indigenous right to self-determination, including on resource development, environmental protection, and sustainability.

Over the past decades, consecutive audits by the commissioner have reported abject failure by departments and ministers alike in incorporating credible environmental or sustainable development assessments for decision-making. It is similarly noteworthy that as recently as this past spring, after the tabling of Bill C-57, the commissioner delivered a highly critical audit on the government's commitment to implementing the UN 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals, finding no federal governance structure, a narrow interpretation of sustainable development, limited national consultation and engagement, no national implementation plan, few national targets, and no system to measure, monitor, and report on national targets. It was a very scathing review.

It is important, then, in assessing Bill C-57, to determine if these proposed reforms to the act brought before us today are sufficient to update Canadian law to ensure delivery of our international and domestic commitment to ensuring sustainability.

A year before the bill was introduced, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development led a study of a draft federal sustainable development strategy, as required by law. The result was a series of recommendations presented to Parliament to strengthen this very law and the process of applying it. Last fall, the Minister of Environment tabled Bill C-57 to amend the act. The bill was debated and then referred back to the committee, which again undertook a study and reported back a number of recommended amendments. On behalf of my party, I proposed a series of recommended amendments, for the most part based on recommendations from the commissioner, experts heard at committee in both of its reviews, and the committee itself. Regrettably, almost all of them were refused, despite having been put forward by the committee itself in its earlier study.

Among my proposed amendments was that the bill provide specific reference to a commitment to the UNDRIP. Why did I propose this? The Prime Minister has committed to deliver on all 94 of the calls for action issued by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including calls 43 and 44, which call on the federal government, in fact all orders of government, to fully adopt and implement the UNDRIP as the framework for reconciliation and to develop a national action plan, strategies, and other concrete measures to achieve those goals. Clearly, one of those measures would be to include the UNDRIP in this law.

In her address to a conference on implementing the UN declaration, in November of last year, the Minister of Justice stated:

With the direction and leadership of [the Prime Minister], our government will support Bill C-262. The bill acknowledges the application of the UN declaration in Canada and calls for the alignment of the laws of Canada with the UN declaration.

It could not be clearer. This address was made to the Assembly of First Nations, and it interprets that as meaning that the UN declaration will now be incorporated into every federal law going forward.

The government has publicly stated its support for Bill C-262, tabled by my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, which calls on the government to enact the UNDRIP in Canadian law.

This directive by the Prime Minister is clear: all Canadian laws must be written and applied to align with the UN declaration. The federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development recommended to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that it seek amendments to Bill C-57 to specifically include the UNDRIP. Again, it came from our federal commissioner.

Any reasonable person would conclude, therefore, that failing to reference the UNDRIP in the bill was just an oversight. Perhaps no one advised the minister that her Prime Minister, her justice minister, and the commissioner had recommended exactly this action. Therefore, it appears well-founded that I table this exact amendment. After all, the government's intent was clear.

What was the response by the majority Liberal-led committee? It voted down this amendment. One wonders, of course, why the Minister of Environment had not made this reference herself in the bill, but there we are: no support for inclusion of the UNDRIP in our nation's sustainable development law, which is supposed to guide all decisions on policy, programs, and law going forward.

There is no commitment to entrenching indigenous rights, but what about the other recommended measures to strengthen the bill? In testifying before the committee, the commissioner expressed appreciation that the minister had heeded the advice of the committee to incorporate into the law at least some of the recommended guiding principles, such as intergenerational equity, the precautionary principle, and polluter pays. Other recommended principles, including environmental justice and the right to a healthy environment, were not included.

The commissioner expressed concern that additional international commitments critical to sustainability remain missing from the bill. These include, for logical reasons, the United Nations agenda 2030 on sustainable development goals and the Paris climate convention.

During its review in advance of Bill C-57, the standing committee sought advice from a number of leading Canadian and international experts on sustainable development on ways to strengthen the federal resolve to deliver on sustainable development. These included, as mentioned, the current commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and the head of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, who was also the former commissioner. It also included Welsh and German experts on sustainable development, Global International, and the World Future Council. Clearly, the committee heard advice from a wide array of expertise on sustainable development.

A widely supported recommendation was to shift to a whole of government approach in instituting sustainability considerations in government decision-making by incorporating into law measures to improve enforceability and accountability on the sustainable development targets, appointing more senior-level authorities to provide oversight, and entrenching the cabinet directive in the statute. The minister chose not to follow this sage advice

These recommendations were repeated by the federal commissioner when testifying before the committee. She reiterated her call to shift the oversight role from a junior-level officer in the environment department to a central agency. It is no surprise why she came to this conclusion. As mentioned earlier, audits delivered over the past several decades reported abject failure across authorities, including the departments of environment and Public Safety, to comply with the law. Her fall 2017 report found a mere 20% compliance rate by the five departments audited.

As recently as this spring, the commissioner reported that the government has no federal government structure, a limited interpretation of sustainable development, and no system to measure or monitor sustainable development.

I would welcome questions and just share that I am deeply disappointed. This was an opportunity to strengthen the resolve of the federal government--

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thanks for the question. The aspects of this bill that speak to binding requirements as regards indigenous peoples and any other aspect of the law are in the body of the law. The preambular integration, I think, is appropriate under the circumstances. One need not incorporate the declaration piece by piece by piece, provision by provision by provision. I think that would in any event render things more complex than it would enable, because at the end of the day, this bill has to be interpreted, and the full scope of the application of UNDRIP in Canadian law is not clear yet. We still haven't even passed it under Bill C-262. I think the most appropriate approach would be to deal with this in a preambular fashion.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs concerning Bill C-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The committee studied the bill and decided to report it to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Very good. We'll call for a recorded vote.

(Bill C-262 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Chair, I will be asking for a recorded vote on this one.

As you know, throughout the testimony from various witnesses we consistently asked for things like a definition of “consent”. I still do not believe that we are comfortable with what “consent” means. I still believe there are significant issues especially around something like article 19, in terms of laws of general application, and how you will actually determine the vast array of people whom the government will need to move forward with, in terms of that conversation. I believe the government is setting itself up to fetter its ability to move forward in terms of general laws of application.

I want to say right upfront supporting the UN declaration is a very different issue from supporting Bill C-262. We see those as two separate things. Until we have these important questions answered, we are not comfortable with Bill C-262.