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.

Indigenous Services

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

I acknowledge all of the work that has been done by the New Democrats for indigenous rights, now and before my time. Jordan's principle emerged out of the work of former MP Jean Crowder's Motion No. 296. This motion was followed by Bill C-249 tabled by former NDP MP Pat Martin in 2008. Both called on the government to immediately adopt a child first principle based on Jordan's principle.

Jordan's principle is now one of the most important programs run by the federal government to uphold its obligations to indigenous children, thanks to the NDP. Bill C-262, introduced by former NDP MP Romeo Saganash in 2016 finally forced the breakthrough that led to the government passing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2021.

New Democrats fought for investments in the last budget, and we secured $4 billion over seven years for the for indigenous, by indigenous housing program. From the beginning, I knew this amount was not enough. Much more investment is needed. The NDP agreed to the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy, knowing it could make a dent in the current situation. If the NDP did not fight, we would not have gotten anything for housing. When the Liberals and Conservatives will not step up, New Democrats do.

Last week, the Conservatives voted against the supplementary estimates, which included investments for Indigenous Services Canada at $6.8 billion and investments to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada at $3.2 billion. These total over $10 billion in departmental funding that indigenous peoples rely on, which the Conservatives voted to deny.

As for the Liberals, they are not much better. We have heard from the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council that there are massive backlogs at Indigenous Services Canada for issuing status to registrants. This leaves infants waiting 18 to 24 months to get their health benefits. This is absolutely unacceptable.

We hear about the huge backlogs to address Jordan's principle issues. We hear about the backlogs to address payments for services through the non-insured health benefits program. We have heard that Indigenous Services Canada is changing funding formulas for education without even talking to indigenous communities.

Indigenous Services Canada set a goal of 2030 to eliminate the infrastructure gap, but they have no hope of achieving that at current investment levels, as it is a $349.2-billion first nations infrastructure gap. Indigenous peoples have offered solutions, but they are consistently ignored.

Not only are they making cuts to investments to improve the well-being of indigenous peoples, they are planning to cut staff in their department. According to their website, they anticipate cutting staff by 1,000. Imagine how much worse these backlogs will be. They will keep indigenous peoples marginalized.

Grassy Narrows is still waiting for its mercury care facility, despite repeated assurances from the Liberal government that it would be built. Tataskweyak Cree Nation in Manitoba had students with no school to go to as the school remained closed because it had no heat. It is still waiting for a new school after their roof caved in last month. That school, when it was built originally, was already overcrowded.

There are many more examples across the country. The Liberals love announcements and photo ops, but they disappear when it is time to actually flow the funds that indigenous peoples need. The urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy is one such example. It was announced in 2022, and it was supposed to be released in 2023. It is now December 2023, and we have not seen the release of those funds.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do have selective amnesia in this place. I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for referencing that, because we lose sight of our history in this place.

The member for Carleton has been an MP for 19 very long years. I know the Conservatives have spent millions of dollars on burnishing up his image, but he has a long history in this House of Commons. If we do some digging, there are a lot of comments, a lot of questions and a lot of speeches from the member for Carleton that will give truth to who he really is.

However, it gets better, because the Conservatives have stood in this place accusing Liberals of bullying senators and imposing their will, when the Conservative Party is the only party in this House that still has 15 senators at caucus every Wednesday. Fifteen Conservative senators join their MP counterparts for every Wednesday meeting, and they get their marching orders from the member for Carleton on how to play games in the Senate. This has been the case for several Parliaments and we have seen it in the past.

Conservative senators have taken their marching orders from former prime minister Harper and have done the very thing that Conservatives are mad about today with Bill C-234. Senators took their marching orders from the Conservative Party in the House of Commons and used their procedural shenanigans in the red chamber to block multiple bills on multiple occasions that were passed by the democratic House. Again, it is rank hypocrisy from the Conservatives.

I will outline a few notable examples.

Our former beloved leader Jack Layton, several Parliaments ago, had a bill that was passed by the House called the climate change accountability act. My God, how things would be different now if we had actually paid attention back then and passed that law. However, right now in 2023, we are dealing with the consequences of years of inaction from both Liberal and Conservative governments. That bill was held up. It died in the Senate because of procedural shenanigans instigated by Conservative senators.

We have also had other cases. Former NDP member of Parliament Paul Dewar, who represented Ottawa Centre, introduced Bill C-393. It was a bill to permit the shipment and provision of generic drugs to Africa, a worthy cause, but it died in the Senate because of Conservative senator procedural shenanigans.

Then of course, in the 42nd Parliament, there was the bill that brought us to where we are today. It was the bill introduced to fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a groundbreaking piece of legislation, Bill C-262. It was ahead of its time, ahead of where the puck was going, and it directly led to the government introducing its own legislation in the subsequent Parliament to make sure Canada's federal laws were in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That bill, which was duly passed by the House of Commons in the 42nd Parliament, was held up because of procedural shenanigans and games by Conservative senators at the request of their leader.

This is the amazing thing about the Senate. We cannot do that here in the House. With the rules there, one senator can throw in a wrench and jam up the entire works for days on end, and this tactic is used again and again. Conservative senators, under orders from their leader, have been doing precisely the same thing that Conservatives are mad about today when it comes to their own legislation.

These are the things we have to highlight. They are incredibly important because we have short memories in this place.

I am coming down to my final three minutes, and I very much look forward to the questions that will come. However, it does us well to understand that, first of all, Bill C-234 would not have passed in this place if it were not for all opposition parties working together to pass it because they saw merit in the bill. That is number one. Number two, we fundamentally agree with the principle that the Senate, as an unelected body, needs to respect the will of the House. The only party that has been consistent on that position through several parliaments is the NDP. We are the only party that comes out squeaky clean in a debate about the Senate, and all members would do well to acknowledge that fact.

Consistent with our third reading vote on Bill C-234, we will be voting in favour of today's motion, because that is consistent with the approach we have always taken. Had there been motions on our own private members' bills from several previous parliaments, we would have done the same thing. It is important to remind senators that we are the ones who have to face the electorate. We are the ones conveying the wishes of the people of Canada. Every seat in this place represents a distinct geographic area of Canada. We are the ones bringing the voice of the people here, and senators need to be reminded of that fact.

I will end by again highlighting the hypocrisy. I like serving with many of my Conservative colleagues, but as a party, we cannot take any moral lessons from them on the Senate given their history with appointing failed candidates, with party bagmen and with the instructions they give to their 15 caucus members who are members of the Senate. With the entire history they have of blocking bills, Canadians who are listening to today's debate need to understand that the last place we would ever go for a moral lesson on the problems with the Senate is the Conservative Party of Canada. I just want to make that very clear.

I will end my remarks there. I thank everyone for taking the time to listen, and I look forward to any questions or comments.

Criminal Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to be able to rise today to speak to Bill S-223. Before I get into my remarks, it is important to recognize the two individuals who have been working diligently over the years to shepherd this bill through Parliament, starting in the other place, with Senator Ataullahjan, and here, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Both individuals have been long involved in this process, over several Parliaments.

The bill, of course, passed very quickly through second and third reading in the other place. In fact, it even skipped consideration by the committee on December 9 of last year. It gives a sense of the arduous journey that private members' bills, both from the Senate side and from the House side, have to make in order to pass the entire parliamentary process: the fact that we are here in December 2022, only now considering its third reading, and it has taken a full year to get to that stage.

Before I get into the details of why this legislation is necessary, I would like to talk about a few key points in terms of what the bill is going to do, so we are all very clear on what the House is going to be debating and hopefully passing in short order.

Essentially, it is a substantive amendment to a narrow section of the Criminal Code in relation to the crime of trafficking in human organs. We know that organs like kidneys and livers are being forcibly removed from many people, but this bill, with a new section 240.1, is going to create some new offences: anyone who obtains organs without informed consent, either for use in another person or for themselves; anyone who is involved in the carrying out of the procedure to remove those organs without informed consent; and anyone who does anything in connection with the removal of the organs without informed consent.

That is quite broad. It could involve anyone who was involved in allowing a place to be used for the surgery and anyone who is involved in the transportation of the organs or their smuggling across borders. It is a very real problem. It is something that, through several Parliaments, we have been waiting for substantive action on.

We know this is a crime that disproportionately affects people who live in impoverished countries and who live under authoritarian rule and do not have access to the same rights, privileges and equality under the law that we sometimes take for granted here in Canada. It is important that countries like Canada, with its well-known track record in standing up for human rights and the rule of law, not only here in our own country but abroad, follow suit and really establish what we think should be the norm and what all citizens of the world should be able to enjoy.

There is also a very important amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, so that a permanent resident or any foreign national would be inadmissible to Canada if the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is of the opinion that they have engaged in any activities related to the new offence that is going to be put into the Criminal Code through the passage of this bill.

Through the conversation today, I have heard several members talk about how having this provision in Canadian law for a crime that occurred in another country is important. It reminds me that we sometimes have a double standard in this place about how we apply Canadian law.

I have been a member of this House for seven years now. I was here in the 42nd Parliament. I remember a previous private member's bill, which was sponsored by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. It was Bill C-331. In the dying days of the 42nd Parliament, we managed to come to a vote on that bill at second reading. It was June 19, 2019, pretty much the very last day of the 42nd Parliament.

That was an important bill, because it intended to amend the Federal Courts Act so that people from other countries who wanted to bring a civil claim could do so under the jurisdiction of federal court.

The nature of the claims could have to do with genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity, slavery or slave trading, extrajudicial killings, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention, or the sale or trafficking of persons. These are all crimes that every member of this House agrees are abhorrent and certainly need the full force of the law.

The problem is that when the member for New Westminster—Burnaby was attempting, for many good reasons, to bring that bill forward, the House voted against it. In fact, the Liberals and the Conservatives joined together to shut the bill down at second reading.

I do not want to take away from the debate on the bill today. Bill S-223 is going to have our full support. I just hope that when Parliament is conducting itself and when we see value in these types of measures that try to apply Canadian law to things that happen abroad, we can do so on a consistent basis.

We need to recognize that there are huge problems out there, not just with human trafficking in organs, but also in war crimes, slavery and other methods. Should the member for New Westminster—Burnaby try to bring that initiative back, I hope the House will apply the lessons from the debate on Bill S-223 to that similar and worthy initiative.

Bill S-223 is no stranger to us. In the 42nd Parliament, it was before the House as Bill S-240. The reason I think it is a forgone conclusion that this bill is going to pass the House is that it is identical to the version we debated and passed as Bill S-240. In fact, in the 42nd Parliament it received the unanimous support of the House at second reading and again at third reading on April 30, 2019.

The important and notable difference with Bill S-223 is that it incorporates the amendments the House made to the previous version of the bill. That is what caused the delay on Bill S-240. It had to be sent back to the Senate so it could consider House amendments.

Unfortunately, at that time, the bill was held up because of the procedural shenanigans going on in the other place related to the old bill, Bill C-262, which was introduced by my former colleague, Romeo Saganash. That was his attempt with a private member's bill to enshrine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I am glad to see, from the tone and content of the speeches so far, that there is recognition that this is an important and long-overdue change to criminal law. It sends a strong message, not only to people around the world who are facing these barbaric practices under regimes such as China, and we have heard well-documented testimony on what the Uighur population is going through, but also to impoverished people living in countries where the rule of law is applied selectively at best.

These people may be targeted by criminal organizations. We have heard testimony from people who have woken up in a drugged haze to someone wearing a surgical mask and gloves telling them that their kidney has just been removed and that they need to take care. Often, these victims can suffer very serious, lifelong health consequences from that, and because of the nature of the operation, some people have ultimately died from it. It is a very real issue.

We know the demand for organs is very high worldwide, and we need to take steps to encourage people to put themselves on an organ donor registry. I am pleased to see that this Parliament has tried to address that by making it easier for people to sign up and so on. However, those are problems that are not going to go away. The demand for organs is high, and as our population ages we certainly need to have smart and effective policy to address that.

On behalf of the New Democratic caucus, I will indicate that we are looking forward to supporting this bill and voting on it so it gets sent to the Governor General for royal assent. We have long opposed all forms of trafficking, whether it be human trafficking for sexual exploitation, labour trafficking or the trafficking of human organs. We must do all we can to protect vulnerable people. With that, I will conclude my remarks. I appreciate this opportunity.

Motions in Amendment

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for truth and reconciliation. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the incredible work of many of my colleagues from different parties, including the member for Sydney—Victoria, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the member for Northwest Territories, the member for Nunavut, the member for Winnipeg Centre, the member for Edmonton Griesbach and others, who, over the many years we have been here, have been inspirational in their work and advocacy as we make sure that as a government, we move forward on reconciliation.

Reconciliation is multi-layered, is often complex and is an issue that will take generations to achieve in Canada. Canada has gone through 154 years of colonialism and deeply rooted legislation that often disempowered and displaced first nations, Inuit and Métis across Canada. We have gone from having over 90 indigenous languages to only a handful being spoken today. We have seen the horrific results of residential schools and the intergenerational trauma they have created, and the lasting effects of the hurt and loss. We saw this with the unmarked graves, starting last year, and I suspect we will see it again and again as we unpack this deeply hurtful issue over the next few years. Parliament recently acknowledged what happened with residential schools as genocide, and that, too, is a very important aspect of moving forward and speaking truth to power.

As we look at establishing the national council for reconciliation, it is important to look at history. In 2015, when we took office, the commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission presented their findings, with 94 calls to action. That was in December 2015. They outlined the bare minimum that needs to be done in order for our path to reconciliation to move forward.

Since then, we have seen a number of different initiatives, including the report of the MMIWG, the missing and murdered women and girls report, and the calls to justice, as well as several other very important findings, including the unmarked graves. These things put additional responsibilities on the government and on all Canadians to address.

The 94 calls to action are an all-encompassing set of guidelines for the federal government, provincial governments and in some cases municipal governments, as well as organizations, particularly national indigenous organizations, and all Canadians. It is important to recognize that reconciliation is not a journey that can just be undertaken by Canada as a government. It needs to be an all-of-Canada effort that includes all stakeholders.

When we talk about reconciliation, oftentimes we talk about what Canada is prepared to do, but it really comes down to how much trust and confidence indigenous people can have in this process. What we have seen in the last seven years is that while we have moved ahead on a number of very important initiatives, we have often seen this relationship be two steps forward and one step back because there is a lot of unpacking to do. As we approach and encounter these issues, it is important that as a government we double down and recommit to working harder to ensure we move forward on this process.

It is an imperfect process. It is an imperfect set of ideas that often may need reflection, and in that I am pleased to share with the House some of my experiences over the past seven years working across party lines with the members opposite.

I do want to start off with our work on Bill C-262, which was a private member's bill brought forward by my friend Romeo Saganash. It essentially called for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and I was fortunate to work with Mr. Saganash over the couple of years he was actively advocating for Bill C-262. We travelled a fair bit in our committee work and spoke to many individuals: young people, elders, band councils and indigenous organization members. The enormous support the bill had across Canada with indigenous people was remarkable. However, we saw that the same level of commitment was not here in Parliament.

Over time, sadly, Bill C-262 did not pass, but we were able to get Bill C-15 through Parliament in 2021, and basically it is calls to action 43 and 44, and it was able to pass. The second part of UNDRIP is the implementation of a national action plan, and our department is working very hard with indigenous partners and national indigenous organizations, as well as rights holders and many others, to make sure we have an action plan that can really address a review of laws and move us forward on this path.

One of the things that has really humbled me is the work we have done on indigenous languages. There is an act, Bill C-91, which was passed in 2019, and it was a critical moment in Canada because, when we talk about language, it is so fundamental to all of us. Often, I look at the passion with which my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois address the issue of bilingualism and language, and the passion with which many of my colleagues on this side speak to the need to protect the French language.

I think it is so critical to ensure that linguistic minorities are protected across Canada, but often missing in that conversation is the need to protect and save the many indigenous languages that existed prior to Confederation. In many ways, those languages are in their last stages. Medically speaking, they are on life support because we have so many languages that are at a point of being lost permanently.

I know the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London spoke about Oneida Nation on the Thames, and that is one of the groups we met during the development of Bill C-91. It was devastating to see that only a handful of people were able to speak that language, which shows how important it is that Bill C-91 is there. As well, we, along with the support of the New Democratic Party, repealed mandatory minimum penalties just last week, and we implemented the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

These are some measures that speak to the work that has been done, but there is a lot more to do, and I believe the national council would be a very important tool for us to measure objectively what work we need to do. It would measure and report back to the House, as well as to Canadians, on the need to fill in the gaps and to make sure we fulfill all the commitments in the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I look forward to questions and comments from my friends, and I thank them for this opportunity to speak.

Criminal Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for tenaciously sponsoring this legislation again. He should get an award for the number of times he has appeared on this very same bill.

In the House, we all recognize the importance of this bill. We have had several Parliaments debate it. I do not think there is any argument against this kind of an amendment being necessary to the Criminal Code and to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I did have a number of comments I wanted to make, but in the spirit of what has already been said today, I would conclude by saying that the NDP absolutely does support this legislation. It is a shame that we did not see the former Bill S-240 pass through the 42nd Parliament quickly. If people remember correctly, that piece of legislation was held up, literally yards away from the finish line, because of the procedural shenanigans that were going on in the other place, when Conservative senators were trying to hold up Romeo Saganash's Bill C-262. That ultimately prevented the Senate from voting on the House amendments to Bill S-240.

That being said, we are here now with Bill S-223. I am proud to support this bill at second reading. We look forward to seeing it get to committee, back to the House and on to the Governor General's desk as quickly as possible.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's comments, but I have to express a bit of disappointment in the position she is taking.

There has been extensive consultation. With respect to Bill C-262, I was with Romeo Saganash in many communities and on many travels with the INAN committee, where many people came out and talked about his direct engagement. The foundation of Bill C-15 is from Bill C-262, and our ministers, as well as other colleagues and I, were part of extensive consultations across Canada, even during the pandemic. In fact, during the INAN study itself we had many more people who came forward and spoke.

I do believe we have had a wide range of consultations, not perfect but extensive. We cannot say that we support UNDRIP in principle but are not ready to implement it. I would urge my colleague to reconsider her position, because this is a historic moment—

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging the unceded Wolastoqiyik territory from which I speak today. I have commented in this House before about the importance of this recognition and, most importantly, the actions that must accompany it.

There has never been a more important time to highlight this than with our discussion of Bill C-15, an act to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples here in Canada, in a colonial country, where land was extorted. In addition to threats and force, there were efforts to exterminate and bury the original peoples of this land. These efforts failed. Instead, they planted seeds, and what we are seeing is a reclamation, the ushering in of a new age. The time has come for reparations.

Many of my colleagues in this House know that my children are indigenous. I have also worked closely with hundreds of indigenous youth as a teacher. They have informed my work every step of the way. When I think of voting on this bill, I ask myself what their world will look like in five years, in 10 years and for the generations after them, with or without passing Bill C-15.

Bill C-15 introduces the notion of a national action plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law, with annual reporting mechanisms. It is important to note that the specifics of these measures are not articulated. This has brought with it uncertainty and a manifestation of a well-placed mistrust in government.

What Bill C-15 does well is lay out a robust preamble with ambitious, frankly incredible language. It includes value statements that acknowledge systemic discrimination, and now racism, thanks to an important amendment. It recognizes self-determination of indigenous peoples, including an acknowledgement of their legal systems. It actually says, “the Government of Canada rejects all forms of colonialism and is committed to advancing relations...that are based on good faith and on the principles of justice, democracy, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and respect for human rights”.

Can we take these words at face value, or in good faith, as the bill proclaims? The criticisms of Bill C-15 are nuanced. The most obvious issue is that the notion of good faith itself is on shaky ground. For a bill that enshrines the notion of free, prior and informed consent, consultation is severely lacking. I know that is a contested point, but I must say I believe it was lacking.

It is not enough to have closed-door meetings with national bodies or organizations. The individual rights holders have a right to be heard and to weigh in on legislation with such significant implications. All Canadians, Québécois and indigenous peoples of this land require an understanding of the declaration and what it truly means to affirm it as a universal international human rights instrument.

A more complex problem some are having with this bill is that indigenous people are tired of the gaslighting. Indigenous rights are inherent. People are born with them and no one can take them away. These rights have existed since time immemorial, and yet Canadian history presents things as though indigenous peoples were handed those rights with the coming into force of the 1982 Constitution Act. It is a nice idea, but it misses hundreds of years of colonialism and abuse rooted in the doctrine of discovery. The notions that the Crown holds sovereignty over indigenous peoples, that indigenous laws and legal traditions have no place and that the Crown has ultimate title to the land held in trust underpin all of Canadian law. They are embedded in the Canadian charter, and they have placed the burden of labour on indigenous peoples and nations to establish their rights in Canadian courts.

Bill C-15 also fails to enshrine a distinctions-based approach to implementing UNDRIP in Canada and stands more as pan-indigenous legislation, disregarding the incredible diversity within indigenous nations. It is possible that Bill C-15 may be a tool in the tool kit for future court cases, but I have to question what the future holds for Canada and indigenous nationhood with this implication. Are we preparing for years of expensive legal battles? Are we asking once again for indigenous people to bear the burden of proof in the protection of their collective inherent rights?

What will happen with the Mi'kmaq fishery dispute, with a new season set to start in June? Fishers and leadership have had to call on the United Nations for protection from violence and racist intimidation. Will the passing of Bill C-15 prevent this from happening? Will it remind the non-indigenous fishers of their treaty obligations, of their history of settlement in Unama'ki? If B.C.'s UNDRIP law is any indication, sadly, I do not think it will.

I want to take a moment to talk about the journey I have been on when it comes to the study of this bill. My first step was with the Wolastoqiyik Grand Council, under Grand Chief Spasaqsit Possesom and Wolastoqiyik grandmothers. My next step was to meet with the Wabanaki Peace & Friendship Alliance.

I reviewed numerous analyses and interpretations. I met with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre to learn more about the work of Romeo Saganash with Bill C-262. I met with local community leadership. I met with our local friendship centre. I met with the association of Iroquois and allied nations, with my hon. colleague from Vancouver Granville. I met with the Assembly of First Nations and staff from Chief Bellegarde's office. I listened and I learned.

My last stop was again with the Wolastoqiyik grandmothers, scholars and leaders in my riding. I would encourage all members of the House to also seek out that guidance.

The assertion of these critical voices from Fredericton, from my mentors and most trusted allies, is to reject Bill C-15 at third reading. This is not easy for me. The Green Party of Canada stands by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we campaigned on passing it into law. However, that is not what Bill C-15 would accomplish.

I am told to celebrate Bill C-15 as it sets out the basic minimum standards for dignity and human rights for indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples already have these rights: charter rights. They already have title to their land and to hunt and fish for their livelihoods. They already have the right to self-determination. Canadians are the ones who have a problem upholding these rights, and Canada fails to enforce them.

We have a moral, legal and fiduciary responsibility as a nation to uphold our laws. However, we have broken these laws in pursuit of domination over indigenous nations, and there is significant work ahead in dismantling these systems and structures of oppression that got us here. There are no easy fixes, such as passing Bill C-15 to check the box of reconciliation.

Clarity on the implementation of UNDRIP would have been a golden opportunity to demonstrate what a new relationship could be, to demonstrate true respect and co-operation. Canada and sovereign indigenous nations could continue on a path in their own canoes, the lesson that the Two Row Wampum teaches us.

It is 2021, and it is time for us to face the truth. We cannot reconcile if we were never conciliatory; we can only work to repair the damage done. An essential part of these reparations is respecting the first treaty we all have as humans: the treaty with the land and with our planet. We forget far too often the interconnectedness of all life and our role and responsibility in preserving this place for future generations. What we have now is a race to consume resources.

There is a component of the bill that reflects sustainable development, but what this conversation must include is a re-evaluation of what that means. What is the value of protecting old-growth forests, food security and cultural safety? How are we to measure the success of Bill C-15? There are too many questions left unanswered.

The study of Bill C-15 has been a roller-coaster ride for me, and I wish to recognize the immense privilege I have as a non-indigenous person in pursuing this study. It has been difficult to see the infighting and division among people I look up to, among some of my personal heroes. I want to say for the record that it is okay to support the bill, and it is okay to reject it. What is not okay is ignoring our role and responsibilities as treaty people and treating each other with disrespect, which is a legacy that remains, with or without this bill.

Finally, whether Bill C-15 receives royal assent or not will not determine the future for my children. They are Wolastoqiyik. They are people of the beautiful and bountiful river. They are rooted to this land. They know who they are, and they know their rights.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I have a great amount of respect for Romeo Saganash. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity to serve with him in the last Parliament.

That being said, Bill C-262 was a flawed piece of legislation for many of the same reasons that Bill C-15 is a flawed piece of legislation. I was unable to support Bill C-262 and I am unable to support this bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.

The purpose of this legislation is to align Canadian laws with UNDRIP. The road to reconciliation has been a long and difficult one, with many ups and downs. Underlying it all is an understandable level of distrust on the part of indigenous peoples. Seen in that context, it could be said that at best, this is a well-intentioned piece of legislation, but even if that were so, it does not make it a good piece of legislation.

This legislation will likely move the process of reconciliation backward, rather than forward, and have grave impacts upon first nations communities to develop and prosper and achieve true self-determination. This legislation would undermine reconciliation, and nowhere is that clearer than in the complete failure on the part of the government in this bill to define what constitutes “free, prior and informed consent”.

What is free, prior and informed consent? If we were to look at the remarks of the Minister of Justice, we would be led to believe that it really means not much of anything, that the status quo ante would not be upended. In that regard, when the minister spoke in the House on this bill and the question of free, prior and informed consent, he said, “Free, prior and informed consent does not constitute veto power over the government's decision-making process.” The minister went on to say it “will not change Canada's existing duty to consult with indigenous peoples”. Clearly, that cannot be so.

Free, prior and informed consent is not the same as the duty to consult and accommodate, which is embedded in section 35 of our Constitution. There is a wide body of jurisprudence on that doctrine that makes clear that the right to be consulted and the right to be accommodated do not constitute a right of an absolute veto. When one looks at the words “free, prior and informed consent” on their face, they would seem to mean precisely the opposite of what the minister purports, namely that there would be a veto by someone.

Consistent with that, many persons who are authoritative on this matter have said as much. Let us take Senator Murray Sinclair, for example. Senator Sinclair championed Bill C-262 in the Senate in the last Parliament, which was the predecessor to this piece of legislation. Senator Sinclair is an esteemed retired justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.

On the question of what constitutes free, prior and informed consent, Senator Sinclair said this: “Free, prior and informed consent is a very simple concept.... And that is, before you affect my land, you need to talk to me, and you need to have my permission.” If “you need to have my permission” is not a veto, I do not know what is.

Assembly of First Nations chief Perry Bellegarde said that free, prior and informed consent, “very simply, is the right to say yes, and the right to say no”. He said it is “the right to say no”, full stop. If that does not constitute a veto, then I say I do not know what does.

It did not have to be this way. The one thing the government could have done was incorporate language expressly into the bill that made it clear that free, prior and informed consent does not constitute a veto. The Liberals could have provided a clearer definition of its meaning and its effect, thereby removing the considerable questions that currently exist about the implications of its meaning and effect, and what that will do to the development of major resource and other projects if this bill is passed.

One thing that is certain is that this lack of a definition would create considerable uncertainty and a torrent of new litigation around major development projects. It would undermine regulatory certainty, undermine investor confidence, and undermine the ability of individual first nations communities to determine their own destinies by seeking opportunities to engage and participate in projects that could help their people develop and prosper.

This is hardly a hypothetical. One need only look at Bill 41, passed by the B.C. NDP government in December 2019. That bill is quite similar to Bill C-15. It does not expressly enshrine UNDRIP into law in the Province of British Columbia, but it uses aspirational language about aligning B.C.'s laws with UNDRIP, similar to Bill C-15.

Within two months of the passage of Bill 41, three major projects were challenged by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: the Kitimat LNG project, the Site C dam and Coastal GasLink. The UN committee said that UNDRIP did apply, and that there had not been free, prior and informed consent. Many indigenous communities and leaders also took that position. That was despite the fact that, in the case of Coastal GasLink, 20 indigenous communities had supported the project but one faction of unelected hereditary chiefs opposed it. It underscores the uncertainty that would result from the passage of this bill, and it is why I cannot support this bill.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member hardly spoke about Bill C-15 and UNDRIP.

I do want to ask him a question. He was very much involved with the previous government. UNDRIP was accepted by the General Assembly 13 years ago. The previous Conservative government was in power for many of those years.

At what point would the Conservative Party accept UNDRIP and develop a plan to implement it or at least have a road map to success? The Conservative Party has consistently opposed it every step of the way, including with the blocking of Bill C-262 and Bill C-15.

At what point would the Conservative Party accept the principles of UNDRIP so it could be implemented into Canadian law?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, kwe, kwe. Ulaakut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour.

I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit first nation from my home in Oakville and my riding of Oakville North—Burlington.

I am happy to speak today on this proposed legislation as it represents a critical step forward on the path to reconciliation. This legislation has been strengthened through extensive engagement and consultation with indigenous peoples at every step in its development. I believe the greatest strength of Bill C-15's development was the input of indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast, which positively shaped the bill. Collaborating with indigenous partners through the engagement process has been pivotal in ensuring that we get it right.

As members know, the legislation is based on Romeo Saganash's private members' bill, Bill C-262. Mr. Saganash was the first parliamentary champion to endorse The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, often referred to as UNDRIP, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

A consultation draft of this bill was shared during engagement sessions to seek feedback from indigenous organizations in order to improve and amend the draft. During engagement, the government received contributions from many groups. In total, over 700 virtual sessions took place. They included sessions with national and regional indigenous organizations, indigenous rights holders, modern treaty and self-governing nations, as well as with women, youth, two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual plus persons.

This included regional engagement sessions where more than 450 people participated providing feedback and advice on potential enhancements to the consultation draft. Provincial and territorial governments, experts and industry stakeholders also informed the development of the bill.

We heard consistent calls to include strong language in the preamble on the need to consider the diversity of indigenous peoples; recognize inherent rights and respect treaties; include a reference to the historic and ongoing injustices and discrimination suffered by indigenous peoples and marginalized groups; acknowledge the role of the declaration as a framework for reconciliation, justice, healing and peace; and address systemic racism and discrimination.

We also heard consistent calls to consider the importance of educating Canadians to ensure that indigenous rights are understood and valued; recognize the right of self-determination and self-government as vital, and that the need for a strong distinctions-based approach throughout the legislation is essential; emphasize the importance of respecting article 37, which outlines respect of treaty rights, self-government agreements and other constructive agreements, and is important for modern treaty partners; not interfere with work under way at regional and provincial levels; and include references to climate change and sustainable development.

Because of this valuable feedback, the bill includes strong language in the preamble on the need to consider the diversity of indigenous peoples, recognize inherent rights and respect treaties. I should point out that all Canadians have access to this wealth of ideas and input. We have produced the “What We Learned” report, which is publicly available on the Canada website.

Engagement with partners did not stop when the bill was introduced. Ministers, their offices and the departments have been meeting extensively with indigenous partners and other stakeholders since introduction, and they will continue to do so throughout the parliamentary process. We learned from indigenous partners that there was much consensus around further suggested changes to the bill, including legislation that has been further improved by amendments as it was making its way through Parliament.

As an example, Bill C-15 required the development of the initial action plan as soon as possible and set a maximum three-year timeline. Based on feedback from indigenous partners during engagement sessions, the bill has now been amended to shorten the maximum timeline to a period of two years instead of three years for the development of the action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples.

We recognize that collaboration with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners takes time, but it should proceed with purpose. Bill C-15 now includes language from the declaration emphasizing that all doctrines, policies and practices based on racist or discriminatory notions are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust. An important amendment will modernize our laws by making specific reference to the fact that Canadian courts have stated that aboriginal and treaty rights are not frozen in time. Instead, they are capable of growth and evolution.

Most recently, we heard from the national indigenous organizations and indigenous women's organization at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. They stressed the urgency of passing this legislation, and I would like to share some of their testimony today in the House.

The president of the Women of the Métis Nation, Melanie Omeniho, said:

Elders and representatives from across the Métis motherland have noted that this historic piece of legislation, if implemented according to its spirit and intent, could have the transformative power of an indigenous bill of rights. Bill C-15, the proposed UNDRIP act, represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reset both the scales of justice and the balance of power so that indigenous women, children and two-spirit and gender-diverse people are protected, safe and free.

The Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada vice-president Gerri Sharpe said:

Bill C-15 is a step forward for Inuit women and all Canadians on the journey towards reconciliation. It is important because it states that Inuit women will have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that affect them; the right to improvement of economic and social conditions including education, housing, health, employment and social security; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and the same rights and freedoms guaranteed to Inuit men.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president Natan Obed said:

Bill C-15...is very focused on two particular concepts: one, the alignment of laws and policies within this country with the UN declaration; and two, the creation of an action plan.... Indigenous peoples' rights are human rights. This is a class of human rights that needs this particular legislation, and we do hope that Canadians accept the rights of indigenous peoples as human rights in this country.

Native Women's Association of Canada president Lorraine Whitman said:

UNDRIP is about us, our families, our communities, the thousands of pages of the national inquiry testimony and its calls for justice. Specifically, call to action 1.3 demands that government end the political marginalization of indigenous women.

David Chartrand of the Métis Nation Council said:

...change is coming and UNDRIP is another pathway that's going to really let us play catch-up so that indigenous and non-indigenous people can compare economically, educationally and so forth. It's about catching up. We're slowly catching up, which is something we should have done 50 years ago or 80 years ago.

If approved by Parliament, the bill will also require the Government of Canada, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, to take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration, prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the declaration's objectives and table an annual report. Co-development of the action plan will also be a further opportunity to work in close partnership on implementation.

We are ushering in a new era in which we build stronger and lasting relationships, close socio-economic gaps and promote greater prosperity for indigenous peoples and all Canadians. Together we are building a brighter future and a better Canada for today, tomorrow and into our shared future. That is why this legislation is so crucial. Built by extensive indigenous input and strengthened by committee amendments, Bill C-15 must now become the law of the land.

To conclude, I would like to affirm the words of AFN Chief Perry Bellegarde, who said, “We need to seize this moment and not miss the opportunity to get Bill C-15 passed. It is a road map to reconciliation.”

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too feel a great sense of pride and obligation in working on this bill. I wish I had been around to vote for Bill C-262. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to move forward on this. This bill will, indeed, require multi-party support. I look forward to supporting this bill with my colleague and further discussing the urgency when there is more time.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the proudest moments of my parliamentary career was my vote in favour of Bill C-262 at third reading in the last Parliament. COVID-19 has demonstrated that the federal government is able to move quite quickly to address urgent situations with massive financial resources. We saw the hundreds of billions of dollars that were made available in very short order as liquidity supports for banks.

What I want to know from the parliamentary secretary is whether the Government of Canada will commit the same level of urgency to this bill when it receives royal assent so that indigenous peoples across Canada, who have been waiting for hundreds of years for this important step, can have confidence that this receives the same amount of attention as supports that were given for COVID-19.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her comments.

Obviously, I disagree. As she might well recall, we debated Bill C-262 in the previous Parliament, and it received significant support in the House. The foundations of this bill had already been laid and were well known before the debate began.

We are moving forward like this because it is a priority for indigenous people across Canada and it is important to our reconciliation process.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. It is true that she was not here in the last Parliament when we fully debated Bill C-262, which is the foundation for the current Bill C-15. The House even passed Bill C-262, but it died on the Order Paper in the Senate because of the Conservative senators' political games.

This is therefore the second time the House is studying this issue, so much of it is very familiar. Everyone is indeed aware of the content of the bill and we are proceeding in this way because it is a priority for the country.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

The answer is no. This is a priority for the government, for indigenous peoples, and for indigenous leaders across the country.

The fact is, we have already covered this. We have already debated the substance of Bill C-15 because we debated its previous iteration, Bill C-262, which was introduced by our former colleague, Romeo Saganash. The previous Parliament passed that bill after a debate to which the Bloc Québécois contributed its opinion.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples itself has been around for 15 years, so it is not new.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my friend's comments. I know she has been working diligently over the last several years, not only on Bill C-262, but also on Bill C-15.

Much discussion has taken place with respect to FPIC. I would like to get a sense from my friend opposite of her views on it, and whether it constitutes a veto, or whether that is a strategy being used to deflect the real aspects of Bill C-15. I would ask her to comment with respect to her experience in engaging with other indigenous leaders and communities on the perspective of FPIC.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak again on Bill C-15, which seeks to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

At this point, we are cautiously confident that it will finally pass. I say “finally” because we have been waiting for this bill for a very long time. We hope it will pass quickly, although it is still not a done deal.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted on September 13, 2007. It is now May 2021, almost 15 years later, and it still has not been enshrined in Canadian law. It has been 15 years. Fifteen years is a long time. Fifteen years is the length of four Parliaments. Fifteen years is also slightly less than the difference in life expectancy between Inuit people and the rest of the Canadian population. Among men, the gap was 15 years in 2017. Fifteen years is half a generation, one-sixth of a century. That is a long time within a human lifetime.

Time passes, the world changes, but not for indigenous rights. Nothing moves, nothing changes, because Canada is the land of stalling. It is time for things to change. Despite a few flaws, we believe, as does the Assembly of First Nations, that we must move forward and pass Bill C-15 as quickly as possible, even if that means amending it later.

Today I would like to first talk about the history of our party as it relates to the Declaration and then dispel some persistent myths that are often associated with this bill.

Today I would like to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill even though the amendments we wanted to make to clarify the scope of the bill were not incorporated. We have long been convinced that implementing the UNDRIP is essential for reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and we still believe that.

The Bloc was there well before the declaration was signed. When the working group on the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples met in Geneva in September 2004, the Bloc was there to advocate for their right to self-determination. The Bloc was there again in 2006 during the final sprint to adoption, when we had to redouble our efforts alongside indigenous peoples and the international community. The Bloc was there in 2007, condemning Canada for voting against the declaration at the United Nations general assembly. The Bloc was there in the years that followed to put pressure on Harper's Conservative government to sign the declaration.

The Bloc was there, the Bloc is there, and the Bloc will always be there to promote the declaration. Parliament's ratification will not only recognize the inherent rights, emphasis on “inherent”, of indigenous peoples, but also clarify them for everyone because, let me remind the House, indigenous peoples' rights are not a privilege. Indigenous rights are legitimate and, as I said, inherent.

The Bloc Québécois believes that implementing the UN declaration will not only improve social and economic conditions for indigenous communities, but also guarantee greater predictability for companies operating in the primary sector, while ensuring sustainable and responsible resource development.

In that sense, if only in that sense, it will be a win for everyone, including the economy and first nations.

I stated earlier that time is standing absolutely still for indigenous rights. I am therefore appealing to my colleagues from the other parties and those in the upper chamber. It is now up to them to get the clock going again.

I have to admit that I have never understood the Conservative Party's visceral opposition to the declaration. Last August, in an interview with Perry Bellegarde, the Leader of the Opposition justified his objections to the declaration by saying that, in his view, case law already creates a duty to consult, so there is no value added in the declaration. If it changes nothing, why be afraid of adopting it?

At the same time, the Conservatives are trying to scare us. We saw this during the debates and in the last few minutes. They say that adopting the declaration will block projects because it creates new duties to consult.

They cannot, on the one hand, say that it will not change anything and, on the other, fear that it might change something. The Leader of the Opposition should clarify his thoughts. Is he against the change because it will change something, or is he against it because it will not change anything? He will have to explain this to us because his argument is self-contradictory and sounds to me more like an excuse.

Now is the time to dispel myths like this one. I cannot remain silent about the notion of free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, which is much more controversial than it should be. It has been at the centre of these debates, and it haunts the nightmares of my colleagues in the official opposition.

Opponents to the declaration have said over and over that free, prior and informed consent is tantamount to a veto. Nothing could be further from the truth. This time, the legislator's intention is evident, as it was in Bill C-262 introduced by my predecessor Roméo Saganash, to whom we owe a lot in this fight and whom I salute with respect and friendship. The legislator in no way sees FPIC as a veto. The Minister of Justice has said so many times. The courts cannot ignore that fact.

The declaration is absolutely clear on this issue. It states, and I quote:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent....

That is a requirement to consult in good faith. There is no mention at all of a veto in the declaration. It cannot be repeated often enough, or perhaps it bears repeating until it is understood, that this argument falls in on itself.

For me, the legislator's intent also seems very clear with regard to the scope of the bill. It applies only to areas under this Parliament's jurisdiction. Even though that is something that stands to reason and that just seems to make sense, the sponsor of the bill still went to the effort of reiterating that Bill C-15 will not impose any obligations on any other levels of government. That could not be more clear. In fact, it is crystal clear. We need to keep in mind that, if the members of the Bloc Québécois support this bill, as I am sure the government members do, it is because they understand and believe that the incorporation of the declaration into our laws should be done in partnership with the provinces and with complete respect for their areas of jurisdiction.

I must insist on this point.

In an article in the most recent issue of Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, lawyer Camille Fréchette wrote, “In light of the sharing of jurisdictions within the Canadian federal government system, the implementation of the right to [free, prior and informed consent] directly concerns the provinces, which have exclusive jurisdiction over public lands and natural resource development”.

We believe that the different levels of government must work together if the act is to be properly implemented. The provinces will have to be consulted and participate in the implementation process to ensure consistency. In our humble opinion, this bill will only help with reconciliation, provided that everyone acts in good faith and strives to maintain a dialogue.

On that note, I want to make a little aside to clarify something, because we must be thorough and there is a lot of disinformation about Bill C-15. Some people have tried to claim that the Bloc Québécois was jeopardizing Quebec's sovereignty. That is an absurd idea, but I can refute that claim with the example of territory.

The Constitution Act, 1867, makes it clear that the provinces own and are the guardians of their territory. To paraphrase constitutional expert André Binette, if that were not the case, then Hydro-Québec would not exist. Quebec's inalienable sovereignty over its territory just reinforces the need for a collaborative approach to ensure that the declaration is implemented consistently and seamlessly.

In 1985, led by René Lévesque's government, the Quebec National Assembly recognized 10 and later 11 indigenous nations on Quebec territory. In 2006, the House of Commons recognized Quebec as a nation. The Bloc Québécois has said and will say again that nation-to-nation dialogue is the only way to achieve peace and harmony, among other things.

That said, at this point, I think we have debated the implementation of the declaration long enough and should move on to the next step. Let me point out that indigenous nations have been waiting almost 15 years — 163 months or 4,990 days, to be exact — for us as legislators to take decisive action. Indigenous peoples have waited long enough. I would venture to say that they have waited too long. Their eyes are fixed on us, and the clock is ticking. It is up to us to take action now, because their inherent rights are at stake.

Tshi nashkumitin. Thank you.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague across the way for his tireless work in the previous Parliament to see this almost realized.

I was really pleased to see Bill C-15 amended to include paragraph 18, to include the constitutional principle of the living tree doctrine, which confirms that aboriginal and treaty rights evolve and grow over time. As I mentioned at committee, I would have preferred that this amendment be included in the operative articles of the bill as proposed by, for example, the Assembly of First Nations and the original drafter of Bill C-262.

Would my hon. friend have preferred the same, that this amendment be included in the operative articles of Bill C-15?

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

Madam Speaker, it has been more than 13 years since the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It is five years this week since the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations attended the United Nations to announce that Canada was a full supporter, without qualification, of the declaration. She also affirmed Canada's commitment to adopt and implement this international human rights document in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.

The introduction of Bill C-15 last December fulfilled our government's commitment to introduce legislation by the end of 2020 to implement the declaration, and it established the former private member's bill, Bill C-262, as the floor, rather than the ceiling.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the leadership of a former member of Parliament, my dear friend Romeo Saganash. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his work in Parliament and across the country with indigenous peoples and communities to advance his private member's bill, Bill C-262, to implement the declaration here in Canada. It was very disappointing that Bill C-262 died on the Order Paper, unable to make it through the Senate process before the last federal election. I therefore urge all parliamentarians today to ensure that this does not happen to Bill C-15.

The declaration is a result of decades of tireless efforts, negotiations and sustained advocacy at the United Nations by inspiring indigenous leaders from around the world, including many from Canada. From Dr. Willie Littlechild to former NDP MP Romeo Saganash to Sákéj Henderson and so many others, Canadian indigenous leaders played an instrumental role in the development of this historic international human rights document.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission stated that the declaration charts a path for reconciliation to flourish in 21st century Canada, and the TRC call to action 43 calls on all levels of government to fully adopt and implement this declaration. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called on governments to immediately implement and fully comply with the declaration.

The declaration is of critical importance to indigenous peoples across Canada, and its implementation is essential to a shared journey toward reconciliation. It is long past time for the Parliament of Canada to pass legislation to implement the principles set out in the declaration. Once passed, Bill C-15 would affirm the declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. It would also provide a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the declaration.

This framework would establish new accountability for the Government of Canada to work with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples to find new ways to protect, promote and uphold the human rights of indigenous peoples across Canada. This legislative framework would further demonstrate Canada's continued commitment to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples now and in the future. It would also bring further clarity to the path forward for indigenous peoples, communities, industry and all Canadians.

Once passed by Parliament, the legislation would create new requirements for the Government of Canada, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, to take all necessary measures to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration and prepare, and to implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration.

Moving forward, the laws of Canada would be required to reflect the standards set out in the declaration, while also respecting aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in the Constitution. The legislation would require the Government of Canada to report annually to Parliament on progress made to align the laws of Canada with the declaration and on the development and implementation of the action plan. This approach is consistent with the declaration itself, which in article 38 calls on states to collaborate with indigenous peoples on appropriate measures, including legislative measures to achieve the goals set out in the declaration.

We acknowledge that some have expressed concern with the length of time for consultation on Bill C-15. It is important to recognize that private member's bill, Bill C-262, the foundation of this legislation, was also the subject of extensive parliamentary debate and study in the previous Parliament. Despite an accelerated engagement process for Bill C-15, even during the pandemic, the bill's additions to the foundation of Bill C-262 reflect the content requested by a wide cross-section of first nation, Inuit and Métis partners from coast to coast to coast.

In total, over 70 virtual sessions took place, which allowed us to hear the views of over 462 participants about potential enhancements to a consultation draft of legislative text, based on former private member's bill, Bill C-262. Before June and November 2020, the government held 33 bilateral sessions with the AFN, ITK and MNC, involving extensive technical discussions on the content of Bill C-15.

Natan Obed, President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, a national indigenous representative organization for Inuit in Canada, spoke at the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples last Friday. I am quoting from the blues, but while there he said, “We have worked positively and constructively with the federal government on the development of Bill C-15 within a relatively short timeframe. I want to thank the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice for ensuring the co-development happened within this particular piece of legislation and also the government's willingness to be flexible and consider amendments throughout the process.”

Last fall, through a series of virtual sessions, the government also undertook an extensive six-week session of broader engagement with a wide cross-section of indigenous partners on the development of the draft legislation. This engagement included modern treaty and self-governing first nations, Inuit regions, other rights holders, national and regional women's organizations, youth, LGBTQ representatives, as well as some non-indigenous stakeholders.

More specifically, 28 engagement sessions were held with rights holders, modern treaty partners and other national and regional organizations, including women's organizations. Four industry-specific round tables were held with the key sectors of minerals and metals, clean energy, forestry, and petroleum sectors. These also including indigenous participation.

Five sessions were held with provinces and territories, including two ministerial meetings, and some of these meetings also included indigenous experts and leaders. There was also a round table with indigenous youth from the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Métis National Council and Canadian Roots Exchange, and with university law students.

In addition, we received over 50 written submissions that provided feedback and proposed text changes, including views and recommendations on the development of an action plan. An extensive “What We Learned” report is available on the Department of Justice website, which outlines the extensive framework feedback the government received throughout the engagement process.

The extensive engagement with indigenous partners and others led to key enhancements from former private member's bill, Bill C-262, to be included in Bill C-15. Bill C-15 has new language in the preamble, including the highlighting the positive contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, and healing and peace, as well as harmonious and co-operative relations in Canada.

It recognizes the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. It reflects on the importance of respecting treaties and agreements. It highlights the connection between the declaration and sustainable development. Finally, it emphasizes the need to take diversity of indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation.

A purpose clause has been included to address the application of the declaration in Canadian law, and to affirm the legislation as a framework for new federal implementation of the declaration.

Bill C-15 has clear and more robust provisions on the process of developing and tabling the action plan and annual reports. It has a provision to allow the Governor in Council to designate a minister to carry out elements of the bill. These changes and additions enhance and build upon the elements set out in Bill C-262.

Engagement also did not stop when the bill was introduced. Since the introduction of the bill in December, extensive meetings have been held with indigenous partners and other stakeholders. These ongoing discussions, along with an extensive study at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, have informed a number of further amendments to Bill C-15, which passed at the House committee. I want to take a moment to thank the members of the standing committee for their hard work and co-operation in getting this bill through.

The amended bill now includes the specific rejection of the racist and colonial doctrines of discovery and terra nullius in the preamble. The preamble now also clarifies that Canadian courts have stated that aboriginal and treaty rights, recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, are not frozen and are capable of evolution and growth. Bill C-15 also now expressly includes the term “racism” in both the preamble and the body of the legislation.

Based on consensus advice from indigenous partners, the government also agreed to amend the timeline to co-develop the action plan from three years to two, a timeline we are confident is sufficient for a meaningful process and co-development of an effective action plan.

Our government is committed to the meaningful co-development of Bill C-15's action plan with indigenous partners and experts to ensure that the implementation of the legislation is effective and accountable. The bill itself sets out that the action plan must include measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence, racism and discrimination, including systemic racism and discrimination against indigenous peoples: elders, youth, children, women, men, persons with disabilities, and gender diverse and two-spirit persons. It must promote mutual respect and understanding, as well as good relations, including through human rights education.

The action plan must also include measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy, or other accountability measures with respect to the implementation of the declaration. We have already begun preliminary discussions with indigenous partners on the design of the future process. Budget 2021 provides $31.5 million over two years to support the action plan's co-development.

My Conservative colleagues have framed the concept of free, prior and informed consent, FPIC, as an undefined statement and have suggested it could be interpreted as a de facto veto for individual indigenous communities or groups over resource development. I note the term “veto” is nowhere to be found in the draft of the text. They have tried to raise concerns that this would jeopardize the economy and bring uncertainty to the resource sector. In fact, FPIC focuses on the inclusion of voices, concerns and opinions of all indigenous peoples who would be affected by a proposed activity or project, ensuring these concerns are addressed and that there are mitigation plans in place.

I think Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond addressed this best when she spoke to the House committee on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations on April 13:

...there is an element of what I would call “fearmongering” about the concept of free, prior and informed consent, that somehow that will cause economic damage and so forth. In fact, free, prior and informed consent, and operationalizing that by having industry, government and first nations work together appropriately early, in the context of recognizing the rights, provides more economic stability, certainty and security

In conclusion, just last week, National Chief Perry Bellegarde, representing the Assembly of First Nations, spoke in favour of passing Bill C-15 at the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples, where he stated:

I urge you all to seize this historic opportunity and to play a key role in upholding and advancing the human rights of Indigenous peoples.

At the same Senate committee meeting, Natan Obed, the president of ITK, said, “We see this piece of federal legislation as a positive contribution to the approach of human rights being applied equally to all Canadian citizens. ”

David Chartrand, speaking for the Métis National Council, told the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on April 15:

We believe that passing this bill into law is critical to a future that respects our rights as a nation. We urge members to expedite the process to ensure that Bill C-15 is passed in this session of Parliament.

While no piece of legislation will get unanimous support from all indigenous peoples in Canada, Bill C-15 has broad support from first nations, Inuit and Métis from coast to coast to coast. Bill C-15 is about shredding our colonial past and writing the next chapter together as partners with indigenous peoples.

I therefore urge all members of the House to support this fundamental piece of legislation and to support Bill C-15.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today at the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was introduced on December 3 of last year by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Introducing legislation to advance the implementation of the declaration is a key step in renewing the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Huron-Wendat, the Anishinabe and, most recently, the territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit first nation. Toronto is now home to many diverse first nation, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park are strong advocates for the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a privilege to represent such engaged and vocal individuals. My constituents have been clear about the importance of having a government that respects indigenous rights and plays an active role in reconciliation. This legislation would address those concerns by taking measures to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill is a critical step forward in the joint journey toward reconciliation.

I know that members are familiar with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but to provide a bit of context, the declaration was adopted in 2007 after many years of hard work by indigenous leaders and countless Canadians.

We are grateful for the unwavering dedication of indigenous leaders such as Dr. Wilton Littlechild and many other stakeholders who worked tirelessly for many years to develop and negotiate the declaration.

I want to refer specifically to the long-standing work of James Sákéj Youngblood Henderson, who made UNDRIP a key part of his life's work, and who also happens to be the father of my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria. The adoption of this declaration was a very significant moment in human history, with the goal of protecting and promoting indigenous rights around the world.

The declaration contains 46 articles that address a wide variety of individual and collective rights, including cultural and identity rights, and rights relating to education, health, employment and language, among others.

It is the language piece that I want to focus on very briefly because I do feel that this dovetails with the other work that has been accomplished by our government and by this Parliament. In this, I am referring to the Indigenous Languages Act.

In the previous Parliament, I had the ability and the opportunity to work with the minister of heritage on the Indigenous Languages Act legislation. Through that process, I learned not only a tremendous amount about myself as a parliamentarian, but also about the legacy of colonial policies in this country over 400 years of settler contact with indigenous persons.

In restoring languages through the Indigenous Languages Act, which we passed in the last Parliament, restoring funding and now ensuring that we are working toward the passage of UNDRIP, we see a continuity in terms of protecting cultural and linguistic rights, among many other rights, for indigenous persons on this land. These rights are sorely in need of protection as we try to give meaning to concepts of autonomy and autodétermination, as we say in French.

The declaration itself also recognizes that the situation of indigenous people varies from region to region and from country to country. It provides us with flexibility and the opportunity, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous people, to ensure that rights are recognized, protected and implemented in a manner that reflects the circumstances right here in Canada. In May 2016, our government endorsed the UN declaration, without qualification, and we committed to its implementation.

Subsequently, we were very proud to support private member's bill, Bill C-262, in the previous Parliament, which was introduced by former NDP member of Parliament Romeo Saganash. Unfortunately, Bill C-262 died in the Senate in June 2019, due in large part, I will frankly indicate, to stonewalling by Conservative members of the Senate. However, what we did in the 2019 electoral campaign is redouble the commitment of the Liberal Party to reintroducing UNDRIP as a government bill, which is exactly what we have done with Bill C-15. This builds on the foundational work that was presented by the old bill, Bill C-262, in the previous Parliament.

Building on support from indigenous groups for the former Bill C-262 and following discussions with indigenous partners, we as a government used the old Bill C-262 as the floor for the development of this new legislative proposal, which is currently before all of us in this chamber.

The Government of Canada drafted the bill following consultations with representatives of national and regional indigenous organizations, modern treaty partners, self-governing first nations, rights holders, indigenous youth, indigenous women, gender-diverse and two-spirit people, as well as representatives from other indigenous organizations. The comments received throughout the consultation process helped shape the bill.

That was the genesis of Bill C-15, which seeks to affirm the declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law and provide a framework for the Government of Canada’s implementation of the declaration.

Bill C-15 is but one sign of the progress I believe we are making in advancing reconciliation, affirming human rights, addressing systemic racism and combatting discrimination in this country. Members heard some of that in the previous speech from the member for Outremont with respect to other milestones we have reached as a government, but what I think is critical here is when we speak about combatting discrimination, in particular systemic racism.

It should not be lost on any members of Parliament how critical the timing of this bill is, given the moment we are in collectively as a nation and as a continent, with a movement taken on by all Canadians to actively combat systemic discrimination and systemic racism. COVID has shone a light on this, and we have been responding to it. Bill C-15 is part of the continuity of work that includes Bill C-22, which is about ending many mandatory minimum penalties that disproportionately impact Black and indigenous Canadians. Bill C-15 is part of that continuity and body of work.

This bill, Bill C-15, builds on the significant progress we have been making on implementing the declaration on a policy basis by creating a legislated, durable framework requiring the federal government, in consultation and co-operation with first nations, Inuit and Métis people, to take all measures necessary to ensure that federal laws are consistent with the declaration, to prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration, and to report annually to Parliament on progress made in implementing the legislation.

Enhancements we have made to Bill C-15 as a result of the engagement process we undertook with indigenous peoples, which preceded its introduction, include the addition of new language in the preamble, with the following objectives: to highlight the positive contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, healing and peace; to recognize the inherent rights of indigenous peoples; to reflect the importance of respecting treaties, agreements and constructive arrangements; to highlight the connection between the declaration and sustainable development; and to emphasize the need to take the diversity of indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation. Other key enhancements include the addition of a purpose clause to address application of the declaration in Canadian law and to affirm the legislation as a framework for federal implementation of the declaration, and clearer and more robust provisions on the process for developing and tabling the action plan and annual reports.

Moving ahead with Bill C-15 is consistent with our commitment to address the TRC calls to action and respond to the national inquiry into MMIWG and the calls for justice therein. Implementing this declaration is the natural next step in our journey to advance reconciliation, something I mentioned at the outset. This would be a significant step forward in our efforts to build a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be used as an essential tool in developing the Canadian framework for reconciliation, which will reflect our own history and our own legal and constitutional framework.

The bill proposes a legislative framework for the UN declaration, so that over time, as other laws are modified or developed, they would be aligned with the declaration. To this end, the legislation would require the Government of Canada, “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, [to] take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”, “prepare and implement an action plan”, and table an annual report to align the laws of Canada on the action plan.

As written, this bill would require that the action plan include measures to “address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination...against Indigenous peoples” and “promote mutual respect and understanding as well as good relations, including through human rights education”. The action plan would also include “measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy or other accountability measures with respect to the implementation of the Declaration.”

I want to spend my last remaining time on an issue that has come up, which is with respect to free, prior and informed consent. Free, prior and informed consent is about doing just that. It is about the effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them, their communities and their territories. The participation of indigenous peoples as full partners in economic development is a reflection of their inherent right to self-determination. Achieving consent is the goal of any consultation or collaboration processes. This means we need to make every effort to reach agreements that work for all parties. To be clear, the concept does not confer veto or require unanimity in these types of decisions. If consent cannot be secured, the facts of law applicable to the specific circumstances will determine the path forward.

I would refer members of this House to the testimony of David Chartrand of the Métis National Council who said precisely this. I would also refer members of this House to the previous testimony of people like Romeo Saganash in parliamentary committees when we were studying the old bill, Bill C-262, in the last Parliament who also indicated that it is not the interpretation of the law that free, prior and informed consent, FPIC, would constitute a veto. Indeed, in literally the last 36 to 48 hours, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, as counsel for the Assembly of First Nations said at the standing committee looking into this bill that “The idea that free—

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today, I speak from the Mi'kmaq traditional territory of Unama'ki in the Eskasoni First Nation.

It has been over 400 years since my Mi'kmaq ancestors met European travellers on the shores of Mi'kma'ki. This moment thrust generations of transformation and struggle that led to the conflicts, diplomacy and eventually treaties that have shaped Canada and its Constitution. That struggle and those relations continue to this day across Canada.

Today's debate is the next step on this journey and the generational struggle of indigenous peoples in Canada. With Bill C-15, we turned a page on colonial narratives entrenched within the Indian Act and moved on to a new chapter founded on the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous People.

This past week Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild reminded me that indigenous leaders have been fighting for recognition of their basic human rights entrenched within UNDRIP for over 40 years. The fact that this government act is in Parliament today is an achievement of the possible in the realm of the improbable.

Today, I would like to share a perspective on Bill C-15 that is personal, but also shared by many indigenous people in this country. My father, Sákéj Henderson, one of the original drafters, wrote that UNDRIP is a process whereby, “Thousands of Indigenous peoples participated over thirty years in the development of Indigenous diplomacy.”

Before the 1982 Constitution, long before the recognition in the Supreme Court of Canada, Kji-keptin Alexander Denny and a delegation of Mi'kmaq went to the United Nations to seek justice for Mi'kmaq based on the UN covenants available to them at the time.

There, they met several indigenous leaders from around the world who were all advocating for the right to be recognized as humans and protected by the rights that came from the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. At the time, there was no UN mechanism whereby the rights of indigenous peoples, as humans, could be protected. In fact, the first meeting of the UN working group referred to indigenous populations because of the fear of recognizing them as a people.

Despite the objections and fears, indigenous leaders persevered, and on September 12, 2007, more than 143 countries affirmed the recommendation to extend human rights and fundamental freedoms to indigenous people. Canada voted against that. That decision by the Harper-led Conservative government to deny indigenous people human rights and freedoms brings us to where we are now. Today, we can undo that mistake.

In a divided world, UNDRIP is a global vision. The longest, most comprehensive human rights instrument negotiated at the United Nations, fought and won by thousands of indigenous leaders speaking 100 different languages from all corners of the globe. The 46 articles within UNDRIP give clarity and understanding of the inherent rights recognized in section 35 of our Constitution, also known as aboriginal rights. It addresses what is meant by fair, just and consensual relationships between indigenous people and government.

Our Liberal government has already shown our commitment to implementing the human rights of indigenous peoples, entrenching these principles into our Environmental Assessment Act, the Indigenous Language Acts and the indigenous children, youth and family act.

However, the time has come for all political parties to stand up for the inalienable human rights of indigenous people in this country. Let us be clear: The human rights of indigenous people have been and continue to be denied in Canada. UNDRIP is a vital and necessary part of the remedy to this generational injustice. The 1876 Indian Act codified this injustice and colonial framework stating that the term “person” means an individual other than an Indian unless the context clearly requires another construction.

From the moment Canada legally denied Indians the rights of persons, it became necessary to create this declaration and to confirm the inalienable human rights of indigenous persons. With great humility, I add my name to those who wish to be recognized as persons as well in Canada. I am humbled in the knowledge that so many other indigenous MPs have spoken in this House, advocating for human rights to extend to indigenous people as well.

Let me be clear: Bill C-15 would not create new rights. It affirms rights actively denied to indigenous peoples for generations. Bill C-15 rejects colonialism, racism and injustices of the past. It affirms familiar human rights norms and minimum standards that Canada and Canadians have long supported.

It places two interrelated obligations on the federal government, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples of Canada. The first obligation is to take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration. The second obligation, which is just as important, is to establish an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration within three years. These obligations are necessary for establishing a just framework for reconciliation and fulfilled promises, to generate better lives for indigenous peoples.

Critics of Bill C-15 have tried to use words like uncertainty and unintended consequences to slow, stall and create fears of UNDRIP. However, in reality they are doing nothing more than perpetuating colonial notions that for generations have benefited them and exploited indigenous peoples.

Former Justice Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, in response to fears that Bill C-15 would slow down the economy, stated:

It is fearmongering to suggest that somehow the rights of indigenous people will make the Canadian economy not work and to point to British Columbia and say that is particularly laughable and inaccurate.

Bill C-15 is about fair, just and consensual relations among legally recognized people. Bill C-15 is another step to guarantee indigenous people a dignified life and a meaningful economic future. Whether supporter or skeptic, all Canadians will benefit from recognizing and exercising our shared humanity. The passing of this bill into law would require, inspire and enable Canadians to maintain the promises of a better nation.

In closing, I would like to thank Romeo Saganash for his leadership on his private member's bill, Bill C-262. I would also like to thank my father, Sákéj Henderson, and Russel Barsh for their wise counsel and their tireless efforts to help the Mi’kmaq over the years; as well as the many indigenous leaders within the Assembly of First Nations and the Indigenous Bar Association who have advanced my education on UNDRIP over the years; as well as all the indigenous leaders from coast to coast to coast whose tireless efforts have led to government legislation on Bill C-15.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I have a shout-out to your father-in-law, Ian, as well. He should be very proud of all the great work that you have done over the years. I want to thank my friend opposite because I have been able to work with him for the last five years at committee.

One of the things we have seen over the last five years, especially travelling with the former MP Romeo Saganash, is the enormous amount of work that was put in to this legislation in Bill C-262 and then subsequently in Bill C-15.

Regrettably, what we have seen from my friend's party is blockage throughout its term in government up to 2015 and then beyond that we have seen absolutely no effort from the Conservative Party to move forward, whether in legislation or in terms of assessing it in Canadian law.

Could the member give us a sense of what his party intends to do in order to implement UNDRIP in Canada if the bill does not go through?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

I am really pleased to be working and building relationships with the people of the Cote, Keeseekoose, The Key, Fishing Lake and Yellow Quill First Nations and the Métis Nation Saskatchewan in the riding of Yorkton—Melville on Treaty No. 4 and Treaty No. 5 lands.

I am also very pleased to speak today on Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It goes without saying that the consideration of this legislation today is a significant moment for Canada, not only because members on all sides of the House, and therefore all Canadians, want to achieve meaningful reconciliation with Canada’s indigenous people but because the Liberal government has made a critical misstep toward this goal through the introduction of the bill in its current form. It is my fear that the impact of the bill will result in the opposite of its desired effect.

The bill aims to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. Subclause 4(a), for instance, states that “The purpose of this Act is to (a) affirm the Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law”. Further, clause 5 charges the Government of Canada with working “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.”

The House will remember calls to action 43 and 44 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, urging the federal government to “to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation” and “to develop a national action plan, strategies, and other concrete measures to achieve the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” It was in fact the previous Conservative government that adopted UNDRIP in 2010 as an aspirational document.

Then and now, the Conservatives support the goals and aspirations of this declaration. We support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with the indigenous people of Canada. However, we remain concerned about the Liberal government’s unwillingness to put forward legislation that clearly outlines the effect and interpretation of key terms within the declaration, such as “free, prior and informed consent”. When it comes to understanding what exactly this term means in a practical sense, the lack of consensus between the federal and provincial governments, among members of the legal community and within indigenous communities themselves is worthy of concern.

The previous Conservative government, at the time of its inception, opposed UNDRIP, because free, prior and informed consent did not align with Canadian constitutional law. That is why, a few years later, the same government adopted UNDRIP as an aspirational document, not binding law. This was a move in line with three of our Five Eyes partners: the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. It was a decision made with good reason. The wide-ranging provisions within UNDRIP, like FPIC, were found to be inconsistent with Canadian constitutional law.

Over a decade later, the Liberal government is forging ahead with infusing UNDRIP into the law of the land. However, it has failed to do its due diligence in presenting a bill that can be clearly understood by government and stakeholders. There is a lack of consultation on what purports to be a transformative piece of legislation that will have untold ramifications on our country, indigenous communities and, indeed, all Canadians.

NTC president Judith Sayers says that the consultative process for this bill lacked mutual agreement and was rushed. AFN chiefs have expressed their concern that no extensive consultations were held. The government is good at partial consultations, but the word “extensive” is mentioned here.

Late last year, six provincial premiers wrote to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to object to the six-week window provided for input on the draft bill. They stressed the need for “appropriate engagement with provinces, territories, and Indigenous partners on the draft bill” that could “fundamentally change Confederation.” I do not believe that has taken place and any that has is not clearly outlined to the House. The premiers pleaded for time for Canada to fully and meaningfully consider and address the legitimate, significant concerns that we have already raised about the draft bill in its current form.

It is unacceptable for the government to claim that the time for consultation has been satisfied. I have heard that a great deal today. Concerns expressed at the time of the previous UNDRIP bill, Bill C-262, still exist now. How can the government claim credit for a new era of trust and reconciliation with indigenous communities with such a heavy-handed and sloppy approach to this legislation?

As I mentioned earlier, the effect of free, prior and informed consent has been a long-standing concern that has not retreated from the national discourse. It generates more questions than it provides answers.

Take, for instance, the direct input of indigenous communities. The National Coalition of Chiefs and the Indigenous Resource Network have expressed its concern about ramifications, such as who would have the authority to grant it and the impact it would have on future resource projects. If grant expectations under this model are not met, how will it undermine trust between the Crown and indigenous people for generations to come? Will it deter investment, good jobs and secure incomes from reaching our shores? Indeed, the interpretation of this may lead to consequences beyond Canada's resource development.

Professor Dwight Newman of the University of Saskatchewan's Faculty of Law, speaking before the Senate aboriginal affairs committee on a previous iteration of the bill stated, “the Court’s interpretation of FPIC is nonetheless subject to uncertainties that have enormous implications for Canada”. Professor Newman's input has merit.

Again, let us focus on how indigenous communities may be impacted. Clearly, the pursuit of reconciliation and tangible progress for indigenous communities could be stagnated by opaque language like FPIC. Even considering the current constitutional model, one that outlines a duty to consult and accommodate, tangible results can be hard to come by depending on the degree of intrusion proposed. With the implementation of this model, many serious questions are raised, including who might provide their consent in any given circumstance or who speaks for any community.

Members will recall a sensitive period for our country not too long ago when the decisions of 20 band councils concerning the Coastal GasLink pipeline came into direct conflict with opposition from Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs. Opposing groups within the Wet'suwet'en could not come to an agreement about who spoke on their behalf. Speaking before a parliamentary committee, Theresa Tait-Day, a founder of the Wet'suwet'en Matrilineal Coalition, said that the project had been hijacked, despite 80% of the band wanting the project to proceed.

It has been argued that the passage of Bill 41 in British Columbia, in many ways a mirror of the legislation before us, led directly to the disconnect between the elected band council, hereditary chiefs and government. Many indigenous stakeholders interpreted Bill 41 as the vehicle through which UNDRIP was adopted and therefore established a right to veto construction on the line. Indigenous communities deserve better than the ambiguity that B.C.'s Bill 41 and Bill C-15 provide.

Other questions remain, such as, how will this apply in situations where indigenous rights include title or the right to occupy lands and use resources? In situations involving unresolved or overlapping land claim disputes, whose consent is required? What form will this consent take in Canadian law? There is a real concern that the government is taking steps to enshrine UNDRIP into Canadian law without a clear picture of how concepts like FPIC will be interpreted in that law.

As justice minister in 2016, the member for Vancouver Granville said, “simplistic approaches, such as adopting the UNDRIP as being Canadian law are unworkable.” She went on to say, “it's important to appreciate why Canada cannot simply incorporate the declaration "word for word" into law.”

The Conservatives have been clear and consistent. We believe that UNDRIP is an aspirational document whose goals we support. However, to adopt it wholesale without consideration for lasting consequences is irresponsible. We need a made-in-Canada approach to achieve the type of reconciliation UNDRIP outlines. Indigenous communities do not need a further barrier to achieving the best for their communities.

Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, has spent his professional life in first nations administration as well as the oil and gas industry. In a special note to the Financial Post he wrote that he “know[s] first-hand what happens when federal bureaucracy gets in the way of responsible resource development.” It is his belief that symbolic gestures of reconciliation should not come at the expense of food on the table for indigenous people.

Reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people means recognizing and affirming their dreams and aspirations to not just be stakeholders but, as I have been told, shareholders. In this case, it is the private sector that has led the way in spending on indigenous businesses.

One example of nine is Cameco, the uranium company that procured $3.8 billion since 2004 from local suppliers in the riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan, whose member of Parliament is so passionately committed to seeing reconciliation truly succeed. His words I now repeat, “Advocating for jobs, owned-source revenue streams, equity ownership and financial independence is in fact the pathway to self-determination and the solution to many of the social challenges.”

The Liberals have been failing to keep their promises, such as ending long-term boil water advisories, and failing to stand up for the future of the natural resource projects that benefit indigenous communities and that they want to be part of. As it stands, this bill has the potential to sow further seeds of division across our country. If it is the government's intention to enshrine an international—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Beaches—East York, I speak today in support of Bill C-15. I want to start by acknowledging the work of former NDP member Romeo Saganash. It really highlights how the importance of this issue cuts across party lines, and the significance of working across party lines to get important things done.

I have had many constituents reach out to me in support of implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Most, of course, email or write letters. Some call. Before the election in the last Parliament, when Bill C-262, Romeo Saganash's bill, was before us, I had a constituent, Murray Lumley, who came and met with me in my office and called on me to support that bill, which I did, and encouraged the government of the day to support it. Murray is a thoughtful, caring constituent. He did not vote for me; he worked against me, if I am being honest, in the last election, and I do not expect he will vote for me whenever the next election might be. However, I do want to highlight his efforts, all the same, just as I have highlighted Romeo's efforts. It is important that we emphasize just how this cuts across party lines and how all of us, regardless of political stripe, need to support this really important legislation.

When we work across party lines, we build trust. Another way we build trust in politics is by keeping our promises. I just want to highlight the platform that we ran on in the last election, which stated:

Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission said that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples charts a path “for reconciliation to flourish in 21st century Canada.”...

We will move forward with introducing co-developed legislation to implement [UNDRIP] as government legislation by the end of 2020. In this work, we will ensure that this legislation fully respects the intent of the Declaration, and establishes Bill C-262 as the floor, rather than the ceiling, when it comes to drafting this new legislation.

That promise has been kept through Bill C-15, which was introduced in Parliament in December of last year.

In substance, Bill C-15 has a lengthy preamble, including that:

[UNDRIP] provides a framework for reconciliation, healing and peace, as well as harmonious and cooperative relations based on the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith.... [They] constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples of the world....

It recognizes “historic injustices” and says that “the implementation of the Declaration must include concrete measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination, against Indigenous peoples.”

In substance, clause 5 states:

The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.

Saganash rightly noted before committee that “the Minister of Justice [already] has an obligation under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act to make sure that any legislation, before it is introduced, is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, and he noted that Bill C-15 provides for an equivalent for indigenous rights and treaty rights in this country.

Clause 6 is the most important section in this legislation:

The Minister must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples and with other federal ministers, prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.

This includes measures to “address injustices” and discrimination and to “promote mutual respect”; “measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy” and accountability; and “measures related to monitoring the implementation of the plan” and annual reporting mechanisms to Parliament.

Bill C-15 does treat Bill C-262 as a floor, which is incredibly important. It goes beyond, in its preamble, and recognizes the inherent right to self-determination, including a right to self-government.

In the words of the justice minister:

Bill C-15 would create a legislated, durable framework requiring government to work collaboratively with indigenous peoples to make steady progress in implementing the declaration across all areas of federal responsibility.

Is it supported by indigenous communities? Is it supported by experts? Is it supported by the above-noted Mr. Saganash? The answer is yes, an overwhelming yes. There is a letter in support of Bill C-15, with over 200 signatures from first nations, from indigenous communities across the country, organizations, experts and activists, including Saganash, Irwin Cotler, the current NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, and many others. I know that one of the signatories is also a constituent, Kerry Wilkins, who is an expert at the University of Toronto.

They write in this letter:

Parliament has an historic opportunity to advance reconciliation.

[UNDRIP] is a consensus global human rights instrument, elaborating minimum standards for the “survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples.” Implementation of these standards is vital to improving the lives of Indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world, and to upholding Canada's solemn and urgent human rights commitments.

They go on to note that the measures in Bill C-15 are “important, practical and achievable measures that deserve the support of all Canadians.”

Two of those signatories, Alex Neve, formerly of Amnesty International, and Brenda Gunn, wrote recently, and separately:

By any measure, implementing this global declaration domestically will significantly advance reconciliation and strengthen respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples across the country. Not automatically. And not without much hard work ahead, such as the considerable effort—in full collaboration with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples—that must be invested in developing the action plan for implementation that will be required.

They go on to note that it is important as a matter of global leadership and that it “stands to advance Canada's overall commitment to international human rights.”

Speaking recently to a parliamentary committee studying Bill C-15, Romeo Saganash stated:

I fully support Bill C-15 being tabled by the federal government in the House.... Government bills can proceed more efficiently, I believe, before the House and the Senate. Bill C-15 confirms the declaration as the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples.

He goes on to note that there are some amendments he would like to see, but he supports Bill C-15 and acknowledges that it meets his previous bill's commitment in Bill C-262.

Former chair of the TRC and former senator Murray Sinclair said, “Indigenous people now will be able to negotiate with a stronger hand than they ever have in the past”.

The Assembly of First Nations said, “The AFN is urging all Parliamentarians to support adoption of a strong implementation framework before the close of this session of Parliament.”

The ITK calls for the strengthening of Bill C-15, but goes on to say that it strongly encourages all members of Parliament to support Bill C-15 in order to help advance the urgent work of implementing UNDRIP.

The Métis National Council stated:

Canada now has the opportunity to assert its place as a world leader in the recognition of the human rights of Indigenous Peoples through this Bill. The Métis National Council fully supports this effort, and we urge members of all political parties to pass this legislation without delay.

Sheryl Lightfoot, the Canada research chair in global indigenous rights and politics at UBC, stated:

I am strongly in favour of the implementation model that Romeo Saganash created when he first brought...Bill C-262 before Parliament. This model, which is the foundation for Bill C-15, has a number of elements that I think are crucial.

First of all, it requires collaboration with indigenous peoples. It also requires concrete action including legal reform and...the creation of an action plan, and it requires public reporting and accountabilities.

...Bill C-15 is advancing the global conversation and setting a very positive example....

Quite simply, Bill C-15 represents the best approach to human rights implementation that I have seen from around the world, bringing all of these various elements together.

I previously noted my constituent Kerry Wilkins, who states, “Meaningful incorporation of UNDRIP into Canadian law would improve materially the circumstances, and enhance the autonomy, of Indigenous peoples dwelling here.” He goes on to provide a couple of examples. I recognize I am running out of time, so I will not get into them, unless perhaps I get asked questions.

Of course, I expect the government will look for ways of improving the bill at committee. I hope to see further testimony at committee that addresses whether a three-year waiting period for the action plan is appropriate and, if it is, whether interim measures might be useful. I am also interested to understand from testimony why the bill does not include a section on power-sharing agreements in the same way B.C.'s UNDRIP implementation legislation does.

Finally, it is really important to emphasize that so much depends upon implementation, so there are big questions in that regard. This bill is important, but it is important in its potential. Let us pass it at second reading, send it to committee, improve it at committee where possible, and let us get back to the hard work of implementing this important international framework here at home.

Second reading

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we be really clear. The Conservative members say what they will during the debate, but their actual intentions would be not to allow the legislation to ultimately come to a vote. We have seen that on other types of legislation. Even though they might talk nice in regard to reconciliation and so forth, their actions on this particular piece of legislation, as it was with Bill C-262, say more than their words do.

I am wondering if the member could provide a very clear indication as to why the Conservatives would not have recognized the value of allowing this to come to a vote so at the very least it could go to committee.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Calgary Centre.

I am honoured today to speak to Bill C-15, as the relationship with indigenous people in this country is a lived experience for me growing up and living in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. I must admit there is some trepidation on my part as we embark on this journey. The impacts of this bill would be both long-term and far-reaching, requiring more than the seeking of short-term political gains and talking points. The historical relationship between the federal government and indigenous people in this country is filled with distrust that has put in jeopardy the true potential our great country has to offer all of us.

A couple of months ago, in the announcement that the government would not fulfill its promise to end boil water advisories in first nations communities, it was pointed out that the scope of the problem was not fully understood at the time the election promise was made by the Prime Minister in 2015. This is another reminder to all of us that making promises one cannot keep is not an ideal way to develop trust in a relationship that badly needs more of it.

In a Globe and Mail article published recently, it was pointed out that Public Services and Procurement Canada for the past three years “has said a key indicator of the government's economic and social-policy goals was an increase in the participation of [indigenous-led business] in procurement.” Unfortunately, it was revealed in the departmental plans in the last three years that the targets have remained as TBD, to be determined. That is three years that we have seen no change in the ministry's plans to set targets or measure results.

Even worse, to this day, there is not even a mechanism in place to track which bids are coming from indigenous businesses. If the government's goal really was to increase procurement for indigenous businesses, one would think that, at the very least, creating an instrument in its data management system could have been developed in three years. At best, this is an astounding lack of competence.

Further evidence of lowering the bar was in the minister's 2021 mandate letter, where there was not even a mention of the 5% indigenous procurement promise that had been made to indigenous businesses in the past. Instead of doing the hard work and fixing the department's failures, they just removed the targets. It is not exactly an example that one would find in a leadership manual.

These examples illustrate a troubling trend with the government's actions when it comes to delivering results for indigenous people and their communities. It starts with making election promises and getting photographs at press conferences, and it continues by using phrases in ministerial letters, on websites and in announcements like “strongly encourages” and “the most important relationship to this government”. It then ends with walking back the original promise, changing the targets or, in the case of the procurement example, eliminating them altogether. The government tends to act only when it has its back to the wall, after spending too much time walking backwards while making little progress on its promises. We see this again today in the fact that it has to invoke closure on a bill that has seen one hour of debate in this House.

This brings me to Bill C-15. After Bill C-262, the government had ample opportunity and time to develop a national action plan that could have created the certainty and clarity that stakeholders have been consistently asking for. Putting together an action plan before tabling the bill would have allowed for many of the concerns of people across the spectrum to be addressed. The worry that government is putting the cart before the horse is justified, as history has proven that to be the case all too often. Why would we not ensure, on such an important piece of legislation, that we remove as many rocks off the road as possible before we proceed? That approach would alleviate a lot of the judicial quagmire that is sure to follow the passing of Bill C-15 without this transparent road map.

With no certainty, the very real worry is that there will be many court battles over the next few decades because of political short-sightedness. As we have seen this past year with the Nova Scotia lobster fishery issue, that is a path not worth taking. In this relationship, we cannot afford more failures. We have to be honest: Governments have a terrible track record on delivering expectations for indigenous people.

Let me use some numbers that the Indigenous Resource Network shared recently, to show who has not fallen short in delivering for indigenous people and communities in this country.

The private sector has led the way in spending on indigenous businesses. Suncor has spent over $6 billion on indigenous procurement since 1999, including $800 million, or 8% of its total spending, in 2019 alone. Sunova has spent $2.9 billion since 2009, including $139 million in 2019. Imperial has invested $2.6 billion in indigenous businesses since 2009.

Diamond mines in the Northwest Territories spent $5.9 billion on indigenous spending between 1996 and 2017. Agnico Eagle in Nunavut spent $408 million on Inuit businesses in 2019 alone. Teck Resources spent $225 million on indigenous procurement in 2019. Coastal GasLink has spent $720 million on indigenous and local contracts. TMX, when it is completed, will have generated over $1 billion on indigenous-based contracts. Finally, from its own published data, Cameco, a uranium company, has procured $3.85 billion since 2004 from local suppliers in my riding in northern Saskatchewan.

These numbers represent more than just dollars. They represent real outcomes and direct impacts on the daily lives of indigenous people. They allow for investments into communities that have far too long been left out of the opportunities the rest of Canada has enjoyed.

It is often implied that any discussion around economic opportunity and job creation for indigenous people is somehow insensitive to the social issues they face. I believe the opposite is actually true. Advocating for jobs, own-source revenue streams, equity ownership and financial independence is in fact the pathway to self-determination and the solution to many of the social challenges.

The culture of poverty has for too long defined the culture of the people. A culture with such rich history deserves so much better. The private sector has done the heavy lifting in the building of trust with indigenous people and their communities, and it has been doing it for years. It should be recognized and applauded for the advancement of reconciliation and the role it has played in it. Part of that recognition should be reflected in its voice being heard in the areas of this bill it is simply seeking clarity on.

Since Bill C-15 was tabled, I have had the opportunity and pleasure to meet virtually with many indigenous stakeholders. The common theme in our discussions always came back to the lack of certainty in Bill C-15's plan to implement UNDRIP. That is why it is so important that this bill clarify the following issues.

Number one, in the three years the government has given itself to develop an action plan on the implementation of the declaration, what is the approach going to be to collaborating and consulting with indigenous communities, the indigenous business community and the numerous regional and national organizations across Canada so all their views will be considered?

Number two, how will the application of the declaration be applied when there is conflicting support and opposition from the indigenous communities on projects that are both large and vertical in scope? Does the federal government retain the final authority in the decision-making process?

Number three, will not allowing time and space for indigenous communities to find an answer to the question of who has the authority to provide or withhold consent undermine the process? With the current lack of consensus, what does this mean in the years ahead?

Bringing clarity on these issues is the right thing to do. There is a responsibility in the consideration of Bill C-15 that requires us to not only listen to the concerns around the lack of certainty, but to respond by advocating for indigenous people, communities and leaders who are asking for answers to the important questions they are bringing forward.

We have a long way to go in building the lost trust in the relationship with indigenous people in this country. Divisions within Parliament have often led to legislation that is based more on politics than on real solutions. That is why it is obvious that seeking clarity and certainty on Bill C-15 is not only a fair and valid request, but it is the very essence of what the aspirations of UNDRIP require us to do.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the proudest moments in my parliamentary career was being in the House of Commons on May 30, 2018, and voting alongside Romeo Saganash on the third reading of Bill C-262 and sending it to the Senate, where, sadly, it languished for an entire year before the first round of debate began.

I want to ask my colleague about the inconsistent approach the federal government often has when saying it wants to uphold indigenous rights and the sort of selective application of the UN declaration. My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is being plagued by an anchorages issue that were all established without the free, prior and informed consent of the Halalt, the Lyackson, the Penelakut, the Stz’uminus and the Cowichan peoples. Parks Canada is making a huge effort to consult with these nations in the establishment of a national marine conservation area, but when those same nations raise concerns about the anchorages to the Minister of Transport, we get dead silence.

I would ask my colleague about the totally inconsistent approach that we get from different departments of the federal government.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise today to speak to this very important bill. I would like to start with commending all those who spent so many decades drafting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the grassroots, leadership and civil society groups that have brought us here today.

I would also like to thank those who introduced bills in support of the implementation of UNDRIP, such as former members of Parliament Denise Savoie and Tina Keeper, or tabled motions in its support, as former MP Irene Mathyssen did.

The NDP has a long history of support for the UN declaration. For instance, in 2006, the late Jack Layton wrote to the UN of our belief in social justice and equality leading us to support the declaration. He stated that even before the UN General Assembly had adopted it.

I would also like to give a special acknowledgement to my partner, Romeo Saganash, whose Bill C-262 forms the basis for Bill C-15, the bill we are debating today. It has been a very long road to get here.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 2007 to enshrine the human rights that, as it outlines, “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world.” I would also respectfully suggest adding the security of the person to that list.

The declaration was the result of over two decades of negotiations between indigenous peoples, civil society groups and nation states. It consists of 24 preambular paragraphs and 46 articles that define the inherent minimum human rights of indigenous peoples. This was a recognition that the rights of indigenous peoples were being violated throughout the world.

The articles within the declaration affirm the social, cultural, political, economic, environmental and spiritual rights of indigenous peoples. They include the right to self-determination, the right to free, prior and informed consent over matters impacting indigenous rights, including resource extraction on indigenous lands and territories.

Should these rights be violated, article 27 of the declaration also provides for fair and mutually acceptable procedures to resolve conflicts between indigenous peoples and states, including procedures such as negotiations, mediation, arbitration, national courts, and international and regional mechanisms for denouncing and examining human rights violations.

It is important to note that the requirement for free, prior and informed consent in activities of any kind that impact on indigenous peoples, their property or territories, differs in law from a veto. Courts are obliged to take into consideration the facts, circumstances and applicable laws in any given cases, while veto is an absolute concept in law.

Canada, over a period of two decades, was an active participant in the drafting of the declaration, along with numerous indigenous organizations and representatives, and other states. However, despite that hard work, Canada, under the Harper government, opted to oppose the adoption of the declaration in 2007 with three other countries: Australia, the United States and New Zealand.

Although the current Prime Minister indicated in 2015 that the “most important relationship” was with indigenous peoples, he, along with the Liberal caucus, continued to not support Bill C-262, which was introduced in April 2016.

It was only through public pressure that the Liberals finally caved and voted in favour of Romeo Saganash’s bill. This was in spite of the fact that during the 2015 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised repeatedly to adopt and implement the UN declaration.

It is time we move away from the Indian Act, and move forward in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples throughout Turtle Island. It is time that we confirm the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canadian law, obliging the government to ensure that all legislation is consistent with the rights articulated within the declaration, as well as to prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the declaration’s objectives, including addressing injustices, combatting systemic racism and discrimination, and eliminating violence against indigenous peoples.

However, as we speak here today, we are very far away from achieving that goal. Today, as I rise in the House, the current government is in breach of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling to immediately stop racially discriminating against first nations children on reserve. There have been 10 non-compliance orders to date, and the Liberals have now indicated they will break the law and not pay what was ordered by the tribunal.

There are more children in care now than at the height of the residential school system as a result of human rights violations, including failing to afford families the right to housing, failing to meet international obligations to ensure access to clean drinking water, and numerous other human rights violations that make it almost impossible for families to survive, let alone thrive. The government turns a blind eye to human rights, even when it impacts our children and families.

The amazing warrior Cindy Blackstock so eloquently stated, “There’s simply no credible defence to suggest that we, the people of this period, don’t know any better.”

As talk about reconciliation has become the new normal in this House, the government continues to fight St. Anne residential school survivors in court and sixties scoop adoptees, a Crown behaviour that continues to strip survivors of justice. It shows a total disregard for the violence they endured and continue to endure in real time while dealing with the residual traumatic and lingering pain.

Those experiences changed or shattered lives, including that of my dear friend and spirit sister Michele Guerin. Michele Guerin is a member of the Musqueam Indian Band and an esteemed lawyer who testified as a survivor during the national inquiry's truth-gathering process. Michele was apprehended in the hospital at birth, during the sixties scoop, from her mother Beverley Guerin, who served two years in the Canadian navy and worked as a secretary at an engineering firm.

The lives and fates of persons who end up in the system are often left to the whims of those making decisions, often leaving them very unstable. That was true for Michele, who decided to testify and chose to pursue a freedom of information request to obtain her child welfare file, records she used in her testimony, walking her through her journey as a kid in care labelled as a “high risk youth”. I would argue that the label was incorrectly provided. It should be given to institutions that are at risk of not meeting the needs of children and families.

There was a failure to meet Michele's needs as a young person, including objectifying her at the age of 14 in a local newspaper ad posted by the ministry of child and family services in an attempt to find her a home. The ad stated it was looking for a home for “a pretty independent teenage girl. Absolutely no parenting required.”

Even as a young person, she was objectified and sexualized by the system. Her rights were totally disregarded. Her personal experience brought her to feel connected with the late Tina Fontaine, a young indigenous girl who at 14 was left alone by the system and who was murdered. Her valuable life was further disrespected with the acquittal of her accused murderer.

Michele so clearly shared this during the hearing in British Columbia during the national inquiry:

The system labels us, neglects us, ignores us, and fails us. The worst failure is that decade after decade nothing changes. Our girls and women are still the prey. So we held the Inquiry. There were a lot of politics around the Inquiry, yet the families persisted. They needed to be heard. I testified as part of my own healing journey. The Inquiry lawyer told me, it’s rare that we have a lawyer testify as a Survivor. More importantly, I testified to be a voice for my Sisters. Still, there is no action plan. It feels as if our words fell on deaf ears and the government has chosen to Do Nothing.

These deaf ears are failing to invest in the current housing crisis, which has become even more critical during the pandemic. Many indigenous people continue to be unsheltered as a result of the violent and wrongful dispossession of our lands, territories and resources, a situation that has become even further pronounced on reserves, where issues of overcrowding, disrepair, inadequate infrastructure and lack of affordability are the norm, not the exception.

There has been a continued failure of this government to heed the calls from the member for Nunavut, the member for Keewatinook Aski and the member for Timmins—James Bay to take immediate action to address the massive shortages of homes and the mould crisis that have resulted from major disrepair.

There is also the promise of ensuring an end to water boil advisories on reserve, and it is one broken promise after broken promise. This is a vile human rights violation, as noted by Human Rights Watch in a 92-page report citing the Canadian government’s failure to meet a range of international human rights obligations, including its failure in, and extensive excuses about, ending all boil water advisories on reserve in Ontario, Manitoba and throughout the country. Even now, as we are in the midst of a pandemic, the government continues to find excuses not to afford indigenous peoples with this basic human right to water, yet it had billions of taxpayer dollars to spend on the TMX pipeline. These are choices.

Although Canada has endorsed the UN declaration, the Liberals still do not apply the right to free, prior and informed consent, as has been witnessed in Kanesatake, Site C, TMX, Keystone XL, Muskrat Falls, Wet’suwet’en territory, Baffinland Mary River Mine and 1492 Land Back Lane. It is not limited to these instances. We have seen excessive police force, or a lack of it, as witnessed in the Mi'kmaq fishing dispute, where police forces stood by their fishery, literally watching it burn to the ground.

It is no wonder that there has been criticism of Bill C-15 coming from indigenous peoples who have even lost faith that maybe this time the government will do the right thing. It is one thing to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and it is completely another thing to respect and uphold the rights affirmed throughout the articles of the declaration. Indigenous peoples have no reason to trust the government.

I understand this mistrust. It is valid, warranted and earned. I have the same mistrust, which is why we need this bill, Bill C-15, so we can finally have some legislative affirmation of our minimum human rights contained in the declaration. My support for the bill comes from my valid mistrust of the government to do the right thing. My trust has grown thin watching the clock run down, taking away hope, once again, that this will actually make it through Parliament.

Why does the government continue to hold up this bill? It is because indigenous people have seen and felt the impacts of human rights violations, including those contained in the Indian Act and other policies in Canada that maintain the violation of our rights to this day. Not only have governments failed in meeting the most basic human rights, but they legislated a violation of these rights.

It is abhorrent that in 2021, indigenous human rights are still up for debate almost daily in the House. Consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments can pull billions out their hat for their corporate friends, but banter back and forth about how they can come up with the money needed to resolve the water boil advisories on reserves, respect the right to housing and actually put in place a national action plan to resolve the ongoing violence perpetrated against indigenous women and girls caused by colonialism that continues to this today.

It is time for the Liberal government to start upholding human rights to ensure that the dignity, safety and the security of all persons is realized. This bill confirms these rights and ensures that any new legislation going forward will be consistent with United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as the summary of the bill affirms.

It is a critical step toward replacing the Indian Act with human rights. The Liberal government needs to act now, and I cannot express that strongly enough. The implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is essential. Bill C-15 confirms its application in Canadian law, meaning that courts can refer, and have referred, to the declaration to interpret domestic law, in addition to other distinct legal frameworks that also inform the interpretation of indigenous rights including the Constitution, indigenous law, our treaties, and international law that also respect and affirm those rights. None of these legal frameworks supersede the others, they are interrelated and mutually reinforcing.

Bill C-15 is not perfect and requires amendments. This has been noted in witness testimony by indigenous and non-indigenous people in our study of the bill in committee. We must ensure that broad-based consultations occur as we move forward to strengthen the bill. For example, a recommendation to include, in preambular paragraph 8 and article 6(2), a reference to racism.

We know there are growing movements of white supremacy here and abroad. We also know that as a result of human rights violations, indigenous peoples throughout what is now referred to as Canada have been left poor and, far too often, unsheltered on our very own lands. All the while violence resulting from systemic racism, including what is being witnessed in the case of Eishia Hudson or a failure of the justice system in the case of Colten Boushie, the fact the indigenous women and girls 2S and diverse gendered people continue to be murdered and missing without urgent action, like our lives or loss of lives does not matter. The onus of proving systemic racism is placed on indigenous people whether sitting in the House of Commons or boardrooms, or fighting boots to the ground.

Indigenous peoples are constantly put in the place of having to justify experiences with systemic racism and the microaggressions we experience, having to explain this reality to those in privilege who get to decide whether the claims are valid or not. Gaslighting: we need to call this out. To do otherwise would merely uphold the white supremacy and paternalism that is designed to keep indigenous peoples oppressed. Let us stop with the games and the need to protect the status quo, and just call it what it is, systemic racism, and not only when it is convenient but let us just call it systemic racism, neo-colonialism, white supremacy and human rights violations.

We need to first acknowledge truth if we are ever to realize a change in behaviour. Call it out, and let us get on with the work of creating a world where all people are safe and uphold their basic human rights, so we can all achieve our right to joy and dignity.

Let us stop fighting indigenous peoples in courts, whether it be about lands and resources; our right to free, prior and informed consent; fighting children; sixties scoop adoptees; and residential school warriors. Let us just honour human rights. Laws need to be put in place to protect indigenous peoples from acts of racism.

The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should have happened 13 years ago, when it was adopted by the UN General Assembly.

How many years will we have to wait before indigenous peoples' human rights are finally respected? The time for excuses has run out. That is why I am proud, along with the NDP colleagues, to call on the Liberal government to act now and to finally uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset I would like to say that it is an honour to speak in the House to Bill C-15. This is a historic bill and I hope we will be able to adopt it swiftly.

My colleagues know that I represent a northern riding and the majority of its population are members of the Innu or Naskapi nations. I rise in the House with my brothers and sisters from the North Shore and the Nitassinan in mind. I speak for the communities of Essipit, Pessamit, Uashat, Maliotenam, Unamen Shipu, Kawawachikamach and more. It is for these communities and the entire North Shore, which is also in favour of this bill, that I rise today.

This bill comes in the wake of great moments in our history in Quebec, including the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701, which forged the alliance between our adoptive ancestors. My own ancestors were not on Quebec soil at that time, but that is what happened between the French and the indigenous peoples.

I will talk about three things today, one of which is extremely important to me because there are many myths about Bill C-15 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We must deconstruct these ideas, comments and opinions, which lead our reflections on the issue in the wrong direction.

Before speaking about self-determination, the third point of my presentation, I would like to remind members of the positions and actions of the Bloc Québécois that are in line with what we are doing today in the House.

The Bloc Québécois has promised on several occasions to be an ally of first nations. Whether in my work as an elected member or in the case of the entire Bloc Québécois, we have never wanted to speak for first nations. On the contrary, we want to be a conduit. These are nations. Quebec is a nation. To have a respectful relationship, we must let the other speak. Today, I hope that my words and those of the Bloc Québécois demonstrate that we wish to convey the words, wishes and desires of first nations.

It will not come as a surprise if I say that we support the bill. The Bloc Québécois has stated its support for the declaration many times. Even in the previous Parliament, we were in favour of Bill C-262, which was introduced by one of my former colleagues. I cannot name him in the House, but he knows who he is. I thank him.

We have always been an ally to first nations, and we support the declaration that was signed over 15 years ago as well as the previous bill. Despite introducing private members' bills about this over the past 15 years and pressuring the government, we still have not managed to pass a bill. That is why I want to emphasize that passing this bill is urgent. This is just the first step, and there will be more to follow, including the implementation. It is very important that this be done quickly for first nations.

I now want to talk about the concerns that have been expressed by different communities. Although the concerns are shared in different ways, they all come down to the feeling of a loss of control. I always find that surprising, since we are talking about first nations' rights. I do not think we should even be asking these questions, on principle, since these are their rights. These rights belong to them.

There are nevertheless some concerns that may play on fear, whether consciously or subconsciously. Sometimes these concerns are born out of a lack of understanding, which is why we need to dispel the myths.

The first has to do with free, prior and informed consent, known as FPIC, a topic that has evoked some strong feelings in almost all of the speeches. We hear so much about FPIC, as though it were the only key to adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and enshrining it in law.

However, we are told that FPIC is a veto right, which blurs the line between two completely different notions, but what we hear is that consent is a veto. The first point I want to make in my speech is that these two notions are completely different. Consent is not a veto. FPIC is a notion all on its own.

According to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we have an obligation to co-operate in good faith with indigenous peoples in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent. We are therefore not talking about a veto.

There is no significant difference between such consent and the duty to consult established by the Supreme Court. This is nothing new, and it is something that should always be done. I agree with the declaration. I agree with obtaining the consent of a people or nation living in a territory with regard to activities that will have a direct impact on them and on their lives, culture and health. In my opinion, we should all agree on that.

I have lots of things to say, but I will move on to another point people often raise about how there is some uncertainty regarding the legislative intent. The Minister of Justice said that the legislative intent was not to grant veto power. He said so clearly during his speech at second reading of Bill C-15. I do not have the minister's exact quote here, but I am sure it is in the official report of the House of Commons Debates.

Now I would like to talk about the legal definition of consent. Consent was already required in the past, though it was not called that. It already existed. Now it is being named and made mandatory. Examples from history are the James Bay project in the 1970s, the Oka crisis and the Grande Baleine project. First nations were being asked for consent back then.

In any case, the first nations are rallying and mobilizing. We have seen it over the past couple of years. Political pressure is being exercised on many fronts and it is warranted. There is a desire be consulted and to be able to provide free and informed consent.

There is another concern regarding the revenues generated by resource-related activities. I think the issue of royalties is simply ridiculous, and I believe the British North America Act is clear on the matter: Quebec and the provinces are owners of their own land and the resources therein. In the case of Quebec, this is an absolutely indisputable interpretation of the Constitution. There is already an agreement on the sharing of revenues from these resource development projects. That already exists.

When it comes to wealth sharing, I do not see how anyone could have a problem with sharing the revenues with the first nations who live on the land, creating jobs for those first nations and promoting wealth creation in remote areas like mine. The Bloc Québécois believes that sharing resources is patently obvious. It is necessary, and it goes without saying any time there is an agreement, a deal or a consultation with first nations.

I will address another point, but first I would like to conclude my thoughts on Quebec's jurisdictions, as I was talking about earlier.

On Bill C-15, the Minister of Justice said the following:

Let me be clear: Bill C-15 would impose obligations on the federal government to align our laws with the declaration over time and to take actions within our areas of responsibility to implement the declaration, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples. It would not impose obligations on other levels of government.

The notion that this would infringe on Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions is yet another myth and another concern that I want to debunk. This is not true. The intent seems quite clear in this legislation. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the bill precisely because our interpretation is that the bill does not infringe on the provinces' exclusive jurisdictions.

I want to talk about the notion of self-determination under the declaration, since that is exactly what it does. The declaration recognizes that indigenous peoples and nations have the right to self-determination. Members will know that a nation's right to self-determination is something that we in the Bloc Québécois hold dear. I do want to point out that this right to self-determination is an internal one. It has nothing to do with a state's borders, and this is made clear in several articles of the declaration. This right to self-determination can simply be interpreted as an inherent right to self-government within a sovereign state's legal framework. There is autonomy, but within the legal framework of a sovereign state, within Canada. I hope that one day this will apply to Quebec.

On top of that, international law has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There is a lesson to be learned from what has been done internationally.

Canada has also taken a position in support of UNDRIP. We agree, but there is one more step to take. We must follow through and finally pass Bill C-15. Then we need to implement it, which we hope will be done swiftly. There is talk of a three-year time frame, but we would like to move quickly and see that shortened to two years. My first nations brothers and sisters have been waiting long enough.

In closing, I would like to quote a few passages from UNDRIP that I think are clear examples of why we should pass this bill very quickly. These are points that everyone agrees on and, again, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could not support this. I will now quote a few articles all at once. Article 10 states the following:

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.

I do not know how anyone could be against that. The declaration also states the following:

Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.

These are fundamental rights. Who is against that? I will continue:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights....

I would ask the same question. The declaration also states the following:

Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining....

Who is against that? I will continue:

States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.

Once again who is against that? This is my last quote:

States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:

...

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

...

There are many other articles I would like to read, but they are all along the same lines. They speak about rights, integrity, freedom, essential needs and respect; in the end, they are about human beings.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois obviously supports Bill C-15 because we agree with the principle of it. We would like to see the bill be implemented quickly. With regard to all the misconceptions surrounding Bill C-15, I would like people to learn more about the bill and for us to talk about it, because we need to clear up those misconceptions. We must not vote based on impressions or opinions, but on facts, and we always need to remember that we are talking here about the rights of nations.

At the same time, since the Bloc Québécois obviously seeks to speak on behalf of Quebec, I would like to remind the House that, on Tuesday, October 8, 2019, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion:

THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the conclusions of the Viens Commission, expressed on 30 September 2019, as regards the responsibility of the Québec State with regard to the overwhelming and painful findings set out in its report;

THAT it recognize, as the leaders of all the political parties represented in the National Assembly have affirmed, the importance of taking concrete actions, now, to put an end to discrimination against the members of the First Nations and the Inuit and to forge egalitarian relations with them;

THAT it acknowledge that the report from the Commission Viens calls on the Québec Government to recognize and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a recommendation also made in the report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls tabled last May;

THAT the National Assembly ask the Québec Government to recognize the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and commit to negotiating its implementation with the First Nations and the Inuit.

The will of Quebec, which I am expressing today, and the will of first nations are clear.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her dedication to this process. I am glad that she brought up the process last time for Bill C-262, under the leadership of Romeo Saganash, where we did get it through all three readings in the House and then it died in the Senate. We do not want this bill to have the same fate. The composition of the Senate is different now. In particular, thanks to our government, there is a great deal of indigenous leadership within the Senate itself, which is absolutely fantastic and a wonderful point in Canadian history.

Again, I do not want perfection to become the enemy of the good. We have had a robust consultation process. That robust consultation process will continue through the rest of the parliamentary process and through the Senate process. In particular, that robust engagement and collaboration process will be part of the bill once it is implemented in the action plan. This is a positive way forward. This is long overdue. There are no surprises in the bill, and this is the time to do our best as parliamentarians to move this forward and engage in those substantive debates as we move forward through the action plan.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not challenge the hon. member on his sense of irony, given his party's dilatory tactics every step of the way with every piece of government legislation.

What I can say is that this bill is built on a previous bill, Bill C-262, brought forward Romeo Saganash. There are no surprises. These discussions have been had in the House of Commons and are continuing to be had with indigenous leadership in all its forms across Canada, in all its diversity across Canada.

With respect to FPIC in particular, it is a contextual process that will often have a study at committee stage, and that will happen. I know INAN has already done a prestudy largely focusing on that point. There is more than adequate discussion thus far, and that discussion will continue through the rest of the parliamentary process.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's intervention today, but I fundamentally disagree with his approach, because a lot of what he said is what we heard during debate on Bill C-262. Members will recall that Bill C-262 was stalled at the Senate by Conservative senators. As a result, the hard work of former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash, in essence his life's work, did not pass in the last Parliament.

The consultation that he and many others did during that process was unprecedented. Essentially, with the member for Winnipeg Centre in many cases, he went community to community to do the consultations. Bill C-15 is built on the work of Bill C-262. The consultation has been extensive. It is never perfect, but it has been extensive.

On the discussion with respect to the premiers, and with the greatest respect to our provincial and territorial counterparts, it is worth noting that there has been 13 years to implement that essential human rights legislation. Sadly, many jurisdictions have not taken that step forward. One notable exception is British Columbia, which has implemented it in a fairly successful way—

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the second reading debate on Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to remind the House that it has taken decades of work to get to where we are today.

Negotiations and discussions have been taking place at the United Nations for over 20 years. Many Canadian indigenous leaders, speaking on behalf of the indigenous people of the world, have been strong advocates for a human rights instrument that would take into account the unique experiences and historical situations of the world's indigenous peoples.

I must acknowledge the tremendous efforts of parliamentarians and indigenous leaders in Canada who have proposed legislative frameworks for the implementation of the declaration since it was adopted by the United Nations in 2007.

I especially want to recognize the efforts of our former colleague Romeo Saganash, who introduced private member's Bill C-262 in the last Parliament. This bill was read and studied in quite some detail. His efforts brought us to this point and remind us of the constructive discussions that contributed to the drafting and presentation of Bill C-15. I thank Mr. Saganash.

Bill C-15 and our endorsement of the UN declaration are intended to renew and strengthen the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, a relationship based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, partnership and reconciliation.

It is also part of a broader work to make progress together on our shared priorities for upholding human rights, affirming self-determination, closing socio-economic gaps, combatting discrimination and eliminating systemic barriers facing first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an international human rights instrument that affirms the rights that constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples. It includes 46 articles that affirm a broad range of collective and individual rights, including rights related to self-determination and self-government; equality and non-discrimination; culture, language and identity; lands, territories and resources; and treaty rights, among others.

The declaration also recognizes that the situation of indigenous peoples varies from region to region and country to country. As such, it provides flexibility to ensure rights are recognized, protected and implemented in a manner that reflects the unique circumstances of indigenous peoples across Canada. This means that implementation of the rights it describes must respond to the specific and unique circumstances in Canada.

In Canada, both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2015 and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in 2018 called upon governments in Canada to fully adopt and implement the UN declaration in partnership with indigenous peoples. We heard these calls, and in 2016 the Government of Canada endorsed the declaration without qualification and committed to its full and effective implementation.

We have been making significant progress on the implementation of the declaration on a policy base. While we have done this, Bill C-15 would create a legislated, durable framework requiring government to work collaboratively with indigenous peoples to make steady progress in implementing the declaration across all areas of federal responsibility. This reflects the sustained transformative work that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and so many others have repeatedly told us is required to truly advance reconciliation in Canada.

Some of the declaration's principles are already included in several Canadian laws, policies and programs, such as section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the right to equality, and the protections against discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Working within Canada's legal framework, the Government of Canada has also taken measures to better reflect the declaration in federal policy and legislation, such as the recent initiative, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, and the Indigenous Languages Act. Bill C-15 represents another important step forward. By working in co-operation and partnership with indigenous peoples, we are creating new opportunities to dismantle colonial structures, establish strong, lasting relationships, close socio-economic gaps, and promote greater prosperity for indigenous peoples and all Canadians.

I would like to turn now to the key elements of Bill C-15.

The bill makes a number of important statements in the preamble by acknowledging the importance of the declaration as a framework for reconciliation, healing and peace; recognizing inherent rights; acknowledging the importance of respecting treaties and agreements; and emphasizing the need to take diversity across and among indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation.

The preamble also specifically recognizes that international human rights instruments, such as the declaration, can be used as tools to interpret Canadian law. This means that the human rights standards they outline can provide relevant and persuasive guidance to officials and courts. While this does not mean that international instruments can be used to override Canadian laws, it does mean that we can look to the declaration to inform the process of developing or amending laws and as part of interpreting and applying them. This principle is further reflected in section 4, which affirms the Government of Canada's commitment to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples and the declaration as a universal human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. Together, the objective of these acknowledgements is to recognize existing legal principles and not give the declaration itself direct legal effect in Canada.

The bill also includes specific obligations intended to provide a framework for implementing the declaration over time. By requiring the Government of Canada to, first, take measures to align federal law with the declaration in clause 5; second, to develop an action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples in clause 6; and third, to report to Parliament annually on progress in clause 7, Bill C-15 proposes a clear pathway to stronger, more resilient relationships between the government and indigenous peoples.

Bill C-15 would also contribute to our efforts to address discrimination, socio-economic disparities and other challenges on which we continue to make progress. By mandating a collaborative process for developing a concrete action plan on these and other human rights priorities, we should see an improvement in trust and a decrease in recourse to the courts to resolve disputes over the rights of indigenous peoples.

I would now like to talk about how Bill C-15 was developed. This bill was the result of our collaboration and consultation over the last several months with indigenous rights holders, leaders and organizations. Using the former private member's bill, Bill C-262, as a starting point in these discussions, we worked closely with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

We also received valuable input from modern treaty and self-governing nations, rights holders, indigenous youth, and regional and national indigenous organizations, including organizations representing indigenous women, two-spirit and gender-diverse people.

All of this feedback helped shape this proposed legislation, and we thank everyone who participated. We also held talks with the provincial and territorial governments, as well as with stakeholders from the natural resources sector.

These discussions were enriched by the contributions of indigenous representatives and provided an opportunity to learn about many of the efforts and initiatives already under way in the provinces and territories, and in various natural resource sectors, to further engage indigenous communities, create partnerships and lasting relationships, and work collaboratively to support responsible economic development that includes indigenous peoples.

People always say that young people are our best hope for the future. There is a lot of truth in that, and we held a virtual round table with indigenous youth to ensure that their perspectives and their vision of the future were included in the process.

First nations, Inuit and Métis youth from across the country shared their views on the bill and their priorities for the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am grateful that they took the opportunity to ask me many difficult questions.

Looking back on that event, it is clear to me that young indigenous people have a vision for a better Canada. This stems from the vision of the future that they have for their nation and their people. They see a future in which strong, self-determined indigenous peoples thrive and are connected to the land and culture.

Young indigenous people see a future in which indigenous-Crown relations are truly nation-to-nation, reflecting equality and respect, and not colonial attitudes.

Clearly, we still have a long way to go together to build that better future. However, it is also clear that Bill C-15 will enable us to harness the full potential of the declaration in building that better Canada.

To this end, and consistent with this government's mandate commitment, Bill C-15 builds on the core elements of former Private Member's Bill C-262 including the requirement to align federal laws with the declaration over time, develop and implement an action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, and report to Parliament on progress annually. However, our recent engagement process led to a number of key enhancements. In addition to new language in the preamble highlighting the contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, to sustainable development, and to responding to prejudice and discrimination, the addition of a purpose clause and more detail with respect to the development of an action plan and annual reporting requirements build on and enhance what was set out in Bill C-262.

Over the course of our engagement, we heard some questions about the scope of Bill C-15 and the concerns that it might create economic uncertainty. Let me be clear: Bill C-15 would impose obligations on the federal government to align our laws with the declaration over time and to take actions within our areas of responsibility to implement the declaration, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples. It would not impose obligations on other levels of government. However, we know that the declaration touches on many areas that go beyond federal jurisdiction. The preamble, therefore, recognizes that provincial, territorial, municipal and indigenous governments have and would continue to take actions within their own areas of authority that can contribute to the implementation of the declaration. Our goal is not to get in the way of good ideas and effective local action, but to look for opportunities to work collaboratively on shared priorities and in ways that are complementary.

The declaration and, by extension, the legislation provides a human rights-based framework for the development of the relationships required to support the effective exercise of the indigenous peoples' right to self-government and self-determination. The exercise of these rights contributes in turn to creating more prosperous, resilient and self-reliant communities.

Arising from the right to self-determination, “free, prior and informed consent”, as it appears in various articles of the declaration, refers specifically to the importance of meaningful participation of indigenous peoples, through their own mechanisms, in decisions and processes affecting them, their rights and their community.

Free, prior and informed consent is a way of working together to establish a consensus through dialogue and other means and of enabling indigenous peoples to meaningfully influence decision-making.

Free, prior and informed consent does not constitute veto power over the government's decision-making process. After all, human rights and the resulting obligations and duties, particularly those provided for in the declaration, are not absolute.

The declaration states that indigenous peoples have individual and collective rights equal to those of other peoples. That means that the provisions of the declaration, including those that refer to free, prior and informed consent, must be taken in context. Different initiatives will have different impacts on the rights of indigenous peoples and will require different types of approaches.

Thus, free, prior and informed consent could require different processes or new creative ways of working together to ensure meaningful and effective participation in decision-making.

If passed, this bill will not change Canada's existing duty to consult with indigenous peoples or the other consultation and participation requirements under other legislation such as the new Impact Assessment Act. As also explained in section 2, it would not diminish constitutional protection of the indigenous and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in section 35.

The bill would inform the government on how it plans to phase in its legal obligations in the future. In addition, the bill would do so in a way that would provide greater clarity and foster greater certainty over time for indigenous groups and all Canadians.

When indigenous peoples have a seat at the table for decisions that may affect their communities, we are respecting their rights and encouraging stronger economic development and outcomes. As we work to implement the declaration federally and to support indigenous peoples' inherent right to self-determination, we will help develop a stronger, more sustainable and predictable path for indigenous peoples, the Government of Canada and industry. We are ready to work with all levels of government, with indigenous peoples and other sectors of society to achieve the declaration's goals.

I would now like to turn to the road map this bill would lay out for the future. If passed, the bill would require the Government of Canada to develop an action plan in consultation and co-operation with first nations, Inuit and Métis to ensure that we achieve the objectives of the declaration. I believe the additional details included in Bill C-15 with respect to the action plan are very important. Indeed, the action plan is a central pillar of this legislation.

As outlined in clause 6 of the bill, developing and implementing the action plan would mean working together to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination, against indigenous peoples, including all forms of racism against indigenous peoples; promote respect and mutual understanding as well as good relations, including through human rights education; and measures related to monitoring oversight, recourse or remedy and other accountability with respect to the implementation of the declaration, and include measures for the review and amendment of the action plan.

Some have also wondered why this bill is being introduced right in the middle of a global pandemic.

We know that racism and discrimination have not stopped during the pandemic. On the contrary, COVID-19 exacerbated many existing inequalities and hit many people particularly hard, including indigenous people and Black or racialized Canadians. We must not delay efforts to make Canada more just, inclusive and resilient.

Bill C-15 could help structure discussions on addressing the inequalities and discrimination against indigenous peoples, which are the root cause of these many vulnerabilities.

There will be many benefits as we work together to identify new measures to reflect the rights and objectives in the declaration. Through the process, we will continue to renew and strengthen the nation-to-nation, Inuit, Crown and government-to-government relations; better respect and implement the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples; build on the momentum to increase the ability of indigenous peoples to exercise their right of self-determination; support indigenous peoples as they restore and strengthen their governance systems and reconstitute their nations as they collectively address the impacts of colonialization and as we create a framework that will help increase clarity and certainty in the long term with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples and their implementation.

The bill would provide a road map for generational and transformational work, including how to support, while also getting out of the way of, indigenous self-determination.

I thank the leadership that has helped develop this and for the consultations that are continuing. I am happy now to answer any questions in this regard. I am proud to support the bill.

COVID-19 Vaccine

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, like my hon. colleague, I too am losing faith in the government.

However, he spoke about indigenous communities, and I just want to remind him part of the reason we are in this crisis in indigenous communities is because of willful human rights violations, lack of access to clean drinking water and housing. Every time the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is put forward, including with Bill C-262, Conservatives vote against it.

If Conservative members are concerned about the health and welfare of all people living on Turtle Island, I am wondering if the member will support Bill C-15 and fully support the adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous Affairs

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey Centre for his advocacy.

Over 25 years of negotiation took place between indigenous peoples and nation states to develop the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The foundation of this legislation, the former Bill C-262, was carefully examined by both this House and the Senate during the last mandate. It also shares many similarities with the B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Our government has, through consultation and collaboration with indigenous peoples, built upon this legacy of careful consideration to present this critical legislation. It will serve as the foundation for a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday our government tabled important legislation on the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Built upon the former Bill C-262, this bill aims to protect and promote indigenous rights, including the right to self-determination and self-government, equality and non-discrimination.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice update the House on the foundations of Bill C-15 and its ability to serve as a framework to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples?

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the work of all indigenous and grassroots leaders across these lands, faith groups, human rights advocates and thousands of people who fought for the adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Bill C-15 is the result of decades of work by people who I walked side by side with. We wrote, gathered, rallied and published, fighting for human rights. These include Anna Collins, Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild, Dr. Ted Moses, Steve Heinrichs, Jennifer Preston, Jennifer Henry, Cathy Moore-Thiessen, Charlie Wright, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Tina Keeper, Denise Savoie, Paul Joffe, Ellen Gabriel, the member of Parliament for Scarborough—Rouge Park, my partner Romeo Saganash, who introduced Bill C-262, and so many others.

I look forward to this piece of legislation being passed to ensure that all indigenous people in Canada have their fundamental human rights upheld. It is always a good day for human rights.

Indigenous Affairs

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I honour the member's father, the great Professor Sákéj Henderson, for his scholarship and his leadership in the training of young indigenous lawyers, particularly at the Indigenous Law Centre in Saskatchewan.

Today, in partnership with indigenous peoples, we have taken another step on our shared path of reconciliation. Building on former private member's bill, Bill C-262, the Romeo Saganash bill, we have introduced legislation to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration affirms the rights of indigenous people to self-determination, self-governance, equality and non-discrimination. It is an essential part of building a more just and fair Canada for the future.

Citizenship Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my colleague from Peace River—Westlock will be supporting Bill C-8.

I have a comment first. Before European colonization of North America, first nations and Inuit people all had very distinct legal customs and norms pre-contact. They had fully functioning societies with their own laws and rules. Then of course after contact, many of those were subsided under European contact.

If we are truly to acknowledge a nation-to-nation relationship, there has to be an acknowledgement of what existed pre-contact. With this new affirmation, we are recognizing the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. I am glad to hear his acknowledgement and support of that.

How does that stance jibe with his vote in the previous Parliament against Bill C-262, which affirmed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? How does he differentiate between those two sets of rights? I would like the member to comment on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I am not sure if her characterization of Conservatives being hysterical about this or violently opposed to the legislation is quite on point. I would simply say that I disagree with former Bill C-262 insofar as I do not think it is an effective mechanism. Yes, it upholds the aspirations that we all have, but the question is not just one of recognition. It is also a question of what the practical implications of the bill will be.

We need to have legislation that recognizes rights and is clear about giving indigenous communities the opportunity to develop their own resources, because we do not want a situation where indigenous communities are prevented from developing their own resources and prospering by the sentiments of minorities within the larger community. There has to be a process of meaningful consultation, a result and an opportunity to develop in cases where it has the support of the majority.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to correct some facts in my hon. colleague's speech. I want to let him know that Bill C-262 was studied in committee. There were 71 witnesses and only one mentioned veto. When he talks about the hysteria of ensuring that indigenous peoples' basic human rights are recognized in this country by adopting and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I am wondering why the Conservatives continue to base their opinion on evidence that is not factual, which has been affirmed by the legal community, and why he feels that providing indigenous peoples with the respect of minimum human rights, something that is afforded to other Canadians, is going to result in the sky falling?

There is this whole bogeyman coming out of the closet when it comes to ensuring that indigenous people have the same rights as all other Canadians. I am wondering why he and his party violently fight against that and if they plan, once again, to vote en bloc against the human rights of indigenous peoples in this country.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here in the House with so many friends to address this important debate, and to follow my friend, the member for Markham—Unionville, who gave an excellent speech. He said he came to Canada in 1974. I came to Canada in 1987, actually, so he has been here longer than I have.

I want to first set off my debate by talking a bit about the content of the bill. I also want to talk a bit about some of the context around the government's agenda and proposals with respect to indigenous issues.

The bill would amend the citizenship oath to read as follows:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The reference to first nations, Inuit and Métis people, and the references to aboriginal and treat rights, would be new references the bill proposes to add to the legislation.

The genesis for this discussion of amending the citizenship oath is a recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, specifically call to action number 94. As members have observed, the bill seems to have support from all parties and will pass second reading and go to committee. However, there is an issue we will need to hear about more at committee, which is important to note. We will need to hear from witnesses about the difference between the formulation of the oath in the legislation and the proposal that was in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation 94.

The proposed oath, which I looked up before speaking, from the commission report was as follows:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The formula is slightly different between the proposal in recommendation number 94 and the proposal in the bill. The bill references first nations, Inuit and Métis, and is a bit longer. Regardless, it is important to ensure that as we proceed down this road in the spirit of reconciliation, we hear from indigenous leaders along the way. Again, it will be important to elucidate at committee whether the relevant stakeholders and communities that are particularly invested in this have been consulted with respect to the difference in wording between the TRC recommendation and the bill. That will be an important point for us to follow up on.

Before I reflect on some of the specifics regarding changing the oath, I want to say that the Conservatives support the bill moving forward. We think the aspirations behind it and the substance of it are reasonable and valuable, and we look forward to further discussion and debate.

Right now we have before Parliament, at various stages, three pieces of legislation that in some sense deal with or touch directly on the relationship between the government and indigenous peoples in Canada. We have Bill C-5, Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. We are discussing Bill C-8, which amends the citizenship oath. We have Bill C-10, which is a larger, broader bill with many issues in it that would make changes to the Broadcasting Act, some of which put into the Broadcasting Act the expectation that broadcasters have diverse content reflecting different communities, including indigenous communities. Then we have Bill C-5, which deals with a statutory holiday for recognizing and remembering what happened in the context of indigenous residential schools.

All three of these bills contain important elements. The Conservatives have supported Bill C-5 and Bill C-8. We have some concerns about Bill C-10, although they are not related to the objectives, but are related to other aspects of the bill, as it is a broader bill. Regardless, in the context of the legislative agenda of the government right now, we have these three different bills.

If the Liberals are deciding what kinds of bills they are going to put forward with respect to indigenous issues, members might say they have a few different options in front of them. In considering those options, we can divide the bills they are putting forward into two broad categories. There would be bills that represent acts of recognition and then there would be bills that represent actions that target quality of life improvements.

This is an important distinction to make. Acts of recognition are things like putting in place a statutory holiday, changing wording, changing language, the legislature making statements, expressing its acknowledgement of certain facts and its will for reconciliation. These kinds of acts of recognition are things we do often as a legislature. They are important and have a place, which is why we are supporting this bill.

Other examples of acts of recognition this legislature has taken include motions where we express our appreciation for a certain community or the work done. In the last Parliament, we passed many bills that create heritage months, for example. Heritage months are a way of collectively commemorating and recognizing the contribution of certain communities. These acts of recognition and pieces of legislation that call for wider community recognition are important.

Why are they important? They create opportunities for us to call to mind, recognize and appreciate the valuable contributions made by certain communities. We are shaped by our history. As a legislature, we have a role in encouraging a recognition and awareness of that history. That is important and valuable. We can do those things and there is a legitimate place for us to do those things.

Another category of legislation we have are actions that specifically target quality of life improvements, which seek to make changes to practical circumstances in order to make peoples' lives concretely better.

These actions of recognition, whether changing an oath, commemorative day, representation in broadcasting or heritage month, are important. However, legislation that touches peoples' direct quality of life and deals with their ability to access justice with the recognition of their rights, the delivery of concrete services, whether it is health care or other supports, that deals with economic development, I would think are on balance more important.

To me, it is striking when I look at all the recommendations that have been made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I look at all of the options in front of the government in terms of prioritizing its response. We see more or less exclusively acts of recognition, as opposed to actions that are aimed at concrete quality of life improvements.

If we saw a mix of both, that would be fine. However, we need to start to be critical and ask that question when we are seeing a focus exclusively on the acts of recognition, as opposed to on those kinds of quality of life improvements I talked about earlier.

What are the areas we are missing? Where has the government failed when it comes to making quality of life improvements? There are many areas we need to look at in terms of concrete quality of life improvements. We can talk about justice and health, and many other things.

I want to start by talking about economic development. Talking to indigenous Canadians in my area and across the country, I know there is a real desire for economic development and for people to have jobs and opportunities in their own communities.

There is also a recognition that when there is economic development in different communities, it gives those communities control and ability to invest in programs that reflect the priorities of those communities. We hear calls from communities for funding from the government for programs around health, around language, around infrastructure and these sorts of things, but to the extent that communities are able to have economic development themselves, they are also able to prioritize, and invest in those priority areas without needing to come and ask the government for funding in that specific area. It is not an either-or. It is not as if communities have to choose between accessing government funding and economic development, but when communities are developing economically it gives them a greater degree of autonomy and control and it gives them the opportunity to invest in those priorities right away.

Many indigenous communities have been benefiting from being part of the energy economy, developing natural resources and pursuing other opportunities. In the course of this debate, the parliamentary secretary responded to my question about concrete actions by talking about Bill C-262 from the last Parliament. It is important to address this directly. If we want to give indigenous communities the opportunity to develop economically, they have to be able to do so in a framework that involves reasonable consultation, but ultimately gives them the opportunity to move forward. If they have, for example, an energy development project where the indigenous communities in an area are actually the proponents of that project and there is a minority that is opposing those projects, in a case where there is overwhelming support within local indigenous communities, there has to be a consultation framework that allows that project to move forward.

This is where Conservatives have parted company with other parties, especially around issues like Bill C-262, because if they put in place a framework that effectively means that one community could have a veto over the desire for the economic development of all surrounding communities, that is a problem. There needs to be a meaningful consultation process in which communities are listened to, but there also has to be an opportunity for communities to develop their own resources and the standard for consultation has to stop somewhere short of unanimity. One cannot expect that every person has to agree before we see any kind of economic development.

It has been something that maybe we have discussed less since, because COVID-19 took up all the attention in terms of discussion, but early in the year we were dealing with a situation where all of the elected community leaders wanted a particular project, the Coastal GasLink project, and a minority of hereditary chiefs were against that project going forward. That was the context, and it was debated extensively. Some members of this House behaved as if a case in which a minority within a community objected, that, in and of itself, was sufficient basis for stopping economic development from going forward. We took the view that when there is strong support within indigenous communities for a project to go forward, then that project has to be able to go forward. The consultation has to happen and if people say yes, they have to be able to develop those resources and benefit from them.

We see cases across this country where indigenous people are seeking the opportunity to pursue economic development, to develop resources. There can be debate, there can be tensions, and those debates happen within communities as well as between different communities, but the opportunity for people to pursue economic development is important.

The government members talk about the discussion we are hearing today, separate from the debate on Bill C-8 but about Bill C-262 from the last Parliament. That is concerning for a lot of indigenous Canadians who want to have this opportunity to develop their own resources, to benefit from the opportunities that flow from them, and to use those resources to invest in things like language preservation, health improvement, infrastructure improvements and so forth. They want to be able to use the benefits that flow from economic development for those things.

I want to also just add, in terms of economic development, one of the exciting and interesting opportunities when it comes to the development of things like pipeline infrastructure is that the expansion of infrastructure could also bring in things like better Internet connectivity into some of these communities.

It is not just about opportunities directly in the natural resource sector, it is about the fact that, when we have benefit agreements, we have the building of infrastructure into and around different communities, which gives people the opportunity to have better connectivity, to access different resources and education, or to work in online businesses. There is so much more opportunity that flows from these kinds of developments, which we are just on the cusp of.

This country has so much potential, and a lot of that potential is around resource development. Those who are most likely to benefit to the greatest extent from that development are those who are more likely to be living proximate to those resources.

We could talk about some of the significant issues around justice, around working to ensure our justice system is fair to all people. We are identifying the reasons there may be disproportionate impacts on certain communities and working seriously to counter those impacts. That is the kind of thing that takes hard work.

The government has made statements to recognize the problems that have existed in the way indigenous people have been treated by our justice system. It is one thing to affirm there is an issue here, again, an act of recognition, and is another thing to say we are going to take concrete action and go from that active recognition and really target those quality of life improvements.

As I said earlier during questions and comments, so often when I hear from government members when we are having debates about indigenous issues, there is a tone in their speeches as if they are still in opposition. They will say that there have been all these problems and that we need to do better and do more.

I look across the way and think that the government has been here for five years, and it is still constantly blaming Stephen Harper and constantly talking about the failures of history that have held it back. Do I think it is possible to change everything and make everything perfect within five years? No, I do not. Do I think it could be focusing on real concrete progress as part of its agenda? Yes, I do.

I hope we do not have the current government for another five years or another 10 years, but I suspect if we did, we would still hear the same speeches. We would still hear the same members saying that we have failed for too long and we need to do better. At what point does this recognition that we need to do better come back on them and lead them to say maybe not just “we” in the abstract, somebody else needs to do better sense, but “we” as in “we as a government” need to do better?

The government here does need to do much better. The Conservative caucus is supportive of Bill C-8. We are going to be supporting it through to committee. We look forward to the committee's study on it, especially delving into some of these questions I mentioned about the distinction between the version in the legislation and the TRC recommendation. However, we want to see the government take seriously the need to advance legislation and policy that concretely improves the quality of life for indigenous Canadians.

Yes, recognition is important, but if we see bill after bill on the issue of recognition but not targeting concrete quality of life improvements, it looks increasingly like the government is trying to avoid delving into these complex policy areas that would really make a difference. If it recognizes there is a need for more resources and need for economic development, when are we going to see the legislation that is going to really support economic development within indigenous communities and make it easier to grab those opportunities? When are we going to see the legislation that seeks to address those long-standing justice issues?

The government talks about doing better. It is time for it to do better so we can see some of these concrete improvements.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I take issue with a couple of things my friend opposite said.

He said the government should be accelerating the calls to action, and I completely agree we need to do more and need to do it faster, but can he explain why in the previous Parliament his party, Conservative members in the Senate, blocked the passage of Bill C-262, even though it was passed in the House of Commons and it passed a resolution asking for the Senate to expedite its passage?

Why did his party block it in the Senate? How does that go with what he is saying about the implementation of these calls to action and the things we need to do in order to attain true reconciliation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not need a lesson from the member for Winnipeg Centre with regard to apprehensions in Winnipeg North. I have been there for 30 years, both as an MLA and as a member of Parliament. I can assure the member that not only do I hold this government to account in terms of its involvement in dealing with child apprehension, I did it for many years when the NDP at the provincial level failed the children of Winnipeg North in a very real and tangible way and where that member was absolutely silent, I suspect, during those years.

The member made reference to Bill C-262, and why it took so long. After the calls to action were announced, the current Prime Minister committed to all of them. Supporting Bill C-262 and UNDRIP was within those calls to action. The Liberal members of the caucus supported it. When Bill C-262 was brought in, there was no requirement for the government to bring it in. It was a private member's bill and the Liberal caucus supported it. We assisted in ensuring, along with New Democrats, that it passed through the House of Commons. The member would have to speak to the Conservative senators who were determined to hold it up, in terms of why it ultimately did not receive royal assent.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to let the hon. member know that it took two and a half years to get his government to go along with Bill C-262. I was a person who was part of those lobbying efforts, walking and writing because of pressure from Canadians who really cornered his government.

The member talked a lot about recognizing the importance of indigenous people. I want to let him know that the way to recognize indigenous people is by honouring human rights. His government currently is in its ninth non-compliance order to immediately stop racially discriminating against first nations kids. It has spent over $3 million fighting survivors of St. Anne's residential school.

He has used COVID as an excuse for stalling, but I want to speak specifically about one example: clean drinking water. Neskantaga currently has been evacuated because of not having clean drinking water. We know that one of the greatest disease deterrents and safety measures that can be taken during the time of the pandemic is frequent handwashing, so I would think that this should be a top priority, yet he consistently talks about incremental justice when it comes to indigenous people.

I wonder if the member would have the same sort of patience if his riding of Winnipeg North had to evacuate because it did not have clean drinking water, and whether he would be so patient for his own constituents to receive that basic human right. I highly doubt it. Just to let him know, as the representative for Winnipeg North, he actually has the highest child-apprehension rate in the country. That is something that is important for him to be aware of as their political representative.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, imagine the effort involved when a member of the New Democratic Party brought forward Bill C-262 and then, with the support of members, we were able to get it passed out of the House of Commons to the Senate. There was much frustration that followed when Conservative senators prevented it from passing.

Orange Shirt Day

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today is Orange Shirt Day, a day to honour residential school warriors who were kidnapped from their communities and shipped off to residential schools. Some made it home and some perished in the schools, a legacy of cultural and social disruption that left many survivors struggling to regain identity and place for themselves and their loved ones, a violent violation of human rights with impacts that continue to reverberate in our communities and families today.

There is no reconciliation in the absence of justice, which includes heeding and legislating all the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

This attack against our communities was perpetrated for no other reason than because of who we were in all our beauty and grace, living out who we were as indigenous peoples; violence perpetrated against our little children whose resilient spirits experienced unimaginable violence. They are loved and valued. I, along with our caucus and with thousands and thousands of others, honour their strength, resiliency and hearts today.

I have heard countless stories about the heartache parents felt when our communities fell silent each September, when our children were robbed away. Once again there was anguish. There was no more laughter or play. Today I honour the parents of those who had their kids wrongfully taken away. There is deafening silence.

There are warriors who are kind, resilient, loving and patient, like my partner Romeo Saganash. As we figure out our way forward, learning how to love and trust in a relationship, it is messy. Colonization has made relationships messy, but we move forward with understanding, compassion, love and fun, including travelling across the country, fighting for Bill C-262, to realize the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I was touched by a story Romeo told me almost five years ago about how, for over 20 years, he would frequent the local flower shop every Saturday in Quebec City to buy flowers, up until the 2011 election when he informed the flower shop owner that he was moving and would not be by for flowers. She said that it was too bad, that “I am sure she will miss getting flowers.” He told her that the flowers were for him, that nobody had ever bought him flowers. The store owner was so touched that she proceeded to cry and so did I upon hearing that story. I told him that I would always buy him flowers, and I have kept that promise. Flowers give him joy.

I also accompanied this gesture with a poem I published to share the very deep love I have for him:

He said he never received flowers
A blossomed heart
An orchid to be cherished
He said he never received flowers
A spirit they tried to break
In residential school
Behind walls
That grew weeds of genocide
There were no flowers
They had no flowers
For an artist's spirit
Whose creativity was born out of kindness
He said he never received flowers
A spirit so worthy to be embraced
By kindness and love
So here is your flower
Let the smells fill your room
With the beauty of your sacred heart.

I extend my love to my partner, my relatives, my friends, all the residential school warriors who I have not had the honour to know and the attendees of residential schools who never made it home from these schools. Here is their flower. Let the smells fill the room with the beauty of their sacred heart.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Matters

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Independent, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Chair, I understand the government will be releasing a discussion paper and possible draft UNDRIP legislation mirroring Bill C-262. I trust the government is aware that fundamental to the declaration's articles are the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples.

Accordingly, to demonstrate the government's intent in legislating UNDRIP into Canadian law, and given the unfolding situation in Haida Gwaii and the refusal of the Queen Charlotte fishing lodge to respect the council of the Haida Nation's COVID-19 restrictions, I ask: Does the government recognize and support the right of the nation, i.e. its jurisdiction, to protect its homeland and the safety of its people, and in particular, its elders?

Indigenous Affairs

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are all gathered here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin.

This is a trying time for all Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous alike. We all want a peaceful and rapid resolution that brings down the blockades and advances dialogue with the Wet'suwet'en.

Our government has been working around the clock to resolve this issue in a peaceful and lasting way. That is why the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has been in regular communication with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs throughout the past week. It is time to move forward together to get our economy moving and to continue advancing reconciliation with indigenous people.

The government's commitment from 2015 has not changed. There remains no more important relationship to the government, and to Canada, than the one with indigenous peoples. Our resolve to pursue the reconciliation agenda with indigenous peoples is as strong as ever. Canada is ready for this. Canadians want this.

We have significantly stepped up rights-based discussions with indigenous peoples. Today, active discussions are under way with partners from every province and territory: more than 150 processes, more than 500 indigenous communities and almost 900 indigenous peoples.

This government has also moved to strengthen relationships with national indigenous organizations to ensure they have the stable, predictable and reasonable funding needed to carry out their work.

To ensure key issues are regularly discussed at the highest levels, the Government of Canada established permanent bilateral mechanisms with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders to identify each community's priorities.

We continue to make progress on implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has said the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples charts a path for reconciliation to flourish in the 21st century in Canada. We are committed to working collaboratively with indigenous partners to develop legislation to deliver on our commitment to introduce legislation on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the end of 2020.

We were disappointed when the Conservative leader blocked Bill C-262 in the other House during the last Parliament and we will ensure that our government legislation fully respects the intent of the declaration and establishes Bill C-262 as the floor and not the ceiling.

There are many hopeful signs, but there is also much work that remains to be done.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know the member has a background in indigenous and environmental law and I agree with much of what he said.

I want to pick up on his point about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We passed Bill C-262 two years ago. The government had an opportunity to act on and implement that bill and others since then, but it did not.

I wonder if the member can comment on how it might have changed the situation we are in now if the government were actually living up to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Relations with Indigenous Peoples

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member and her former colleague, Romeo Saganash, for the very important work that he provided in terms of our providing his Bill C-262 as a baseline as we go forward, as a floor, to be able to legislate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples here in Canada, as an example for the world.

This is an important time where all of these things come together. It is important that Delgamuukw ascertained the rights of the people whom we have to move on in their search to have clarity on title. Those are conversations that we need to have together.

The member knows, as we have explained in this House many times, the Government of Canada cannot direct the RCMP. Our job is that we can explain, as we are in this House tonight and as your members have done, that the presence of the RCMP has been articulated as a problem for the hereditary chiefs and many of the members of that community. We have articulated that, and we want to work in any way to remove the obstacles, to be able to go forward as a country.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

In the previous Parliament, the NDP introduced Bill C-262, which was passed by this House, to ensure that all federal laws are aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This federal NDP initiative is therefore completely consistent with that objective.

The leader of the NDP has often said that the future of economic development does not lie in hydraulic fracturing. We believe that each project should be assessed individually to see whether it fits in with a real plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In this specific case, the B.C. government found that it was feasible.

All the reports from Environment and Climate Change Canada have confirmed that the federal government is going to miss the 2030 targets set by the Conservative government. In this context, it would be impossible to consider new projects at the federal level, since we cannot even meet the Conservatives' targets.

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for talking about the calls to action that all Canadians feel we have to be part of. We are pleased to report that 80% of the calls for action that the federal government has responsibility for have either been completed or are well on their way. We have the other road map in the calls for justice from the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls commission, but our commitment to put the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into legislation is very important.

As the member has identified, the very important bill that former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash tabled was debated and eventually passed in the House. Unfortunately, it did not make it through the other place. However, we will work to co-develop legislation with first nations, Inuit and Métis to go forward with a piece of legislation for which Bill C-262 would be the minimum. With first nations, Inuit and Métis partners, we will build it as a true piece of legislation that will really explain what the rights of indigenous people are.

At this time, we congratulate the Province of British Columbia for its Bill 41, which actually sets that tone and legislative framework at a provincial level, and now we get to live up to that at the federal level.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair, I was quite pleased that the minister responsible for indigenous affairs was able to be with us this evening, because it is one of the most important files. We see the importance of indigenous people in throne speeches and in every budget we propose. The Prime Minister says it quite well when he talks about the relationship between indigenous people and the national government.

In the last 30 or 40 years and beyond, we have been moving in the direction of doing some wonderful things by working with indigenous leaders. One of the issues that has come to the table in the last number of years is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report and its 94 calls for action. I do not know if the minister is aware of it, but I know there were a number of direct responses to those calls for action. When we talk about those 94 calls for action, we are not saying that every one of them is of a federal or national nature, but a number of them are. The minister and I talked about this a little earlier. Language was part of it, and foster care and the issue of citizenship and the taking of the oath. In many ways, the government has made the Truth and Reconciliation report a very high priority when talking about establishing a sense of respect and having the dialogue necessary for us to move forward on such a critically important issue.

The minister spent a great deal of time on Bill C-262, dealing with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Could she provide her thoughts on the progress made, generally speaking, on the bigger picture? We see it in the throne speech and in budgets. I would ask her to provide some of her thoughts on those issues, and to reflect in particular on the private member's bill, Bill C-262, that passed the House.

The Senate

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, the government is moving forward on key legislative initiatives to implement the UN declaration, including the legislation on languages and child and family services.

We also supported Bill C-262 as an important next step.

We too are deeply disappointed to see that the Conservative leader continues to allow his caucus members in the other place to use partisan delay tactics to prevent this important bill from moving forward, blatantly ignoring the unanimous motion passed by the House.

Reconciliation with indigenous peoples should not be subject—

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about her former colleague and his representation on this issue back in 2015. I remember he was very strong on this issue and advocating for it.

With regard to Bill C-262, like many others in this House, I want to see the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples implemented in Canada. We have supported it. We strongly believe in it. We believe in the fundamental principles of UNDRIP. We believe that it is important in guiding future governments in Canada in how we deal with indigenous people. I, too, would support the member in encouraging the Senate to move forward with its amendments and bring it back to the House of Commons.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. I am a great admirer. She clearly stands up for the rights of the people of Labrador, and definitely the indigenous people of Labrador.

I, too, am deeply concerned that it has taken the government so long to bring forward this bill. It was a reprehensible move by the Conservatives in the last Parliament. Indeed, all parties were forced for vote for it, because the Conservatives tied it to the devolution vote. It was reprehensible. My former colleague Dennis Bevington, then the member for Northwest Territories, spoke strongly against this move. It was clearly unconstitutional.

I had the privilege of being the assistant deputy minister for renewable resources in the Yukon, and I played a part in the negotiation of first nations final agreements and self-governance agreements. I was well aware of what was being done to the Tlicho, the Gwich'in and the Dehcho, who finally had final agreements.

If the hon. member and her party are so dedicated to respecting the rights of indigenous people, will she speak up, speak to the senators and tell them to finally bring forward Bill C-262 and finally put in place, as Liberals had promised, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Will they finally—

Bill C-68—Time Allocation Motion

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the Senate there are a number of bills that are so important, just like this exact bill here, Bill C-68. There are also Bill C-88, Bill C-91, Bill C-92, Bill C-93, Bill C-391, Bill C-374, Bill C-369 and Bill CC-262. All these bills are being delayed by the Senate because they are taking far too long.

I was wondering if the hon. minister could tell us why the Conservative senators are delaying all these bills, delaying us from doing the job that Canadians have sent us here to do. They gave us a mandate in 2015, after a decade of darkness with the Conservatives, to repair the damage they had done to the environment and to indigenous communities and to make sure we get this job done.

Can the hon. minister talk a little bit about that, please?

Resuming debate

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also find it a bit rich when we hear the Liberals talking about the opposition delaying bills. I will provide a concrete example.

When the House was debating Bill C-69, our colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who worked so diligently at committee on that bill, proposed many amendments seeking to bring that environmental review legislation in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These amendments were moved at committee only days after the Liberals had voted in favour of Bill C-262.

It is wrong for us to be accused of holding up the legislation. We were doing the hard work of listening to witnesses at committee and bringing forward amendments to make the bill more in line with indigenous rights, for which the government had already signalled its support.

For my friend from New Westminster—Burnaby, that is just another example of where we have tried our best. We listened to those witnesses at committee. Time and again we tried to insert those amendments that were directly attributable to concrete evidence heard at committee only to see it fail both at the committee stage and when the bill was reported to the House.

Could my colleague comment a bit further on our efforts through this 42nd Parliament to improve those bills that have been backed up by solid witness testimony every step of the way?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. The government has left this bill sitting there, even though it was one of the top priorities of communities, which called on the government to act. In fact, the minister promised that there would be action. Lo and behold, there are five weeks before this place adjourns before an election, and the government finally brings this bill forward.

The Senate is notorious. The unaccountable, unelected Senate has done its level best to block bills that have been passed in this House. One example is my colleague's bill, Bill C-262, regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We advanced that bill. It went through this House and on to the Senate, and it was just yesterday that it was finally referred to committee. We do not even know whether it will come back from committee in time for it to receive royal assent. It is absolutely atrocious.

When the government does not plan its legislative agenda carefully and thoughtfully, this is what can happen. It is absolutely outrageous. We should not stand for it.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Chair, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I would also like to commend the minister for his hard work and his dedication to the portfolio, which has seen his shepherding of legislation dealing with criminal justice reforms; important justice reforms that will enhance access to justice; his and his team's work on ensuring that we have a very capable and high-calibre bench through the ongoing work of judicial appointments, and finally, the all-important and historic work with reconciliation as it relates to our indigenous peoples.

I am honoured to be here to contribute to this debate, to speak to some of the concrete steps we have taken towards recognizing and realizing the government's vision of reconciliation with indigenous peoples across Canada.

Our government has taken the time to meet with many indigenous leaders across this country. We heard about their priorities, their vision for the future, and the challenges and obstacles they still face in achieving this vision. Hearing these perspectives has served to reinforce our government's commitment to renewing its relationship with indigenous peoples. We have continued with our efforts to address the ongoing negative and adverse impacts of colonialism, discrimination and marginalization that have, for far too long, been part of this country's social fabric.

Contributing to renewed Crown-indigenous relationships based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership remains a priority for the Government of Canada. This is especially true in relation to Canada's justice system. Over the past few years, the Department of Justice and the Government of Canada have introduced transformative laws and initiatives to help achieve reconciliation.

One such initiative that we are very proud of is the release of the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. This document will ensure that the rights and needs of indigenous peoples are considered whenever new policy initiatives or laws are being introduced or considered.

Another key document that the Department of Justice has released is the Attorney General's directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples. This document will help guide litigation positions being developed. The Department of Justice also continues to work with other government departments to find alternatives to litigation with indigenous peoples wherever and whenever possible and appropriate.

These are both foundational documents that establish a modern legal framework and clearly identify the core values informing the department's day-to-day work. As the introduction to the principles notes, they are “rooted in section 35, guided by the UN Declaration, and informed by the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action”.

In addition, they reflect a commitment to good faith, the rule of law, democracy, equality, non-discrimination and respect for human rights. Training that focuses on the history and context that underlie the principles has been provided to approximately 25% of the Department of Justice's employees. It also covers practical ways in which these important documents can inform all the legal and policy work the Department of Justice oversees.

The directive is also a testament to the government's desire to transform Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples and uphold the promises of section 35 of the Constitution.

The directive continues to guide the Government of Canada's legal approaches, positions and decisions in civil litigation over ancestral and treaty rights and the Crown's duty towards indigenous peoples.

The Department of Justice also continues its efforts to advance the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, including the call upon governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.

Canada has already stated its unqualified support for the UN declaration. Recently, in this session, the House of Commons restated its support for the passage 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.

If passed, Bill C-262 will bring us even closer to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It will require us to continue the work we have already started on regularly reviewing federal legislation to assess consistency with the standards set out in the declaration. In collaboration with our indigenous partners, we will also have to develop an action plan for the implementation of the declaration and release annual reports on our progress.

The Department of Justice continues to advance a number of additional and more specific measures that will contribute to reconciliation over the long term. A key priority for the department is Bill C-75, which is now in the other place. The bill proposes various measures meant to help to address court delays. It will also play a role in one of the most serious issues facing our criminal justice system: the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the justice system itself and in particular in our jails.

Bill C-75 tackles bail reform and also addresses administration of justice offences, such as breaching bail. These offences can unfortunately function as an entry point into the criminal justice system and significantly contribute to the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system.

The Department of Justice also continues to support and expand the use of restorative justice, which we know is a priority for many of our indigenous partners. It is also committed to supporting innovative approaches to the administration of justice in Canada. This means focusing not just on renewing the government's relationship with indigenous peoples, but building a partnership where indigenous perspectives, laws and legal traditions find voice in an indigenous justice system in harmonization with the justice system regimes and processes across Canada.

For this reason, our government has encouraged indigenous communities to share their views and perspectives on indigenous laws and legal traditions. We are actively working to promote more dialogue with indigenous peoples that will guide our collective efforts to recognize and implement indigenous justice systems in Canada. Not only does this work occur in the Department of Justice, but across many ministries so as to give effect to reconciliation.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is holding a symposium on the indigenous justice system today and tomorrow. This is an valuable opportunity to talk to indigenous partners, academics, students of indigenous law and public servants from across Canada about revitalizing indigenous law and national and international perspectives on interactions between indigenous and non-indigenous justice systems.

The government also recognizes the importance of revitalizing indigenous legal systems. We know that indigenous law institutes, in partnership with indigenous communities, can play crucial roles in understanding, developing and implementing indigenous laws.

Not only are we working on transforming and modernizing our laws and programs, but we also have a transparent, inclusive and accountable judicial appointment process.

This new process underlines our government's commitment to reshaping the bench to better reflect Canada as it is today and to make the courts more accessible. I mentioned this important work at the outset of my remarks.

Ultimately the goal of all of the measures and initiatives I have just mentioned is to transform both how the Department of Justice engages with indigenous peoples and how indigenous people experience the justice system. We believe that the efforts made by this government to improve its relationship with indigenous peoples has led to some very significant progress and improvements to the lives of indigenous peoples over the last few years. However, much more work remains to be done.

Working in tandem with indigenous communities, we believe we can continue to ensure the implementation of the necessary work and the shifts in mindset required to advance our shared goal of achieving true reconciliation. Our government is committed to promoting, protecting and implementing the rights of indigenous peoples.

We hope that the efforts and accomplishments of the Department of Justice will continue to reflect our government's shared commitment to achieving reconciliation and earnestly carrying out the work required to accomplish such an important goal.

Not only do I encourage the government to continue this work, but I certainly encourage my colleagues across the aisle to support this transformative and historical work when it comes to reconciliation.

I have a number of questions for the minister.

First, what are some of the ways the government is working to reduce the over-incarceration of our indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system?

Indigenous Languages Act

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member and I chatted once after a speech about Diefenbaker. We were on the same side for a short period, and then we veered off.

The government members have said that they entertained amendments from the opposition regarding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am not sure my colleague shares my view, but I would like to see the declaration in the text of the bill. I would like to hear his comments on that. The government has included it in the purpose of the bill, with language like “contribute to” and “facilitate”. It is not in the binding text of the bill, and for me, this means that it is not something the government has to adhere to.

I would also like him comment on the fact that we do not have to wait for a private member's bill, Bill C-262, to pass. The government has all the power it needs to include sections of the UN declaration immediately in the language bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, whether in the Prairies or any other region of our country, indigenous issues are of the utmost importance. I know my colleague and friend gives a great deal of attention to this issue. I truly respect that.

The member points out what I would like to highlight as a very important issue. We can demonstrate, at the national level, implementing the calls to action where we can, but when we talk about the 94 calls, it is not just the national government that has a role to play. There are other levels of government, other groups, and indigenous leaders themselves who all have a role to play in the issue of reconciliation and the calls to action.

As an example, I appreciate some of the fine work that my local school division, the Seven Oaks School Division, is doing in Amber Trails, one of the schools promoting indigenous language. These are the types of initiatives that can really make a difference.

Our role here in Ottawa is to be able to lead and demonstrate leadership on the issue of reconciliation. That is something the government has taken very seriously since day one. Bill C-91 is an excellent example of that.

I have had the opportunity to speak on our foster care legislation, which is another excellent piece of legislation. We had a private member's bill, Bill C-262, another excellent piece of legislation. We have seen strong leadership coming from the House of Commons, and we need to be able to see that sense of co-operation and leadership being applied in all the different areas of Canadian society.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona. I will try to stay constructive and positive, but I have to say that this government's holier-than-thou attitude annoys me to no end. It is exasperating. The Liberals seem to believe they are above all comments and constructive feedback. They think they know everything, and that is incredibly irritating. We can always sense it in their tone. I have never felt this way before. In the last Parliament, under the Conservatives, I never sensed this level of arrogance. “We know best”, the Liberals say. It is so infuriating.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and this is an issue that is close to my heart. I have here 17 NDP amendments, which obviously were not adopted, and I can confirm that the amendment my colleague mentioned earlier was extremely constructive and opened up doors. Unfortunately, the Liberals think they have all the answers when it comes to drafting bills. They were like that with the SNC-Lavalin affair as well, when they added that little line to the omnibus bill. That was an inspired move. The Liberals must be kicking themselves, because all of Quebec is now complaining about it.

I cannot talk about Bill C-91 without talking about my experience as a member of this House. I represent the people of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, so of course I want to stand up for the interests of my constituents, for aerospace and for our social fabric. More importantly, I want to find solutions to address the fact that one-third of the children in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert are living in poverty. It is a shocking figure, and no one ever talks about it.

I want to talk about my election in 2011. When I was elected, I was an ordinary citizen from Longueuil who did not have a clear understanding of the issues facing first nations. When I arrived here, my main concerns were defending Quebec's distinct culture and fighting climate change. Quite frankly, first nations were not on my list of priorities. On top of that, I did not know very much about the topic.

Many will recall the leadership race that happened so quickly following Jack Layton's death, and my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, was one of the candidates. At that point, many people in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, including myself, discovered an ambassador for the Cree Nation. Today that member is one of the people scratching their heads, wondering whether this bill on indigenous languages lives up to the expectations.

When I became acquainted with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, I saw how hard he had worked, especially on the peace of the braves agreement and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I saw how diligently he had to work to solve such issues. I also realized that what was needed was a compassionate approach, not a theoretical one.

This man, whom I consider a friend, taught me that this privileged relationship, as the Liberal Party often calls it, needs to be cultivated. Every time we deal with indigenous languages in committee, I am struck by the heart-wrenching testimony that shows this goes well beyond a theory that language is important. We saw people who were suffering because their past and their roots had been erased, and their personalities and cultures had been bleached white by a centralizing government.

As the representative for the people of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, I was shocked to see just how many open wounds the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was trying to heal. The commission attempted to set out a path for reconciliation.

We came to committee with this in mind, with the goal of working together congenially and collaboratively.

I mentioned the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou today because his outstanding bill seeking to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Bill C-262, has stalled in the Senate. This is a very important bill because it would redefine our relationship with indigenous peoples, with those who are at the very core of this country, but partisan politics are holding it up in the Senate.

I will not call out those involved in the Senate, but it is quite shameful. Things need to get moving. They could use a little nudge to get things going and see them through. This bill would ensure that the government respects the rights of our indigenous peoples and that these rights would be enshrined in all of our bills.

Bill C-91 is by all accounts fundamental and extremely important to the reconciliation process. I understand perfectly just how valuable language is, and how culture is primarily carried through language. It is essential to everything. The situation looks precarious. During one of my visits to Kahnawake, Mr. Norton told me that the Mohawk language is in jeopardy. He said that he was committed to supporting the process. He wants to encourage people to take interest in this issue. Teaching people who are interested in learning these languages again will take several months or years. I therefore understand how important this is.

Also, I was very pleased that my colleagues from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River supported me during the work on this bill and the study in committee. It is a sensitive topic that requires careful consideration. These are not routine laws. These laws have emotional consequences and will shape our relationship with these nations and the preservation of their culture.

People on the ground obviously saw and grasped the importance of this bill. They understood that public officials had tried to draft legislation that would meet their needs. I will try not to use provocative language. I will try not to make us out to be saintly know-it-alls. I just did it, but I apologize. I will try to put this delicately. If this bill is so important to the Liberal government, why are we only talking about it with five weeks left in the parliamentary session? Why is that? Is there a valid reason to explain why this bill was delayed until the very end of the parliamentary session?

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is busy. The committee constantly deals with issues related to the cultural resilience of Quebec, first nations or the Innu people. Let me use a metaphor to describe what is going on here. The Liberals were thinking about where they stood. They realized that the parliamentary session was drawing to a close, and they decided that, given their meagre legislative agenda, they were not too busy to introduce some new bills. They figured it would be nice to do something about this issue. They thought they would look really stupid if they went four years without doing anything about it, so they threw a bill together at the last minute.

As my colleague rightly said, a major player, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, says it is not satisfied and was not consulted. This bill is being shoved down their throats. It is tragic to see this holier-than-thou government pretending it has not just been sitting on its hands this whole time. Sadly, that is what happened.

This is critically important bill. It is unfortunate that it had to be rammed through since it still has many flaws and is far from perfect.

First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families Act

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his work as parliamentary secretary and for his leadership with the Métis community. The notion of inherent jurisdiction is fundamental. It is fundamental toward a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples, which informs everything we are attempting to do as a government. It is also fundamental to something that an NDP member raised in the House and we rightfully supported it, which is UNDRIP. I believe it was Bill C-262 on inherent jurisdiction, governance and control over the services delivered to indigenous people.

To round out the position that was raised in the previous part of this debate, an additional reason funding allocations have not been prematurely allocated in the legislation is simply because we need to ensure we are listening to indigenous communities on a community-by-community basis as to what their needs are. To presuppose at this stage that we now have some sort of crystal ball we can look into to verify exactly which community needs what level of funding would put the cart before the horse and not empower indigenous communities to make that determination for themselves.

Indigenous Languages Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation encourages us to recognize the importance of language. Over the last few years, we have consistently talked about reconciliation. There are 94 recommendations or calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and this is one of those calls to action, just like the foster care legislation, of which I am a very strong supporter, and Bill C-262. There are many calls to action by parliamentarians and it goes far beyond that. We all have a role to play when it comes to reconciliation. Whether it is someone walking down Selkirk Avenue or living in Amber Trails, someone sitting in this chamber, or leaders of indigenous communities and leaders outside of indigenous communities, we all have a role to play, and this piece of legislation is important for many different reasons.

I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on the importance of this being part of the 94 calls to action in the reconciliation.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded ancestral lands of the Algonquin people.

Before getting into the details of the bill, I would like thank our colleagues, particularly the members of the heritage committee, who worked very diligently to get this bill through the committee stage, as well as those who are not committee members, such as our friends from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, for their dedication and hard work in supporting this bill.

I am also pleased to speak about the need for Bill C-91. As members are aware, Bill C-91 has been co-developed by three national indigenous organizations, namely the ITK, the AFN and the Métis National Council. It is in direct response to a number of very important things that have happened both in Canada and internationally.

First and foremost, it is in direct response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report's calls to action 13, 14 and 15. I will elaborate on that later.

It is also a direct result of our commitments to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As members are aware, Bill C-262 is now in front of the other House. It was adopted by this House and is something our government and the Prime Minister have committed to implementing.

There are many ways to look at languages, but however we look at them, they are one of the most important elements of our lives, one of the most important aspects of connection to the people, the land and their way of life.

In Canada, there are currently 90 indigenous languages. As we mark UNESCO's International Year of Indigenous Languages, we have to understand that, sadly, 75% of those 90 languages are on the verge of extinction. That is quite shocking. For some languages only one or two speakers are alive. I was recently in London, Ontario, and met with some elders from the Oneida Nation. They have 48 speakers of their language. Sadly, those 48 speakers are all over the age of 65. Not a lot of young people are speaking the Oneida language. That language is probably at risk of becoming extinct within the next generation. It is something that is quite urgent. Given the history of failure on the part of successive governments to protect languages, I think it is long overdue that we entrench this into law once and for all.

When we speak about how we got here, it was through a process of colonization on the part of the government in the last 152 years formally as a country, but since settlers first came to North America. We know that over the decades, languages were eroded, primarily I would argue because of programs put together by the government. Of course, one of the most important aspects of it is the effects of residential schools on generation after generation of indigenous people who have lost their language. We know that residential schools played such an important role in that.

I want to quote from the Prime Minister's speech at the Assembly of First Nations Special Chiefs Assembly on December 6, 2016, where he stated:

We know all too well how residential schools and other decisions by governments were used as a deliberate tool to eliminate Indigenous languages and cultures. If we are to truly advance reconciliation, we must undo the lasting damage that resulted.

I just want to walk colleagues through an experience I had this past month.

I went to Moosonee and met with Tony, who is a residential school survivor. He is in his sixties and is originally from the Moosonee area. When he was about five, he was taken to the St. Anne's Indian Residential School, along with his siblings. They were there for about 10 years. During that time, the entire way of life he was used to was taken away from him. He basically lost his language and lost his spiritual connection to his people. He was unable to reconnect with his family, because his sisters and brothers were separated in separate dorms. He was simply unable to connect with his family when he got back. He went through a very difficult process in establishing himself. He is now a very successful businessman. He has four children. He was trying to tell us how important language is to him, but sadly, he is unable to speak the language and pass it on to the next generation. I think that is the critical moment we are facing today.

Another comment was from a Tlicho elder and language specialist, Mary Siemens. She talked about the connection between indigenous languages and cultural identity. She said:

Our culture depends on our language, because it contains the unique words that describe our way of life. It describes name-places for every part of our land that our ancestors traveled on. We have specific words to describe the seasonal activities, the social gatherings, and kin relations.

That is a profound quote that describes the connection she has to the language and culture.

I want to walk through some of the major elements of this legislation. First and foremost, this would be a framework. It would be a living document. We have been putting together a framework that would look at indigenous languages in a holistic way. It would be dynamic and would allow for a distinctions-based approach to the protection of indigenous languages. It would not be an Ottawa-based solution to the challenges of indigenous languages. It would be a framework that would allow indigenous communities, based on the notion of self-determination and respect for each of the nations and language groups, to define what was important to them and define how those languages would be protected. The bill would be required to be reviewed every five years in this House as well as outside. It would adapt as languages grew and as situations changed so that support would continue as we continue the reconciliation journey together with indigenous peoples.

Just to put it in context, when we have a language like Oneida, where we have only 48 language speakers, and we have languages like Cree, which has many more speakers, the needs and the ways to protect these languages are different. What may be important for one group may not be the same for others. I think the framework we have put together really contemplates that. It would allow for this level of flexibility to ensure that it was distinction-based and that it enabled each and every community to establish an action plan for themselves.

I want to talk about one of the other major aspects of this bill. That is the establishment of a national commissioner of indigenous languages. This is something that is very important.

For the first time, we would entrench in legislation a commissioner who would oversee indigenous languages. The commissioner would be supported by three directors, and together they would work with indigenous communities and nations to develop programs and processes that would allow communities to advance their requirements.

When we look at the framework for the indigenous languages commissioner, we have a concrete plan that would be a starting point. It would not be an end point; it would be a starting point that would turn the tide on the loss of these languages.

From that, there would be support from the federal government, which, as we can see in budget 2019, would be a significant investment in the right direction. We would invest $333 million over the next five years to support this initiative. This is currently being debated as part of the budget implementation act. As we know, it would be a significant change from the $89 million over three years we currently have, which is roughly $30 million a year, for the aboriginal languages initiative. This significant change in funding would accelerate the protection of indigenous languages.

It is very important that we protect indigenous languages. I bring it back to my personal experience, which I have spoken about previously in the House. I know that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has also spoken many times about languages. For both of us, the primary language we speak at home is neither English nor French. We both came to Canada at a relatively young age. My family speaks Tamil. At home, it is the primary language. Over the last 35 years, there has been a serious conflict in Sri Lanka over one language and the ability of people to use that language and access services in that language. Over 100,000 people have died as a result of it.

The language I speak at home is foundational to my life. It has defined virtually every aspect of who I am, how I live my life and what I do and do not do. If I did not have that connection to the language, I would be a different person today. The struggle I have is that I have two young daughters, who are eight and 10, and I struggle with how to pass it on to them and make sure they speak the language fluently and have the opportunity to learn and understand the culture and the context the way I was able to understand. Regrettably, I actually do not read or write the language, but even then, I am able to understand it and live in that world. It is a struggle I face.

Relatively speaking, this is a language that has incredible international support. It is institutionalized in many universities. It is the official language in countries like Singapore, Malaysia and elsewhere, so it is protected. When we compare that language with indigenous languages, it is a completely different situation. We have failed to support, revitalize, protect and expand indigenous languages, and that is why time is so critical. That is one of the reasons our friends opposite, in both the Conservative Party and the NDP, worked very closely with us in getting this legislation through the committee process as well as through this House.

The urgency of implementing this legislation now cannot be understated. I have visited communities in the last several months that have gone from having six language speakers to five. There are many like that around the country. My colleagues probably have a good sense of that as well.

This cannot wait until the next Parliament. We cannot defer this to the next generation, because sadly, there will not be a next generation that can speak the language or protect and preserve it.

A couple of months ago, I was in Victoria at the Royal British Columbia Museum. It has an indigenous languages exhibit that really speaks to how languages are looked at right now. We are at a point where certain languages are only available in museums. The last speakers were recorded by academics, and they are preserved, but there is really no process or plan to revive and revitalize those languages. That is the primary reason for the urgency of the legislation before us.

Finally, on the overall aspect of reconciliation, Canada has played an important role in keeping these languages in the state they are in today. This did not happen because of indigenous people. This happened because of government policies. Government policies need to change to support this process of revitalization, and that is a major responsibility of the federal government. It is the other impetus for us to support the bill and push it forward.

Our commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is critical. It is something that the government and the Prime Minister have accepted, and we are in the process of implementing it. Implementing this legislation is an important step and milestone as we look at actually entrenching the principles of UNDRIP in law.

This loss of languages is dire. It is critical that we revive them and support them through revitalization. It is also important to recognize that over the years, language has been a form of resistance. Even though they lost these languages, we know that some people, late in their lives, even with their last breath, were speaking their language, were speaking their mother tongue, and that was important, because it was a form of resistance.

We need to acknowledge all the language keepers, all the people over the years who have struggled to keep these languages alive: the languages nests, the elders, the communities and the schools where languages are taught. We need to thank them for the enormous amount of work they have done to support these languages to keep them alive. It is an appropriate way to close, because it is their strength and their commitment that will allow indigenous languages to be revived and revitalized and used in daily life. I hope that one day we can celebrate the survival of all these indigenous languages.

Indigenous Affairs

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-262 is a key step in implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Passed by the House last spring, the bill is now stalled in the other place as a result of Conservative procedural delay tactics.

While we have enormous respect for the independence and work of the other place, reconciliation with indigenous peoples and particularly this piece of legislation cannot be subject to partisan and procedural games. I urge the Conservative members of the other place and the members of this House who are in their caucus to heed the unanimous motion passed by the House this week and stop their inexcusable delay tactics.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a cornerstone of our government's relationship with indigenous peoples. In 2016, our government became a full supporter of the declaration, without qualification.

Our government is moving forward on key legislative initiatives that support the implementation of the declaration. We have also supported Bill C-262 as an important next step. Can the parliamentary secretary update the House on the status of this important legislative measure?

Legislation before the Senate

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be asking the House for unanimous consent on a motion.

Legislative delays in the Senate have meant that time is running out on important bills that have been passed by the elected members of the House of Commons. That includes the watershed bill to enshrine the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law; as well as a desperately needed bill to require better training for judges in the country to deal with sexual assault cases.

The time is now to get these bills passed. Therefore, I hope that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, 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 well as Bill C-337, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code (sexual assault), are both critical pieces of legislation that have been duly passed by the House of Commons, and have been in possession of the honourable Senators for many months; that both bills should be passed into law at the earliest opportunity; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint that House accordingly.

Second Reading

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member.

This is giving life to UNDRIP in an actual bill before Parliament, Bill C-88. It ensures that UNDRIP is fully respected. UNDRIP, in Bill C-262, is a document that governs all of the Canadian government, ensuring all policies and laws come into accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and also with an annual report. I remember putting forward a private member's bill of my own that would require reporting to the House of Commons on an annual basis.

Nonetheless, I still believe that the bill is a good way forward. It was negotiated in full accordance with all the indigenous peoples concerned by the bill. That is what we call respect. That is what we call self-determination: sitting down, having a conversation, talking. That is how we make treaties.

The difficult part will come in the future when we need to make sure that these treaties are respected. That involves the government of the day and making sure that we have a good government that will respect those rights into the future.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to have the opportunity of trying to get Bill C-262 passed in the House of Commons. It was a great opportunity. I remember speaking with many of my colleagues, the indigenous caucus, and trying to work with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, to ensure that UNDRIP passed in the House of Commons. I know it is before the Senate and the document is not yet law. The senators in the other place have to decide on what will actually occur with that bill and I hope they are able to come to a final conclusion on that.

For me, I think the bill already does incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the law. It ensures that there is respect and self-determination of government. I talked about principles 1 and 5, which recognize self-determination and the right to self-government, which I think is central to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This goes, part and parcel, with all the other policies we have been doing in the budget, for instance, with water, health, education, economic prosperity, a new fiscal relationship with urban indigenous peoples, and even with emergency management. All of these things are about ensuring that we have an implemented UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, human rights for all peoples across Canada.

Bills of Exchange Act

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my remarks by recognizing that we meet today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I hope that one day we will begin all of our daily proceedings in this place with this acknowledgement. I also wish to acknowledge the land on which my riding is situated. It is Treaty 6 territory and the ancestral homeland of the Métis people.

I am extremely proud to rise in support of my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. I wish to recognize her connectedness to community, her hard work, her humbleness and her humility, which are all qualities of a true leader. It is these qualities that have helped the House to soon realize the passing of her private member's bill, a bill that signals a step, one among many, that we must take. It is one important step on our collective and individual journeys towards reconciliation with indigenous people. The bill provides the House with an opportunity to acknowledge and, most importantly, own its settler history.

What is this history? In the summary report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, members will find these introductory words, which is a reminder of why we are where we are today as a country and why our support of the efforts and leadership of my hon. colleague are so important:

For over a century, the central goals of Canada’s Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal peoples to cease to exist as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada. The establishment and operation of residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as “cultural genocide.”

We are in an era where politicians talk about how important it is that the rights of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples are recognized, protected and most importantly enshrined explicitly into Canadian law. Some of us are actually acting on that talk. I speak of the work of my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law with his bill, Bill C-262, and the work of my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona who tried so hard to insert into Canadian environmental law the rights of indigenous peoples as stated in Bill C-262. Today, I am able to add my colleague's efforts to this list of efforts in the House for reconciliation and justice for indigenous peoples in Canada.

The bill before us today is amended from the original bill tabled by my hon. colleague. The original bill was to make June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day, a statutory holiday. Both in the House and in my community, my colleague, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, articulated the many reasons for the proposal to designate June 21 a national statutory holiday. She spoke of her work as the mayor of La Loche on this issue. She listed the history of indigenous organizations calling for June 21 to be recognized as a national holiday. She told us of the spiritual significance of June 21, the summer solstice, for first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, and she acknowledged the history for many communities of celebrations and special commemorative ceremonies on June 21.

My community of Saskatoon is one of those communities that has focused its efforts on June 21. In recent years, Saskatoon has grown, the community has expanded and we acknowledge reconciliation and the TRC's calls to action on this day.

For over 20 years, the Saskatoon Indian and Metis Friendship Centre has hosted National Aboriginal Day, now National Indigenous Peoples Day, on Treaty 6 territory, the homeland of the Métis people, and in my riding of Saskatoon West. Every year, thousands gather in my community, joined by indigenous leaders, elders, non-indigenous leaders, survivors of residential schools, provincial schools and day schools, survivors of the sixties scoop, and indigenous veterans, for activities and ceremonies to mark the day.

In recent years, the city of Saskatoon has marked the day with important ceremonies and commemorations honouring indigenous peoples.

Last year, the new name for the north commuter Parkway Bridge was announced at the Indigenous Peoples' Day event in Saskatoon. The new name, Chief Mistawasis Bridge, honours Chief Mistawasis, also known as Pierre Belanger, who was the head of the Prairie Tribe and signed Treaty 6 in 1876.

At the unveiling, Mistiawasis Nêhiyawak Chief Daryl Watson said:

Today is a very momentous occasion for my nation. It's part of the whole process of reconciliation. Chief Mistawasis, 140 years ago, began that process when he acknowledged the territory by welcoming newcomers to share the land. Reconciliation began for us when treaty was signed.

In 2016, one of the national closing events of the TRC was held in Saskatoon on June 21. This event galvanized community members and indigenous and non-indigenous community leaders in Saskatoon to begin to formalize our reconciliation efforts and to respond to the TRC's calls to action as a community. Reconciliation Saskatoon, with organizational support from the Office of the Treaty Commissioner, is that community-wide response.

Reconciliation Saskatoon is a community of over 98 organizations, non-profits, businesses, faith communities and partners. They have come together to initiate a city-wide conversation about reconciliation and to provide opportunities for everyone to engage in calls to action.

The path to reconciliation in my riding, in my community, has embraced June 21 National Indigenous Peoples' Day as the day. We worked hard to make that day inclusive of all peoples, a day where we work, celebrate and remember and in so doing, help to build relationships and ultimately to build a better community for all.

Three years ago, we added a new event, a walk in my riding, called “Rock your Roots for Reconciliation”, spearheaded by Reconciliation Saskatoon. Last year, over 4,000 people participated in that walk.

Today, the bill before us has a different day, September 30, to be designated as a statutory holiday, a day that honours the survivors of residential schools. This day is also observed in my community. I acknowledge creating a national day to honour residential school survivors is call to action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Although this legislation started in a different place, it is here today after a parliamentary process that built support across political parties, and so it is a good day.

We are here today in this good way of co-operation because of the work of a Dene woman leader who kept us focused on something much bigger than partisan politics: a goal to build a better Canada for future generations. Today, I am very proud to be her colleague, to belong to a party and to sit in a caucus that backs words with action. As a caucus, we must work every day to honour her voice and leadership, a Dene woman from Northern Saskatchewan, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

Today, I remind all my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House that we all have to work together. We all have work to do to truly honour and respect the authentic voices of indigenous women in the House and in our communities.

Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-391, an act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property.

While I am on my feet, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the lands on which we are gathered here in Ottawa are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

According to current knowledge, the lands of the greater Drummond area were transit points where the Abenaki, Mohican, Huron, Algonquin and even Iroquois peoples stopped to portage, camp or fish.

Yolande Allard of the Drummond historical society has prepared a map that very clearly indicates the various sites that were used and their Abenaki names all along the Saint-François River transportation network. She and the Drummond historical society have done an excellent job of helping us better understand how indigenous peoples used these lands.

This bill refers to a very important issue. We are finally beginning to recognize the historical events that led to the erosion of indigenous cultural heritage. That is why the return of seized objects is an important part of the healing process for communities and for reconciliation between the colonial state and indigenous peoples.

The connection between returning objects and healing and reconciliation is extremely important. We have been working on this issue for years, and it is very important to us.

The NDP will support this bill at second reading, but we do have some questions. For example, we would like to know who was consulted about this bill.

Any time a bill affects indigenous peoples, they must be the first to be consulted so they can provide guidance. We do not know exactly who was consulted as this bill was being drafted.

As I said, it is extremely important to enable indigenous peoples to preserve and protect their ancestral, religious and cultural property and to have access to that property.

The Government of Canada and foreign governments must respect the collective rights of indigenous peoples with respect to the return of ancestral remains and sacred, funerary and culturally important objects.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms this right, and the Government of Canada fully and unconditionally supported this declaration and plans on supporting Bill C-262. That bill was introduced by my New Democrat colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. During the 41st Parliament, he also introduced Bill C-469, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That bill set out the fundamental restitution rights in international law and then became Bill C-262 when it was introduced in 2016. The bill is now at committee stage, and we are confident that it will be improved and strengthened.

My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou is working with the government to make sure that the bill truly reflects the objective of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Radio-Canada recently published an article online about the repatriation of indigenous property and how it keeps a culture alive. It was interesting to see how Sandy Raphaël, an indigenous woman who is the heritage and culture director of the Mashteuiatsh band council, felt when she was able to repatriate some cultural property.

I will read a few excerpts from the article.

Why repatriate?

Sandy Raphaël remembers exactly how she felt when she saw some objects that belonged to her nation, such as drums, tumplines and a moosehide coat, at the National Museum of the American Indian, or NMAI, in Washington.

This is what Ms. Raphaël said:

It is quite moving to see the beauty of these objects, their life, their history, because they were made by our people. If they could speak, I would want them to tell me their story. I already had a sense of attachment to them.

A little further on, Sandy Raphaël states the following:

Seven grade nine students from the community, accompanied by Sandy Raphaël, went to the museum in June 2013. The young people returned with shining eyes, feeling even prouder of their identity.

I am reading out these excerpts to show why it is important to repatriate the cultural objects of indigenous peoples. It will give them back their identity, their culture and their history. That is extremely rewarding.

Studies have shown that young people who have access to strong cultural components, such as their language, ceremonies, ancestral property and education, are less likely to commit suicide, drop out of school, become addicts or engage in other harmful behaviour. It is clear that these elements and the repatriation of cultural property are important.

Bill C-391 is a step in the right direction. There is currently no federal legislation designed to facilitate the return of property stolen from indigenous communities. That is why it is important to pass this bill. As I already mentioned, Bill C-391 will have a positive impact on many members of Canada's indigenous communities.

A law to facilitate the repatriation of property will help indigenous youth connect with their culture and their language. Young people are the leaders of tomorrow. It is important that they are familiar with this identity and culture, so it is in our interest to give them the tools they need to thrive. In the case of indigenous youth, we also need to make sure that they connect with their culture by facilitating the repatriation of property.

The return of stolen cultural artifacts will also empower women and help restore the traditional balance between men and women. These artifacts teach about identity, the cultural nature of gender, roles in the community and the personal behaviours that enable individuals to define themselves. That is also a very important benefit.

The repatriation of property will also enable two-spirit people to reclaim their heritage.

However, I have some concerns about the bill. First, the bill does not contain any enforcement measures. It talks only about promoting and encouraging, and that is problem. Second, the implementation is not cohesive enough. There are so many stakeholders that there could be inconsistences and contradictions. Fourth, some communities are unable to conserve their artifacts even if they want to and will be forced to give them to museums because of budgetary constraints. There are no financial resources allocated to help preserve these precious and sometimes fragile artifacts. Fifth, the bill does not take into account the complexity of the repatriation of cultural heritage. Furthermore, the bill does not propose any concrete solutions in cases where organizations refuse to return legitimate property. Finally, indigenous peoples were not consulted enough during the drafting of this bill, and something needs to be done about that.

I am sure that the corrections needed to improve this bill can be made when it is examined in committee.

Indigenous Languages Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was going through the language included in the bill. The reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is mentioned three times, twice in the preamble and then once in the actual legislation. However, in clause 6 of the bill, under the heading of “Rights Related to Indigenous Languages”, there is a reference made to section 35 of our Constitution, but there is no reference given to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I know the Liberal government voted in favour of Bill C-262, which seeks to bring all Canadian law into harmony with that document. Therefore, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could provide some explanation as to whether that has been an oversight or if there is in fact going to be further amendments to the bill to bring it into harmony with the document of the United Nations.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening with great interest to my colleague's speech. When he was speaking about his Irish heritage, it made me think of my own Scottish heritage and the Highland clearances and the elimination of the Gaelic language. When the Scots were forced out of the land, they then came to Canada and became colonizers themselves so it was a system that was perpetuated.

I also appreciated the member's comments about Bill C-262, which the current Liberal government voted in favour of. I very much agree with the member that we need to see a mention of that UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples not just in the preamble but in the legislation itself.

I think of my riding, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, which is home to the Coast Salish peoples and the beautiful Halkomelem language that they speak, which I have witnessed at ceremonies within their territories, and how beautiful it is to see children speaking that language. I wonder if the member can talk about how different languages very much inform our world views, as they allow different ways and different perspectives, and how important it is to promote that so that we have different ways of viewing what is essentially the same thing.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend from Surrey Centre.

I am deeply honoured to speak this afternoon in support of Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act. I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

Our language is at the core of who we are as a people, as a community and as a nation.

Before I speak to the important aspects of the bill, I would like to explain to the House the major challenges that I face as a first-generation immigrant to Canada.

Every day, I struggle to make sure that my two daughters understand and speak their mother tongue, Tamil, at home.

For me, the ability to be part of this community is at my core. The ability to understand this language allows me to understand this community. I want my two children to be able to have the opportunity and the right to understand the language and be connected to the people. Likewise, all families want their language to be spoken and understood, be it English, French, Finnish or Tamil. It is who we are as a people.

However, these languages are not at risk of extinction, nor are the speakers and keepers of these languages dying. Most indigenous language speakers do not have the privilege and protection that is available to other languages in Canada. Sadly, the legacy for indigenous people in Canada is that every one of the 90 languages spoken here prior to colonization is at threat of being lost. According to UNESCO, 75% of these languages are in danger of becoming extinct. Imagine the languages, dialects and voices of many communities lost forever. I cannot fathom it. We cannot fathom it, and we cannot understand it.

This happened because successive governments undertook the process of colonization that Madam Justice McLachlin has called “cultural genocide”. This meant that the government took children from their homes and their communities and put them in residential schools. The children were forbidden from speaking their languages and practising their spirituality and were often abused for practising who they were.

Some communities were forcibly moved from one geographical location to another. Some children from indigenous homes were taken and placed in foster homes or put up for adoption through the sixties scoop. We have a modern-day version of the sixties scoop, whereby children are taken by child welfare agencies and put in foster care.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission report outlined many experiences of residential school survivors, and I want to share two such stories.

One is from William Herney, who spoke Mi'kmaq with his brother at residential school. He said:

And she says, “What are you two boys doing?” “Nothing, Sister.” “Oh, yes, I heard you. You were talking that language, weren't you?” “Yes, Sister.” “Come here,” she said. I went over. She took a stick. She leaned me over to the bathtub, the bathtub, grabbed me by the neck, and I don't know how many whacks she gave me over my bum, and I was crying like I don't know what. Then, she took a piece of soap, and she washed my mouth in it. I can still even taste that lye soap. All my life I tasted that taste. And she said, “You don't talk that language here. That's a no, no, no, you don't, you understand?” Looks at me straight in the eye. She said, “Do you understand that?” And I said, “Yes, Sister, I understand.”

Rose Dorothy Charlie, who was at an Anglican school in Carcross, said:

They took my language. They took it right out of my mouth. I never spoke it again. My mother asked me why, why you could hear me, she’s, like, “I could teach you.” I said, “No.” And she said, “Why?” I said, “I’m tired of getting hit in the mouth, tired of it. I’m just tired of it, that’s all.” Then I tried it, I went to Yukon College, I tried it, and then my own auntie laugh at me because I didn’t say...the words right, she laughed at me, so I quit. “No more,” I said. Then people bothered me, and say, “How come you don’t speak your language?” And I said, “You wouldn't want to know why.” So, I never speak, speak it again.

The depth of the loss of indigenous languages cannot be quantified. The eternal links to language, and by extension culture, have been broken. Generations of indigenous people in Canada have been shamed into losing their language and culture because of the policies and practices of successive Canadian governments and many institutions.

A patchwork of programs and initiatives exist to support the preservation, protection and revitalization of indigenous languages.

Not all languages face the same risk of extinction. Some have better odds of survival than others, but it is all relative. We need to do more to protect, preserve and revitalize all indigenous languages.

We cannot change the past. The past is done. However, we can and must change the course of the future.

In this moment in time, the 42nd Parliament has made enormous strides in advancing equality, human rights and indigenous rights. In 2015, our government committed to implementing all 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to action 13, 14 and 15 require the entrenchment of legislation and a framework that will ensure the protection, preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages.

Our government adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and this past year, this House adopted Bill C-262 to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with UNDRIP. UNDRIP requires state parties to take effective measures to support indigenous languages.

In 1981, section 35 of the Canadian Constitution enshrined a full box of rights to first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. Such rights include the right to language.

Our Prime Minister affirmed that Canada would move forward on a relationship that nation to nation, Inuit to Crown and government to government, all based on the recognition of the rights framework. Bill C-91 does this, and this year, as we mark the United Nations Year of Indigenous Languages, we bring this bill forward to change the trajectory of indigenous languages and, once and for all, commit to ensuring the long-term protection, preservation and revitalization of these languages.

Permit me to outline some major features of Bill C-91. This bill was codeveloped with the national indigenous organizations, including the AFN, ITK and the MNC. This bill offers a distinction-based approach to languages. That is, it recognizes that not all languages are in need of the same level of protection. It respects the principle of self-determination. It envisions a national framework and commission that will monitor and report on the progress made.

Let me offer one additional reason for the urgency in passing this legislation. Three weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Prince George, British Columbia. I met with members of the Lheidli T'enneh first nation. There were five fluent speakers of Lheidli T'enneh with the dialect of Dakelh. I met the chief and several members of council, none of whom spoke the language, but all were striving to preserve the language itself. The loss of this language is imminent if a concerted effort is not made to preserve it.

Last week, elder Mary Gouchie, one of the native speakers, died. In marking her passing, the MP for Cariboo—Prince George said this of elder Mary Gouchie:

Mary understood that our words connect us to our past. Our words and our music are two of the foundations of the human experience. Without them, we have no past. Without them, we have no future, and without them, we have no awareness of who we might be.

In closing, I want to conclude by recognizing the keepers and teachers of all indigenous languages like elder Mary Gouchie. Notwithstanding that so many indigenous languages are endangered in Canada, the mere fact that so many of these languages still exist is due to the brave unsung heroes who have worked so hard to protect and preserve these languages.

Let us do right by them. Let us do right by future generations, and let us just do this.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have said that we see the UN declaration as a very important guiding document. We have expressed a few concerns about how we put a declaration in Canadian law, and we have pointed out where there might be some consistency issues.

Having said that, the government has not expressed those same concerns. The government committed to supporting Bill C-262, whereas we expressed some reservations. The fact that the Liberals have chosen not to be inclusive with the language in this bill is another example of their hypocrisy.

Maybe they have the same concerns we have in terms of how to make the declaration work. The conventions, we know, are meant to be law in countries. They may have the same concerns as us, but they were not willing to say it or put it in the bill. Again, it is another example of their hypocrisy.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague sat through the committee study on Bill C-262, which was on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The things that are contained in the bill are one thing, but what is omitted from the bill is quite another. I would like to ask the member about the place that the UN declaration has in the bill. Clause 6 talks about the recognition of the right to indigenous languages, yet it only refers to section 35 of our Constitution of 1982. It does not refer to the specific articles on indigenous language in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Could the hon. member comment? The government has especially referred to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the basis for its new nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples.

Dutch Heritage Day

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly fitting in this new place to look at our history and the contributions of all the diverse communities that have made us such a great nation, and of course the Dutch community and its contributions as well.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the first peoples, the indigenous communities whose lands we gather on, and acknowledge their contributions. In that spirit, would the member support this Parliament and this government bringing into force real action toward implementing Bill C-262, which is to acknowledge the indigenous people and their rights under the UN declaration?

Transport

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments. He would know very well that section 136 of the Canada Shipping Act allows the minister of transport to regulate or prohibit the navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels. This is to promote the safe and efficient navigation of vessels and protect the public interest and the environment.

He is also one of the members who supported Bill C-262 and has acknowledged that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a part of international law that should be incorporated into Canadian law.

I want to end with this. I want to know when the government is going to respect first nations' rights. There are 19 nations that have their traditional and unceded territories in this area. They were not consulted. This is negatively impacting coastal communities. I want to know when the process is going to begin, when we can actually see these anchorages move and when we will have a holistic view of our transport system to control the inflow of all of this tanker traffic.

Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and join in the debate on Bill C-391, brought in by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester. I appreciate the initiative and the thought behind the bill. It is an issue that needs to be talked about and brought into force with some measure of the law.

I am very honoured to come from a region of the country that has a very deep and rich first nations heritage, which is still ongoing, as do many parts of Canada. It is a vast land. When we are talking about first nations, Métis and Inuit, their cultures are as diverse as any we would find around the world. We cannot speak about them just as one set of peoples. They have a lot of diversity and a lot of different cultural practices. When I look at the Cowichan Valley and the Cowichan people, who are the largest first nation band in British Columbia, I am very honoured to have some long-standing relationships with many members, including the chief.

I look at some of the well-known archaeological sites. They abound in the Cowichan Valley and in many of the islands that form the southern Gulf Islands between Vancouver Island and the Mainland.

One in particular is the Ye'yumnuts village near Duncan, which is about to become a living indigenous history lesson. It is a 2.4 hectare meadow, which, in collaboration with Cowichan tribes, will be used as an open air classroom. They have found a lot of different tools. The site is more than 2,000 years old and it is estimated that the Cowichan people lived there for about 600 years and then used the area as a burial ground for another 600 years. They have found tools that originate from the Fraser Valley and even jade tools that come from the Fraser Canyon and sharp cutting rocks that originate from as far away as Oregon, which speaks to the flourishing trade routes that existed among all the different nations in the Pacific Northwest.

We can go out near Salt Spring Island to Grace Islet. We had some controversy there about three to four years ago when someone was trying to build a house on the island, even though there was knowledge that there were at least 15 different individual burial sites marked by cairns there. It was only through intervention by the Government of B.C. that the construction on that island was stopped. It is now under the protection of the Nature Conservancy, which is working with local first nations to preserve the area and to bring it back to its natural state.

I look at Galiano Island, specifically the campground at Montague Harbour, that is sitting on an old midden heap, where for thousands of years all of the clamshells were deposited. We are talking about hundreds of years of clamshells being deposited in one area and all of the various tools that were used to harvest them.

I have a friend who is an archaeologist by profession. I remember one year, when we were camping at Montague Harbour, being able to walk down the beach. Pretty much every couple of minutes, she was pointing out different stone tools. Once we got an eye for them, we could see them everywhere. They were pieces of rock that had been hit upon with different instruments to make them into different cutting surfaces, and they are everywhere.

We derive a lot of education from museums around the world. We would not know about some of the long lost civilizations such as the Sumerians, ancient Babylonia and the ancient pharaohs in Egypt if it were not for museums. They serve a purpose. The main difference, when we are talking about first nations cultural pieces and tools, is that they are not gone. They are still with us. In fact, I attended the elders gathering, which the Cowichan hosted in British Columbia this year, and the main theme was “We are still here”.

We know that most indigenous ethnology collections found in Canadian and foreign museums in universities today were taken by missionaries, government agents, amateur and professional collectors and anthropologists and that that was done without the informed or prior consent of the people. It was theft, and in many cases the stealing of these tools and ceremonial devices was a way to crush their culture, to try to take away their traditions and try to subsume those nations into the white person's culture, as we have tried to do so many times in this country. That is the main difference.

I am really happy that the member has brought forward this bill. If I could offer some constructive criticism, I would point out that when we look at the language in the bill, we still see words like “encourage”, “support” and “provide”. We could have used more forceful language to bring this bill into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That said, it is good to see that the minister will have to report to Parliament because of clause 4. It remains to be seen how well the government provide funding as a result of legislation, but I certainly hope, if this bill does make it to royal assent and becomes one of the statutes of Canada, the government would see fit to take this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

I mentioned the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is important to highlight that because the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has spent a large part of his life working on this particular issue. Everyone in the House can take great pride in Bill C-262, which seeks to bring the laws of Canada into harmony with the United Nations declaration. The fact that government members and a majority of members in the House voted for the bill and sent it off to the other place represents a very historic moment. If Parliament, both the House of Commons and the Senate, and later the Crown represented by the Governor General, assent to this particular piece of legislation, a key article of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 12, reads as follows:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains.

2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned.

Bill C-262 was certainly the very important first step. If we agree to that bill as a whole, then we would be agreeing to article 12 as well. Bill C-391 would establish the framework for exactly how this is to be done.

There is always room for improvement in legislation, but I will commend the member for Cumberland—Colchester for his private member's bill reaching third reading stage. That is a rare feat. I appreciate the thought behind the bill and I will be voting to send it to the other place. I hope the hon. senators will give it their due consideration.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, we were really happy earlier this year when the member and the Liberal Party voted in favour of Bill C-262, which was brought forward by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. It essentially seeks to ensure that all of Canada's laws are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Of course, a big part of that is returning cultural property.

Does the member have any thoughts to share with the House on how his private member's bill can work with Bill C-262 and really advance the cause toward reconciliation?

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit, it is with some wariness that I rise today to speak to the motion moved by my Liberal colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country.

I would never want to give the impression of downplaying the importance of the subject of Motion No. 177 in any way. However, it seems to me that given the urgency of the needs in this area, it would have made more sense for the government to include a bill in its legislative agenda to address the concerns raised in Motion No. 177. Furthermore, the Liberal government's record over the past three years clearly demonstrates how important private members' bills and motions passed and adopted in the House of Commons, some of them unanimously, are to our Prime Minister and his team.

Let me remind members of a few examples. Perhaps the most recent one that comes to mind is the unanimous vote in the House of Commons to fully protect supply management. We saw how that turned out with the signing of the new agreement. That motion carried very little weight.

I could also mention Bill C-262, a bill proposed by my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, which is intended to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The legislation was passed by the House with overwhelming support, yet just a few days later, the Liberal government undermined the very spirit of the bill. Unless we get a real Liberal bill intended to fix a problem, I fear we will fall wide of the mark.

If there is one thing that will be obvious to Canadians by the next election, it is this government's paltry legislative track record. Setting aside its legalization of marijuana, its gifts to web giants, and its purchase of a pipeline that is a money pit, this government's accomplishments have been meagre, especially since it is on the wrong side of the fight against greenhouse gases.

Conversely, we could consider ourselves lucky to have a government that allows private members' bills to play a greater role in the political arena, enabling individual members to meet their constituents' expectations more effectively. However, as I just mentioned, there is a major disconnect between the role they are allowed to play and the results being achieved. Furthermore, we know the limitations of a bill or motion compared with a real government bill.

What is there to say about a motion calling for a study? While this is a legitimate issue, it could have been addressed in committee, where it would have received a positive response. This would have allowed us to make the most of our valuable time in the House. However, the government has made up its mind. Canadians will draw their own conclusions when the time comes, but for now, let us go ahead and debate Motion No. 177.

The motion asks that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be instructed to undertake a study of flight training schools in Canada and be mandated to do the following three things: to identify the challenges that flight schools are facing in providing trained pilots to industry, to determine whether the infrastructure available to flight schools meets the needs of the schools and the communities where they are located, and to present its final report no later than seven months after the adoption of this motion. I will come back to the second point a little later.

Although I support such a study, I believe there is a technical flaw in this motion. If we ask the committee to present its final report seven moths after the adoption of this motion, and I remind members that this is only the first hour of debate on the motion, then there is no way that the office of the Minister of Transport will be able to draft a bill before the next election, particularly since we have seen how slow the minister has been to act on other issues. I would like to remind members that people on the north shore, particularly in Trois-Rivières, have been waiting for 25 years for the train to come back. VIA Rail's high-frequency train proposal seems to have been languishing on the minister's desk or buried under a pile of studies that all say the same thing for several years now. Nonetheless, the minister is not taking a position.

Let us talk about the bypass that the people of Lac-Mégantic have been anxiously waiting for. There is an election coming up in 2019 and the bypass will not have been built.

What about a topic that was the subject of an interesting documentary on the JE news program on Sunday, namely the passengers' bill of rights, which everyone has been waiting for for ages?

The NDP proposed such a bill under the previous government even though it is clear even before anything has been tabled that it will be inferior to the one in European countries. It would seem that the government shifts the focus of most resolutions to the benefit of corporations rather than consumers.

These are just a few examples that make it hard for me to believe that we will be able to flesh out such an important issue.

Let me come back to the motion. As I was saying, I will support this motion and recommend to the members in my party that they do the same because this is very important.

The industry expects that by 2025, which is not long from now, we will need 7,300 new pilots. Fewer than 1,200 new licenses are issued every year, of which 45% are issued to international students. That does not take into account the fact that for undetermined reasons, which we might want to look into, 30% of these new pilots leave the profession or leave Canada to go work in China or the Middle East.

According to the Air Transport Association of Canada, there could be a shortage of 3,300 pilots in Canada by 2025.

The problem is even more complex than it would appear to be. Not only is there a shortage of students, but there is also a shortage of flight instructors because they are accepting lucrative offers from major carriers, which have been seriously impacted by the pilot shortage.

An adequate response to the problem can only be given with a more nuanced understanding of the issues plaguing this industry.

If we have questions about the causes of this shortage in a sector with generally good working conditions, we should first come to an understanding of the situation where, for example, there is significant inequality between male and female pilots before we propose measures to be implemented.

If our efforts were to give rise to recommendations for concrete measures that will mitigate or resolve the problem, this would automatically lead to an increase in students. More students means more training flights and perhaps more schools or schools that provide more hours, landings and takeoffs. The title “Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities” does make mention of “communities”.

I said that I would get back to the second point, which is to “determine whether the infrastructure available to flight schools meets the needs of the schools and the communities where they are located”.

Because these flight schools exist near urban communities, there are already questions about the effect of the noise associated with the frequent take-offs and landings and with loud, low-flying aircraft, which significantly diminish the quality of life of those living near these airports. With the agreement of my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country, and in the spirit of taking a holistic approach, I would like to propose a friendly amendment to include research on potential solutions to this issue in the study. The amendment could be something like:

iii) study the effects of noise pollution on public health

iv) that the government be more transparent in how it handles all the data collected

It goes without saying that I will support this motion and, as a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I look forward to working with all stakeholders to find concrete solutions to this whole issue, including the issue of noise for the people who live near these airports.

Natural Resources

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise this evening to speak to the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, a report on the future of and innovation in Canada's oil and gas sector. I will not comment on the arcane procedures and strategies in this place that see us debating a committee report a full two years after it was tabled in the House, but I am pleased to be able to take it off the shelf, dust it off and see what is in there, especially in light of more recent events.

The New Democrats submitted a supplementary opinion on the report when it was tabled, so I will be referencing that when I discuss some of our concerns. Our first concern was with the scope of the study and the subsequent report. We had hoped that there would have been a good discussion on the opportunities in other parts of the energy sector, a discussion about innovation, job opportunities, investments and particularly the emerging renewable energy industry. Renewable energy offers significant opportunities for the creation of good jobs in every community across Canada and much of what is happening there is the very definition of “innovation”, but, unfortunately, that topic was not included in the study.

During the study, committee members heard a lot about innovation in the oil and gas industry and some of it was truly encouraging. We heard from Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, COSIA. In the model that COSIA put forward, a group of private companies put aside the usual proprietary nature of research and information to create a true alliance in which all members have access to successful innovations that could result in oil extraction methods that are both more economical and better for the environment. That is really exciting to witness. Unfortunately, we heard that many of these innovations would only be implemented in new projects, projects that are waiting for higher oil prices before they will proceed. I truly hope that the COSIA model will be extended to other industry sectors because of the way it amplifies innovation through quick adoption throughout the sector.

I would also like to echo the sentiments of Gil McGowan, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, in that we have to be more than hewers of wood and drawers of water, that we need to develop value-added industries within the oil and gas and other resource sectors. He testified, “we should prioritize value-added development, because these kinds of investments not only create jobs directly in upgrading, refining, and petrochemicals but also create other jobs.” I would add that these investments create jobs that are not as subject to the volatility of global oil prices and create products that will be needed during our transition to a low-carbon economy.

We not only need to be innovative in how we extract and use resources, we need to be innovative in how we regulate the extraction of those resources. I think everyone here would agree that we now have a complete lack of public confidence in our energy regulation process. Nanos Research has published data showing that only 2% of Canadians think we are doing a good job in that regard.

Professor Monica Gattinger of the University of Ottawa testified before committee about her positive energy program, a research group dedicated to studying ways to depolarize the public debate around the oil and gas sector, particularly with regard to pipelines. The supplementary report states:

We believe it is essential that the lack of public confidence in the current environmental assessment process be addressed by permanent, meaningful changes to the National Energy Board process as soon as possible. New Democrats believe that the proposed interim measures introduced by the government are inadequate to address the results of a decade of Conservative dismantling of our environmental protection regime. We share the concern expressed by witness Professor Monica Gattinger that if the process goes ahead without the existing gaps being meaningfully addressed, the end result will further erode public confidence in the entire assessment regime.

The supplementary report goes on to say:

We are disappointed that the majority report fails to recommend a speedy review of the NEB process as this had been a clear electoral commitment of the new government. We are disappointed that the newly announced review panel process contains no timeline for actual legislative changes leaving the Conservatives inadequate process in place and creating uncertainty for all stakeholders. We recommend that the government move faster to make the necessary permanent changes to the NEB assessment process to restore public confidence and ensure that it is fair, neutral, science based and designed to meaningfully engage communities.

Where are we now? Shortly after this report was tabled in the House, the government granted permission for the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline to proceed, and a few weeks ago, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed those approvals. The court cited two significant failures: the government failed to consider the environmental impact of the project on coastal marine environment, and the consultations with first nations were completely inadequate. The government officials who met with first nations groups were mere note-takers who mistakenly believed that neither they nor cabinet had the authority to change the findings of the National Energy Board in the consultation process.

What did they think consultation was about? If they thought it was about noting the concerns of first nations and telling the first nations they had no power to change anything with regard to the pipeline, that is not consultation. Consultation is listening and then acting on concerns, trying to make accommodations.

Here is what our first supplementary report had to say about first nations consultation:

The Government must also act quickly to honour its obligations to a Nation to Nation relationship with Indigenous peoples including proper consultation and accommodation on all energy projects and the protection of Indigenous rights. During testimony, industry representatives were clear about the importance of fixing the consultation process sooner rather than later. The Government of Canada, as representative of the Crown, is responsible for these duties and while proponents of projects should be a part of this process, we believe these responsibilities should not be devolved to proponents to fulfill, as was too often the case under the former Conservative government. The Government must take a much larger, hands-on role in creating the environment in which meaningful consultation can take place.

The supplementary report goes on to support Bill C-262, which would ensure that federal legislation is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill was brought forward by our colleague in the NDP caucus, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. While we are happy to report that Bill C-262 has passed through the House of Commons, we were disappointed to see that its spirit was not included in Bill C-69, legislation that would implement changes to environmental assessment and energy regulation in Canada.

Here we are two years after this report was tabled. The NDP was criticized back then for its call to redo the Trans Mountain expansion process under a proper system. Critics said it would take too long, maybe another year or two. Here we are two years later back at square one. The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is a reminder that we have to put in the effort at the start. There are no shortcuts.

I mentioned Nanos Research earlier that noted the pitifully poor state of Canadians' confidence in our energy regulation system, but it did point out there was a way forward. The polling data demonstrated that if the Canadian government could show it was consulting properly with indigenous communities by asking local communities about these decisions and developing a meaningful consultation process, Canadians would have more confidence in the procedure. There is a way forward.

I just want to read out some of the testimony from a witness representing the Indigenous Health Alliance who criticized the National Energy Board in particular for not engaging indigenous peoples early enough in its regulatory approval processes. He recommended the following measures to improve indigenous community engagement, which come right out of the main body of the report we are discussing tonight:

Early engagement of indigenous communities in the NEB process—by involving indigenous communities in “the problems, solutions and implementation strategies of any resource development project at the earliest reasonable opportunity”;

Acknowledging the multidimensional nature of resource development issues—by recognizing that resource development projects involve broader considerations related to education, health, economic development, the environment, etc. He stated that a consultation process that does not acknowledge and address these issues clearly will ultimately fail to address the real problems;

Including community leadership, namely elders, in the decisionmaking process—by recognizing elders as a stakeholder group that should be directly involved in setting the project agenda;

Acknowledging that indigenous peoples are reasonable and pragmatic about resource development—they are likely to support approval processes that respect their community-based needs;

Involving communication and consultation experts—ones that could accurately interpret and convey community concerns to governments and project developers; and

Recognizing indigenous peoples as a “third level of government” in Canada—which is how they are functionally recognized by the court system.

We have significant natural resources in Canada and they have always been central to our country's wealth. However, we must ensure that these shared resources are managed in the best interests of all Canadians, with a focus on protecting the environment, ensuring meaningful consultation with affected communities and indigenous peoples and maximizing economic benefits.

Bills of Exchange Act

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, I too share and echo your sentiments vis-à-vis the people of Ottawa-Gatineau, as well as the first responders and all those who were involved in assisting the families who were deeply affected by the events of last Friday.

I am honoured to contribute to this debate. I am pleased to acknowledge that I do so on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

I thank the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for introducing this bill. I also thank her for her ongoing work to achieve reconciliation.

The idea behind this bill is to establish a national holiday that will allow Canadians to reflect upon and understand the long and painful history relating to indigenous people. The road to reconciliation between Canada and indigenous peoples requires all Canadians to understand our shared history and acknowledge past wrongs while creating a path forward. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action provide all Canadians with this renewed path forward for Canada's journey of healing and reconciliation.

This bill is inspired by call to action 80, which states:

We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to establish, as a statutory holiday, a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to honour Survivors, their families, and communities, and ensure that public commemoration of the history and legacy of residential schools remains a vital component of the reconciliation process.

That is why when the calls to action were released in June 2015, the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Liberal Party in opposition, immediately affirmed the unwavering support of the Liberal Party of Canada and our parliamentary caucus for all the TRC's recommendations and called on the Government of Canada to take immediate action to implement them. When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released its final report in December 2015, the Prime Minister then committed the Government of Canada to working “...in partnership with Indigenous communities, the provinces, territories, and other vital partners, we will fully implement the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

This past June, our government supported and passed Bill C-262, an act to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, also known as UNDRIP. In February, our government established a recognition of rights framework, which is a fundamental shift in approach between Canada and indigenous peoples. Today, there are over 60 rights recognition tables around the country that seek to advance the process of this recognition and ultimately self-determination.

Our Prime Minister noted earlier this year that reconciliation calls upon all of us to confront our past and commit to charting a brighter, more inclusive future. We must acknowledge that centuries of colonial practices have denied the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. The recognition and implementation of indigenous rights will chart a new way forward for our government to work with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples to undo decades of mistrust, poverty, broken promises and injustices.

We have listened and learned, and we will work together to take concrete action to build a better future and a new relationship. Over the past three budgets, the government has invested significantly to advance the implementation of the calls to action and to support the crucial work with our indigenous partners to identify and address joint priorities. In fact, progress has already been made on over 80% of the calls to action under federal and/or shared responsibility. However, we know that more must be done and that we need to be held accountable for advancing this crucial work.

The National Council for Reconciliation's interim board of directors presented its final report to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on June 12. According to the final report, setting up a national council for long-term reconciliation with adequate funding and enabling legislation is important for indigenous peoples, Canadians and the government. The council will have to report periodically to ensure ongoing oversight and accountability on implementing the Truth and Reconciliation's calls to action.

The National Council for Reconciliation's mandate will be to advance reconciliation efforts through the development and implementation of a multi-year national action plan for reconciliation.

The conclusion of the final report makes the following poignant observation:

We believe that hope is the first step in reconciliation. We believe hope is the basic building block upon which reconciliation must lay its foundation. We must plant and nurture seeds of hope in Indigenous communities and in the greater Canadian public. Hope gives us the belief that all action matters, no matter how small and no matter by whom. With trust, Canadians and Indigenous peoples can work together on building a new future, a better future. It all begins with hope.

We also need all Canadians to know what progress is being made.

The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has opened the eyes of many Canadians to the horrific truths of residential schools.

The Indian residential school system was a systematic plan to remove indigenous children from their homes, families and cultures to facilitate the stated policy of “killing the Indian in the child.”

During my tenure on the indigenous affairs committee, we heard from so many survivors of the residential school system. The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has shared his experience with all of us and has educated all of us in the House of his time in residential schools. Survivors like him continue to educate all Canadians of our past but equally, inspire us to do better.

All Canadians have a responsibility to educate themselves about this dark chapter of our shared history and work toward repairing the intergenerational damage caused by this appalling policy.

This is why our government is unequivocally committed to the implementation of the TRC calls to action and will be supporting sending this legislation to committee for further study.

"Reconciliation is not an Aboriginal problem; it is a Canadian one." These are words from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report and words that the member from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River quoted in her speech when she introduced the bill that we are debating today. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.

Healing the damage of residential schools will require the sustained action of not only involved governments, but other institutions and all Canadians.

The need to achieve reconciliation is a fundamental truth and is beyond partisan politics. That is why I am so pleased that the recent motion put forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay calling on the Pope to implement call to action 58 and issue an apology on behalf of the Catholic Church to residential school survivors, their families and communities passed with the overwhelming support of the House.

We look forward to working across party lines to ensure that this legislation fulfills call to action 80 and reflects the “collaboration with aboriginal peoples” contained in its text.

Together, we will chart a path forward that advances reconciliation and builds a stronger future for indigenous peoples and Canadians alike.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the Chamber today after a lovely summer being back with the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, all the way out on the west coast, and beautiful Vancouver Island. It was a fantastic summer spent in all of my various communities, really getting some great feedback on what they see as their priorities.

It is interesting that the first item on the government's agenda today is the debate on Bill C-79, the bill that is going to implement the CPTPP, which stands for the comprehensive and progressive agreement for the trans-Pacific partnership.

Right off the bat, I really want to acknowledge the incredible work that has been done by my colleague, the member for Essex, who stands as our international trade critic, and is one of the vice-chairs on the Standing Committee on International Trade. She and I are both from the class of 2015, and for her to take on such a complex and difficult file and deliver on it with such amazing grace and knowledge, she has served our caucus and, indeed, so many Canadians, very well on this file. I want to acknowledge the work that she is doing.

When we look at this, it is just a revision of the old trans-Pacific partnership, but the Liberals have decided to add two words, or have managed to get a lot of people to add the two words. In the course of the debate in support of this agreement, Liberals are relying heavily on the power of adjectives for this agreement to look good for Canadians.

Let us look at the first word “comprehensive”, which we can define as including nearly all elements of the aspects of something. If we really dig down, I do not think the agreement is quite as comprehensive as the Liberals would like to make it out to be. There are significant shortfalls in labour agreements and in environmental protection. There is no mention whatsoever of indigenous rights. There are significant gaps, despite the Liberals' attempts to paint this as a comprehensive agreement.

The second word is “progressive”. As I will lay out in the course of my speech, this agreement is really going to make a mockery of that word and the Liberals' attempts to really hoodwink us with that particular word.

New Democrats have long been concerned about the secrecy that surrounds both the TPP and the CPTPP negotiations. Despite the promises by the Liberal government to be transparent on trade deals, we have continued to get vague updates and mixed messages. In fact, it was during the 2015 federal election that the Prime Minister stated:

The government has an obligation to be open and honest about the negotiation process, and immediately share all the details of any agreement. Canadians deserve to know what impacts this agreement will have on different industries across our country. The federal government must keep its word and defend Canadian interests during the TPP’s ratification process – which includes defending supply management, our auto sector, and Canadian manufacturers across the country.

As I am going to lay out, it is precisely those sectors that are going to be negatively impacted by this agreement. We see this time and again in this place. As the Liberals come out with their words, their actions always, and sometimes very consistently, fail to meet up with those words.

Just for the benefit of my constituents back home, the CPTPP is a new agreement. It is slightly newer than the older version. It is an agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

The negotiations for this agreement began in 2005 and concluded in October 2015. Countries did come in at various stages. Canada, unfortunately, was pretty late to the game, which the member for Essex has correctly identified as something that sort of eroded our ability to be a key player and to get some key provisions into the agreement.

I hear a lot of talk in this chamber about how important free trade is. It is important to note that we already have free trade agreements in place with South Korea, Chile, and Peru, and course with Mexico through the North American Free Trade Agreement. Some of the major players within this agreement are already covered by bilateral free trade agreements with Canada. Those are moot points right there.

The agreement was officially signed by the minister on February 4, 2016. The plans for it were disrupted with the election of United States President Donald Trump, who withdrew the United States from the agreement in January 2017. In January of this year, the 11 remaining countries agreed upon a revised TPP and renamed it with the two adjectives I mentioned.

The government has always made much about consultations. The consultations really were kind of downloaded on the Standing Committee on International Trade. That committee held dozens of sessions. It heard from more than 400 witnesses and received written comments from more than 60,000 Canadians, and I should note that 95% of those were against the agreement. The Liberals had promised that they would consult with the public, but again, those consultations were downloaded on the Standing Committee on International Trade, a body, like all committees, that has very limited resources to hold the kinds of meaningful consultations that we expect in an agreement of this size.

When the committee travelled to a few different locations, translation services were not really up to par and the testimony was not transcribed for the record, which is problematic when a committee needs to look at witness testimony, because it has to rely on written notes. However, it is important to note that in cities like Montreal, 19 out of 19 public presenters were opposed and in Quebec City, there were three out of three. Receiving 8,000 written submissions and struggling to translate them does not add up to meaningful consultation. It would have been better if the executive branch of the government had launched the consultations and used the resources available to its various ministries for meaningful consultations with all of the affected sectors.

The most interesting statistic to me is that with the submissions that were received by Global Affairs Canada, 18,000 Canadians wrote in and only 0.01%, two people out of those 18,000 submissions, were in support of the TPP. That is a pretty abysmal rate of success if we go by these things.

The member for Essex has gone over this, but it is really important to reiterate what New Democrats' major concerns are with this agreement, because it is not simply about trade. These agreements cover so many different areas and chief among them are our concerns with labour standards and human rights. I will start with labour.

If we hold up the provisions that protect labour and help investors, they are really not equal at all. If someone has a complaint with labour practices, the CPTPP obliges the complainant to basically prove that a member country has not enforced its own labour laws, but then it also has to show that the violation has had an impact on trade. Therefore, the burden of proof is so ridiculously unattainable that there has actually not even been one successful labour complaint. This is very troubling, because if we look at some of the member countries that are involved in this, we see that there are labour standards in Vietnam, which we have some serious concerns with and Mexico has been implicated in a number of human rights violations. There are countries with very differing standards compared to what we in Canada or in Australia, South Korea, Japan and New Zealand are used to, and yet we are bringing these countries into an agreement. We are essentially rewarding them with trade with Canada, but not asking them to bring their standards up.

The language on the labour standards is essentially unchanged from the old TPP, which, as I pointed out in my introduction, does make a mockery of the word “progressive”. One case I want to cite is the decision that was made with respect to a dispute between the United States and Guatemala. A panel of arbitrators found that no documented labour violations in Guatemala, including the murder of a union organizer, had occurred in a manner affecting trade. If a union organizer in some of these countries is murdered or tries to implement a strike to get better working conditions for their families, the arbitration most likely will find that it did not have an impact on trade and, therefore, is not covered under this kind of agreement.

As I mentioned there are some serious and systematic violations of labour and human rights that have occurred in Mexico and Vietnam and in some other countries. I just want to point out that in Vietnam in 2011, Human Rights Watch released a pretty shocking report on how drug addicts in that country were basically forced to do labour as a part of their sentences. In some cases, we have had multinational companies who have been soliciting their products from this forced labour. If that kind of a condition were to exist in Canada, we would absolutely be up in arms. It is a practice that rightfully belongs in history, and I believe that most Canadians, if they were to hear of it, would be rightly incensed.

We know of documented testimonies by people in these forced labour camps. When they refused to do the work, they were subject to beatings and all kinds of abuse. These are the kinds of things that Canadians are concerned about. We want to know how other countries practice human and labour rights when we sign free trade deals. They are important to us. They are important to our values and we want to see them reflected in our foreign policy.

The other country I really want to highlight is Brunei, because prior to 2014, homosexuality was illegal and punishable there by up to 10 years of imprisonment. However, the law was changed in that year and homosexuality can now be punishable to death by stoning. Brunei is one of the signatory countries of this agreement and yet we like to stand up here and talk about how progressive the agreement is. However, one of the member countries that we are granting access to our economy, Brunei, still has such a terrible way of dealing with a right that we cherish in this country and that we, as parliamentarians, have stood in this place time and time again to defend.

Canadians want to know if these are the types of countries we want to reward with trade with Canada. I think if another country is going to trade with one like ours and to get access to our economy and the amazing workforce and products that we have, if they want to sell their products here, they have to demonstrate a certain commitment to basic fundamental human values. I think that should be a starting point.

Yes, we in the NDP do have problems with this agreement because it is not just about trade. It is about the behaviours that exist in the countries that we are seeking to build partnerships with.

Let me move on to the other rights, to the indigenous and environmental rights. Climate change is arguably the biggest issue of the 21st century and we do not see a single mention of it in this. It is going to have ramifications for everyone on this earth. We all share the same planet. How are we going to lead our lives? The way we meet the challenge is going to chart the course of the 21st century. For countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Mexico, which have pretty huge impacts on climate change by virtue of their emissions, this would have been a perfect opportunity to hammer that out.

As well, for a government that likes to proclaim time and time again that no relationship is more important to it than first nations, why is there no mention of indigenous rights in this? Each of the member countries has significant indigenous populations. If we are serious about implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this should be a starting point for our international relations. This is something we should be promoting, something we should take seriously, because I can tell my colleagues that first nations, Métis and Inuit across this country are watching the government. Yes, the words are welcome, the commitments are welcome, but these have to be followed up with meaningful action. We are seeing time and time again that they are failing.

Let us look no further than when we were here in the spring. It was fantastic to see the Liberal government join our NDP members to ensure the passage of Bill C-262. However, when it came to the moment when the rubber met the road and we were, via the member for Edmonton Strathcona, to insert language in Bill C-69 that would live up to the aspirations of that bill, the Liberals rejected every single one of those amendments. Again, words are fine, commitments are fine, but at some point Canadians are going to ask, where are the actions that have met up with your commitments?

The Liberals will say a lot about the side letters that covered some of those things, but as the member for Essex rightly pointed out, the side letters are not enforceable unless they are specifically referenced in the text. Furthermore, if the content of the side letters were so important and meaningful, why did we not make the effort to get them included in the main agreement?

I also want to talk about the investor-state dispute settlement process, because it is one of the most egregious things that has remained in this agreement and something we have major problems with. Giving rights to corporations to basically come after rightfully and democratically elected local governments, as well as provincial governments and even the federal government, basically makes this an instrument to rein-in democracy. We believe that our ability to make public health laws and laws on how we want to protect our local environment should not be superceded or challenged by international corporate interests, full stop. I think most Canadians would agree with that statement. It is basically a tool for big businesses to make governments pay when they regulate.

If we look at all of the federal statutes that exist on the books, at all of the areas where the minister is given powers to regulate, regulations that are changed from time to time and put in the Canada Gazette for consultation periods, what is going on behind those closed-door meetings between industry stakeholders, international industry stakeholders and ministers? Are threats being made that if we go ahead with a certain regulation, they are going to sue us? I think there is a lot of evidence on that. We know that with the investor-state dispute mechanisms, we have seen claims against states explode. In the mid-1990s there were a few dozen. Nowadays, we are up to almost 600 known cases. It is one of those graphs that is going to continue to go up, and the more we put this kind of provision into our trade agreements, the more multinational companies will use it and challenge the democratic and sovereign rights of local governments to make laws for their citizens.

I will conclude by talking about agriculture, and specifically supply management. I want to acknowledge that the Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canola Council of Canada are going to benefit from this agreement. I am very happy they are. If we survey the votes in this place, we know that the Liberals and Conservatives are going to pass this agreement. However, the problem I have is with the repeated times Liberal ministers stand in this place to talk about defending supply management. I have in my hands quotes from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, and the Egg Farmers of Canada that unanimously condemn the government for the concessions it is making in the supply-managed sectors.

These sectors have good-paying, family farms that are often the cornerstone of small communities like mine in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. The supply-managed system has enabled them to weather the shocks of international pricing or domestic pricing. One of the key components of that system is our import controls. However, when we start carving away these little niches, especially when Canadians have expressed the desire to have local dairy products, eggs, and chicken, we are undermining the basic unit of what goes on in many parts of rural Canada. I take issue with the Liberal government standing up time and time again saying it supports supply management but not following through with actions.

Canadians expect better when their governments are signing these kinds of trade deals. They expect that our values will inform how the government negotiates these agreements, and when the government actually talks about labour standards, human rights, environmental standards, and indigenous rights that it is actually going to follow through, and that it has some kind of an enforcement mechanism. These are all very sadly lacking in this agreement. It makes a mockery of the word “progressive”, and that is why I will stand united with my NDP caucus to voice our concerns and vote against this agreement.

Impact Assessment Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the question posed by my colleague, and it has to do with UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Implicit in that is free, prior, and informed consent. That is an element that we in the Conservative Party have some serious concerns about because of the possibility of it being interpreted as being an absolute veto right.

However, in the last election, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he would incorporate UNDRIP into all legislation in Canada. In fact, earlier this year, there was a vote in the House on Bill C-262, a bill from the NDP, which agreed that UNDRIP would be incorporated into all government legislation.

At the amendment stage of Bill C-69, the NDP and the Green Party brought forward 25 different amendments asking the Liberal government to incorporate UNDRIP in the legislation, as it promised during the election campaign. On 25 different occasions, the Liberal government and the Liberal members of that committee voted no. They opposed the inclusion of UNDRIP.

Why would Liberal members of the committee vote against UNDRIP 25 times, when the Liberal government made such a clear commitment to incorporate it?

Opposition Motion—Leadership on Climate Change and Clean Energy

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy with the role the people of Winnipeg Centre played in ensuring that Bill C-262 was actually passed in the chamber, because they were great advocates, advocating not only to me but to other members of the chamber.

We are spending $5.7 billion over 12 years on the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, including $2 billion for the low-carbon economy fund, ensuring that Canada's communities are healthy and productive places to live. It includes investments of over $5 billion over five years toward infrastructure projects that protect communities and support Canada's ongoing transition to a clean-growth economy. We are supporting clean technologies and accelerating clean technology company growth by providing over $2 billion—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for outlining things we can do and are doing. However, I also want to follow up on the question my friend from Abbotsford just asked that was not answered. He stated clearly that the government is falling well below its target of reducing emissions by 30%. It was a commitment it made. In fact, it still has not told us its plan. It has not presented a plan on how it is going to achieve its target. In fact, it is going the other way. The Liberals made a promise that they were going to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, but instead, they bought a pipeline. It completely contradicts everything he just said.

My friend from Abbotsford outlined where we are going. We are going in the other direction. I appreciate the member's comments, but we still have not heard what the real plan is. My friend voted in support of my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou's bill, Bill C-262, to protect the rights of indigenous peoples through UNDRIP, and still the government is picking and choosing the nations it wants to apply that to. Instead, it is running roughshod over nations that are against the pipeline.

Could the member explain how the government believes it is okay to run roughshod over the rights of individual nations that have opposed this project and how he can justify the government supporting Bill C-262 as well.

Report Stage

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not agree with the Conservatives around this legislation. We are trying to restore and implement things they cut when they were in government that did not protect our salmon.

The member has raised a valid concern about consultation with indigenous people. The letter I have from the Ha'wiih, the hereditary chiefs of the Nuu-chah-nulth people, is because they have not been adequately consulted around the bill. They have brought forward their concern that they “may” be consulted instead of “shall” be consulted. That is a huge concern. It flies in the face of Bill S-262 that was recently passed, which was put forward by my colleague around applying UNDRIP. I am calling on the government to change the wording of that.

The government is currently fighting the Nuu-chah-nulth people in court. The government has repeatedly fought the nation in court, and the judge has ordered the government to get to the table and negotiate responsibly. It has not done that. It is carrying on the same policies from the Harper government in the past. The Liberal government has failed to sit down and have meaningful dialogue with the nation and negotiate fairly. It was in the recent judgment with the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ahousaht et al v. Canada, that the government had done everything it could to stymie negotiations.

If the government is going to honour and respect indigenous peoples, it should get to the table and negotiate with the Nuu-chah-nulth, who have won repeatedly in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Canada needs to stop fighting indigenous people in court and show respect.

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague indicated, last week the Liberals voted for a piece of legislation, Bill C-262, to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In that bill, they made very specific commitments, especially around article 19, under which laws of general application would receive free, prior, and informed consent from first nations.

Does my colleague believe that the Liberals, in turning down those amendments, were living up to the spirit of the vote that took place last week?

I also want to note that there is another member from British Columbia in the chamber tonight.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to be one of the British Columbians to whom my friend referred. It seems this is a fully British Columbian night.

I am proud to speak in support of Bill C-68. I want to salute the enormous work and contribution made by our fisheries critic, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. This bill goes a long way toward restoring lost protections to the Fisheries Act and introducing some modern safeguards.

We believe that the legislation to restore the HADD prohibition, which is the prohibition against harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction, should have been introduced immediately following the last federal election. Then we could have been working together to modernize the act from there. However, we did not see that from the Liberals. Therefore, the modernization that we could have supported earlier took a bit of time to get in place, and of course we still have to enact it. I believe that Bill C-68 is okay, although it could have been a lot better, for reasons I will explain.

We introduced a series of amendments to further strengthen the Fisheries Act. Although we were successful in seeing a couple of them pass, the ones that were defeated were also important, for reasons I will come to. They would have strengthened the act and had positive impacts on the health and sustainability of the fish populations and their habitats for generations to come.

Bill C-68 restores much of what was lost under the changes made by the previous Conservative government in 2012, and it introduces a number of positive provisions that we support. I would like to talk about those before I come to some of the deficiencies, in our view.

First, returning the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat, and its applicability to all native fish and fisheries, as well as the prohibition on causing death of fish by means other than fishing, were critical. The fact that they were restored is an excellent feature of this bill.

Second, including in the act key provisions to strengthen how it is interpreted is important, such as a purpose statement, along with considerations for decision-making and factors to inform the making of regulations under this bill that reflect key sustainability principles.

Third, the bill introduces provisions that address the rebuilding of depleted fish populations. We talked about that earlier.

Fourth, it would establish a public registry to support the assessment of cumulative effects and to enhance the transparency of decision-making.

Fifth, strengthening provisions with respect to ecologically significant areas would move us from concept to action, at last.

Sixth, there is greater recognition of indigenous rights and knowledge, particularly in light of the historic commitment of the House in Bill C-262 to enshrine the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Finally, the fact that there is going to be a statutorily mandated review every five years is also an important evergreen provision in this bill.

The bill was amended at committee. One of the important amendments was the rebuilding of fish stocks section, because the core function of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is to manage our fish populations for the long term so that we have a sustainable fishery. That is what this is all about. If they are not at a sustainable level, we will not be able to allocate the fish because we will not have the fish to allocate. That is obviously important. For the first time in 150 years, Bill C-68 recognizes the importance of rebuilding overfished stocks by creating a legal duty to develop plans aimed at moving stocks out of a critical zone. I think that this is really important, if, as I suggested earlier, regulations are actually made to do the work that is necessary.

These are welcome and long overdue. I think we have to be sober about the state of our fisheries. Since 1970, over half of the biomass of our fisheries has disappeared. By some estimates, only slightly more than one third of our stocks are still considered healthy in this country. At least 21 of Canada's fish stocks are in the critical zone, and our fishing industry is precariously balanced on the continued abundance of only a few species.

Therefore, these changes are important, and I salute the government for bringing them in. However, I also have to flag some concerns. First, the minister can make exceptions to these requirements under certain conditions. We have to make sure that this discretion to exempt fish stocks does not get abused. Second, the law only applies to what are defined as “major fish stocks”, a phrase that will only be defined in future regulations. This creates a situation in which the government could circumvent the intent of the legislation by dragging its heels indefinitely on adding fish stocks to the regulations, thereby not requiring sustainable management measures or a rebuilding plan. These concerns were raised by my colleague at the fisheries committee, and I want to put them on the record again this evening.

The NDP introduced a number of amendments to Bill C-68, 22 of them to be exact. A few of those improvements are still valid. First, the NDP submitted amendments to broaden the information base so that the public registry captures all projects, and to ensure compensation for the residual harm to fish habitat caused by small or low-risk projects. Those amendments, unfortunately, were defeated.

Second, explicit protection for environmental flows and fish passages was an issue, and we proposed amendments to strengthen those provisions for the free passage of fish and for securing the environmental flows needed to protect fish and fish habitat. I am happy to say they were passed at committee and are part of the bill.

Third, I have already alluded to the recognition of indigenous rights and knowledge. The committee heard testimony, for example, from Matt Thomas of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. New Democrats believe that reconciliation should be a part of all legislation. A true nation-to-nation relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples, consistent with our Constitution, should be fully embraced and reflected in the Fisheries Act. The amendments along those lines were defeated.

Fourth, on measures to increase transparency and accountability, the committee heard eloquent testimony from Linda Nowlan from West Coast Environmental Law, who made some great suggestions to increase transparency and accountability. The NDP made amendments to that effect, but they were all defeated.

Fifth, provisions to apply owner-operator and fleet separation policies to all coasts were proposed. Some of the most compelling testimony we heard was from young fishers from the west coast, and yet the section in the act talks about an independent inshore commercial fishery as being in “Atlantic Canada and Quebec”. Canada's New Democrats fully support putting owner-operator and fleet separation policies in the Fisheries Act, but we wonder why we did not do the same thing for our Pacific coast. First nations and independent fishermen on the west coast want the same policy as Atlantic Canada. New Democrats moved an amendment to open that door, but the door was closed and the amendment was defeated.

I want to make one further point before I conclude. We support the bill. We recognize the need to protect fish habitat, but I cannot let the opportunity go by of talking about the impact that the Kinder Morgan, now Government of Canada, tanker project will have, and the possibility of its destroying, with a devastating spill of diluted bitumen, the essential habitat and aquatic ecosystems that our fish depend on.

Impact Assessment Act

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise here today to speak to Bill C-69, one of the most important attempts to modernize our environmental protection laws in Canada.

In large part, I think it was meant to deal with some of the actions of the Conservative government, which gutted a lot of our environmental protection laws in the previous Parliament through changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, et cetera. We dealt with fisheries in Bill C-68, but Bill C-69 is an answer to try to fix some of the other acts that were radically changed by the previous government.

I have to say, off the top, how disappointed I am that the government not only brought in this bill as an omnibus bill, a huge bill, well over 300 pages long, but it moved time allocation in the first debate after only two hours. It moved time allocation on the bill yesterday as well. This is a bill that really should get full debate. I am disappointed that not only did the government move time allocation, but it took so long to bring in this bill.

The NDP originally asked the Speaker to rule this an omnibus bill so that we could deal with it separately. The government agreed that we could vote on the navigable waters section separately. We also asked that the bill be split up for committee study. The first section, on the impact assessment, is ideally suited for study by the environment committee. The central part, which deals with the National Energy Board and the Canadian energy regulator, belongs with the natural resources committee. The navigation protection section, obviously, should have gone to the transport committee.

That division of labour would have provided for a thorough and efficient study. Instead, the whole bill was thrust onto the environment committee, where, with impossible deadlines, many important witnesses could not testify. I was contacted early on by a consortium of Canadian scientists who had studied this and wanted to present evidence before the committee. This was not a single scientist; these were a lot of the important environment scientists in Canada. They were denied access to the committee simply because, I imagine, there were too many witnesses trying to testify before the committee in those tight timelines.

At committee, the NDP submitted over 100 amendments, none of which were accepted. Tellingly, the government submitted over 100 amendments of its own. This tells me that the legislation was clearly rushed into the House and should have been written with more care.

The Liberals are hashtagging this bill #BetterRules, but the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the legal experts who arguably know more about this subject than most Canadians and most politicians, has said that this legislation in neither better, nor rules.

I will quote from a briefing note prepared by Richard Lindgren of the Canadian Environmental Law Association:

[T]he IAA is not demonstrably “better” than CEAA 2012. To the contrary, the IAA replicates many of the same significant flaws and weaknesses found within the widely discredited CEAA 2012....

[T]he IAA does not establish a concise rules-based regime that provides clarity, consistency, and accountability during the information-gathering and decision-making process established under the Act. Instead, the key stages of the proposed impact assessment process are subject to considerable (if not excessive) discretion enjoyed by various decision-makers under the IAA.

At the most fundamental level, for example, it currently remains unclear which projects will actually be subject to the IAA.... [It] contains no benchmarks or criteria to provide direction on the type, scale, or potential effects of projects that should be designated under the new law.

I would like to spend a little while speaking more to the second part of the bill, the energy regulator section.

This section disbands the National Energy Board and creates a new but rather similar body called the Canadian energy regulator. The section opens with a preamble and a statement of purpose. Surprisingly, in this day and age of a brave new world of energy, neither makes reference to linkages between energy and climate. In fact, there is no mention at all of climate in this entire section.

Much of the public work of the old NEB was about regulating pipelines. One could easily come to the conclusion that this is a case of closing the barn door after the horses have left, since it seems unlikely that the new regulator will ever have to review an application for a major new oil pipeline.

The Minister of Natural Resources has risen countless times in this place declaring that the government has restored confidence in the energy regulation system, and that is why the Kinder Morgan pipeline can be built. Unfortunately, he is deeply misinformed.

A couple of months ago, I met with Dr. Monica Gattinger of the Positive Energy group at the University of Ottawa, who studies this very issue of public confidence in energy issues, and Nik Nanos, whose polling firm had asked Canadians about that confidence. Perhaps not surprisingly, Mr. Nanos found that public confidence in the Canadian energy regulation system was at an all-time low. If we thought it was low during the Harper government, it has continued to decline, and now only 2% of Canadians have strong confidence in the energy regulation system. That lack of confidence is shared by members of the public on both sides of the issue: it is lowest in both Alberta and British Columbia. It results in situations like the Kinder Morgan impasse. I should mention that the last time I heard the minister speak on this subject, he did admit that confidence was suddenly a problem in this area.

The Liberals promised during the last election to put the Kinder Morgan proposal through a new, stronger review system, but instead sent a three-member ministerial panel on a quick tour along the pipeline route, giving communities, first nations, governments, and the concerned public almost no advance warning to prepare their presentations. No record was made of the proceedings.

Despite the serious shortcomings of this process, the panel came up with six questions that it said the government would have to answer before making its decision about Kinder Morgan. I will mention only the first three.

First, can the construction of the Trans Mountain expansion be reconciled with Canada's climate commitments?

Second, how can pipeline projects be properly assessed in the absence of a comprehensive national energy strategy?

Third, how can the review of this pipeline project be squared with the government's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

I would suggest that none of these questions was answered, even in part, before the government made its decision to approve the Kinder Morgan expansion, and none of them were answered before the government bought the pipeline, which was actually the old pipeline. This leaves a lot of questions about how the government is to regulate itself in getting that pipeline built.

Amazingly, none of those questions are properly answered in the legislation before us, which comes two years after the Kinder Morgan decision. After the government has accepted Bill C-262, which calls for government legislation to be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there is no mention of this in the body of Bill C-69. Only after much pressure did the government agree to put it in the preamble, where it would have no legal effect.

We need to restore the confidence of Canadians in our energy regulatory system and in our environmental impact processes. Without that confidence, it will be increasingly difficult for Canadian companies to develop our natural resources, which are at the heart of our national economy.

The Liberals continue to pretend they are doing good, but they are all talk and no action, or as we say in the west, all hat and no cattle. We need bold action to build a new regulatory system that gives voice to all concerned Canadians.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-69. It is an opportunity that unfortunately many colleagues in the House will not be able to have. We are currently debating it under time allocation, so we have a limit of five hours to debate it.

I want to walk the House through a little history lesson.

If we go back to the 2015 election, the Liberals, particularly the Prime Minister, made a lot of promises during that campaign. One of them was a repeated promise that if the Liberals were elected, they would immediately restore a strengthened federal environmental assessment process. They made a commitment that they would not approve any projects without first enacting that strengthened assessment process to ensure decisions were based on science, facts, and evidence, and that they would serve the public interest.

In fact, the Prime Minister made a visit to British Columbia. He came to Vancouver Island to the community of Esquimalt on August 20, 2015. People will know Esquimalt, because that is the home of the main Pacific naval base for Canada. He was asked specifically about the promise in the context of Kinder Morgan. He said, quite clearly, that the Kinder Morgan pipeline review process would have to be redone under stronger and more credible rules.

However, what we have before us today, with Bill C-69, is a gargantuan bill, clocking in at 364 pages. It is too little too late, because we are now debating a bill after the government has approved Kinder Morgan and after it has announced the purchase of the pipeline.

The bill comes to us roughly 28 months since the Liberals were elected. I have heard other members of Parliament express in this place that the bill should have gone to three separate committees. It should have gone to the transport committee, the natural resources committee, and the environment committee so each of those collective bodies, with the experience and knowledge that members attain while working on them, could have studied the constituent parts and called forth the appropriate witnesses.

Instead, one committee was entrusted to this monumental task, this herculean task. I know the efforts of the member for Edmonton Strathcona in listening to the evidence and in trying to put forward amendments to see that the bill lived up to the promises the Liberal government had made. Unfortunately, due to the time constraints and the Liberal members on the committee not really listening to her, most of those amendments were defeated, and here we are at the report stage of the bill.

I also want to go back to the time before Bill C-69 was introduced. The Liberals keep on saying that Kinder Morgan did go through a renewed review process. Well, let us just examine what they in fact set up.

The Liberals had set up what was known as a “ministerial review panel”. In fact, that panel admitted that it lacked the time, the technical expertise, and the resources to fill the gaps in the National Energy Board process. It ended up with little more than questions that remained unanswered. They kept no public records of hearings, admitted that the meetings were hastily organized, and confirmed that they had a serious lack of public confidence in the National Energy Board and its recommendations.

I attended one of those meetings when it came to Victoria. I remember the room unanimously coming out against Kinder Morgan. It was kind of a slapdash piece of work.

Despite all of the setbacks of the ministerial review panel, its members still came out and acknowledged that Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline proposals could not proceed without a serious reassessment of its impacts on climate change commitments, indigenous rights, and marine mammal safety. Therefore, they, in a sense, were acknowledging the huge problems that existed with this project.

The Liberals keep on openly wondering why there is such passionate opposition to this project, specifically in British Columbia where the risks are very much concentrated. It is because people did not have faith in the previous process. Many of them were lured to vote Liberal. They had hoped that the new Liberal government would actually live up to its promises.

Instead what they got was a ministerial review panel, judgment passed by the Liberal government before the facts, and now this bill, Bill C-69, which still has many problematic elements. One of the big ones is that the Minister of Environment will still have an arbitrary right to monitor environmental projects. It leaves them open to political influences instead of scientific evidence.

Governments come and go. We may have an environment minister in one government whom the public can trust and know that the person's heart is in the right place, but if a new government comes in that has completely different leanings and gives that kind of power to ministers, it can sway its decisions according to which way the political winds blow. That is not the way to enact strong, scientific, consensus-based decision-making.

I want to start framing this debate a bit more in the context of Kinder Morgan and the very fact that the government has made promises to get rid of subsidies to the oil and gas sector, that we are now last in the G7, and that the government has tried to strive to a 2025 goal.

The Liberals have paid $4.5 billion for a 65-year-old pipeline, one that exports diluted bitumen, and this is just the cost of the existing infrastructure and not of anything that will come from it. I hear members from all sides talking about a national energy strategy, but this pipeline serves foreign interests. It is not accumulating the best value for our product.

Diluted bitumen is the lowest grade of crude we can export. That is why it fetches the lowest prices. Expanding Kinder Morgan's capacity will not change the price. I see no incentive and I have seen no evidence that customers will be willing to pay more for the same product just because we can ship more volume. The existing pipeline exports 99% of it to California, so I would like to see evidence of all the buyers from Asia lining up at the door. They are currently not buying what Kinder Morgan is exporting today.

The Liberals like to use a favourite phrase that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. There are a few things that are wrong with this. It supposes that the environment and the economy are equal partners. That is not the case. I would argue that there is a relationship, but the economy is very much the junior partner. When we start affecting our environment, when we start polluting the waterways, and we see the effects of climate change, the economic ravages that can have far outweigh any of the benefits we can get.

There are economic opportunities in keeping in line with our environmental goals if we start to make the right investments into renewable energy. We have to see the way the world is going. This is 2018, and there is a trend. I want our country to take advantage of the economic opportunities of the 21st century economy, not invest in something that rightfully belongs in the 20th century.

Along the way, we have to be speaking to current energy workers. We have to ensure they come along with us. Everyone acknowledges that the oil sands will not stop production tomorrow, but we need to have a plan where we talk about the just transition of those workers to bring them with us into the new energy economy, so Canada is best placed for the 21st century.

I also want to talk about the Liberals' vote for Bill C-262 last week and how little those commitments mean this week.

The member for Edmonton Strathcona tried repeatedly, both at committee and now at report stage, to insert language into Bill C-69 that would live up to what Bill C-262 would do. Bill C-262 seeks to bring the laws of Canada into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If we look at all the report stage motions, we can see that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has tried to insert language in there that acknowledges the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and acknowledges the Constitution Act, 1982 and all of our commitments. I have been questioning Liberals repeatedly on this. Will they at least have some consistency and vote in support of those amendments, following their support for Bill C-262?

This bill is too little too late. There are gaps in it that we could drive a bus through. While we appreciate some elements of the bill, we have to look at the whole thing.

When it is this large, there are just far too many negatives. They outweigh the positives. That is why the NDP is going to withhold its support for the bill. We were hoping for a lot more, and frankly, so were the Canadian people.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-69. I want to take a moment to talk specifically about some of the deficiencies of the bill. Then I would like to talk a bit more about a general pattern of behaviour that the bill fits into, which is problematic in and of itself.

With respect to the bill, Canadians were upset with the previous government and its approach to environmental assessment, if we can call it that. The previous government really gutted the existing environmental assessment process. The key feature of that gutting in my opinion and the opinion of many Canadians across the country was that the Harper government essentially made the final approval of large natural resource projects a political decision at the cabinet table. It became a decision that was not inherently tied to evidence, to science, to predictable impacts with respect to the effect of these projects on the climate. It was not tied to the rights of indigenous peoples to have a say over what happens on their own land. It was simply a political decision to be taken by cabinet. Therefore, one would think that a party that ran against the Harper Conservatives, in part because the latter had gutted environmental assessments and the Liberals committed to Canadians in the election that they would fix that, would have to address the issue of that approval becoming essentially just a prerogative of the government to make according to its own reasons.

The problem with Bill C-69 is that after waiting well over two years for the government to present its fix to the Harper approach to approving these projects, the bill does not in fact do that. It maintains the absolute prerogative of the government to plow ahead, irrespective of the facts, the science on a particular project, or the views of many first nations that may be affected by a particular project. To me, that is a clear and obvious deficiency in the legislation. It does not meet the commitment the Liberals made in the last election to Canadians who are really concerned about this issue. One of the clearest and most obvious things those Canadians wanted was to try to depoliticize the approval process for many of these projects and to have decisions based on science and evidence. It was not to allow the government a choice as to whether or not to go along with the science and the evidence, but to bake it into the process so that the government would not have a choice other than make decisions based on that evidence, or to have an independent body make that decision based on that evidence and science. That is a clear deficiency with the bill, and one that is very disappointing.

With regard to the rights of indigenous people being respected in the approval of these kinds of projects, my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, presented a number of amendments that would not have put that commitment in the preamble alone, which is what the government ultimately decided to do. The government's decision to put that commitment in the preamble gives us a measure of how strong its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples really is, because the preamble is non-binding. That, of course, is the kind of commitment that Liberals seem to prefer, the non-binding ones. That was evidenced in their rejection of a number of amendments that would have given UNDRIP real force and effect in the environmental review process. Putting that commitment in the preamble does not give UNDRIP real effect. They are nice words, but they do not get the job done when we have a government that is not interested in respecting the rights of indigenous people. What indigenous people needed was something with the force of law that they could take to court when the government trampled on their rights. The Liberals opted not to do that, and it really does not do it a service to say that it was a missed opportunity.

It is wrong for them not to have done that. It is wrong in principle, but it is also wrong in light of the commitment they just made in voting in support of Bill C-262 last week, which is essentially all about trying to implement UNDRIP within Canadian law. It is wrong, according to the claims of the Prime Minister, who often says that the nation-to-nation relationship is one of the most important relationships.

In light of all those things, it was clearly wrong for the government to do that.

It is part of a theme on a number of files within the government, where the attitude is that we should just trust the government. The government admits there is a lot of discretion, but it says discretion allows it to do the right thing, and it wants to do the right thing. It does not think it has to put the right thing in law or require itself to do the right thing, because it really wants to do it, so we should just take its word for it. That is what is happening with Bill C-69. That is what it means to maintain ministerial prerogative to decide on a project regardless of the evidence.

We heard the minister say something to that effect in the debate on time allocation earlier, when she said that the government cares about science and evidence and therefore it does not need to put a requirement in the law to make decisions based on science and evidence. She said that if we wait and look at the decisions the government makes, we will see, in hindsight, that they were based on science and evidence.

I do not think that this is what Canadians were asking for when they elected a government that said it was going to create a new process based on science and evidence. It is a bad way of making law. It means that a future government that comes in will not be required to do that, just as the current government is not.

Frankly, I do not think the Liberals are really committed, in many cases, to evidence-based decision-making. They would not have bought a 65-year-old leaky pipeline for far more than it is worth if they were actually serious about making information-based decisions. We could go down that road, but even if we do not, it is very clear that if one's commitment is to build a good process, this process should not rely on the goodwill of the government of the day. It should be a process that requires the government of the day to do the right thing, notwithstanding who is in power. This bill obviously fails that test.

We saw something similar with Bill C-49 with respect to voice and video recording devices in locomotives. The government said that we need not worry because it has no interest in invading the privacy rights of workers, and that it would look after it, but without putting it into law; it would just put it in regulations. The government asked us, when voting on the legislation, to trust that it would do the right thing later in regulation.

Never mind the fact that even if the current government does the right thing, and we have not seen that yet, it is still up to some future government to simply change the regulations by order in council without coming to Parliament, because it is not in the law. I do not think the government has done any great favour to workers in that industry by setting up a law that could be so easily abused.

We have seen a similar thing from the government when it comes to approving funding for all its new budget initiatives for 2018-19. It is asking for approval of over $7 billion up front. Department officials and ministers have been very clear in committee that they do not actually have a plan for the money yet. They do not know what they are going to do with that money yet. They have not designed the program, and it has not been to the Treasury Board. They do not know how many people they are going to hire. They do not know whether they will build a building, rent an office, or use existing space. They do not know if they will be travelling across the country. The government does not know what it is going to be spending the money on, but its answer is clear: We should just trust it that things are going to work out and that everything will be okay.

Canadians are looking to the government for leadership on a number of issues, whether it be fiscal responsibility, or being open and accountable, or the very important issues that Bill C-69 is at least nominally meant to address. I have given some indication that I am not convinced it actually addresses those issues.

Regardless of the issue, when Canadians are looking for leadership, they are looking for legislation that holds the government to account. If the government of the day is sincere in giving its word, it should not mind being held to a higher standard, allowing Canadians to test that in court if they have to. Hopefully it will not come to that and the government will keep its word, which remains to be seen.

Canadians deserve to have the tools to hold the government to its word. They also deserve to have future governments bound by those things. At the very least, if a future government wants to change that, it should have to come to Parliament to make the case to Canada's elected representatives, instead of being able to do it fly-by-night through regulation. That is the problem with Bill C-69.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague his comments about Bill C-262 and how that will be reflected in Bill C-69.

As I stated in my comments today, we are dedicated to the idea of reconciliation, and not just the idea but actions of reconciliation. Through the amendments that were made, we have been able to reflect a commitment in the preamble to the legislation that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a key principle that needs to guide the legislation and how it is implemented.

Many pieces of the legislation deal with how indigenous knowledge will be used, how we will consult in a meaningful way with indigenous peoples. This really moves the principles and ideas of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples forward in a meaningful manner. I am quite happy that this is reflected here.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt at all the commitment of my fellow British Columbian across the way to indigenous rights. I have spoken to him privately about this.

What I am worried about, though, is the commitment of his government. I acknowledge that the Liberals did vote in favour of Bill C-262 last week, and I commend them for doing that.

Now we have an opportunity before us to put that vote into action with Bill C-69. The member will know that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has several report stage amendments on the bill. I will specifically reference Motions Nos. 12 and 13, which would insert language into Bill C-69 to recognize indigenous rights, and make specific reference to the Constitution of Canada and to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Will the member be consistent with his vote last week and vote in support of these report stage amendments so we can make the bill come into compliance, as per the instructions of Bill C-262, that the laws of Canada be brought into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? I would like to see the member's commitment, right here and now, to support these amendments.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight in support of Bill C-69. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinaabe peoples.

This bill provides the framework for a modern assessment process that would protect the environment, attract investment, and ensure that good projects go ahead in a timely way to create new jobs and economic opportunities.

Today, I am going to focus specifically on how it supports our government's commitment to reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples. Meeting this commitment is challenging, but it is also necessary. I will discuss how Bill C-69 would advance reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples. I will also describe what the government has heard from indigenous peoples in recent months, and how their input has helped strengthen this bill.

From the very beginning, our government has been clear that no relationship is more important to Canada than its relationship with its indigenous peoples. We committed to a renewed relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership as the foundation for transformative change, and we have taken important steps to fulfill that commitment.

In 2016, Canada announced its full support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without qualification, with a commitment to its full and effective implementation. This February, the Prime Minister announced that we will work in partnership with indigenous peoples to develop a new recognition and implementation of rights framework to realign the relationship between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples based on the UN declaration.

Development of the framework builds on steps we have already taken along this path. That includes launching a review of laws and policies to ensure that the crown is meeting its constitutional obligations with respect to aboriginal and treaty rights, guided by 10 principles rooted in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, guided by the UN declaration, and informed by the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

We have begun to make institutional changes to support the renewed relationship. In particular, we have announced the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and the creation of two new departments: Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. This will accelerate work already begun to renew the relationship with indigenous peoples and better enable them to build capacity that supports the implementation of their vision of self-determination.

We have announced our support for Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act, as a strong first step in the process of implementation. More legislation will be needed in order to fully implement the declaration in Canada. Our government has also made historic investments in indigenous education, health, infrastructure, and communities, including to improve primary and secondary education on reserve, improve health facilities, build housing, and ensure access to clean and safe drinking water.

Finally, recognizing that indigenous peoples have long been stewards of the environment and have knowledge of the land that spans generations, we continue to work closely with them as we take action to protect and enhance Canada's environment and respond to the threat of climate change.

Meaningful participation of indigenous peoples informed the development of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, and our government is working in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the Métis National Council to implement it. Given the indigenous coastal communities' deep ties to Canada's oceans, we are partnering with them to implement our $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, for example in developing training programs to increase the participation of indigenous community members and women in marine safety jobs.

Finally, the bill before us today is built on a foundation of engagement with indigenous peoples, along with industry, stakeholders, and a broad range of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

This bill is an important step, which would advance reconciliation and produce better project decisions by recognizing indigenous rights and working in partnership from the start. It would make it mandatory to consider indigenous knowledge alongside science and other evidence, including when the assessment is led by another jurisdiction.

Under the new impact assessment act, indigenous jurisdictions would also have more opportunities to exercise powers and duties, including taking the lead on impact assessments through substitution. Through measures such as the new early planning and engagement phase, the bill would ensure that indigenous peoples have opportunities to participate from the very beginning and throughout the assessment process.

Finally, it would place consideration of impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights at the centre of the decision-making process by including this as one of the key factors that must be taken into account when making a decision following an impact assessment.

Going forward, we are committed to working with indigenous peoples to define processes aimed at securing consent and collaborating with them as we develop regulations under this legislation.

Since the introduction of Bill C-69, our government has continued to engage with indigenous peoples at every opportunity. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development also heard testimony from a number of indigenous peoples and organizations during the study of the bill. In response to that testimony, the committee made several key amendments that enhanced the bill's potential to advance reconciliation and a renewed relationship.

Indigenous peoples have said that it is important that the bill fully reflect our government's commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Through amendments, the standing committee has ensured this commitment is at the forefront of the bill and will guide its implementation.

The bill now references the UN declaration in the preamble to both the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act. The purposes clause of the IAA now specifies that the government, the minister, the agency, and federal authorities will need to exercise their powers in a manner that respects the government's commitments with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples. Similarly, the mandate of the Canadian energy regulator would include exercising its powers in performing its duties and functions in the same way.

We have heard about the importance of taking a distinctions-based approach, one of the 10 key principles guiding our review of laws and policies. This is needed to ensure that the unique rights, interests, and circumstances of first nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples are acknowledged, affirmed, and implemented. In response to this feedback, the committee has amended the bill to ensure that membership of key committees under the legislation reflect a distinctions-based approach.

Indigenous peoples have told us that considering indigenous knowledge in impact assessments is critical. At the same time, they have called for better protection of this knowledge. The standing committee's amendments would strengthen both its use and protection of indigenous knowledge.

The bill would now require that assessment reports clearly show how indigenous knowledge has been taken into account. It also provides more safeguards across all acts to ensure appropriate protection for indigenous knowledge, while also recognizing that proponents may, at times, need to have access to it. Consultation would be required before indigenous knowledge could be disclosed, and ministers would then be able to place conditions on the disclosure of this information in light of those consultations.

In line with feedback from indigenous organizations, the committee has also clarified that indigenous knowledge would be considered, that this would not be limited to “traditional” knowledge of indigenous peoples.

Finally, throughout the bill, the committee has taken steps to further emphasize the commitment to meaningful participation in assessment processes for indigenous peoples as well as the public.

I am pleased to see that many of the amendments made by the standing committee directly respond to issues raised by indigenous peoples and will further ensure the bill can support reconciliation.

As I have described, our government is committed to advancing reconciliation and a renewed relationship in all of our actions, including this bill.

I want to recognize the contributions made to Bill C-69 by indigenous peoples and organizations across Canada. It is truly a privilege to work with indigenous peoples and to hear their perspectives and priorities. Our government looks forward to working collaboratively with indigenous peoples to implement the legislation.

I would once again like to recognize the committee for listening and responding to the testimony of indigenous peoples and organizations. This is a challenging process but, ultimately, a rewarding one as we work together to protect the environment, create economic opportunities, and advance reconciliation.

On a personal note, I would like to mention that I am a member of the environment and sustainable development committee. It was a great honour to be part of the considerations and the amendments on this legislation.

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the minister's recollection, I want to read a summary from 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. Notice that it does not say anything about a preamble.

The minister previously mentioned that the Liberals accepted an amendment to the preamble, which, as every member in the House knows, is non-binding. I again ask the Minister of Environment, given that the Liberals rejected every single amendment by the member for Edmonton Strathcona at committee to make sure that Bill C-69 would be in harmony with UNDRIP, will she revisit her position and at least be consistent with her vote last week and accept the member for Edmonton Strathcona's amendments to Bill C-69? I am talking about the bill before us now. Will she be consistent? Will all of the Liberals be consistent with the way they voted last week?

The first nations of Canada are watching the government.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again with time allocation.

Now that I have the minister in the House, I have a question for her. Last week the minister and her government voted in support 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. The member for Edmonton Strathcona moved roughly 25 amendments at committee to make sure that this bill actually lives up to what the Liberals did last week, and every single amendment was voted down by the Liberals. She now has several motions at report stage that seek to bring this bill in harmony with the UNDRIP.

Will the minister be consistent with her vote last week and support these amendments to make sure that Bill C-69 lives up to the provisions of what she voted for in voting in favour of Bill C-262, yes or no?

Motions in Amendment

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my fellow vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food went through some of the trials and tribulations that the opposition parties had with the bill at committee. The member for Edmonton Strathcona moved many amendments. There was a situation where the amendment deadline passed before the committee could receive all the submissions. It was a really rushed process for such a very important bill. The theme of the bill is very important.

According to the way the Liberals voted last week, does the member think they will be consistent on Bill C-262 and support the report stage amendments that incorporated UNDRIP provisions into the bill?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Pontiac mentioned that the committee had agreed to make an amendment to Bill C-69 with regards to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It amended the preamble, but that preamble is non-binding, so it was a meaningless gesture by the government.

I will bring to the attention of all members that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has brought forward report stage amendments, notably, Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13. Given that the member across the way voted last week in support of Bill C-262, which strives to bring the laws of Canada into harmony with UNDRIP, will he be consistent this week and support those amendments and live up to what he did last week?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-69, which is very important.

Following the debate on the previous government's reform of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, I was very pleased to see that we are moving forward with this bill, which is the product of extensive consultation over the past two years.

I would like to recognize the hard work that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development did on this file. The committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received 150 briefs. Several hundred amendments were proposed, 130 of which were adopted. It is therefore clear that this was a very robust process, and I would like to commend my colleagues for the work they did in committee. I was very impressed by their willingness to consider possible improvements.

I would like to focus a bit on that aspect in particular. I note our chair and vice-chair are sitting opposite having a discussion, likely on topics related to the committee's work. This committee was charged with an important assignment, which was to ensure democracy functioned in the context of reviewing complex legislation.

If we rewind to 2012, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 was incorporated into the previous Conservative government's budget bill. It was an entire replacement of the previous Environmental Assessment Act. It was brought through the omnibus budget bill and there were no hearings specifically on the bill to reform the environmental assessment rules. That was criticized across the country, from indigenous communities to environmental groups. Even municipal actors were literally appalled at the anti-democratic approach taken to amend that law.

Therefore, the pendulum swings back a bit. We knew and committed in the previous campaign to reforming that legislation. Thankfully, pursuant to many months of consultation, a better starting point, which was Bill C-69, was achieved. However, when it went to committee, to the committee's great credit, all sorts of analysis was brought to bear from members opposite , from the New Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Conservative Party. Every party that participated, with the possible exception of the Bloc, independent Bloc, and the CCF, brought forward an amendment that was voted upon and approved, which is a remarkable achievement.

It is also important to note that the government, in particular the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Natural Resources have commented positively on the amendments brought forward by the committee, on which we will subsequently be voting.

One hundred and fifty amendments were made. The government is responding positively to the fact that these changes are being brought in to ensure openness and transparency, improve public participation, better engage indigenous communities, and to provide greater predictability and certainty for our businesses and those who wish to bring good projects forward. The fact that agreement could be reached on 150 amendments is a tremendous statement and says a lot about the state of democracy right now. That is a really important thing.

I would like to first look at some of the amendments, particularly those related to reconciliation and navigable waters.

With regard to reconciliation, I was very proud to work with my colleagues, including opposition members, to propose amendments that would incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into the bill. That is very important and our government supports enshrining the declaration in law through Bill C-262, which will soon become law.

I would like to congratulate those who worked on Bill C-69, because including the declaration in future impact assessments across the country will be very good for reconciliation and for the development of nation-to-nation relationships.

I would also like to mention how the bill now provides for calling on indigenous peoples' knowledge and expertise when impact assessments are conducted. That will help to improve future project analyses. We need to improve our way of working with indigenous peoples on impact assessments.

Protection of waterways is another very important aspect, and we all know the former government scrapped several provisions protecting navigable waters. Since 2015, the government has been working very hard to improve those protections because waterways and navigation rights are protected not only by statute but also under common law.

The protections for navigable waters are of crucial importance to Canadians, and certainly to the constituents I represent in the Pontiac.

With respect to navigation, very important changes were brought by the committee to ensure water flows would be protected. That is a really crucial piece of the puzzle. Why? Because many Canadian communities, indigenous groups, and paddling groups were concerned that projects might move forward and would not receive the necessary scrutiny, that the law would not necessarily enable protection of the flows of water that would go down various waterways, whether that is the Ottawa River, the Gatineau River, the St. Lawrence Seaway, or other major waterways. That is a key point, and I am very proud our committee brought forward those amendments.

Overall, I would like to conclude by suggesting that beyond the hyperbole, beyond all of the easy, partisan criticism that has been lobbed from the other side, at the end of the day, Canadians are looking for a stronger process that builds trust when good projects come forward and ensures the independence of decision-makers in the context of evaluating projects. We need the public to not only know that a good analysis is being done, but that this analysis is being done independently, on the basis of solid, hard evidence, and on the basis of the engagement of Canada's indigenous peoples.

I am really proud of the work our government has done. Bill C-69 is a good starting point. The committee worked very hard to achieve improvements on it. I commend the government for its positive reaction to the changes brought forward by the standing committee.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was also on the indigenous committee that studied Bill C-262. I am a very strong supporter of UNDRIP.

I am proud to say that we are the government that for the first time has embedded UNDRIP into a bill, even before UNDRIP was put into effect in this House, by introducing it into Bill C-69 through amendments that the Liberal members of the committee had put forward. I strove to ensure that UNDRIP was included in Bill C-69 even before Bill C-262 has fully passed in this House.

I am very proud of what our government is doing in moving forward with Bill C-262 and I have tremendous respect for the member for the James Bay region and his work on that bill.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the gaps in Bill C-69 is that it only requires a consideration of indigenous knowledge in going ahead with these assessments.

The member for Edmonton Strathcona has moved some report stage amendments, specifically Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13, which seek to bring this bill in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I checked the vote last week on May 30, and the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington did vote in support of Bill C-262, which seeks to bring Canadian laws in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Will the member be consistent with his vote last week and vote in support of these amendments when they come before the House?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my Conservative colleague a question specifically in the context of the vote we had last week on Bill C-262. I know that the Conservatives did not vote for it, but the important fact is that the Liberals did.

My colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, moved a series of amendments at report stage that seek to bring Bill C-69 in harmony with what the Liberals supported last week on Bill C-262. Does the member have a reasonable expectation that the Liberals would at least remain consistent and support those amendments from the member for Edmonton Strathcona, or are we going to see a flip-flop, where they say one thing and do something completely opposite?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the criticisms of this bill is that it does not include a legal requirement for free, prior, and informed consent.

I know that my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, tried to have that inserted at committee stage, and of course we find ourselves here today, once again trying to get the government to honour the passage of Bill C-262 that the House passed last week.

Will my hon. colleague be supporting my colleague's amendment on that issue today?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, last week the parliamentary secretary, and indeed the entire Liberal government, voted to support Bill C-262, which would make sure that all the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member for Edmonton Strathcona has brought forward some report stage amendments to the bill, which seek to do just that.

In the context of Bill C-262 and the member's support for what that bill aims to do, will the Liberal government be consistent and, this week, vote in support of those amendments, which seek to do what the member voted for just last week?

Opposition Motion — United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada believes indigenous people have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that affect their rights and that indigenous governments' laws and jurisdictions must be respected. That is why, as part of the Government of Canada's commitment to a renewed relationship with first nations, Inuit, and Métis nations, Canada will aim to secure free, prior, and informed consent when it proposes to take actions that impact the rights of indigenous peoples. This principle builds on, but goes beyond, the legal duty to consult.

While our government recently supported Bill C-262 as a good next step toward renewing Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, a single legislative approach to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples cannot achieve our twofold goal of transformed indigenous-crown relations and improved standards of living in indigenous communities.

In order to fully adopt and implement the declaration and meet the promise of section 35 of our Constitution, more must be done. To that end, on February 14, the Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada would ensure that a rights-based approach would be the foundation of all crown-indigenous relations. We are doing this by developing a full partnership with first nations, Inuit, and Métis people, a new recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework. While the contents are being determined through engagement, it is anticipated that the framework will include legislative and policy changes needed to operationalize the recognition and implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, the sanctimony of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is quite something.

Before I begin my remarks today and speak to the motion by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, I want to take a moment to congratulate him on the passage of his private member's bill in the House last week. Bill C-262 is a fitting tribute to, and a crowning achievement in, his lifetime of work promoting and defending the rights of indigenous peoples. It is a bill inspired in part by what he endured as a former student in the Indian residential school system, and by his determination to reconcile with those who had, as he says, put him away for 10 years. It is a bill that speaks to those without a voice, and it is a bill that reflects his own remarkable courage, perseverance, and selfless public service.

I know that the member opposite often says he was not alone in his pursuit of justice, but there is also no denying that his decades long journey exacted a heavy toll on him, not just in terms of his endless and exhausting hours of work, but in the personal sacrifices too, including precious time lost with loved ones. We are forever indebted to him for this, and all members on this side of the House are honoured to have supported his bill. In fact, our only regret about Bill C-262 is that it did not pass in the House unanimously. History will almost certainly question the bill's opponents harshly, but I will leave it to them to explain their position to Canadians.

Today, the hon. member opposite asked for our support again with a motion that builds on Bill C-262, a motion that among other things asks all members to reaffirm their support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to advance a nation-to-nation approach that respects the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination. Our government is readily willing to do both, as we have many times before. We share much in common with the hon. member, more perhaps than he may even realize, but I will get to more of that later.

Where we differ is on the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. Our government's decision to approve the $7.4-billion project, as well as our announcement last week to secure the existing pipeline and ensure that its expansion proceeds, has never, ever been about choosing sides or putting one province ahead of another, or one indigenous community before another. Instead, it has always been about Canada's interest. That includes the rights of all Canadians and the rights of indigenous peoples. It is our responsibility and within our jurisdiction to work in close partnerships with provinces and indigenous peoples, to consult and engage as the crown, and to act in the national interest to ensure the stability and growth of the Canadians economy, and to get our resources to market sustainably and competitively.

The TMX pipeline is part of that. It is in Canada's national interest as a result of the most in-depth indigenous consultations ever done in this country on a project; as a result of a significant number of letters and submissions from the Canadian public; and also because of the thousands of good, well-paying jobs it will create, the better prices it will ensure for Canadian oil, and the increased government revenues at all levels that will follow. All the while, our government is making unprecedented investments to enhance environmental protection and support indigenous participation.

To understand all of this and how we have arrived at where we are today, it is helpful to look back at where we started. From the moment our government was sworn into office, we made it clear that there is no relationship more important to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. We have heard the Prime Minister say that many times in the House and elsewhere. He wrote it in the mandate letters of every federal cabinet minister, and he made it a central pillar of our government's vision for this clean growth century, starting with the Speech from the Throne, which was delivered exactly two and a half years ago today.

I want to read an excerpt from the throne speech so that Canadians can appreciate how it has guided our every action over the past 30 months. It reads:

Because it is both the right thing to do and a certain path to economic growth, the Government will undertake to renew, nation-to-nation, the relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples, one based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

It is because of that perspective that we fully endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and why we are acting on the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and why the Prime Minister appointed a working group of ministers last year to review all laws, policies, and operational practices related to indigenous peoples.

In short, our government's efforts are cut from the same cloth as the hon. member's Bill C-262, and they go even further in ensuring that the crown is meeting its constitutional obligations regarding aboriginal and treaty rights. We are adhering to international human rights standards, including the UN declaration. We are supporting the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and we are doing all of these things in collaboration with indigenous peoples.

The result is that this past February the Prime Minister announced a historic new approach for renewing the relationships between Canada and first nations, Inuit, and Métis people, one that underscores that true reconciliation must start with the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights. Our government is doing this by developing a new recognition and implementation of rights framework, a framework that is being co-developed through national engagement to rebuild indigenous governments and nations and to support a path toward self-determination.

One of our government's earliest expressions of this new approach was the introduction of Bill C-69, which transforms the way Canada reviews major new resource projects by co-developing with indigenous partners a direct and permanent role in impact assessment and regulatory process from beginning to end, which brings me back to the Trans Mountain expansion project.

One of the first things our government did in coming to office was to launch a new interim approach to environmental assessments and regulatory reviews in Canada, an approach based on five guiding principles that included more meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples and explicit inclusion of indigenous knowledge. Then, to enable even more voices to be heard, the Minister of Natural Resources appointed a special ministerial panel to travel up and down the length of the proposed pipeline's route, holding additional hearings beyond the National Energy Board's own regulatory review.

We heard through our engagements with indigenous peoples and non-indigenous Canadians in Alberta and British Columbia and across Canada that the project is in the national interest, that the jobs and revenue are needed, and that the risks can be mitigated. However, we also heard that we needed to manage the risks of the project very closely, which is another reason why we launched our country's single largest investment to protect Canada's oceans, marine life, and coastal communities, a $1.5 billion investment that will strengthen the eyes and ears of our coastlines, the longest in the world.

It will enhance our response capabilities in the unlikely event of a spill and ensure that coastal and indigenous communities are at the forefront of development and implementation of the plan.

It is also why we invested in and co-developed an indigenous advisory monitoring committee for the TMX pipeline, the first committee of its kind in Canada to help oversee the safety of a major energy project through its entire life cycle. Indigenous participation in this advisory and monitoring committee includes representatives that both support and oppose the project. This partnership and diversity of views is essential to advance our shared goals of safety and protection of the environment. As a result of these efforts, indigenous voices will be at the forefront, their counsel sought, their knowledge valued, and their rights protected. It is the beginning of a new way of managing resources.

As Chief Ernie Crey of the Cheam First Nation has said of the advisory and monitoring committee: “Indigenous people won't be on the outside looking in. We'll be at the table and on site, to protect our land and our water.” He is right.

The Prime Minister has said that the true measure of any relationship is not whether we all agree, but how we move forward when we do not agree. That is where our focus is.

When our government approved the TMX pipeline, we knew there would be Canadians who would disagree vocally and sometimes vehemently. That is the nature of a healthy and fully functioning democracy. Major energy projects can be controversial. They can divide political parties, as we have witnessed with the Alberta and British Columbia provincial governments who share the same political stripe. These projects can also divide indigenous communities that hold aboriginal and treaty rights protected under our Constitution. Look at those who support and those who oppose this project. There are Canadians who feel so deeply about these things that they will protest in the street and get themselves arrested, as two members of Parliament already have. This right to protest is a cherished Canadian liberty. We live under the rule of law.

I will now return to where I began in my remarks. I opened by commending the hon. member opposite for the passage of his bill, Bill C-262, and I suggested that he shares more common ground with our government than he may realize. There is a very good reason for believing that. It is because of something he said in February when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs to discuss his private member's bill. At that time, the member for Pontiac asked the hon. member opposite if he could articulate any distinction between free, prior, and informed consent, and a veto. I will quote the hon member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou at length because, as a lawyer, he displayed his great grasp of the law. The hon. member said:

I think the distinction is an important one and we need to understand that in this country. The right to free, prior, and informed consent, like all human rights, not just the human rights of indigenous peoples, is a relative right. You need to balance that right with the rights and interests of others, which veto does not do. Veto is an absolute thing, and I don't think our court system, constitutional or otherwise, would ever take that kind of view. That's not how our Canadian legal system works and that's not how the international law system works either.

The member's explanation is one of the best I have every heard. It is also consistent with one of the most frequently cited interpretations of what free, prior, and informed consent means, as developed by the former UN Special Rapporteur, James Anaya. Mr. Anaya said that consent “should not be regarded as according indigenous peoples a general 'veto power' over decisions that may affect them”. Instead, the overarching objective of free, prior, and informed consent is that all parties work together in good faith to make every effort toward mutually acceptable arrangements, thereby allowing indigenous people to “genuinely influence the decision-making process.”

This is the approach our government took in reaching its decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline.

The member opposite is correct in noting that there are indigenous communities that oppose the project, including six indigenous groups that are exercising their rights in court. There are also 43 rights-bearing indigenous communities along the length of the proposed expansion route who have signed mutual benefit agreements that will create real opportunities in those communities, 32 of which have submitted letters of support. These signified partnership agreements reached between the company and communities go beyond the government's consultation and beyond the 157 conditions of the project that must be in place before operation.

In addition, the Minister of Finance has noted that since we announced our decision to purchase the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and proceed with its expansion, many investors have already expressed interest in the project, including indigenous groups.

Overriding the consent of those indigenous peoples who support the project or the majority of Canadians who are also in favour of its proceeding is not the solution here, but the contrary. It would go against the intent and spirit of the hon. member's motion.

The goal of free, prior, and informed consent is to ensure a holistic approach to interests through transparent processes aimed at building consensus.

It is the same goal at the heart of our current legislation to modernize Canada's environmental assessments and regulatory reviews. It highlights the importance of everyone in this House to support developing a recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework that makes enshrining the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples real and meaningful, and that will fully support indigenous peoples in their path to self-determination.

How we manage and develop our national resources speaks to who we are as Canadians and the values that define us. Decisions like these are not always easy, popular, or indeed straightforward. I know the member opposite understands that as well as anyone. He has dedicated his life to advancing reconciliation through inclusive and sustainable resource development. We share similar visions; we have the same goals.

While I cannot support the member's motion as it is worded today, I believe we are all well begun with better rules to build a better Canada, one that our children can inherit with pride and build with confidence.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question. I worked on this bill for over two years. When this new government promised to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a promise it made both during and after the election campaign, I hoped it would be easy to come to an agreement on the declaration and on my bill. After all, Bill C-262 simply implements that promise and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 43 and 44. I thought it was a no-brainer, but I was wrong. I think it is deplorable that we have had to work so hard to get to this point. Now that—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague brought forward Bill C-262, which was passed by the majority in this place. My colleague's bill would now require that the government reflect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in all federal government legislation. I would welcome my colleague's comments on this.

On two occasions, I have brought forward amendments for the government to include in new legislation coming forward, including Bill C-57, which would amend the Sustainable Development Act; and Bill C-69, which would transform our entire major project review process. The Liberal government turned down more than a dozen proposals to include the UNDRIP in that legislation. I wonder if the member could also speak to this.

The government seems to want to give the illusion that it supports all the TRC calls to action. It is giving the illusion that it now supports the UNDRIP, but in its actions, it does not seem to be delivering on that promise, also as pointed out recently by the Auditor General of Canada.

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

moved:

That the House: (a) re-affirm its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including article 32(2), which guarantees “free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources”; and (b) acknowledge that advancing Constitutional Reconciliation through a nation-to-nation approach means respecting the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples and the will of their representative institutions, like the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs which has said with respect to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline that “No means no – the project does not have the consent it requires”, which is a principled position conducive to achieving the ends of the UNDRIP.

Madam Speaker, I know it is always hard to pronounce the name of that part of my riding. I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the very impressive member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

First of all, I think it is worth reminding the House that we passed Bill C-262 some time ago. It was a historic moment when the House adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is why I think it is important to start with that reminder.

My motion reaffirms the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including article 32.2. I worked on UNDRIP negotiations for 23 years. For all those years, I was a participant and a negotiator working on the texts we have agreed to as part of the declaration. We need to understand something about the whole conversation around this in Canada today. People who talk about reconciliation cannot just say whatever they please. They have to recognize Canada's constitutional context. Anyone who talks about reconciliation in Canada has to talk about it with that context in mind.

For instance, one of the things the Supreme Court states in its rulings is that reconciliation is necessary, but that it is also vital to recognize that our consent, the consent of the indigenous peoples, Canada's first peoples, is equally necessary.

That is what reconciliation is all about. We must always come back to that principle. In a 2004 decision, the Supreme Court wrote that the principle of reconciliation rests on the government's duty to recognize the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples, since it is in some way more honourable than crown sovereignty.

The pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples has an overriding right over the crown's assumed sovereignty. These are not my words. They are the words of the Supreme Court. The “assumed Crown sovereignty” is what the Supreme Court used.

When discussing the sovereignty of the crown, or whatever we wish, there are a lot of issues, one of them being where we stand today. Where we stand today is pretty significant, I would suggest, because we have an issue before us. We praise people who say yes but ignore those who have the same right to say no. People have said that. There are communities across the country that have said no, and they have the right to say no.

That is our point. I could go on and on speaking about all of these issues, but all of this is about the right to self-determination, and they have said so. Let us keep it to that and respect that right to say yes, of course, but to say no also.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-57, which amends the Federal Sustainability Act. This is a very important issue, which I will get to in a little bit.

I want to start by saying that it is unfortunate and disgusting that we are once again under a gag order as we debate issues that are so very important not only to us as a society, but also to the future of our planet. Once again, the government is limiting the amount of time we have for debate. It is preventing parliamentarians from debating and improving this bill, to ensure that we have a strong plan for sustainable development. the Liberals are once again breaking a clear promise they made during the election campaign. They are limiting debate times, imposing a gag order on members of Parliament, and not giving us enough time to have a serious debate. Today is Friday, and this is the fifth time this week alone that the Liberals have moved a time allocation motion. For those who are not familiar with the jargon, a time allocation motion means that the government is imposing a gag order a limiting the amount of time for debate.

I think that topics like sustainable development, the United Nations goals, and global warming should be taken seriously by the Liberal government. It should give us enough time to have a thorough, honest debate on this bill, so that we can address all of the details.

It is so important that I am personally convinced, and many of my colleagues here share my opinion, that the environmental issues, the protection of biodiversity, and the fight against climate change are truly the challenge of our generation.

Our children and grandchildren will judge us on our ability to deal with these challenges, our ability to ensure that we maintain a healthy environment, and our ability to prevent global temperatures from increasing by more than 2%, since that could have catastrophic consequences. I do not say that lightly. It has been scientifically proven that the earth's temperature is rising. It has also been proven that the actions of human societies, including our production and consumption activities, are mainly responsible for global warming. Our actions and our decisions are causing global warming and there are many consequences to that, including what is known as extreme weather. In some places, it is much hotter than it used to be, while in others it is much colder. On average, it is much hotter, and there has been an increase in the number and intensity of so-called natural disasters. That means there have been more floods, droughts, forest fires, and hurricanes, and those hurricanes are stronger and cause more damage. We have already seen this sort of thing in Canada. It has been documented and there are reports on the subject. Extreme weather and natural disasters are costing us more and more.

We often hear about cost, about putting a price on pollution and the cost of making greener, more environmentally responsible choices. However, I want to make it clear that there is also a cost to doing nothing and sitting on our hands while disasters break out all around us. This is not just a financial or economic issue, it is a human issue.

I would remind everyone here that former U.S. vice-president Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental advocacy and actions. Why did the Nobel committee decide to award a Nobel Peace Peace to someone who works on environmental and sustainable development issues? There does not seem to be a link, but in fact, there is one. In addition to extreme weather, we are now going to start seeing climate migrants. Mr. Gore was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize because it is a well-known fact that drastically higher temperatures in certain regions, deforestation, and lack of access to water will cause population displacement around the globe and turn millions of people into climate migrants.

Environmental migration can lead to conflict, even armed conflict. That is why the folks at the Nobel committee decided to recognize Al Gore on his work a number of years ago and issued a statement saying that preventing global warming might get us just a bit closer to world peace.

Global warming also has an impact on our ecosystems here. One of our colleagues from northern Canada, the author of Bill C-262, noted that Quebec's far north now has species of birds and insects that it did not have before and that can trigger dangerous changes in the balance of certain ecosystems. Even in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, where there are not that many ecosystems, we were forced to cut down dozens of trees because of the ash borer, an insect that did not previously exist back home. Climate change has caused the ash borer to migrate north and now it is attacking the trees.

I was talking to a winemaker in the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé recently. He says climate change could affect wine production in Quebec because of a vine-destroying insect called phylloxera native to France and Europe. Phylloxera cannot survive our winters, but that could change as our winters warm and we get periods of milder weather. It may begin to attack our vines. Periods of milder weather have other significant impacts, too. For example, if there is a major thaw in January, the vines think spring has come and start to bud, then they freeze and die for the rest of the season.

I wanted to share those details with the House, but I will now turn to a situation happening a long way from home. This morning on Radio-Canada, I had a chance to listen to an interview with documentary filmmaker Matthieu Rytz, who directed a documentary called Anote's Ark. Anote is the leader of a small nation, a unique population living on Kiribati, an atoll in the middle of the Pacific.

Like many other Pacific atolls, their island is only about a metre above sea level, and sea level is already rising. If we do not meet our Paris Agreement targets and slow down global warming, the glaciers at the North and South poles will melt, causing the sea level to rise everywhere. For the people of Kiribati, it is almost too late already.

There are other countries where we hope to avert disasters. I am thinking in particular of Bangladesh, which is already below sea level, but which may have more resources to protect its coastline. The Netherlands and Holland already have an entire infrastructure for that, but the people of Kiribati do not. It is most unfortunate.

The documentary is called Anote's Ark because all these people plan on leaving. They are looking for somewhere else to live. They may move to Fiji, for example. They are already in negotiations to relocate to other countries. It is so tragic. Their entire way of life will disappear. It could also lead to complications and tension.

The climate migrants I mentioned earlier are a clear and typical example of the fact that this phenomenon will grow. If they are moved to another country, will a state be created within the host country, or will they simply be assimilated into the existing population? These are serious issues. What can we do to prevent this cultural diversity from disappearing? Biological diversity is important, but so is cultural diversity. We see the type of problems that this will cause.

Before I go into the specifics of the bill, I want to point out that the Liberal government promised to put an end to oil subsidies. After two and a half years in power, it has done absolutely nothing about this. On the contrary, I believe it has just handed out the largest oil subsidy in Canada's history by writing a $4.5-billion cheque to a U.S. company to purchase a 65-year-old pipeline that is leaking, by the way.

However, Canada pledged to participate in an accountability process adopted by the G7 and G20 to track each country's progress in reducing and gradually phasing out oil subsidies. We have received an invitation. We have already been invited to pair up with Argentina to examine each other's actions and decisions to see if we are serious and making progress. What is absolutely incomprehensible is quite simply that the Liberal government did not even respond to Argentina's invitation. Argentina is still waiting for Canada to say that it wants to partner up. As they say in Argentina, it takes two to tango, but Canada is refusing to get on the dance floor.

More specifically, we have a government that, once again, is saying one thing but doing the opposite. The oil subsidies are a blatant example. It is sad. I would like to quote a report from the environment commissioner that clearly states that this government is not going in the right direction and that it will likely fall well short of meeting the weak targets it has set, where it even set any, that is. That is another problem. It is unfortunate that, despite the Liberals' campaign promises, they set exactly the same greenhouse gas reduction targets as the previous government and kept the very same game plan, and yet it seems Canada will not even meet those targets.

I would like to quote the environment commissioner's report directly. It reads:

On the basis of current federal [and] provincial...policies and actions, Canada is not expected to meet its 2020 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Meeting Canada’s 2030 target will require substantial effort and actions beyond those currently planned or in place.

It seems pretty clear to me that we are going to miss the boat. We are going to miss the boat on what is probably the greatest challenge of this Parliament, this government, at a time when it should be leading the way and making tough decisions. It is not only the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who is saying so. The United Nations and the OECD share the same concerns and have said that Canada will not reach its targets for 2020 or 2030. There is nothing to be proud of or to brag about here. Giving great speeches in Germany, in New York, and at the UN is all well and good, but if the government is not willing to walk the talk, there is no point. It is nothing but hot air, nothing but words, as Dalida would have said.

As for the Federal Sustainable Development Act specifically and the fact that Canada has officially committed to achieving the United Nations' 17 sustainable development goals, once again, a report released in April by the Commissioner on Environment and Sustainable Development sounded the alarm that we are not on track to achieve them. One of the federal government's major commitments to the UN is likely to remain mere empty rhetoric if Ottawa does not take meaningful action to honour those commitments.

At a news conference in April, Julie Gelfand said that it is always worrisome when a government says that it will do something and does not do it. In one of her three annual reports, she noted that Canada is not on track to meet the 17 sustainable development goals it has promised to implement on two separate occasions since 2015. The Prime Minister himself reiterated this promise when he appeared before the UN General Assembly in September 2017.

However, five departments responsible for implementing these goals by 2030 still have no targets and no system for monitoring progress. This is absolutely ridiculous. Ms. Gelfand also noted that there is no framework for coordinating these efforts at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Status of Women Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. It is unreal.

We are not on track to meet the goals and will not fulfill our international commitments, and the departments are so inept that they cannot establish targets or tracking systems themselves. Furthermore, one of these departments is the Department of the Environment. What a terrible message. What a joke. This is why the government's credibility on the environment leaves a lot to be desired, in spite of all their fine words.

Bill C-57 makes a few small changes, but it is still not enough. We are missing the boat. I will come back to this if I have any time left, but this bill is basically a copy of Bill C-474, which was introduced by Liberal Party member John Godfrey and passed in 2008. The overall framework of the bill before us is extremely weak. What I am about to say may seem a bit technical, but rather than give the government an incentive to achieve a series of sustainable development targets based on certain principles, Bill C-57 merely sets out a legal framework for developing a strategy.

That means that, once again, a framework will be created, consultations will be held, and everyone will talk about big ideas for this strategy. In the meantime, however, the concept of setting targets and figuring out how to meet them has fallen by the wayside even though those steps are key if we want to take this seriously and make things happen. Instead, they are building castles in the air, ignoring the targets, and pretending what they are doing will be good enough. We think this is a missed opportunity that could have been used to achieve so much more.

Initially, the bill introduced and passed in 2008 proposed establishing an independent commissioner position to act as an environmental auditor general, which we currently do not have. There is no one who is entirely independent to oversee, as an auditor general does, what the government is doing on the environment. Regrettably, instead of creating that position, the bill aims simply to create a sustainable development office at Environment and Climate Change Canada, but without any real plan. Thus, the person responsible for monitoring progress on achieving the objectives will be part of the same organization that should already be tracking it anyway. I would not put a fox in charge of the henhouse. This is laughable.

Basically, we see a few steps in the right direction, but we think it is unfortunate that the Liberals did not act on all the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, despite what the minister said earlier today.

Export and Import Permits Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation made by my hon. colleague, a former colleague on the indigenous affairs committee.

She quoted article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in our debate on Bill C-262 when talking about the situation in Akwesasne.

It was quite interesting in this context, because article 19 talks about consultation and co-operation “in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions”.

First of all, whom does the member consider the representative institution in Akwesasne? Second, I find it curious that members cite indigenous issues and indigenous people in situations that serve their arguments but not in the situation where the House was debating a vote to support indigenous peoples and their fundamental human rights in this place.

Indigenous Affairs

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals spent so much money on a pipeline, they cannot afford new talking points.

Yesterday was an historic day for Canada, because we voted 206 to 79 to pass Bill C-262, enshrining the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law. We must thank my friend, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, for a lifetime of dedication fighting for the rights of aboriginal people.

Now it is time for the Liberal government to put action behind its words and its vote. Will it respect UNDRIP and commit not to put a shovel into the ground on their new pipeline until after all the aboriginal rights and title cases have been resolved?

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be joining the debate on Bill C-57, although I must agree with my Conservative colleagues that it is unfortunate to be doing it under the yoke of time allocation.

It is a strategy that the federal government seems to be employing quite a bit this week. I was having an exchange with the member for Perth—Wellington earlier today about this resembling a student who has missed the due date for his homework and has suddenly realized it is coming up and he had better rush things. We have been wasting time over February, March, April, and May, and now we are almost into June. If we look at the parliamentary calendar, we see that time is suddenly short, so the Liberals are feeling the need to engage in these draconian tactics to limit the ability of members to be here on behalf of their constituents. Every single one of these seats represents a unique geographic area of Canada, and the people of Canada deserve to have their voices and concerns raised in this House by the members who represent them.

That said, let us now turn to the bill before us, Bill C-57.

I want to compliment my friend and colleague, the member for the riding of Edmonton Strathcona. She has decades of experience in the field of environmental sustainability. When she speaks to our caucus or delivers speeches in this House or at committee, people listen, because they realize this member has the experience and the knowledge. Very rarely have I seen people contradict her, because they know that she is usually right. She has the experience to back it up.

I want to walk the House through a bit of the history of how we got to Bill C-57. We would have to go back to the spring of 2016, when the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development reviewed the current act. There is a mandate in the act that it has to be reviewed every certain number of years. I believe it is every three years. That is just to make sure that it is staying up to date with the changing nature of Canada, to see if we are meeting our goals or if anything needs to be tweaked, and to see if the government has been doing a good job in following the existing act. That is why it is important.

As a part of this review, the committee, as committees usually do, brought forth witnesses to testify with respect to the current act and present some recommendations for ideas for reform. Witnesses at the committee found the current act lacking in two important ways. First, unlike the definition of “sustainable development”, it focuses on environmental decision-making and ignores the social and economic pillars of sustainable development; second, the purpose is about transparency and accountability for environmental decision-making, rather than about advancing sustainable development. The committee agreed with those significant shortcomings and recommended that the act be amended to require the development of an effective federal strategy that will inspire, in equal measure, environmental, social, and economic advancement toward a better future, something I think that all members in this House can very much agree to.

The unfortunate thing with the bill before us, Bill C-57, is that it only partially addresses these deficiencies and recommendations. It is important to note that the updated law should reflect the broader UN sustainable development goals, which have been endorsed by Canada.

I want to list some key things that came about after that study, because when Bill C-57 made it to the committee, the Liberal government did not even listen to its own members of Parliament on that committee. It did not even listen to the recommendations that had come from the environment committee. That is a real shame, because suddenly we have Liberals recommending something, only to see their government completely ignore it. That action shows that the government is not committed to delivering on its commitments under the broad UN sustainable development goal to ensure the whole of government ensures that its laws and policies reflect environmental, social, and economic needs.

I want to drill down on that, because the member for Edmonton Strathcona really was faced with a Herculean task. Many of my colleagues who sit on committees know this. Since the NDP has just one spot on a 10-member committee, that one member does not have the luxury of teamwork with other MPs. The work often falls upon us, so when it comes to the amending stage of a bill, the clause-by-clause part of a bill, it is a pretty big task.

I can remember doing that last year at the justice committee when I was the justice critic for our party, especially when it came to Bill C-46. That was a gargantuan justice bill, and my staff and I were pretty busy on that.

Going back to the matter at hand, Bill C-57, almost all of the amendments by the member for Edmonton Strathcona at committee were based on three things: recommendations from the Commissioner of the Environment, recommendations from expert witness testimony at the committee, and recommendations from the committee itself.

She had three very good arguments behind her recommendations. What did the Liberal-dominated committee do? It voted down those amendments, flying in the face of the evidence. The government likes to pride itself on evidence-based decision-making. I have yet to hear a coherent answer from the government side as to why the Liberals did that to the amendments of the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, when they knew she has years of experience and that her amendments were based on solid evidence. We have still not received any good reasons on that.

The House voted today, historically I might add, for Bill C-262, which was moved by my hon. colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. It was a historic moment for the House of Commons, because that private member's bill passed third reading and commits the federal government to ensuring that all laws are in compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

One of the amendments by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona was to ensure that Bill C-57 actually included a reference to UNDRIP. However, that was voted down. Then the Liberals decided they would vote in favour of the bill that is now going to mandate adherence to UNDRIP. Canadians should try to work their way through the reasoning behind that. I am still having some problems doing it.

That said, UNDRIP has passed this House. It is going to the other place now. I wish senators well. I certainly hope they will look at the hard work we did here in the House of Commons that recognize that in 2018, we are at a place in this great country where we can no longer afford to play the role of a colonizer. We have to make sure that first nations in Canada are the full and equal partners they very much deserve to be. It is only when we make sure that all of our federal laws recognize that implicitly that we will be able to move beyond our past—never forgetting it, but moving beyond it—to a place where most people would like us to be.

I know that my time on this bill is short, so I just want to end with this. The day that the Minister of Environment moved time allocation on this bill was Tuesday, the very day the Liberal government announced it was purchasing the Kinder Morgan pipeline for $4.5 billion. That is just the price tag for the existing infrastructure. There is no word on the cost of expanding the pipeline. I just think that when the environment minister is moving to shut down debate on a bill that seeks to bring federal departments in compliance with sustainable development goals and yet buys a pipeline, which is infrastructure that rightly belongs in the 20th century, it makes a mockery of the government's real commitment to addressing climate change.

I would dearly like to know what federal department is going to be in control of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and how it can possibly justify its sustainable development when it is going to be operating something that makes a mockery of our climate change commitments.

This being 2018, with all of the evidence of climate change all around us, we certainly need this country to be taking a firm and strong direction in addressing climate change. I think everyone who looks to future generations knows that we owe them that at this moment in time.

I will conclude there. I have appreciated this opportunity to speak to Bill C-57. I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues and friends.

Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am divided right now talking about this important bill. I want to thank the member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing it forward. This bill would create a national strategy on aboriginal cultural property repatriation.

I appreciate the intent of the bill, and I will be supporting it. However, I am also very concerned about the weakness of the language in the bill. It says things such as “to promote and support the return” and “encourage owners”, which would leave this bill as an option for people.

There is an important conversation that needs to happen in this country about what it means to be looking at reconciliation and the history of Canada. We know that the protection of cultural property touches many aspects of policy development, and this raises the risk that inconsistencies may happen and even that contradictory actions may potentially be taken if there is no coordinating mechanism. That is one of the biggest concerns I have. There is nothing here that is actually going to deal with this very important issue.

I had a wise person in my riding once tell me that for him, one of the best things about being indigenous was that the history of the culture was that they did not leave much behind. There were things like totem poles, but the actual impact on the environment was very balanced and limited.

I know that in indigenous communities across the country, their cultures are alive and active, and some communities are working very hard to bring back culture in their communities.

The history of this country is such that the human rights of indigenous people have been violated and often continue to be violated. Cultural heritage has been disturbed, stolen, excavated, exchanged, and taken under duress, and this is important when we talk about this bill. It is important to recognize that indigenous people were studied and bodies were exhumed and moved out of their territories and Canada without free, prior, and informed consent. That is the important thing we are speaking of today, as we saw with the passing of Bill C-262. In this day and age of reconciliation, it must be a key part of the conversation. How are we looking at what it means for indigenous communities to have free, prior, and informed consent? How are we are looking at the history of Canada and what has happened, and how are we making things change?

The University of Winnipeg, for example, currently has the remains of 145 indigenous people stored on its campus. It is concerning that the remnants of the first people of this country are left in places where they are not taken care of in a proper way.

In the riding I represent, North Island—Powell River, whenever remains are found, there is a working process with the indigenous community to make sure that those remains are treated respectfully. When we look at this bill, we have to be looking at that as well.

It makes me think of a community in my riding, the Klahoose First Nation, which is currently undertaking to find ancestors across the world. Recently, an ancestor was located in a Lower Mainland institution. The community came together and worked very hard. They wrote:

When it came time to transfer the ancestor from a cardboard box to the cedar box prepared by the Klahoose Nation we were guided into a private room. This is an incredibly spiritual and honourable undertaking: a precious moment as we handle the remains, bless them, brush and cradle them with cedar and tobacco, and then pray for peace to surround them on the journey to their final resting place.

However, when they walked into the room, what they saw was a cardboard box, which was home to their ancestor for more than 50 years. It had a single word written on it: “skull”.

One of the things this bill does not really look at is how to move forward in a respectful way to make sure that the remains of loved ones are returned home to their communities and that when that process happens, it is in the most thoughtful way possible.

The sad reality is that the history of Canada is steeped in colonialism. In the region I represent, many communities participate in the potlatch system to this day. The potlatch system was a way of redistributing wealth. It was a way of making sure that people were looked after. It was a very sacred process, and it was one of governance. That is really important. It was not a celebration. It was a way of governing. It was a way of making sure that there was fairness and that no one was left behind. People were respected for their generosity.

We know that in 1885, when the ceremony was made illegal, authorities took items away, including totem poles, regalia, and sacred family items. It is hard to explain the impact on the communities. These were the ways they governed themselves. These were the ways they dealt with conflict. These were the ways they acknowledged when people were moving from one phase of life to another. Therefore, it had a huge impact having all of those things gone.

I want to talk about the Nuyumbalees Cultural Centre in my riding, which has done a lot of work repatriating artifacts to their community. One of its main objectives is “to recover from other institutions and individuals, artifacts and records of cultural, artistic and historical value to the Kwakwaka’wakw people.” This cultural centre has activities for schools to educate young people about the history of the area. It has a carving and education centre where they continue to train people in methods that have been passed down from generation to generation. It works hard on language preservation. There is also archival footage in the lower gallery theatre, where people can see some of the recordings that were taken so long ago.

In 1975, the hereditary and elected chiefs founded the Nuyumbalees Cultural Centre so they could begin negotiating the return of their potlatch artifacts and regalia. In 1979, the society had things finally returned home and several months later, opened the doors and allowed the community to come in and engage with those things. It also encouraged the public to come and learn more about their history. It is important that they continue to do that work and find things all over the world that are from their cultural territory.

There are challenges trying to get those things back. The capacity of many indigenous communities to store and care for objects is extremely limited. Some museums work very hard with communities to make sure that they have access to these items.

Recently, a community in my riding, Homalco, took elders and young people to the Royal BC Museum in Victoria, where they saw masks from the late 1800s that are now stored there. They also saw baskets and other pieces of regalia. It was a really meaningful moment for those young people to see how long their history was, to see what the masks looked like, and to interact with the elders to learn the stories of the things that have been passed down. It is good to see those relationships happening, but there is so much more that can be done.

Professor Jack Lohman, chief executive officer of the Royal British Columbia Museum, said the following:

My last issue concerns the slow progress being made toward reconciliation. Our museum displays are still riddled with stereotypical display information, displays of indigenous life emphasizing and privileging white history over indigenous history. Repatriation is inadequately funded. Our museum culture is still predominantly white.

I understand the intention of this bill, and I appreciate it. It is important work. I think it is time in this country of Canada that we start to focus more on the impact than the intention, that we talk with indigenous communities and make sure we recognize the vibrancy in those communities, the history, and what it means when a person has things from their ancestors, their parents' parents' parents, and loved ones sitting in a box somewhere far away and there is no pressure to have those things returned. What does it mean to communities when they get those things back home? This is something we have to look at.

I look forward to supporting this bill. I wish I saw a little more emphasis on money. I understand that in a private member's bill, we cannot talk about money, but I want to make sure that this plan actually has a discussion about that. I saw nothing in there that said there would be a plan that comes forward from this national strategy that would include some of the heavy financial commitments that would have to be made to do this and do this right.

Natural Resources

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech about our committee's report, which we tabled a couple of years ago.

Just moments ago in the House, we passed a private member's bill, Bill C-262, from the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Everybody in the House voted for it except the Conservatives, who voted against it. It is unfortunate. That bill talked about making sure that the laws of Canada match up with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In our committee, we have heard a lot about indigenous peoples, first nations, and their ability to take part in the natural resource extraction sector. We have heard that the mining sector has been very good at involving those communities, and the oil industry less so. Here we have a pipeline, Kinder Morgan. Some communities have signed agreements with Kinder Morgan, but the majority of first nations communities have come out against it. We have a government here that says it will listen to those people.

Could the member comment on that initiative, the reconciliation we are facing as a country, and how we have to include that in our extraction of resources for the future?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume my speech on Motion No. 22.

Part of my speech was deferred until later in the day so that we could debate a very important private member's bill, Bill C-262. The theme of my speech was the government's lack of respect for Parliament. I said that was evidenced by its approach to the committees' recommendations and the government House leader's attitude to debates on committee reports and recommendations.

Take, for example, Motion No. 6, which allowed the government to avoid addressing Parliament if it did not want to. The government was looking for ways around the Standing Orders of the House of Commons instead of learning how things work here and doing things in accordance with the procedures of the House.

I also spoke about the Special Committee on Electoral Reform and all of the work it accomplished. In the end, the government did not respect this committee's work either. I think that this year, vote 40 under Treasury Board in budgetary expenditures is another example of the schemes this government comes up with to avoid scrutiny.

Given all of this, I also said that we understand that the government's agenda is moving at a snail's pace and that it wants to make some progress by the end of June. We were and are prepared to consider a notice to extend the sitting hours, provided that opposition days and opposition motions get treated the same as government business. That is not the case in the motion as drafted.

A Conservative colleague moved an amendment. I think it is a good amendment, but it contains a clause that may not be acceptable to the government, because it has nothing to do with opposition days.

Consequently, in the spirit of co-operation, and in the hope of making an offer that will be acceptable to the government, we suggest that this other aspect, which is not related to opposition days, be deleted from the amendment so that the government can support it. We could all support the main motion then, once it becomes a fair motion that gives equal treatment to government business and opposition business.

It is in that spirit that I move, seconded by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé:

That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraph (a).

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--

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.

Historic Sites and Monuments Act

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

moved that Bill C-374, An Act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act (composition of the Board), be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-374, an act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, composition of the Board.

I would like to begin by recognizing that we are gathered here today on the traditional land of the Algonquin people. This recognition is a small but important way in which to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Bill C-374 shares the same objective of advancing reconciliation and to ensuring that the perspectives of indigenous peoples are incorporated in our decision-making processes federally. I am extremely privileged to have Bill C-374 make it to third reading in the House and thankful for cross-partisan support of this legislation.

Bill C-374 seeks to include a much-needed indigenous representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The board, which is responsible for advising the Government of Canada through the Minister of Environment on the designation of people, places, and events of national historic significance, currently lacks formal statutorily mandated representation of indigenous peoples on its board.

The fact is that we cannot hope to accurately commemorate issues of historical significance if we do not fully include the perspectives of the first peoples of this land.

My personal motivation to put forward Bill C-374 is rooted in a career spanning more than three decades with Parks Canada. I had the opportunity to live and work with indigenous communities in a variety of settings and it helped inform my opinions about the need to do things differently with indigenous communities. When I was elected, I came across the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In the TRC's Summary of Final Report, there is a section on commemorations which spoke quite personally to me about the need in the commemorations field to do things differently. Drawn out of this section were calls to action to change and improve upon the ways in which we commemorate our past.

Bill C-374 is specifically intended to implement call to action 79(i), which states, “We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal organizations, and the arts community, to develop a reconciliation framework for Canadian heritage and commemoration. This would include, but not be limited to”, and this is the section that is covered in Bill C-374, “Amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its Secretariat.”

The implementation of call to action 79 was also put forward by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. In our report, “Preserving Canada's Heritage: the Foundation for Tomorrow”, the committee recommended the implementation of several of the TRC calls to action, including 79, as reflected in our committee's 17th recommendation of the report.

Our government has made clear our support for the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action. Implementation of over two-thirds of the calls to action under federal responsibility is ongoing, and Bill C-374 continues in this spirit.

We have endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, without qualification, and committed to its full implementation. This includes support for Bill C-262.

In February, the Prime Minister announced in this place the creation of a recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework. This will ensure that the recognition and implementation of rights is the basis for all relations between indigenous peoples and the federal government going forward. To ensure the protection, preservation, and revitalization of indigenous languages in the country, we are working with first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities to co-develop an indigenous languages act.

In this spirit of indigenous language preservation, I have also worked with Senator Jaffer on a bill to designate February 21 as international mother language day. The bill has been tabled in the Senate and debate has already started on it, another small step toward reconciliation.

This week, we witnessed all-party support for a motion respecting TRC call to action 58, calling for a formal papal apology for the role of the Catholic Church in the establishment, operation, and abuses of residential schools.

These are important steps forward, but the work does not end here. Reconciliation is a complex and difficult journey that grapples with the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. The TRC summary of the final report discussed this complexity:

To some people, reconciliation is the re-establishment of a conciliatory state. However, this is a state that many Aboriginal people assert never has existed between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. To others, reconciliation, in the context of Indian residential schools, is similar to dealing with a situation of family violence. It's about coming to terms with events of the past in a manner that overcomes conflict and establishes a respectful and healthy relationship among people, going forward. It is in the latter context that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has approached the question of reconciliation.

To the Commission, reconciliation is about establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in this country. In order for that to happen, there has to be awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour.

The report goes on, and this is important in the context of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and the changes that Bill C-374 would make. It states:

Too many Canadians know little or nothing about the deep historical roots of these conflicts. This lack of historical knowledge has serious consequences for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, and for Canada as a whole. In government circles, it makes for poor public policy decisions. In the public realm, it reinforces racist attitudes and fuels civic distrust between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians.

Too many Canadians still do not know the history of Aboriginal peoples' contributions to Canada, or understand that by virtue of the historical and modern Treaties negotiated by our government, we are all Treaty people. History plays an important role in reconciliation; to build for the future, Canadians must look to, and learn from, the past.

Bill C-374 would ensure that indigenous perspectives are fully incorporated into our commemorations process federally. Indigenous peoples' participation in our commemorations decision-making process will help us move beyond the colonialist and paternalistic approaches of the past and allow us to engage in a more frank and authentic manner.

This bill is not a criticism of the work of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board over the past 100 years of their existence but shows that there is a need to evolve by creating structural inclusion for indigenous perspectives in how we commemorate the persons, places, and events that are of national significance.

Our history is as messy and complex as the process of reconciliation itself. The legacy of our residential school system is a stark and tragic reminder of this. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission explored this complexity:

For Survivors who came forward at the TRC's National Events and Community Hearings, remembering their childhood often meant reliving horrific memories of abuse, hunger, and neglect. It meant dredging up painful feelings of loneliness, abandonment, and shame. Many still struggle to heal deep wounds of the past. Words fail to do justice to their courage in standing up and speaking out.

There were other memories too: of resilience; of lifetime friendships forged with classmates and teachers; of taking pride in art, music, or sports accomplishments; of becoming leaders in their communities and in the life of the nation. Survivors shared their memories with Canada and the world so that the truth could no longer be denied.Survivors also remembered so that other Canadians could learn from these hard lessons of the past. They want Canadians to know, to remember, to care, and to change.

During our heritage study at the environment committee, we heard the powerful testimony of Mr. Ry Moran, the director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, who discussed the intricate and delicate nature of commemorating residential schools. Our report stated:

Mr. Moran is particularly concerned about the state of conservation of the 17 remaining residential schools if nothing is done to preserve them. He explained to the Committee that some Indigenous communities want to preserve these residential schools as evidence of history. However, he said it is easier to obtain funding to demolish these schools. Mr. Moran noted that Indigenous communities wanted to be able to choose whether they preserve or demolish these buildings. Moreover, he emphasized the need to commemorate the places where demolished residential schools once stood, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended

That includes the burial locations of the missing children.

The committee heard that the inclusion of indigenous people was a priority and a necessity for the heritage community; that today's heritage organizations, departments, and agencies were ill-equipped to protect and preserve indigenous heritage; that indigenous people must be involved in defining, designating, commemorating, and preserving their heritage; and that indigenous communities, governments, and organizations wanted to have a voice and a place for their people to have a voice in heritage conservation.

During my 32-year career with Parks Canada working with heritage spaces, I similarly encountered the often difficult nature of commemorations. I witnessed both successful and unsuccessful approaches to commemorating people, places, and events of historical significance.

I have spoken about those in the House, including the great success of retelling the story of the place of Yuquot, originally commemorated as Friendly Cove and celebrated as the first point of European contact. That location was actually the birthplace of the Nuu-chah-nulth people. The repackaging and rethinking of that designation showed it as a place of welcome by the indigenous people, who had lived there since the beginning of time, and a place of welcome to the Europeans when they arrived in Canada. It was the indigenous people's voice that helped with the retelling and reframing of that story.

I am proud that Bill C-374 has made it to third reading with unanimous support at report stage. This is a proud reflection of the non-partisan nature of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not an indigenous issue. It is truly a Canadian issue.

The success of Bill C-374 and this opportunity to advance reconciliation would not have been possible without the support of the government and a royal recommendation to deal with remuneration provisions in the bill. I am grateful to the government for supporting Bill C-374 and for granting it a royal recommendation, which is the third of its kind since 1994, to the best of my knowledge. This support reflects our government's commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on a recognition of rights, mutual respect, co-operation, and partnership.

The road to reconciliation is a long and difficult one, but with Bill C-374 we have the opportunity to advance this objective by improving upon the ways in which we commemorate our past. I am hopeful that all members will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Bill C-374 is poised to move to the Senate, where I am proud to have the support of Senator Murray Sinclair, who has agreed to sponsor the bill in the Senate. Members will no doubt know that Senator Sinclair has a distinguished 25-year career in the justice system and served as the chief commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I hope members of the other place will recognize the importance of this legislation and work, as we have in this place, to continue advancing reconciliation.

I would like to thank all members for their consideration of this bill and ask for their support at third reading so this important piece of legislation can move one step closer to becoming law.

Opposition Motion--Papal Apology on Residential Schools

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

I am very pleased to speak today on such an important topic. There are three issues that are outlined in the opposition motion brought to us by the NDP. I will focus on the one that relates to the apology from the Pope and the Catholic Church. Before I address that, I want to outline why this is important to me.

As a practising Hindu, I believe it is important that I acknowledge that I was raised in many ways in the Catholic school system. My first four years of schooling, both in Sri Lanka and Ireland, were in the Catholic school system. That is very important to me, because that faith taught me a great deal about life, about values, and about important rights and wrongs. I have nothing but good things to say about my education.

Unfortunately, that has not been the case in the history of Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives us the right to believe what we believe in and the right not to believe. As such, I think it is important to say that the conversation today is really to focus on the issue of residential schools and to look at how we, as a country, can move forward with the issue of reconciliation.

Reconciliation is very difficult to talk about. It has been attempted by many countries. South Africa stands as one example, and I know other countries in Africa have undertaken it. Canada has also undertaken this process, and I think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission serves as a foundation for that discussion, that journey, as my friend said earlier.

That journey begins on a number of fronts. There are calls to action that require governments and different institutions to do their part in addressing and advancing the issue of reconciliation. I think we have made a number of different achievements on that front, one of them obviously being the current discussion and debate we had with respect to UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Bill C-262, the private member's bill that was brought forward by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. That is also very important to the concept of reconciliation.

With respect to institutions, there are a number that play a very important role, most notably the Catholic Church. Before I talk about what is being asked of the church, when I was preparing for this debate, I really took to heart that I have two young girls who are seven and nine. We live in a home where we speak Tamil, or broken Tamil to some extent because my kids and my wife are not fluent. However, we try to impart a sense of language, culture, and faith to our children. It is fundamental to me, my family, and my children. It is what grounds me on a day-to-day basis.

I really thought about what happened with the residential schools. Oftentimes, at the age my children are, or maybe even younger than that, the kids were taken away, placed in a residential school setting, and were prevented from speaking their language. As we know, language is so important to us. Our mother tongue is essential to us. Tamil people in my community lost over 100,000 lives defending their language, the right to speak their language, and the right to advocate and go to school in their language. It is very important. When those children went into the residential schools, they lost their mother tongue.

Then we have culture. Again, this valuable, important thing defines each and everyone of us. All of us in the chamber come from different backgrounds, many from very different backgrounds. That really takes away from our practices, our understanding of the world, the baseline concepts we take for granted because we are grounded in that culture. When kids are taken away, when that culture is taken away from them, it really does take away the heart of that child.

All religions, all indigenous communities have very rich traditions of spirituality that are so important. We try to do it oftentimes in a symbolic way. We try to do it in Parliament. We try to do it when we have events in our ridings or national events. We try to incorporate some of the spiritual practices of religions, but it is in many ways symbolism. We have lost the core of that spirituality, and young people who went into residential schools lost that.

I do not want to talk about the abuse, but imagine bringing that child back into the community eight to 12 years later. See if that child can have a relationship with their parents, their grandparents or their community or they with that child. It is disturbing and fundamentally wrong to do that, yet we did it with government sanction, with government-run programs to support residential schools. This did not happen because of a choice. It happened because of decisions that were made in the House and religious institutions were tasked to carry out those duties.

We now see 150,000 people who have gone through this and many generations of indigenous people have been affected by it, have been broken by it. We are here today to correct that.

A number of institutions have been involved and implicated in this, most notably the churches. I want to point out that a number of different churches have addressed this issue over the past several years. For example, in 1993, the Anglican Church made that apology. The Presbyterian Church made that apology in 1994. The United Church made two apologies, one in 1986 and one in 1998. The Missionary Oblates apologized in 2001. In 2008, the Government of Canada formally apologized.

In the indigenous affairs committee one of the studies that made me understand the effects of residential schools was the study on suicide, which was tabled in here about a year ago. That study essentially looked at some of the contributing factors. Well over 100 people talked about the effects of residential schools on their lives and on their relationship with families and communities.

Today we are here because all of these have contributed to the socio-economic factors about which we often talk, about the continuance of colonialism in our society. Standing here I always look at my friend across, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, someone who I have the utmost respect for and look at as a teacher more than as a colleague. We have travelled together on a couple of occasions. At times, he would share his experiences, the effects on him, his family, and community. It always comes back to that.

Today, I would respectfully ask the church and the Pope to do the right thing. I hope the Pope visits Canada soon. At that time, I hope he gets to meet a number of the people who have been affected by this directly, including my friend from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. To me, the Catholic faith is about doing the right thing. I have no doubt this will happen. I call upon them, as do my colleagues across the way, to do the right thing.

Impact Assessment Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the northern and aboriginal affairs committee, we had natural resources officials there. We are currently studying Bill C-262, on the implementation of UNDRIP and how all Canadian law is going to have to live within the framework of UNDRIP. We asked the natural resources officials if they had considered whether Bill C-69 lived within that framework, and they had not. That was their answer.

I am just wondering if free, prior, and informed consent is to be held at all levels, particularly legislative, but also if the member thinks that Bill C-69 meets that threshold of free, prior, and informed consent.

Indigenous Affairs

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to table today is from many people in my riding who support Bill C-262, which happily has passed the House. It is important to the people in my riding that the bill be fully implemented.

Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Chair, I welcome this opportunity tonight to discuss and learn about the experience of indigenous people within our justice system.

There is no question that indigenous people are grossly overrepresented in the system, and there are many varied opinions why this is. This evening's debate was precipitated by the unfortunate event in my home province of Saskatchewan, when a young aboriginal man by the name of Colten Boushie was killed. I am not going to go into any of the details, as I believe everyone knows about this court case.

I had the chance to meet Colten's mother and some of his family members today. I personally expressed my condolences to her, and in return, she said that I have a warm heart, and it is beating. I also learned of the racist attacks her friends and neighbours have faced over the last few days in Saskatchewan.

I believe Colten's mother, Ms. Baptiste, is watching the debate here tonight. It is my sincere wish that she can take some comfort in knowing that there are people here who are genuinely concerned about the well-being of the indigenous peoples of Canada.

As I said earlier, there are many options on the causes of the overrepresentation of indigenous people in our justice system. I believe one of the core elements is the educational system. Prior to entering politics, I was a school board trustee for many years, so I have first-hand knowledge of the educational barriers that face many first nation youth in my province and of the dismal graduation rates.

My wife Ann has over three decades of experience helping indigenous students reach their goals. She was a classroom and resource teacher. Now my daughter Courtney and my son Geoff have followed my wife's footsteps and are educators. They all have first-hand experience with first nation students in their classrooms. I believe the many hours of conversations, both at home and at board meetings, have given me a pretty good perspective on where we can improve in this area. In fact, as a member of the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I moved the following motion last November 28, 2017:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a comprehensive study of Indigenous education and graduation rates from secondary schools; that the scope of the study include standards for high school graduation, standard curricula, standard qualifications for educators and statistics for national graduation rates from reserve schools in comparison to Indigenous students off-reserve and also to non-Indigenous students; that the witness list include responsible Indigenous Services department officials, band councils, band members, Statistics Canada officials, First Nation organizations responsible for delivering education services such as First Nations Education Steering Committee, and community groups; and that the Committee report its findings to the House within twelve months of the adoption of this motion.

My motion has not been voted on yet, but I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all my committee colleagues to support this study. I would also say that I am encouraged by the Prime Minister's statement earlier today when he said, “Indigenous youth should not grow up surrounded by the things that place them at elevated risk for suicide, such as poverty, abuse, and limited access to a good education and good health care.”

I am a firm believer that an education is a powerful tool. It can open many doors, and I would like to see many more doors opening for Canadian indigenous children, not slamming shut behind them as they enter the justice system.

Just this afternoon, I had a conversation with Bobby Cameron, who is the chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations.

He explained that their intention with the inherent and treaty rights memorandum of understanding with the Saskatchewan Indigenous Cultural Centre, with the Office of the Treaty Commissioner, and the Saskatchewan School Boards Association is to educate and create more knowledge on the whole aspect of inherent and treaty rights as first nations people, to help curb some of the false attitudes and perceptions that some people have, and to make it mandatory for all high school students in Saskatchewan to take a hereditary treaty rights class in order to earn a grade 12 diploma.

He is absolutely right. Non-aboriginal peoples in this country also have to learn more about the rights of aboriginal peoples, which they are entitled to under our own Constitution. Anyone doubting this needs to only read section 35.

In the news release announcing the MOU, treaty commissioner Mary Culbertson said, “Education was the vehicle used to oppress first nations people”. Through education about the spirit, the intent, and the treaty relationship, “Reconciliation can be one day achieved (and) education will be the vehicle to take us there.”

Last week, I had the opportunity to speak at the second reading 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. During my comments, I noted that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada was chairing a cabinet committee reviewing Canada's laws, policies, and operational practices to ensure that the Government of Canada is fulfilling its constitutional obligations and implementing its international human rights commitments, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The committee undertook this review a year ago, and to my knowledge, we have not yet seen a report. Let me just say it is a step in the right direction.

I am also encouraged by the comments made recently by Saskatchewan's new Premier Scott Moe and our justice minister, Don Morgan. They both agree that there are some serious and probably uncomfortable conversations that have to be had on racism, on rural crime, and on the justice system. Premier Moe stated:

We respect the decisions of the justice system and its independence.... But as we move forward it's incumbent on us as a government to have those very important, very challenging discussions with our aboriginal community in the province, and all of our communities in the province.

He went on to say:

I've been made aware of a number of comments that are racist. There's no place for that in the province of Saskatchewan.... This isn't an easy thing to talk about for anybody, but it's something we have to talk about.

Justice minister Don Morgan said:

...we want to hear from first nations leaders, but I think the comments that people are making, that they want to see more indigenous people involved in the system, is a fair comment.

He also said:

I think we're open to have those kinds of discussions with the federal government. ...we'd be willing participants....

As Conservatives, we are always interested in hearing from Canadians on ways in which we can improve Canada's justice system. We would welcome and carefully consider proposed legislation that would improve the justice system.

Finally, my remarks this evening have made reference to the province of Saskatchewan a number of times. I would like to assure everyone watching this take-note debate that these problems by all means are not limited to my home province. They are a national problem and they require a national plan to overcome them. It is the duty of all 338 of us, as representatives of the citizens of this country, in concert with the indigenous representatives, to work on these critical problems and find solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the basis of our work in all the things that we do, either from a policy perspective or a legislative perspective, needs to be based on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The norms contained in the UN declaration are the minimum standards for the survival of the dignity, well-being, and security of indigenous peoples in this place.

I am grateful that the government has supported Bill C-262, because that is the kind of basic framework we need in this country.

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing that we are, as we are every day in the House, on the ancestral land of the Algonquin people.

Last September, I spoke before delegations from all over the world at the United Nations. I told them the harsh truths about the long and complex relationship that Canada has with first nations, the Inuit, and the Métis nation. I spoke about the colonial approach that led to the Indian Act, which is discriminatory and paternalistic.

It was a colonial approach that systematically ignored the history of the Métis nation and denied its people their rights and that in the name of Canadian sovereignty, forced the relocation of entire Inuit communities, starving individuals, uprooting families, and causing generations of harm.

I am sure that all members of the House are very familiar with these tragic events, but it is remarkable how much Canadians know about them.

I just finished a series of town hall visits in communities all across Canada. Everywhere I went, there was at least one person who wanted to know what our government is doing to combat racism, to help advance reconciliation, to improve the quality of life for indigenous peoples. There were questions about fishing rights, land claims, and pipeline approvals, questions about the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, about clean water, and about the alarming number of indigenous children in foster care.

These were thoughtful questions, and it was immediately clear, every time these kinds of questions were asked, that the room leaned in to hear. This was, in part, a show of support for the people who stood up and asked some tough questions, but it was also a signal that these are questions that Canadians want answered, questions that strike right at the heart of who we are and what kind of country we want to be.

One of those questions is how we, as a government, recognize and implement the rights of indigenous peoples. We have seen those questions grow in number and intensity in just these past few days, as more and more Canadians come to grips with the fact that we have so much more work to do, more work to push back against the systemic racism that is the lived reality for so many indigenous peoples, more work to deal with the fact that too many feel and fear that our country and its institutions will never deliver the fairness, justice, and real reconciliation that indigenous peoples deserve.

There is also reason to be hopeful. Yesterday I had the honour of spending some time with Colten Boushie's family, with his mom, Debbie; cousin, Jade; and Uncle Alvin. Through all their grief and anger, and frustration, their focus was not on themselves and the tragedy they just endured, but on how we must work together to make the system and our institutions better, better for indigenous youth, for indigenous families, and for all Canadians.

We have a responsibility to do better, to be better, to do our best to make sure that no family has to endure what they went through.

The criminal justice system is just one place in which reforms are urgently needed. Reforms are needed to ensure that, among other things, indigenous peoples might once again have confidence in a system that has failed them all too often in the past. That is why we will bring forward broad-based concrete reforms to the criminal justice system, including changes to how juries are selected.

Obviously, indigenous peoples and all Canadians know that change is way overdue.

At the same time, some see our government's ambitious commitments with a certain degree of distrust. If we look at how things have been done in the past, it is difficult to honestly say that such distrust is not warranted.

After all, it is not as though we are the first government to recognize the need to make changes and to promise to do things differently.

Over 20 years have passed since the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples called for the recognition of indigenous people as self-governing nations with a unique place in Canada. Over 30 years have passed since the Penner report and the first ministers’ conferences on the rights of aboriginal peoples.

Last year marked 35 years since aboriginal and treaty rights were recognized and affirmed through section 35 of the Constitution Act. The government of the day, led by my father, did not intend to include these rights at the outset. It was the outspoken advocacy of first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, supported by non-indigenous Canadians, that forced that government to reconsider.

Imagine what that must have felt like, to have fought so long, so hard, against colonialism, rallying their communities, reaching out to Canadians, riding the Constitution express, and in the end, to finally be recognized and included, to see their rights enshrined and protected in the foundational document upon which Canada's democracy rests.

Now, imagine the mounting disappointment, the all too unsurprising and familiar heartache, and the rising tide of anger when governments that had promised so much did so little to keep their word.

The challenge then, as now, is that while section 35 recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights, those rights have not been implemented by our governments. The work to give life to section 35 was supposed to be done together with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, and while there has been some success, progress has not been sustained nor significant. Therefore, over time it too often fell to the courts to pick up the pieces and fill in the gaps. More precisely, instead of outright recognizing and affirming indigenous rights, as we promised we would, indigenous peoples were forced to prove time and time again, through costly and drawn out court challenges that their rights existed and must be recognized and implemented.

Indigenous peoples, like all Canadians, know that this must change, and we know this too. That is why we have been working hard for two years to renew our relationship with indigenous peoples, a relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. We are on the right track.

We endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without qualification and committed to its full implementation, including with government support for Bill C-262.

We engaged in new recognition of rights and self-determination negotiations, where the government and indigenous peoples work together on the priorities indigenous partners say are necessary to advance their vision of self-determination.

We signed agreements with first nations, Inuit, and the Métis nation, outlining how we will work together to identify each community's distinct priorities and how we will work together to develop solutions.

We established a working group of ministers to review our federal laws, policies, and operational practices to ensure the crown is meeting its constitutional obligations and adhering to international human rights standards, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

To guide the work of decolonizing Canadian laws and policies, we adopted principles respecting Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples.

To preserve, protect, and revitalize indigenous languages, we are working jointly with indigenous partners to develop a First Nations, Inuit, and Métis languages act. We have made changes in order to recognize indigenous rights and traditional knowledge, as well as to make sure that indigenous peoples are more included when there are developments in their communities.

These efforts are an important start, but they are just a start. To truly renew the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples, not just for today but for the next 150 years and beyond, we need a comprehensive and far-reaching approach. We need a government-wide shift in how we do things. We need to both recognize and implement indigenous rights, because the truth is, until we get this part right, we will not have lasting success on the concrete outcomes that we know mean so much to everyone.

Indigenous peoples in Canada should be able to drink the water that comes out of their taps. They should be able to go to sleep in homes that are safe and not overcrowded. Indigenous children should be able to stay with their families and communities where they are known and loved. Indigenous youth should not grow up surrounded by the things that place them at elevated risk for suicide, such as poverty, abuse, and limited access to a good education and good health care.

All of these things demand real, positive action, action that must include and be grounded in the full recognition and implementation of indigenous rights. We need to get to a place where indigenous peoples in Canada are in control of their own destinies and making their own decisions about their futures.

Today, I am pleased to announce that the government will develop, in full partnership with first nations, Inuit, and Métis people, a new recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework that will include new ways to recognize and implement indigenous rights. This will include new recognition and implementation of rights legislation. Going forward, recognition of rights will guide all government interactions with indigenous peoples. The contents of the framework that we build together will be determined through a national engagement led by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs with support from the Minister of Justice.

Earlier, I cited many reports and a number of previous studies and consultations. I can appreciate that some would see any future consultation as just another hindrance to the struggle for the self-determination of indigenous people. Let us be clear: no matter how responsible, well-intentioned, or thoughtful it is, a solution coming just straight out of Ottawa will not do much good.

We understand that indigenous peoples are looking forward to beginning the considerable work themselves to rebuild their nations and their institutions. As a government, our work is to support First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples and to work in partnership with them to establish the framework and provide them with the tools they need as they lead the way, together with all Canadians.

We will also be engaging the provinces and territories, non-indigenous Canadians, people from civil society, industry, and the business community, and the public at large, because all Canadians have a stake in getting this right. While the results of this engagement will guide what the final framework looks like, we believe that, as a starting point, it should include new legislation and policy that would make the recognition and implementation of rights the basis for all relations between indigenous peoples and the federal government moving forward.

This framework gives us the opportunity to build new mechanisms to recognize indigenous governments and ensure the rigorous, full, and meaningful implementation of treaties and other agreements. With this framework, we have a chance to develop new tools to support the rebuilding of indigenous communities, nations, and governments, and advance self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government.

This framework could establish new ways to resolve disputes so that collaboration becomes the new standard and conflict the exception rather than the rule. By including tools that oblige the federal government to be more transparent and accountable, we can build greater trust between indigenous peoples and government.

Lastly, with this new framework, we will be able to better align Canadian legislation and policies with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the government wholeheartedly supports.

We believe that a framework that includes measures such as this one will finally act on many of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and set out in countless other studies and reports over the years.

Some may worry that this ambitious approach may require reopening the Constitution. That is not true. In fact, we are finally fully embracing and giving life to the existing section 35 of the Constitution. We will replace policies like the comprehensive land claims policy and the inherent right to self-government policy with new and better approaches that respect the distinctions between first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. This will give greater confidence and certainty to everyone involved.

The federal government's absence over generations in recognizing and implementing indigenous rights has resulted in social and economic exclusion, uncertainty, and litigation, when our shared focus should have always been on creating prosperity and opportunity for everyone. Better opportunities for indigenous peoples and certainty for indigenous youth are precisely what we hope to achieve through this framework.

Engagement will continue throughout the spring, but it is our firm intention to have the framework introduced later this year and implemented before the next election.

This is work not only for the government, but for this Parliament as well. There will be committee work, witnesses, and vigorous debate in both chambers.

The history of Canada’s relationship with indigenous peoples transcends all governments. The Indian Act was passed in this House, as was section 35. Now, as a Parliament, we have the opportunity, and in fact the responsibility, to finally implement section 35.

We all know that we cannot erase the past. We cannot recover what was lost. What we can do, what we must do, is to commit to being better and doing better. As a start, let us do what the Constitution Act, 1982, has required us to do for almost 40 years.

We will work together to do away with legislation and policies built to serve colonial interests. We will work together as we follow through on our commitments to build a new and better relationship.

Indigenous Canadians and all Canadians are ready for change, ready for a new relationship based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. With a recognition and implementation of rights framework, we can build that new relationship together. It will not be easy, nothing worth doing ever is, but it will be worth it. It will be worth it because we will have taken more steps toward righting historical wrongs. It will be worth it because we will have replaced apathy with action, ignorance with understanding, and conflict with respect. We will have laid the foundation for real and lasting change, the kind of change that can only come when we fully recognize and implement indigenous rights.

Together we will take concrete action to build a better future, a better Canada, for indigenous peoples and for all Canadians.

Indigenous Affairs

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill, Bill S-3amends the Indian Act to eliminate sex-based inequities in registration. Private member's billC-262 is an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Truth and reconciliation is under way. Parliament is working in service of our aspirations for a revitalized Senate, the contributions of individual members of Parliament, and listening and acting with the indigenous voices of Canada.

In my riding we too are acting in this spirit. On the Sunshine Coast, John and Nancy Denham led 30 shíshálh Nation and non-indigenous peoples in a dialogue circle. Our time together was respectful and intense. The West Vancouver Memorial Library hosted “Honouring Reconciliation: Hearing the Truth” to a full house, led by the Squamish Nation.

These are important experiences for Canadians and shíshálh and Squamish nations, as truth and reconciliation enables us to reach our full potential.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table in the House a petition from Dublin Street United Church in Guelph, joining the United Church moderator Jordan Cantwell, in requesting the support of the House of Commons for Bill C-262.

Indian Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, prior to Standing Order 31 being read, I was well engaged in talking about a very important issue for the Government of Canada as we try to advance Bill S-3 through the House of Commons. We continue to move forward in a very tangible way dealing with a nation-to-nation responsibility, as our Prime Minister has very clearly indicated, dealing with a new, genuine relationship between the national government and first nations, Métis, and Inuit.

In many ways, we are talking about the issue of gender equality and trying to see more of that within the legislation of the Indian Act. We have had many people provide comment on the act. I would be challenged to find members who stand in their place and say that the Indian Act is a good piece of law. The drive to change it, many would say to replace in its entirety or get rid of, is in order.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs clearly indicated, we have to have something in its place. As we work toward that, there are many other things that we can do.

I want to pick up on what the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women said today in question period when he was asked a question in regard to empowering and advancing indigenous women through government programs. He made it very clear that the government is pleased to announce $5 million that will go toward projects to empower indigenous women to be leaders in their communities in order to address issues that affect them or that hinder their advancement.

I started my speech by saying how important it is to recognize and deal with indigenous issues, this legislation being one of them, but it goes beyond legislation. We need to look at financial ways or alternative ways. That talks about the whole concept of consultations, working with our partners, working at that nation-to-nation level and seeing what else we can come up with. This was a significant commitment.

In Winnipeg North, I have had opportunity to encourage at least one organization to look at this announcement and see if there is room in Winnipeg North and even beyond its borders where we could tap into some of that $5 million. There are many different impediments that prevent women, in particular indigenous women, from being able to access certain things that we might take for granted.

I am very happy to hear this announcement. It complements what the government is hoping to achieve. I want to highlight some important messaging the government is hoping to communicate to people with respect to the bill. We understand that it is all about ensuring that sex-based discrimination is eliminated from the registration under the Indian Act.

I always find it amazing that here we are in 2017, and with the support and encouragement of our courts, we have legislation recognizing that aspect, but we also have what many people refer to as a strong feminist Prime Minister with a very proactive minister responsible for indigenous affairs and the department that ultimately recognize that this is an issue that does need to be dealt with. I am very glad that within Bill S-3 we will be doing just that.

The bill would also remedy all known sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act. Again, these are things that, given it is 2017, we would not think would still be within the legislation. It needs to be moved forward, at least until we have that more comprehensive, holistic approach with respect to the Indian Act, or at least until we have been able to fill that void that would be created by getting rid of the Indian Act.

It would also seek to amend the legislation to remedy sex-based inequities that existed. It sets it just prior to Confederation, 1869 all the way up to 1951. The amendment, as passed by the Senate, would remove all sex-based inequities from the registration provisions in the act. My colleague from the New Democratic Party spoke at length on that issue. I agree with the member across the way at times, and this is one of those times.

It is hard to imagine how we could justify these inequities. We know we could never justify it in 2017, but there was a time there was gender discrimination to the degree that a male from a reserve could have a child with a non-native woman and there was never any question of the heritage or entitlements of that child. Contrast that with a female, and the heritage of the child would have been questioned if she had chosen to marry someone who was not indigenous. I think most Canadians would recognize just how unfair that is. Even back then, we had very strong feminists who no doubt would have recognized that sense of unjust legislation. I am surprised that it is still in legislation today. That is one of the reasons members should seriously look at the legislation. I understand that we will be voting the legislation through, hopefully before the end of next Monday.

We recognize the government amendment was passed by the Senate as the best way to achieve the stated goal of getting rid of the sex-based inequities. We will be launching consultations early next year that will look at a broader range of the Indian Act registration and membership issues. That is really important. I sat for many years in the opposition benches, and we had legislation that impacted our indigenous communities. I would often talk about the importance of consultations. There is always room for improvement. Even under our administration, we can always strive to be better at working with people to ensure we are consulting in a very thorough fashion.

I have found there is no shortage of ideas related to issues such as we are talking about today. I often have individuals come by my local restaurant, which I go to every Saturday from 10 to 2. I will not say which restaurant, but I am committed to going so constituents know they can visit me to share their thoughts and ideas.

In the last number of months I have had a half dozen or more individuals talk to me about the United Nations or Bill C-262, proposed by one of our NDP colleagues and has been advanced for debate in the chamber. I have received postcards on it. I have had phone call discussions. Even in group meetings, there is always a great detail of interest in having that dialogue. I can only imagine in the macro picture the degree to which we need to be sensitive to the need for consultations.

On that note, I would like to extend my recognition and congratulations to both the minister of indigenous affairs and the parliamentary secretary to indigenous affairs. They have done an outstanding job in working with indigenous community members and the leadership, ensuring the government is moving on what are some absolutely critical issues going forward.

As a general rule, we will see more legislation and budgetary measures. A good example of that was the recent announcement of the housing strategy. It was a historic announcement in the House by the minister responsible for housing.

It was commented that despite this wonderful plan to provide housing for literally hundreds of Canadians into the future, there was still a very important component that needed to be expanded upon, and that is the indigenous factor. We need to work with indigenous leaders to ensure housing and housing standards are also put on the table.

Today, many would see this as long overdue legislation. In a good part, they are right. It is long overdue, but it will pass through. I do not want people to think, whether it is from the remarks by the Prime Minister or others with respect to this important relationship, that this is all we will do. There is other legislation. There are budgetary measures. There is a very high sense of willingness to co-operate, to continue to develop, and promote that nation-to-nation relationship.

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

[Member spoke in Cree]

[Translation]

Mr. Speaker, first of all thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this issue, which has been very important to me for many years.

I would like to begin by talking about the context in which we are debating changes to the Indian Act, to eliminate all forms of discrimination, especially against indigenous women who have been treated unfairly for many years under this act.

Earlier, I mentioned just how racist, sexist, colonialist, and outdated I think the Indian Act is. That is why I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who suggested earlier that we should simply get rid of the Indian Act for all these reasons.

I find it rather strange to rise today to speak to an act that we should get rid of. Why? To paraphrase the Prime Minister: because it's 2017. We should have gotten a lot further by now, especially when it comes to policies affecting the first peoples of this country.

In December 2015, after the current government was elected, I was in the room when the Prime Minister promised several things to Canada's chiefs. There were five major items in his speech. One of the promises he made in the 2015 speech to all indigenous leaders in Canada was that the government would review every piece of legislation passed unilaterally by previous governments and get rid of them. I was very pleased with this promise made to Canada's indigenous leaders because it is something I have been thinking about for a very long time.

When I heard the Prime Minister making this promise to all of Canada's chiefs, the first act that sprung to mind was the Indian Act. I believe that it is possible to replace the Indian Act with something else, especially in this era of reconciliation in Canada.

One of the other important promises that this government made to indigenous people was that it would adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In my view, this is the most important promise. Why not accept this framework, which would allow us to move forward?

I will read Article 9 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.

This is the new framework that must guide our debates on these issues in the House.

I do want to mention that I was pleased to hear the Minister of Justice say last week that the current government would support Bill C-262, which has to do with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am happy that the government is supporting this bill. This bill addresses the 43rd call to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which 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.

We should let this framework that is the UN declaration guide all of our debates involving the rights of indigenous peoples, whether on the Indian Act or other agreements. This is what Bill C-262 proposes, and I am happy to hear that the government will support it. We will see how these issues are debated next Tuesday, during the first hour of debate on Bill C-262.

However, as I pointed out in my question to my colleague, even if the bill is passed, it will not include the three lady warriors who fought against the discrimination perpetuated under the Indian Act for nearly 40 years. I think this is cause for concern.

One part of this bill aims to eliminate all discrimination committed under the authority of the Indian Act. As an indigenous person, I would have a hard time rising in the House to support a bill that does not fully eliminate discrimination. I will never rise in support of a bill that continues to discriminate against this country's first peoples. It will not happen.

As the bill currently stands, there remains entrenched sex-based discrimination in the bill. Ideally, the government would respect the wishes of the parties to the case, as well as stakeholders, in keeping with the current international human rights standards, specifically articles 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, which I have just read, and article 33 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We want all gender discrimination to be eliminated from the bill before it is passed by the House of Commons. We also want the liability clause to be removed entirely. I will never take away the right of an individual to sue the government for past wrongs. I will never allow this place to pass legislation that eliminates that right. Therefore, I will be moving amendments to that effect shortly.

We must remain critical of a bill that does not entirely address all discrimination, and also critical of the slow pace of change and the failure by successive governments thus far to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since adhering to the declaration would provide a basis for Canada to address all systemic problems within the Indian Act. It is important to do so in this era of reconciliation.

I would like to address the insubstantial nature of what passed the Senate and is poised to be adopted by this chamber. I say this because the government is promising to do only what the courts have ordered. No one should be fooled by the rhetoric into thinking that this bill, as it stands, addresses paragraph 6(1)(a) registration rights for indigenous woman, who have been seeking that status for over 40 years of litigation, namely Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Sharon McIvor and, most recently, Dr. Lynn Gehl. Beneath the rhetoric, the bill represents an insubstantial aspiration that leaves complete discretion to the government to extend 6(1)(a) to everyone because there is no mechanism for implementation or accountability. In fact, this bill leaves so much to be desired that Sharon McIvor and Dr. Pam Palmater are headed to Washington to make a submission to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to ask them to intervene regarding Bill S-3 to make sure this government addresses all gender discrimination.

Many indigenous women's groups have called attention to the provisions of proposed section 10. With this clause, the government is justifying past discrimination and past violations of human rights. If we truly believe in the rule of law in this place, then this cannot happen. With this clause the government is justifying past injustices, and this should not be tolerated.

The government would continue to discriminate with impunity until it chooses to address it or is forced to address it. In my view, this underscores the sense of colonial entitlement. It undermines the rule of law. The crown has a fiduciary responsibility to first nations. It owes fiduciary duties to the people. It cannot be given impunity for its conduct because that would essentially enable breaches of the law and breaches of potential fairness to many people. With this bill, we are giving it licence to do whatever it wants, without consequence.

I want to quote Lynn Gehl, who says:

Not addressing the 1951 cutoff because the court said that the issue was one of matrilineal lineage versus sex discrimination was wrong.

....I’m of the position that the hierarchy created in 1985 between Indian men and their descendants as they are registered as a 6(1)(a) and Indian women who are only registered as a 6(1)(c) must be abolished if you want to eliminate the sex discrimination and end this process of amending the Indian Act.

In their letter that I referenced earlier, Sharon McIvor, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, and Lynn Gehl wrote to the ministers and said:

We are writing to request confirmation that when Bill S-3 passes in the House of Commons there will be no change to the current category of Indian status accorded to Sharon McIvor (6 (1)(c)), and Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell (6(1)(c)), and Dr. Lynn Gehl (6(2))....

They continued:

None of us is affected by the 1951 cut-off introduced by Bill C-3 in 2010. Our reading of the motion introduced by Senator Peter Harder in the Senate on November 8, 2017 is that we, and the many Indigenous women who are similarly situated, will not be accorded 6(1)(a) status when Bill S-3 passes.

Again, this is equality delayed and the consequence is equality denied.

I too share the concern about the consultation process. It seems that the government only consults when it is convenient. Yes, I agree with the minister that there is a constitutional obligation to consult indigenous peoples when their rights and interests are affected, but it has to be applied throughout. I do not recall if the indigenous nations affected by the Site C dam, for instance, were ever consulted. In fact, it was to the contrary. They were being intimidated by BC Hydro with lawsuits. That constitutional obligation to consult has to be applied throughout.

In the case of the bill before us, I reiterate that it falls short of settling everything. The bill continues to discriminate. The Indian Act, in fact, is archaic and we need to get rid of it. The no-liability clause, as I mentioned, is a major problem. If we recall, last June I proposed amendments to that effect, which were rejected. If the amendments introduced back in June had been accepted, we would not be here today. We would not be debating this issue anymore. Unfortunately, they were rejected.

Since my time is quickly running out, I will close by saying that it is essential that the House consider the suggestion I just made of getting rid of the Indian Act altogether and giving first nations, Inuit, and Métis the right to decide whether or not to recognize their own members.

I think that is one of the fundamental rights that we successfully negotiated in the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It is up to indigenous communities to decide who their members are, something that the Indian Act still does not allow them to do.

I am therefore proposing amendments so that the motion would now read as follows:

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill S-3, An Act to Amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration), the House:

1. agrees with amendments 1 to 6, 8 and 9(a) made by the Senate;

2. proposes that amendment 7 be amended by replacing the words “Replace line 3 with the following: 'ly before the day on which this section comes into'” with “Delete clause 10”;

3. proposes that clause 11 of Bill S-3 be amended by adding the following on page 9 after line 33:

“(3) The consultations must be completed within 18 months of the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.”

4. proposes that amendment 9(b) be amended by replacing “on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, but that day must be after the day fixed under subsection (1)” with the words “18 months after the date that the order in subsection (1) is made”.

Those are the amendments that I am proposing, and I hope that the House will accept them this time.

Indigenous Affairs

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, or UNDRIP, is a fundamental declaration that underlines the rights of the first peoples across the world.

Recently, the Comox Valley Amnesty International group held an event in the K'ómoks First Nation hall to have a discussion on Bill C-262, a bill brought forward by the member for Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou on UNDRIP. What I have heard, clearly, from many indigenous and non-indigenous people in my riding is that a nation-to-nation relationship should mean respecting the first people of our country. That means supporting Bill C-262.

I am pleased to hear the government plans to support the bill, but actions matter more than words. In the context of supporting the bill, I encourage the Minister of Fisheries to take time to talk to the many indigenous people occupying fish farms in my riding. They have been waiting too long for the discussion on rights and title. In the spirit of UNDRIP, I hope action will be taken soon.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today on behalf of the wonderful constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

In the first petition, petitioners recognize that in 2008, the House of Commons adopted a motion in support of the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, and that the truth and reconciliation commission has called on this in their calls for action. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to adopt 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 evidenced by the sheer number—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to table a petition on the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a very important issue and priority for the people of North Island—Powell River. I am honoured to represent such a large and diverse indigenous population.

It should come as no surprise that Bill C-262 has received a lot of consideration and support. I am proud to see so many people actively supporting the implementation of UNDRIP and the principles of reconciliation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem has already been identified, but without a clear plan from the government, its five-year objective will not be met.

Let us not forget that this same Prime Minister, who delivered a speech this morning, continues to fight against first nations children, even after one ruling and three orders handed down by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

After two years of fine speeches, it is time to act. Can the government confirm that it will support Bill C-262 on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

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

Mr. Speaker, speaking of respect, for two decades the indigenous peoples co-drafted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It has been 10 years since its adoption by the UN General Assembly.

Last December, the Prime Minister promised all chiefs, once again, that he remained committed to its adoption and implementation, yet on Monday, the Prime Minister suggested that the declaration would be tantamount to colonial imposition. How can the declaration be imposed on us if we wrote it? Which is it, yes or no, will the government support Bill C-262?

Indian Act

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I often mention in this House, and I want to repeat it again. As members of Parliament we have a duty to uphold the rule of law. I mentioned that to the Prime Minister the other day. What does that mean? According to the Supreme Court of Canada, upholding the rule of law means respecting the Constitution. Our Constitution contains the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 35 dealing with aboriginal and treaty rights. Therefore, we need to make sure that every time we discuss legislation, it is consistent with the charter and section 35.

We already have that obligation under the Department of Justice Act. Article 4.1 obliges the Minister of Justice to make sure that before any legislation is tabled in this House, it is consistent and compatible with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We do not have that equivalency for aboriginal and treaty rights yet. That is why Bill C-262 is important for this House as well. Many times when that vetting happens, it is possible that we miss certain legal points. It happened many times under the previous government, and it is bound to happen again here.

I used this example at committee last week. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said something important that struck me. It stated that the Department of Indian Affairs continues to do exactly the opposite of what the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs says.

There has always been a problem and a struggle between the front bench here and the departments under which they work, so we are bound to miss a couple of points. However, what is important is to have the proper basis for us to move on, and that is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that I am honoured to rise to speak to the Indian Act, but that is not the case. Usually, when I rise in the House, I do it with honour and I consider it a privilege, but that is not the case today.

Earlier, I explained just how deeply opposed I am to this legislation, which has been in place for a very long time and, I would point out, was imposed unilaterally on indigenous peoples across this country. It is a shame that in 2017 we must still rise in the House to talk about something so racist, colonial, and discriminatory as the Indian Act.

We are supposedly one of the most progressive and generous countries on the planet, but the first peoples of this country are subjected to legislation such as the Indian Act. It is really unfortunate. Given the country’s international reputation, this legislation should be done away with as quickly as possible, especially given the promises that this new government made on a number of things, including the new relationship that it wants to establish with indigenous peoples.

The adoption and implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should now be the basis for any discussion in the House. I would like to point out that this was one of the most significant promises made by several parties, including my own, but also by this government.

Regarding this declaration, let us not forget that two of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s main calls to action are calls to action nos. 43 and 44. Call to action no. 44 calls on the government and its indigenous partners to develop a national action plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Call to action no. 43 is also important for us in the House. It calls on the 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.

That is important. We cannot say that we support all of the Commission’s calls to action except for call no. 43, because it calls on us to fully adopt and implement the declaration.

It is therefore important to remember the context in which we come to this debate on the Indian Act and the status of indigenous people in this country.

Something that has always fascinated me is that the first peoples of this country are the only people in Canada subject to a law in this way. It is mind-boggling how discriminatory this law is, come to think of it. Indigenous peoples and all other peoples on the planet are equal. Like all other peoples, indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination under international law. Article 9 of the declaration recognizes that indigenous peoples have a right to determine who should be members of their communities and nations.

However, this is not the case, and it is unfortunate that in 2017 we still have this racist, discriminatory, and also sexist legislation.

Whenever I talk about the Indian Act, I am almost tempted at times, very seriously, to rise in the House and propose a Caucasian act. Please excuse my use of a typological understanding of human biology when I limit people to racial terms, especially since the term Caucasian describes people from the geographic regions of Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, and most members in the chamber are from western Europe. Self-identity is not what is important here.

My proposition would be nothing new, as a matter of fact. Five hundred years ago when Caucasian ships began arriving on the shores of this continent, indigenous peoples began devising all sorts of appropriate responses to the invasion. Maybe, at least in the north, invasion is too strong of a word to describe the first contact, but when farmers, entrepreneurs, and business people began to be displaced by foreign investment, when doctors spoke out in alarm of undocumented immigrants bringing high levels of infectious disease onto this continent, and when community leaders began noticing the erosion of the indigenous social fabric, our warriors became our homeland security, and our knowledge keepers became our policy-makers on this continent.

For a while, official policy was to send all Caucasians back to where they came from. I will not lie, that argument still pops up from time to time in discussions with my people, but then mixed marriages, economic interdependence, and the sheer numbers became a reality, and we realized that a more nuanced solution was needed for the Caucasian problem. If I were proposing that act today, I would paraphrase John A. Macdonald and say that the great aim of this legislation is to do away with the European system, and assimilate the Caucasian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of this land as speedily as they are fit to change. I am of course paraphrasing John A. Macdonald.

I can almost hear some of the other members objecting, but will this proposal not deny my fundamental rights contained within the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and violate universal human rights standards? However, I can assure everyone that rights are not important when we consider the creation of a Caucasian act. Power is the most important factor when we consider pieces of legislation designed to control and assimilate one demographic group to the exclusion of all others. Who holds power over the lives of others?

Today, the government has brought to the House Bill S-3, a Senate bill that purports to remove gender discrimination from the Indian Act. The only piece of legislation in this country, I will repeat, that exclusively governs the lives of one demographic group, namely, the indigenous people of this country. When considering this bill, it must be recognized that the colonial system is always about gaining control over another people for the sake of what the colonial power has determined to be the common good.

That is the system that is prescribed by colonial values, priorities, and objectives. Senators, MPs and expert witnesses have repeatedly told the Liberal government that Bill S-3 must go beyond the limited understanding of what legislative review of the Indian Act means, an understanding limited by colonial prescriptions.

In fact, the minister has already told the Senate that her government will reject one of the senators' amendments to the bill, and members heard, as I did, and as all of us did in this House this evening, that is what she repeated tonight.

As the Indian Act is currently written, indigenous men who married non-indigenous women before April 17, 1985, when the act was re-written to comply with the charter of rights, will always pass their Indian status to at least their grandchildren and, in many cases, to their great-grandchildren. This is the case, even if their children and grandchildren parent with non-Indians. However, indigenous women who married non-status men before 1985 only pass on status up to their grandchildren, unless those grandchildren parent with other status Indians.

Senator McPhedran's amendment to Bill S-3 is intended to eliminate any remaining distinctions between the descendants of men and women who married non-Indians before the charter. It would go back to the creation of the Indian Act in the 1800s, while the government wants to stop at those born after the Indian register was created in 1951.

We are left with the question, why is the government refusing to recognize the indigenous identity of potentially hundreds of thousands of people? Remember, self-identity is not seen as important, human rights are not seen as important. What is important is gaining and maintaining power over a subjugated group of people, meaning the indigenous people of this country.

As Dr. Lynn Gehl has explained, “They don't want to end this discrimination. The ultimate goal is to get rid of status Indians and get rid of treaty rights—so much so, that they'll target women and babies.”

I want to quote what Deborah Serafinchon said to our committee when she appeared not too long ago. She said:

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not into any of this, all I know is that I don't understand the different status of 6(1)(a), 6(1), 6(2), whatever it is. Simply, as far as I'm concerned, an Indian is an Indian. I don't understand why there's different levels of status...I'm Indian enough to be discriminated against, but I'm not Indian enough to get status.

Whenever I hear testimony like that, it bothers me a lot, because this legislation has been around for so long. I remember the day after this Prime Minister got elected, and he reiterated a lot of the promises he made to indigenous peoples. I remember the day, across the river, in December 2015 when he spoke before the chiefs at the Assembly of First Nations. One of the promises he made that day in December 2015, before the chiefs at the Assembly of First Nations, was to review and rescind any legislation that was unilaterally imposed on indigenous peoples by previous governments. He used the word governments, not the previous government, but previous governments. It would have been very logical if he started with the Indian Act 20 months ago. Now we are caught with this, and bound by a deadline set by the Quebec Superior Court.

It is also worthwhile to read into the record what Senator Daniel Christmas said with respect to the Indian Act:

The point I'm making is a very stark one: Life under the Indian Act is a horrible and unproductive existence whose ultimate destiny is insolvency and ruin, both economically and emotionally.

A lot of first nations are in the same boat now that Membertou was in the mid-1990s.

Senator Christmas went on:

I recall the awful feeling of seeing people in my community walking with their heads down. Their community was poor and without any prospects, any hope for improvement, for us or for our children.

That is what he said in the Senate. It is important to remind ourselves that those are important considerations that we need to take into account in any revision that we make to the Indian Act, whether it be to status or to any of the other elements that are contained in the earlier Indian Act.

I also want to remind members that the new government has committed to adopting and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the minister has repeated that commitment and promise on a couple of occasions since the election.

Article 9 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reads as follows:

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.

I made an earlier point about the UN declaration. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has recommended that we fully adopt and implement the UN declaration as the framework for reconciliation in this country.

There is a bill before this House, Bill C-262, that would implement the TRC's calls to action 43 and 44. I am hopeful that once that bill is adopted, it will be the framework for any proposed legislation in this country, in this chamber, as we move forward, because although a declaration is not the same as a convention or an international treaty, a declaration does have a legal effect in this country. The Supreme Court has confirmed on a couple of occasions now that declarations do have legal effects. Declarations are “relevant and persuasive sources” to interpret domestic human rights law in this country.

My suggestion here is that the UN declaration already has application in Canadian law. That should be the basis of any legislation that stems from this House from now on, or any policy review that we do as a government in this country. It does have application, and that is what Bill C-262 would confirm as well.

I was going to go into a whole list of the effects of the Indian Act, and it is quite a long list. However, I do want to remind this House that one of the things that is still in the Indian Act—and not too many Canadians know this—is the fact that the minister still has the authority to accept or refuse my will when I pass away. It is still in the Indian Act. That is pretty outrageous. It is only for indigenous peoples.

That is why I say the Indian Act needs to go away. There are enough people in this House to make suggestions as to what to replace it with. I think it is grand time that we do it. It is 2017 in this country called Canada.

Indigenous Affairs

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Liberals have been anywhere from inconsistent to completely misleading. The Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs committed to adopting UNDRIP, yet her most senior official said that the government “may not consult specifically on UNDRIP”. Meanwhile the Minister of Justice has said that UNDRIP is unworkable, yet yesterday at committee committed to it.

We need a clear answer. Will the Liberals support Bill C-262 to implement UNDRIP, yes or no?

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start with Bill C-262.

Members may recall that last year the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its report, and 94 calls to action. There are two fundamental calls to action that are important in that report, which are calls to action 43 and 44. Both relate to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as do some 14 other calls to action.

Call to action 43 calls upon the Government of Canada, the provinces, the territories, and the municipalities to fully adopt and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation in this country. That is why I say that those are the two fundamental and key calls to action. We cannot implement the rest of the 94, if we do not implement call to action 43, because that is the fundamental one.

I overheard the Liberals during the last campaign promising to adopt and implement the UN declaration. Bill C-262 does exactly that. It will implement the promise of the Liberals. I am just trying to help here.

With respect to free, prior and informed consent, I think it is an important concept that is already in our constitutional law. It is already in Canadian law. For many years, many rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada have spoken of the need to obtain consent from indigenous peoples before development takes place. The latest one was the ruling on the Tsilhqot'in case, in which the Supreme Court referred to the concept of consent of indigenous peoples in some 11 paragraphs and referred to the concept of control of lands, territories, and resources in some nine paragraphs. Therefore, the concept of consent is already in Canadian law. My bill, Bill C-262, will just confirm that is already law in this country.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Indigenous and Northern Affairs critic for the NDP, for his excellent speech, and for connecting the dots between Bill C-17 in Yukon and what is being achieved, and what 40 years of experience with the Cree–Naskapi and the northern Quebec agreement has achieved in terms of certainty there. I was intrigued by the connection that was made and the lessons that have been learned, which the hon. member emphasized.

What I would like to ask the member specifically is in relation to his Bill C-262, which, of course, would address the need to enshrine a review under section 35 of the Constitution for indigenous rights, just as we routinely do for our charter rights. I would like to ask about the notion of free, prior, and informed consent. Would this bill, which includes the three governments, federal, provincial, and Yukon first nations, on the board of the YESAA statute, achieve the free, prior, and informed consent that is required, since they co-drafted the bill and are on the actual board, for example, in respect of a specific project? In other words, does that pass muster? Would the kind of bill that we have before us today be consistent with the principles of the hon. member's bill on free, prior, and informed consent that will soon be before Parliament?

Hobiyee Celebration

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, February marks the beginning of the Nisga'a nation's new year. The Nisga'a Ts'amiks Vancouver Society hosted the Hobiyee festival at the PNE in Vancouver East in celebration of the waxing crescent moon this weekend. Hobiyee is celebrated wherever Nisga'a people live.

Over 650 performers from eight large first nations dance groups came to celebrate the strength, beauty, and diversity of indigenous cultures. It was a magnificent sight to behold: to feel the beat of the drums, to see the silhouettes of the dancers, and to listen to the power of the traditional songs. Hobiyee in Vancouver allows aboriginal peoples living in a concrete jungle to connect with their culture and traditions. Chief Joe Gosnell opened the festival.

The Nisga'a people's journey to reclaim their right to self-govern exemplifies the first people's resilience. As we celebrate our nation's 150th birthday, would it not be something if Parliament also adopted Bill C-262, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act?

New beginnings, Hobiyee.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

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

Mr. Speaker, in its call to action 43, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called on federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This summer, I had the great privilege of travelling around the country to speak to Canadians about Bill C-262, the legislative framework for reconciliation that I am proposing, and I can attest to their undeniable enthusiasm.

In fact, reconciliation concerns every one of us. As we approach Canada's 150th anniversary, is it not time to do more than just talk? Should we not also take action?

I am pleased to hold up as an example the noble gesture of the City of Val-d'Or, which passed a resolution in support of Bill C-262 on September 6.

Like Val-d'Or and many other Canadian communities, let us work together to ensure that there is justice for indigenous peoples because that will help lead to reconciliation.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, this morning, Algonquin elders, supported by community members, are gathering on this Hill to remind parliamentarians of a sacred place near here.

The Algonquins have asked politicians at all levels to respect our rights regarding important matters that affect our community, and yet the Zibi development project continues ahead.

The government has committed to a new nation-to-nation relationship, so I would ask again, when will the government honour its promises and commitments to indigenous peoples, and move forward by supporting Bill C-262 to adopt and implement the UN declaration?

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

Mr. Speaker, last month in New York, the Liberals promised to fully implement and adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The TRC's call to action number 43 calls on the government to do the same.

Here is the good news. Bill C-262 would implement both that promise and that call to action.

The question becomes very simple. Will the Liberals support my bill or will that become just another broken promise?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs reiterated her government's intention to endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, the government is rather short on details as to what that will look like.

I am pleased to inform the House that the work has already been done. My bill seeks to adopt and implement the declaration. The question therefore is very simple.

Will the government support Bill C-262? A yes or no will suffice, by the way.