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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

I agree with Michelle that we have been leaders, particularly in this study, in terms of clearly defining, so I'm going to go back and then I will go to the motion.

I think one thing that came out of the study for me is that I think we are coming up with definitions in the study. We are differentiating. There's child sexual exploitation, which is deeply concerning for me. Children are often being called sex workers. I don't think a 12-year-old is a sex worker. I think they're a sexually exploited child. There's also sex work and human trafficking. Because the area of human trafficking has been so conflated with everything, I think it is premature, especially getting the study out, to put forward another motion.

Speaking about the group from Winnipeg, because I am from Winnipeg—lovely people—Steve Bell is a friend of mine. We worked on Bill C-262 together to advance the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. How we feel—Paul Brandt, me or Steve Bell—in regard to this specific matter is different, just like I had a different opinion from the woman who works with Joy Smith. I can't remember her name.

[Shannon Cumming, Legal Counsel, Northwest Territory Métis Nation]

Good afternoon.

The Northwest Territory Métis Nation appreciates the opportunity to appear before you today. President Garry Bailey asked me to convey his kind regards.

I'd like to give a brief history of the NWTMN.

We are indigenous Métis with aboriginal rights to lands, resources and governance throughout our traditional territory. We are aboriginal people of the Mackenzie and Athabasca river basins. That includes lands we have traditionally used and occupied in Wood Buffalo National Park and in Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve. Our ancestors lived on these lands that the Creator provided, and they governed themselves according to our own laws and customs from time before memory.

We are a distinct Métis nation within Canada. We have a right to self-determination. Our rights are protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In 1900, an adhesion to Treaty 8 was signed with treaty Indians at Fort Resolution. Our Métis ancestors were there, but the Government of Canada failed to deal honourably with Métis rights. This legacy of differential treatment between Métis and treaty Indians continues to this day. We regard it as a matter of fairness, equity and justice that reconciliation and redress for historical wrongs must be addressed through our NWTMN negotiating process.

The NWTMN comprises indigenous Métis members from the Fort Smith Métis Council, the Hay River Métis Government Council and the Fort Resolution Métis Council. Our members comprise a significant portion of the communities of Fort Smith, Hay River, Fort Resolution and Yellowknife.

NWTMN were full participants to the Dene/Métis negotiations from the late 1970s to 1990. When the Dene and Métis leadership did not ratify the final agreement in 1990, some regions pursued regional land claim agreements, with the failed Dene/Métis agreement becoming a template for regional negotiations.

In August 1996, the NWTMN, Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories signed a framework agreement. An agreement-in-principle was signed in July 2015. Final agreement negotiations are under way. In May 2021, a self-government framework agreement was signed. These negotiations place the NWTMN in the unique position of being the first stand-alone Métis land, resources and self-government agreement in Canada—a modern-day treaty.

The NWTMN has chosen the path of good-faith negotiations on lands, resources and self-government as a means to achieve what we understand to be at the core of the land back principle. [Technical difficulty—Editor] the land back principle has gathered momentum recently in light of article 28 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which provides indigenous peoples, in part, “the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation”.

We also note the importance of article 26, which upholds indigenous peoples' right to the lands, territories and resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied or used and the need for states to recognize such lands, territories and resources.

We were encouraged in May 2018 when Parliament passed Bill C-262 to harmonize Canada's laws with the UN declaration. Further, the mandate letter of December 2021 from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General calls for the full implementation of the UN declaration across government. The NWTMN looks forward to Canada honouring the implementation of the declaration in respect to Métis rights.

We will continue to seek creative solutions to address the key outstanding issues for our negotiating process, and we can offer a few points, based on our experience, for the committee's consideration.

Indigenous governments may choose different approaches to resolve fundamental questions of land, resources and governance, and land back is one way of looking at the issues. The NWTMN, having chosen the path of good-faith negotiation, is confident that our decision to negotiate can achieve what the land back issue seeks to achieve: a balance between the Crown's actions in respect of our traditional territory and the rights that indigenous Métis will have recognized and affirmed in the modern treaty.

Resolving the key outstanding issues for negotiations may require Canada to examine any impediments that stand in the way of concluding these critical processes and achieving reconciliation. For example, in our process, we have to deal with different ministries to address land issues: INAC or Parks Canada. Although the Crown, as a matter of law, is indivisible, it does at times operate in silos.

In summary, the resolution of long-standing Métis rights, title and governance remains at the forefront of our approach to engaging with Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. The NWTMN has always preferred the path of good-faith negotiations. While the path has not been easy, we are approaching a final agreement. In our view, the modern-day treaty we are seeking will achieve the principles that underpin the land back issue. A Métis government with jurisdictions and authorities over its land and people will provide us with what we need to move forward on the path of reconciliation with Canada.

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

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.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'm going to take a totally different angle here, so I will back off the legal stuff.

There has been a lot of talk with people at committee, over the time we have been hearing from witnesses, about the action plan and how the action plan.... Even the minister, I believe, talked about how the heavy lifting isn't going to be done in the action plan. There has, however, been a lot of talk about maybe doing that action plan prior to the introduction of the legislation, rather than letting the legislation invoke the action plan.

I will open this up to everybody. Was there any discussion in any of the departments about working on the action plan during the time between Bill C-262 and Bill C-15? Was any thought ever given to doing some of that heavy lifting prior to introducing the new Bill C-15?

[Laurie Sargent]

Thank you. I will do my best.

I can't resist mentioning that I clerked with Professor Newman way back when, so I know of his scholarly reputation and work. Of course, he has been flagging questions about Bill C-262 and this legislation along these lines for some time.

We have done our best, I would say, through the engagement process and the update and enhancements made to the bill to address some of the questions raised, notably by provinces and territories, in relation to the scope of application of this legislation.

Ultimately there is a very deliberate choice and use of words in various provisions in the bill. The one that was flagged with respect to application in Canadian law is intended to reflect the fact I spoke to at the beginning of this session, that the declaration can inform the interpretation of all laws in Canada—federal, provincial and constitutional—and so, to be accurate, would need to reflect that.

That said, you will see the obligation in clause 5 that relates to alignment of laws. It uses the terms “laws of Canada” and Government of Canada. That speaks to what Minister Bennett and deputy minister Quan-Watson were emphasizing: that this obligation to align laws applies to federal laws—those enacted by the Parliament of Canada.

[Laurie Sargent]

I'm not an expert in the Palermo protocol and exactly how it may be used in that context, but generally speaking, the federal government, when it moves to implement international treaties in Canadian law, can take a number of different approaches. In this case, what we see is the government really taking—when I say the government, I also reflect Bill C-262 and the approach that it took—an approach of recognizing the role of the declaration as an interpretive instrument relevant to interpreting our laws.

I think we heard other witnesses before the committee say this as well. It's not an attempt to take the declaration and make it a federal law, which is sometimes the way international instruments are integrated into Canadian law. That's not the case here.

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

Thank you so much. Thank you for reminding us of the decades of work that have gone into this. This week at the UN permanent forum, for us to be able to thank Wilton Littlechild for all his work.... But there are so many other Canadians and indigenous representatives from Canada, like your family, Jaime. You've lived this your whole live. I don't think we could have a stronger advocate. Thank you for all you do.

Also, in talking about the kind of engagement, I just want to say that we want meaningful engagement, and that means that the excellent Bill C-262 that Romeo Saganash brought forward was evergreened—because the declaration is not—to include two-spirited peoples and to make sure that the definition of the diversity within indigenous communities is not only in the preamble but also in the body of the bill.

This is an exciting time and it helps that the reference to the UN declaration is now in eight of our bills in Canada, including Bill C-91 and Bill C-92. The intent and the commitments in the UN declaration are now part of Canadian law. This will serve to help people understand better what section 35 rights mean, and that indigenous rights and treaty rights are not debatable. They exist, and they will continue to flourish with the understanding of all Canadians.

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

Okay, thank you.

I am speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. I wish to honour the waters they paddled and their moccasins which walked these lands.

It is my pleasure to appear at this committee to discuss Bill C-15. I am joined today by two officials from the Implementation Sector: Ross Pattee, Assistant Deputy Minister, and Marla Israel, Director General of the Policy, Planning and Coordination Branch.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the leadership of former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash on developing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the “Declaration”) and on legislating a framework to implement it here in Canada and I thank him for Bill C-262, which served as the foundation for Bill C-15.

The declaration is of critical importance to indigenous peoples across Canada, including the indigenous leaders who participated directly in its development.

The declaration is the result of decades of tireless effort, negotiations and sustained advocacy within the United Nations system, including by inspiring indigenous leaders like Dr. Wilton Littlechild, who you heard from last week. As Dr. Littlechild recently told me, all together, C-15 is a reconciliation call for justice and respect through implementation of solutions-based international treaties.

I believe that implementing the declaration here in Canada is essential to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This has been made clear by both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, after six years of hearings, and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, after three years of listening to families and survivors.

The TRC said that the declaration charts a path for reconciliation to flourish in 21st century Canada. The inquiry's calls for justice also call on governments to immediately implement and fully comply with the declaration.

The introduction of C-15 fulfills our government's commitment to introduce legislation to implement the declaration, establishing Bill C-262 as the floor, rather than the ceiling.

Prior to the bill's introduction, 33 bilateral sessions took place with AFN, ITK and MNC. In addition, more than 450 people participated in 28 regional engagement sessions, 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.

While we acknowledge that some would have preferred a longer engagement, it was inclusive and meaningful. The current bill reflects the content requested by many indigenous partners.

Extensive meetings were also held with indigenous partners and other stakeholders after its introduction, to explain the bill's content and work on further enhancements. As Minister Lametti has noted, engagement post introduction informed some further amendments, which the government will be supporting.

Co-development of the action plan will be a further opportunity to work in close partnership on implementation.

We have already begun preliminary discussions with indigenous partners on the design of that process. Yesterday's budget 2021 proposes to provide $31.5 million over two years to support its co-development.

Recognizing and respecting indigenous rights mean that indigenous peoples are at the table for decisions that impact their rights. In many cases, it means that economic development and stronger economic outcomes will be advanced with indigenous peoples as partners.

The declaration is broader than economic development. I'm so grateful for my conversation with Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who you also heard from last week, on her findings about racism in health care and her report, “In Plain Sight”. She was very clear about article 24 of the declaration, which states:

Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right.

This will be very important in guiding the future legislation on indigenous health.

I also remember how important it was, during the summit on child welfare, to underline Article 7 of the declaration, which details the collective and individual rights to live free from violence, including “forcibly removing children”.

The declaration allows us all to develop a clear path so everyone can work together as partners with a shared stake in Canada's future.

As I said before, implementing the declaration is nothing to be frightened of. What is needed is fundamental and foundational change. It's about shedding our colonial past and writing the next chapter together, as partners with indigenous peoples.

It has been more than 13 years since the declaration was adopted by the General Assembly. I urge all members to support this fundamental and necessary change and support this bill.

Thank you. Meegwetch. Nakurmiik. Marsi.

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

Thanks so much.

I will read Minister Lametti's opening remarks, and then I will move on to mine, Mr. Chair. That will take a bit more time, but it's really important that the committee hears what Minister Lametti had prepared to say to all of you.

Good morning. It is my pleasure to appear at this committee to discuss Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

He was joining you from the Department of Justice, which sits on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

Before I start to discuss the main points in the bill, I would like to acknowledge the untiring work of parliamentarians and Indigenous leaders to have the declaration implemented in Canada.

In particular, I would like to recognize the work of my former colleague Romeo Saganash, who introduced private member's Bill C-262 in a previous Parliament. That bill was examined and studied in detail.

It will take determined work and a sustained commitment by Parliament, by the government, by Indigenous peoples and by all Canadians if we are to give concrete form to the vision of self-determination, of governmental autonomy and of the harmonious relations between peoples that the declaration foresees. That is exactly the work that Bill C-15 commits us to do together.

Bill C-15 has its foundations in former Bill C-262 and was developed in consultation and collaboration with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

The bill recognizes inherent rights and the right to recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. It also recognizes the role of the declaration as having application in Canadian law and as a source for interpreting Canadian law, including the Constitution. This is consistent with Canadian jurisprudence, which recognizes that, constitutionally, protected rights are not frozen in time. They are part of a living tree that grows and adapts to its surrounding context, including the development of new international norms, such as the declaration.

The legislation includes provisions emphasizing that measures to implement the declaration cannot be used to undermine aboriginal and treaty rights that are already constitutionally protected. To be clear, this provision does not seek to reinterpret or amend the rights in the declaration itself. It only confirms that this legislation cannot be used to derogate from the constitutional protection of section 35 rights, including treaty rights.

The legislation creates three specific obligations on the Government of Canada. The first requires the federal government to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples.

The second obligation requires developing an action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples. The action plan would address injustices and combat prejudice while promoting mutual respect and understanding with an underpinning in human rights.

The third obligation contained in Bill C-15 is a requirement to prepare annual reports in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples. This would provide transparency on the measures taken to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration and the action plan.

To follow this path, we must work in collaboration to determine the way in which the standards and rights set out in the declaration will be put into practice. This includes the main aspects of the declaration such as free, prior and informed consent

Free, prior and informed consent is a manifestation of the right to self-determination. It is about providing the opportunity for clear, effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that directly affect them. Achieving consent should be the goal of any good faith consultation or collaboration process. To be clear, the declaration does not confer a veto or require unanimity in these types of decisions. If consent cannot be secured, the facts and law applicable to the specific circumstances will determine the path forward.

Bill C-15 will not change Canada's existing duty to consult indigenous groups or other consultation and participation requirements set out in legislation like the Impact Assessment Act. What it will do is encourage ongoing work to build on these types of arrangements and approaches.

I would like to acknowledge that we have heard several potential proposed amendments and want to assure members that we are taking these suggestions very seriously. We welcome your recommendations.

Bill C-15 demonstrates a genuine commitment to champion reconciliation and to improve relations with Indigenous peoples. In so doing, we will build a better Canada for all current and future generations of Indigenous peoples and Canadians alike.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, do you want me to go on with my own remarks?

[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.

[Adam Bond, Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thank you, President Whitman.

My name is Adam Bond. I am legal counsel with the Native Women's Association of Canada.

I'm here with President Whitman in a support capacity, and I'm happy to answer and respond to any questions of a more technical nature as they relate to NWAC's interests and concerns for Bill C-15.

I think that it was a very thorough discussion in the first panel. I'm pleased to have been able to listen in and hear your questions and the responses. I think this is a great dialogue. We're addressing some of the concerns that have been raised. I feel that those concerns generally gravitate towards some of the same concerns that were prevalent during the discussions on Bill C-262, particularly whether or not FPIC constitutes a veto and whether the changes brought in under Bill C-15 will essentially undo some of the jurisprudence with respect to section 35 rights.

I don't want to take up too much time here, because I'm sure that these questions will be brought up shortly. I look forward to hearing your questions and hope to have an opportunity to respond to some of these very important issues.

Thank you.

[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.

[David Chartrand, Vice-President and National Spokeperson, Métis National Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for allowing us to come to this very important committee. I want to start off by saying good morning to everyone and thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to speak today. My apologies for a late submission that is coming your way in French translation. We don't have a lot of funding in this particular area, so we always seem to be late. I want to express my apologies to our friends in Quebec. We will never forget them for standing up for Louis Riel. We do apologize to them for not having the French translation on time.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Métis nation in support of Bill C-15 and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The Métis nation is a distinct indigenous nation based in western Canada. We are a rights-holding nation under section 35 of the Constitution, and we are a partner in Canada's Confederation.

For the past year, the Métis nation has worked collaboratively with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Assembly of First Nations, and the Government of Canada to develop legislation using former Bill C-262 as the floor. Bill C-15 is the result of this process. The human rights contained in the UN declaration are the minimum standards for our survival, dignity and well-being, and Bill C-15 sets out an effective process to implement these rights in Canadian law.

In 2008, former MP Tina Keeper introduced a private member's bill to implement the UN declaration in Canada. In 2016, Romeo Saganash did the same under Bill C-262. We are here today because, unfortunately, these bills did not receive royal assent. On the positive side, we have the foundation that these previous bills have provided, and we have the momentum to make change right now. We must not allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers. We have waited for too long to see the rights of indigenous peoples fully recognized.

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. We urge members to reject proposals for amendments that would impede this objective, including the amendments put forth by the Assembly of First Nations and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. I will speak to this more in a few minutes.

In November 2020, we held nationwide engagement sessions, at which we heard from a broad range of Métis nation citizens from across our homeland. I think each of you has a copy of this. You can read it. Hopefully you've read it. If not, please read it. We heard from Métis nation women, elders, youth, persons with disabilities, gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons. We heard from our leaders within Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak-Women of the Métis Nation, which is part of the governing structure of the Métis nation.

In our engagement processes, the citizens of the Métis nation voiced their strong support for the implementation of the UN declaration, and expressed hope that this bill will become law and positively impact their lives and futures. During these sessions, our citizens emphasized a number of areas in which their rights matter in their daily lives. These included education, language, housing, health, child and family services, jobs and economic opportunities. They also feel strongly about their right to self-determination and jurisdiction over lands, territories and resources. We are strong protectors of our land. We also understand the role that responsible resource development plays in the economic security and well-being of our communities and the prosperity of Canada as a whole.

The Métis nation is uniquely positioned to strike a balance between the environmental and economic factors of our homeland and resources. The recognition of our rights supports this. Our Métis nation governments must have a central role in implementation, and we will work in partnership with the Crown and with industry when it comes to our land.

The common theme in all of this is our inherent right to self-determination. This is our cardinal right. Much of the discussion around this bill and the declaration has centred around free, prior and informed consent. This is a natural and necessary part of our right to self-determination. I will speak more on this later.

Our lives are rich and deep, and our self-determination is exhibited in many different areas. As you can see from the priorities of our citizens and from reading the declaration itself, our self-determination fortifies our citizens, communities and nation in a holistic manner.

Bill C-92, passed in June, 2019, is a good example. It was developed in partnership with indigenous peoples and makes good progress toward implementing the UN declaration in the area of child and family services. It does this by affirming our right to self-determination and affirming our jurisdiction over our nation's children. We continue to support this approach to implementation.

It's also important to the Métis nation that implementation of the UN declaration, through Bill C-15, is done in a meaningful, transparent and accountable manner. The inclusion of the reporting requirements and an oversight mechanism to provide recourse for rights violations are key additions that strengthen this bill.

Likewise, the success of the action plan is crucial for meaningful implementation. The declaration affirms the right to self-determination and supports the role of indigenous governments in representing their nations. The action plan must reflect this. It must be developed in true partnership between the Government of Canada and indigenous governments. It must not be unduly limited in scope. It must be properly resourced so that indigenous peoples in Canada have the means to truly implement their rights.

I'd like to turn now to the issue of certainty. As with Bill C-262, claims that this bill will result in uncertainty and threaten economic opportunities has been a major point of contention. Let me be clear. Economic growth is very important to the Métis nation and to Canada. Free, prior and informed consent is not a veto. Implementing the UN declaration will result in more certainty, not less.

We must recognize that we have been living in this uncertainty for years. This has resulted in using the court system to try to find certainty. We fought for our land rights in court for 32 years in the Manitoba Metis Federation case. We'll always stand up for our homeland and our self-determination, but Bill C-15 offers us a better way forward than fighting battles in courts. This is why I call the UN declaration a blueprint for clarity.

The market always tries to find greater certainty. This point has been raised several times before this committee, but look at how the market has responded to the uncertainty we have been living in. Industry has moved towards forming more respectful relationships with indigenous peoples, and some companies such as the Mining Association of Canada have even looked to incorporate policies on free, prior and informed consent under processes. This is how they have found greater certainty. The idea that moving further towards this approach through Bill C-15 would result in less certainty is nonsense.

I would hold up the productive relationship the Métis nation has formed with industry groups, such as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Mining Association of Canada and Enbridge, as further evidence that Bill C-15 will create greater certainty. These relationships have translated into projects that have provided tangible benefits for the Métis nation and for Canada, such as projects that the Manitoba Metis Federation has undertaken with Enbridge.

Free, prior and informed consent is key to our ability to participate meaningfully in the decisions that impact our lives, our land and our rights. This is necessary if our right to self-determination is to be upheld. We will be involved from the very beginning as partners in natural resource projects on other developments. We will look together for the best way forward in a way that builds consent.

This is not a veto. I repeat that again: This is not a veto. It does not undermine or override due process. There is no due process if we are excluded. Free, prior and informed consent ensures due process by ensuring our participation.

[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 an 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.

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

I think you do, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much.

I'm working in a five-minute slot, right? Thank you.

President Obed, I want to just talk briefly about the action plan for a couple of minutes and give you an opportunity to respond to that. Many of the witnesses we've heard, many of the people that I've talked to, have expressed a desire to pursue that action plan in the context of removing some of the uncertainty and being able to provide clarity on some of the questions that people on all sides of this debate are asking.

I think back to when you appeared as a witness on the oath that we talked about. You talked about a lot of the work that had been done ahead of time and how it should have been pretty easy to move from the oath to the actual booklet and information that was to be provided to new citizens.

In the context of the action plan, we've heard people talking about a wasted three years with what happened after Bill C-262 until now. I'd be curious as to your perspective on whether that time was maybe lost when we could have been developing the action plan and getting a bunch of the frameworks in place, kind of rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work that could have been done to remove some of the uncertainty and to bring clarity on many of the questions that people are asking about this piece of legislation.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Ms. Gazan, thanks for the question.

There is no question that we operate from our chiefs-in-assembly mandate, and I indicated earlier that when Bill C-262 was not passed in the Senate, our chiefs met in assembly and said “National chiefs, AFN, go get a government bill that's as strong as, or better than, Bill C-262.” That is what Bill C-15 represents. It is a bill that is as strong or better. Part of that dialogue and support for Bill C-262 was the eventual hope to see it in legislation, so that carries through to Bill C-15. We have numerous resolutions of support for the UN declaration itself, as well as for legislation going forward.

There are a lot of people—and it's first nations politics as well—some who like it and some who don't. Some will say, “Oh, the national chief should not be saying this; he doesn't have a mandate.” We do have a mandate, and because of that mandate we are pushing very hard for this and it's an opportunity that we don't want to lose. That's my response to the question.

It's a very good question. We have a resolution by our AFN chiefs-in-assembly, and that's what we're building on and implementing.

[Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

Thank you for that question.

First of all, with regard to the status of the preamble, as you know, preambles are an aid to interpretation. They are not independently enforced, but they are an aid and they state the framework for the legislation. The preamble is important, and the preambular provisions to this bill are very valuable, strong and important.

As the national chief has submitted on behalf of AFN, there is a requirement, though, in our respectful view, for improvements. In particular, we've highlighted three of them. One is very straight forward, adding the word “racism”, which appears to be an oversight.

On the more substantive one, which is recognizing and denouncing the concept of terra nullius and the doctrine of discovery, that is important in the preamble. It, of course, remains open to members of Parliament or senators to think about whether or not they would like that substantively in the body of the bill as well as the preamble. It does have force in the preamble, but it is quite important to be clear that the doctrine of discovery in terra nullius is specifically a doctrine of moral superiority that should be rejected. I know that's been testified to by others during these hearings.

The interpretive value of a preamble is significant. When there's ambiguity, the preamble is used and looked at. The preamble sets the broad context of promoting reconciliation, responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and, more importantly, in contrast to Bill C-262, when Romeo Saganash's very important bill came forward, it did not have some of the preamble provisions that are here. It was a different kind of bill—a different time.

However, the emphasis on addressing racism, discrimination and all forms of violence against indigenous people is important in the preamble as well as in the action plan, because indigenous peoples, in the last number of years, have been the target of specific violence when they've stood up to assert rights. They have attracted that.... We've had many issues with policing and so forth, and this is quite important, as the national chief tabled today, that this preamble be strengthened accordingly.

[Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

First of all, we all know how hard fought it was to add the rights to into the Constitution Act in 1982 in section 35, as well in section 25 of the charter. Unfortunately, the history of the last 40 years has been one where indigenous peoples have had to fight hard for the recognition of their rights, including recognition of their title.

A lot of that jurisprudence has been really hard because, for some of us who have been involved in those cases, the Crown has taken a very adversarial and hostile approach to the existence of the rights of indigenous peoples, and it has been a challenge. Section 35 of the Constitution Act is a very important provision that indigenous people fought hard for. While it has been interpreted mostly by courts, where there are no indigenous people present, those rights are very important.

The declaration as an international instrument is there to assist us to have a better discussion about the right of indigenous people in section 35, because the declaration brings good information and value in terms of what the standards, principles and rights should be.

In my view, the declaration is a way of interpreting our constitutional rights that gives us a better set of understandings of how to frame issues for indigenous people. I know that the national chief has spoken a lot about the issues of racism and discrimination.

If we look at article 2 of the UN declaration, which says that indigenous people have rights like all other human beings, including the right to be free from discrimination, I'm sure no one on this committee would disagree with that, but that isn't expressed very clearly in our charter or in our Constitution and needs to be reinforced, because we have seen very much, for instance during this pandemic, how much systemic discrimination and racism indigenous people are experiencing.

The Constitution of Canada is there. Those rights are there. They are important, but the declaration provides through this bill an opportunity to promote a more reconciliation-focused approach to get away from the highly conflictual, adversarial approach and to shift to recognition of rights. It's extremely valuable legally, but it does not in any way take away from the constitutional rights of indigenous people, and there is a non-derogation clause in Bill C-15. The national chief has tabled some suggestions on how that should probably be strengthened to better reflect Bill C-262 based on the concerns of first nations. There is delicate balancing when we implement international laws, and Bill C-15 does support that.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the committee members for agreeing to the 15-minute time.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

That was just a little bit in Cree for my friends and relatives.

I'm very happy to be here with all of you.

I used one of my spirit names, King Thunderbird Child. That is one of the names I carry. I'm from Little Black Bear First Nation and Treaty 4 territory in southern Saskatchewan. I gave thanks to the creator for this beautiful day and I acknowledged as well the Algonquin peoples here in the Odawa territory, where I'm sitting and working from today, their ancestral lands.

Chairman Bratina and honourable committee members, thank you so much for this opportunity.

I also want to acknowledge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who is with me on this presentation, and Willie Littlechild as well. I acknowledge them and thank them for their work.

Our Assembly of First Nations has long supported the adoption of a clear and strong legislative blueprint to advance the implementation of the United Nations declaration.

I appeared before this committee three years ago to support the adoption of Bill C-262, the private member's bill brought forward by Romeo Saganash, so I'm very pleased to now speak in support of a government bill that builds on the foundations of Bill C-262.

The Assembly of First Nations chiefs-in-assembly have passed numerous resolutions calling for the full implementation of the declaration. These resolutions included support for the adoption of Bill C-262.

When a filibuster prevented Bill C-262 from coming to a final vote in the Senate, where it did have sufficient support to be passed, our Assembly of First Nations chiefs-in-assembly passed a resolution in December 2019 calling for a government bill as strong or stronger than Bill C-262. That's my mandate. That's the direction the chiefs of Canada gave me as national chief: to get a government bill that's as strong as Bill C-262.

Bill C-15 meets that test. Bill C-15 provides a principled and pragmatic path forward to ensure that Canada respects and upholds fundamental human rights that have been affirmed and reaffirmed by the international community many times through consensus resolutions of the UN General Assembly.

I want to emphasize that the declaration did not create new rights, and neither does this proposed new bill. They also do not impinge on or detract from any inherent or treaty rights.

When I testified before this committee about Bill C-262, I felt very strongly that a collaborative and coordinated approach to implementing the declaration was critical to closing the social and economic gap facing first nations people.

Today, I am even more convinced that implementation legislation is the right way forward. I also applaud the work of elected officials in other jurisdictions who have taken steps to implement the United Nations declaration and note the chiefs' work with British Columbia in achieving the unanimous passage of a law in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia on November 28, 2019.

Given the deep racism and discrimination that first nations still face every day, Bill C-15's critical commitment to combat all forms of discrimination makes this bill both timely and urgent. I have seen how in B.C., with the implementation of the declaration, important work has been undertaken to address the racism against indigenous peoples in the health care system, using the standards in the declaration to bring people together in the health care system.

Now, we know that every bill can be improved. Since the tabling of Bill C-15, we have heard critiques and suggestions for improvement—most importantly, from indigenous peoples ourselves. Some AFN regional chiefs and first nations leadership have appeared before you and have identified areas for improvement from their regional perspectives. You should listen carefully to those positions. In Canada, some first nations are in support of Bill C-15 and some are against Bill C-15, while others support it with amendments.

What I am tabling today is a contribution from the Assembly of First Nations that constitutes some relatively straightforward suggestions for improvements. These are intended to respond to the overall objective of first nations to make the bill stronger and clearer. So this is indeed an historic moment.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada looked closely at the UN declaration and concluded that the declaration was “the framework for reconciliation at all levels and across all sectors of Canadian society.” They set that out as their first principle of reconciliation. That's how important the declaration is as a source of guidance and as a foundation for action.

Canadians have embraced the cause of reconciliation; implementation legislation is crucial to bringing that commitment to life.

With the improvements we've tabled, Bill C-15 will better enable us to move forward in a collaborative and coordinated way, consistent with first nations treaty and inherent rights and Canada's legal obligations.

I'd like to review those 12 improvements right now.

Number one is preamble clause 6. It's our recommendation that this provision is not accurate and should be deleted.

Number two is preamble clause 8. It's our recommendation that the word “racism” be added to this clause. Racism is a critical daily concern for first nations, and we believe strongly that it should be named.

Number three is preamble clause 9. It's our recommendation that the paragraph include explicit reference to the doctrines of discovery and terra nullius, and to be clear that, as the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Tsilhquot'in Nation case in 2014, these doctrines should not be part of the law or policies of Canada.

With regard to clause 2(2), it's our recommendation that the non-derogation clause be revised to more accurately reflect the working of the UN declaration, article 37, the previous approach in Bill C-262, and wording has been provided for you to consider.

Number five, it's also recommended that you consider adding two new clauses in the interpretation section, clause 2, to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation on some matters of great importance to first nations. The first of these two new clauses is clause 2(4):

For greater certainty, the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights, must be interpreted flexibly so as to permit their evolution over time and any approach constituting frozen rights must be rejected.

This provision is important because we cannot permit interpretation of treaty rights or any of the rights of indigenous peoples as frozen in time. Approaches that reflect stereotypes and old ideas, especially on treaty rights, must be overcome as an ongoing obstacle to moving forward.

Number six, and the second of the two new clauses, is 2(5):

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to diminish or extinguish the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights.

This provision makes it clear that extinguishment of the rights of indigenous peoples is not acceptable under any circumstances and cannot be part of Canada's laws or policies. Indigenous peoples have been subject to policies that sought to extinguish our rights and identities, such as the residential schools and other unilateral crown policies. Extinguishment is a systemic barrier to reconciliation that Canada must permanently and clearly reject.

Number seven, it's our recommendation that the subtitle for clause 4 or the purpose section is incorrect and it should be titled “Purposes”. Romeo Saganash spoke to this issue in his appearance on March 11. This is an obvious grammatical problem, but could lead to inaccurate interpretation in the future and should be fixed, as it has been flagged by first nations as a concern. I urge you to correct this at this study of the bill by committee members.

Number eight, in this same clause, it's recommended that the word “framework” be removed. As acknowledged in the preamble of this bill, the UN declaration itself is the framework, and reference to other frameworks simply cause confusion.

Number nine, I also note that the reference to the “Government of Canada” in the purpose clause 4 must be removed because Canada's obligation extends not just to government, but to Parliament, and this wording as it currently reads is inaccurate. The phrase “Government of Canada” could simply be removed, and I recommend you do that as we show in the table submitted.

Number 10, it is recommended that the time frame set out in clause 6 for the action plan be reduced from the three years to two years. Implementation is already long overdue. Canada should have begun implementing the declaration when it was adopted as a global minimum standard in 2007. Canada has been committed to implementing the declaration without qualification since 2017. I don't think it's necessary to wait another three years.

Number 11—which is similar to the preamble provision in number eight—the recommendation is to add the word “racism”. This word also must be added to paragraph 6(2)(a), as the wording is tracked in both parts of the bill.

Finally, number 12, I recommend that the words “implement”, “implementing” and “implementation” be used in the bill only in relation to implementing the declaration. For all other uses, I recommend that expressions like “carry out” be substituted, and you will see those suggestions in the table attached. If I have missed other examples, as the First Nations Leadership Council of British Columbia has indicated in their submission to you, I recommend that we adopt those recommendations to ensure that the entire bill is corrected, so that “implementation” is only used in relation to implementing the declaration.

Bill C-15 deserves the support of this committee and the support of all members of Parliament and senators. In my view, the improvements we have brought forward are modest and reasonable, and I urge you to adopt them when your committee gets to that part of your deliberations.

To conclude, I want to be very clear. The AFN is eager to see Bill C-15 move forward to final votes in the House of Commons and the Senate as soon as possible. First nations leaders and legal experts like Chief Littlechild poured their heart and soul into the creation of the declaration. They did this for a reason. They went to the United Nations year after year for more than two decades because they saw this international human rights instrument as key to building a new relationship with Canada.

Canadian government officials were also active participants through that long process at the United Nations. In fact, Canada deserves a lot of credit for helping to build support among other states so that the declaration could be finalized and adopted. This is something that we accomplished together and something that Canadians can be proud of. Yet, despite what was accomplished, more than 13 years have passed now since the declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly, more than 13 years since the UN proclaimed the declaration as “the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples [in all regions] of the world.” In this time we have had expressions of support for the declaration from federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments of all political stripes.

Canada has been part of numerous consensus resolutions at the UN committing to domestic implementation. Canada has made commitments to the indigenous peoples of the world that it would implement the declaration. It's time to complete this and make good on these commitments by working together. Canada has added the commitment to implement the UN declaration into the text of other laws passed by Parliament, including important bills on the inherent right of self-government in relation to child welfare and indigenous languages. What we still lack, however, is the legislation that implements the declaration and sets us on a course of recognition of rights and provides a framework for reconciliation, as the TRC wisely called for action. Bill C-15 provides that path. It's important for first nations, and I believe it is important for all Canadians to seize this opportunity now. We need to hear the words “royal assent” before the end of June.

Thank you. Kinanaskomitinawow.

[Paul Joffe]

Paragraph 4(a) is critical because, first of all, there is a problem with 4(a). It says “The purpose of this Act is” and it has paragraphs (a) and (b) That is not one purpose. That goes below the standard in Bill C-262 that Romeo Saganash emphasized. It should be “The purposes of this Act are” and then you have paragraphs (a) and (b).

Paragraph 4(b) leads to the action plan. Paragraph 4(a) is an independent statement. It has application in Canadian law. Different courts, provincial courts and federal courts have already applied the UN declaration without this bill. Quebec has. Ontario has in a number of cases. That's both in provincial courts and also federal courts.

This goes to the very essence of the bill. There is no doubt that the UN declaration has application, because it does in many countries, even without a law.

Some people say it could lead, as I heard today, to unintended consequences. Every bill can be interpreted and one can say there could be unintended consequences, but it's pretty clear in the jurisprudence how it's evolving. It is evolving in Australia. In New Zealand there are many cases relying on the UN declaration. Indonesia even has an important case on the UN declaration.

I see that as a core provision, but “the purpose” should be changed to “purposes are”. It was never meant to have one purpose.

[Paul Joffe, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, honourable committee members.

I'm speaking from Saint-Lambert, Quebec, which is on the traditional territory of the Mohawk people.

I wish to acknowledge the crucial work of former MP Romeo Saganash. As confirmed by the federal government, Romeo's private member's bill, Bill C-262, serves as the floor, but not the ceiling, in moving forward with Bill C-15. We must now build upon the standards of Bill C-262.

Indigenous peoples in Canada continue to face human rights violations. These include, inter alia, racism and other forms of discrimination; dispossession of lands, territories and resources; impoverishment; lack of essential services; food insecurity; missing and murdered women and girls; and forced assimilation and destruction of cultures and languages. In too many instances, intergenerational trauma from residential schools continues to be experienced. It's time for real change.

In this context, it is worth noting that, to date, the UN declaration has been reaffirmed at least 10 times by the UN General Assembly by consensus. No state in the world formally opposes this human rights instrument. This reinforces its significance and legal effect.

I would like now to address the meaning of free, prior and informed consent—or FPIC—as affirmed in the UN declaration, particularly in the context of proposed developments in indigenous peoples' territories. With respect to FPIC, the term “free” means there must be no coercion or manipulation. “Prior” means that consent must be obtained in advance of the activity being approved. “Informed” means that information must not be withheld, misleading or inadequate. Without these three FPIC elements, there would not be valid consent in international law or Canadian law.

FPIC and other provisions in the UN declaration are relative and not absolute. Article 46(3) of the declaration includes one of the most comprehensive balancing provisions in any international human rights instrument. It states:

The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.

These are the same core principles as in the Canadian and international legal systems. These are also the same principles that have been denied to indigenous peoples throughout history.

FPIC is not the same as veto. The term “veto” is not used in the declaration. Veto implies complete and absolute power, regardless of the facts and law in any given case.

FPIC is also gaining support in the corporate sector in Canada and internationally. For example, in its 2019 guidebook, the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business advises to “Commit to meaningful consultation, building respectful relationships, and obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples before proceeding with economic development projects.”

As well, the UN Global Compact—the world's largest corporate responsibility initiative with over 12,000 companies in over 160 countries—has expressed strong support for indigenous peoples in its comprehensive business reference guide on the UN declaration. It states:

FPIC should be obtained whenever there is an impact on indigenous peoples’ substantive rights (including rights to land, territories and resources, and rights to cultural, economic and political self-determination).

Respecting human rights cannot reasonably be held up as an impediment to economic development. This legislation will lead to improved relationships, greater certainty and less litigation.

Currently Canada is demonstrating global leadership by implementing a federal bill on the UN declaration; however, some key revisions to Bill C-15 are still required. For example, I would urge adding racism to the eighth preamble paragraph and to the action plan in subparagraph 6(2)(a)(i).

Overall, Bill C-15 is a positive catalyst for co-operation, justice, healing and mutual respect.

Thank you.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I would be of the opinion that we certainly have the right to review our position, reassess our position, in light of the current political context. Since BillC-262, what have we experienced? This is where I go back to the position of provinces. We all know that at least six jurisdictions have expressed concern, going back to last fall, and before that, as the federal government was getting ready to introduce Bill C-15 in December.

At the time, what we also had in that evolving political context, if you will, was the Province of Quebec challenging a bill that was co-developed with first nations, which is Bill C-92. It's the same for Bill C-91. This is where we expressed, in my view, very legitimate concerns in terms of making sure that Bill C-15.... And, again, I want to restate the fact the UN declaration poses no concerns when it comes to our first nations. It's how we—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I say that because I know that, with Bill C-262, the AFNQL adopted a unanimous resolution in support of it. We now have on the table—and I'm a New Democrat talking about a Liberal bill here—Bill C-262, now called Bill C-15, yet there are now all these alarm bells being raised even though we know both bills are similar. I find that concerning, particularly with the fact that you commented on the preamble.

I know there has been criticism of the preamble of Bill C-15 as not being legally binding and a means to confuse and mislead indigenous peoples and nations. That's one of the things that have been quoted. We know this is a totally inaccurate understanding of the role preambles play in legislation, especially in light of how the federal Interpretation Act, article 13, defines the legal effect of a preamble. It states:

The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.

That's the federal Interpretation Act with respect to legislation. I am wondering where the concerns are coming from about the preamble not having legal effect with respect to Bill C-15.

[Regional Chief Terry Teegee]

Well, I think what you're speaking of are some of the projects that existed pre Bill 41. Sadly, it isn't retroactive in terms of the decisions that were made many years ago. Rather, it's forward looking.

This being a bill that was born out of Bill C-262—and certainly we appreciate Romeo Saganash's work on this private member's bill—I really believe that this is a place where we can change that relationship in terms of recognizing human rights, indigenous rights and our ability for our sovereignty and self-determination. I believe that. Here in British Columbia, we have been and are right now working on the alignment of laws and the action plan. It has been well over 15 months.

With this bill and our experience here in British Columbia, if it does pass, we need to start the action plan as soon as we can—within 18 months, not three years—and we need the resourcing for this to make sure that it's fully implemented the way it is meant to be, as when this was first passed many years ago, in September 2007. I think that is what we're trying to do here in British Columbia.

The point I'm trying to make is that here in British Columbia there was no real instruction or manual on how to implement this. We've developed a process, and now it's working.

[Regional Chief Terry Teegee, Regional Chief of Assembly of First Nations (British Columbia), BC First Nations Leadership Council]

Mahsi cho.

[Witness spoke in Dene]

[English]

Members of Parliament, first of all, I want to acknowledge the territory that I am on, the Lheidli T'enneh Dene people of the Dakelh territory near Prince George, British Columbia. I want to also acknowledge the territories that you are broadcasting or attending this meeting from: that they are indigenous lands and have always been indigenous lands since time immemorial.

I want to thank the committee for the invitation to offer some remarks. I am honoured to speak on the topic of federal legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This marks a significant turning point in the history of this country and follows a historic occasion in the province of British Columbia. On November 28, 2019, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, DRIPA, passed unanimously in the B.C. legislature with support from all parties in British Columbia.

DRIPA was widely supported by first nations in British Columbia. It represents a sea change from the provincial government's tradition of denying and opposing our titles, rights and existence as distinct peoples and an acceptance of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission call to action 43 “to adopt and implement the...Declaration...as the framework for reconciliation”.

This was a turning point in B.C. While much hard work lies ahead, we are starting to see a shift toward the human rights-based approach required by the declaration.

As an example, last fall the B.C. government commissioned a comprehensive review of anti-indigenous racism in the provincial health care system, promoting article 24 of the declaration and affirming indigenous peoples' rights to access to health care without discrimination.

Historic and recent events demonstrate the imperative for concrete measures to address racism in our society and the responsibility of the public governments to act. The United Nations declaration is a global human rights instrument, and human rights cannot be fully enjoyed where there is racism and discrimination.

The anti-indigenous racism and discrimination that continue today underscore the appropriateness of the human rights-based approach to reconciliation. Reconciliation cannot be based on denial of rights or racism. This is inherently contradictory and incompatible with upholding human rights.

Bill C-15, with the improvements, is an important next step in Canada's implementation of the declaration. It is a long overdue pathway for change, predicated on respect for human and inherent rights and the repudiation and eradication of racist and colonial constructs and doctrines that have no place in this country or our relationships.

The preamble is important, as it speaks to our collective history in Canada and the legacy of colonialism that has had tragic and profound impacts on first nations across the country, underscoring the need for the United Nations declaration to apply in Canada.

The bill must be clear that Canada is repudiating the doctrines of advocating superiority, like the doctrine of discovery and terra nullius. All interpretations of indigenous rights from an era based on colonial denial cannot continue. It must also be clear that implementation of the United Nations declaration is a responsibility of all in government to take actions and ensure consistency of laws as required under article 5.

Further, it is imperative that the co-operation and consultation carried out under the bill reflect the constitutional relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples and key standards of the declaration, such as free, prior and informed consent. The bill must clarify and specify mechanisms and a plan needed for achieving consistency of laws. The new pathway will see laws of Canada shift to be more inclusive and respectful of the rights and our unique relationship and see new actions and approaches of partnership and participation.

Bill C-15 will complement the B.C. declaration act and contribute to the strengthened foundation of Crown-indigenous relations and reconciliation in B.C. where treaties were not concluded throughout the province and the land question remains largely outstanding, as does the implementation of pre-Confederation Douglas treaties.

The implementation of the declaration through laws and action by both Canada and the Province of B.C. will be a strong foundation for innovation and principled negotiations, improving and expediting the negotiation and conclusion of robust, enduring rights-based treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements in British Columbia.

The work of upholding and protecting indigenous human rights is urgent, particularly during a global health pandemic, when human rights are vulnerable and unordinarily impacted. The urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples is stated in the preamble. There are many actions that can and must be taken immediately and not delayed. This should be reflected in the time frames in the bill.

Chiefs in British Columbia have indicated that they believe this legislation meets the floor of the former Bill C-262, although they have identified areas where improvements are needed to address some drafting issues that may cause confusion and to reinforce issues of importance, such as those I have referred to here. We have provided you with a written table of our recommended improvements. We are happy to make ourselves and our technical staff available to further brief you, should you wish for more information regarding our position.

I thank you for the time today to speak in support of Bill C-15.

Mahsi cho.

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

Thanks for the question.

For all of those who have been fighting to have Canada formally acknowledge the important work of so many Canadians, like Grand Chief Willie Littlechild, at the UN for so long, I think this is an exciting time to have it declared and to supplement the understanding of section 35 rights, and to have that clarity that allows people to go forward.

We know that Romeo Saganash's Bill C-262 went through the full parliamentary process and was passed in the House of Commons. It was stalled in the Senate.

I think the kinds of engagements that Minister Lametti has undertaken have been extraordinary. There were over 70 virtual sessions. There were so many bilateral sessions with national indigenous organizations.

Particularly—Adam, you would love this—with young indigenous law students and the young indigenous leaders, they took what is a static declaration and improved the legislation so that two-spirited people and gender-diverse people, the diversity within indigenous communities here in Canada, are now reflected in both the preamble and in the body of the bill.

We've ended up with a better bill. We will continue to do the work. Then we will have to have three years to develop a serious action plan to make sure that all the laws of Canada are in keeping with that bill.

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

Kwe kwe, unnusakkut, tansi, hello, bonjour.

I am speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. I wish to honour the waters they paddled and their moccasins, which walked these lands.

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to appear again before this committee today, to discuss my department's supplementary estimates (C), as well as its 2021-22 main estimates.

I am appearing with my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs, and supported by our officials, led by Deputy Minister Daniel Quan-Watson.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges to everyone in Canada, especially people living in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. The priority of indigenous leadership has been to keep their people safe.

From the very beginning, our government has been there to support first nations, Inuit and Métis communities through the fight against COVID-19, with daily calls with the three ministers. We are so grateful for the truly amazing public servants who are working 24-7. We'll be there as we work towards the recovery and building back better—socially, economically and environmentally.

Reconciliation and self-determination are essential to a strong recovery and represent the core of my mandate. No one wants to go back to normal. We now have the opportunity to bring all Canadians with us as we accelerate the progress to self-determination and support indigenous communities as they implement their own visions for the future.

Our commitment to advancing reconciliation and accelerating self-determination is reflected not only in the estimates being considered today but in everything we do on a day-to-day basis. The 2020-21 supplementary estimates (C) reflect a net increase of $138.6 million for CIRNAC, which brings the total budgetary authorities for 2020-21 to $6.9 billion.

Some of the key priorities that funding from the supplementary estimates (C) will support include the implementation of the Métis government recognition and self-government agreements, the implementation of Canada's collaborative self-government fiscal policy, engagement to support the introduction of Bill C-15 and the coordination and implementation of the national action plan on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, two-spirit and LGBTQQIA+ people.

Notably, the $35.6 million to implement the Métis government recognition and self-government agreements signed with the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, and the Métis Nation of Alberta will support their visions of self-determination and their ability to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural development. The $8.2 million for fiscal transfer agreements with self-governing indigenous governments will support ongoing funding to these governments, as well as enforcement activities under the Teslin Tlingit Council Administration of Justice Agreement.

In addition, $5.2 million is assigned to support the engagement process of Bill C-15. The current version of the bill, built on the momentum and support from indigenous groups for the former private member's bill of Romeo Saganash, Bill C-262, is a reflection of our ongoing engagement with indigenous partners. Moving forward on Bill C-15 is the right thing to do, and I look forward to working closely with all of you during your examination of the bill over the next few weeks and on potential further improvements to the bill. We are grateful for your prestudy.

The funding of $2.6 million over three years for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, two-spirit and LGBTQQIA+ people will help ensure that survivors and family members can continue to meaningfully participate in the development and ongoing implementation of the national action plan. The MMIWG secretariat, led out of CIRNAC, will provide support to the national family and survivors circle to ensure that it is included, supported and connected with all the working groups and at the very centre of the process.

The 2021-22 main estimates for Crown-Indigenous Relations will be approximately $4.7 billion. While this reflects a net decrease of $189 million, or 4%, compared with last year's main estimates, this is mainly due to the anticipated settlement of claims. Also, as you know, main estimates do not reflect the additional funding made available throughout the year through the supplementary estimates and cannot ever be viewed as a complete picture of intended spending.

In closing, I know you all agree that the top priority of this government during this difficult time has been the safety and physical and mental health of all Canadians, including first nations, Inuit and Métis people and especially their elders. I'm proud that even in these extraordinary times, our government has continued to advance reconciliation, right wrongs and accelerate self-determination for indigenous peoples in Canada.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marci. Thank you.

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

Thank you.

To go back to Romeo, I know that one of the conversations we had throughout Bill C-262 was the issue of veto, and the same types of concerns are raised here. Does Bill C-15 represent a veto with respect to FPIC? Maybe you can comment on your position as you outlined previously.

[Romeo Saganash]

First of all, Bill C-15 is pretty much similar to Bill C-262. I think the engagement we've done around Bill C-262 was pretty much thorough throughout the country. I've met with indigenous and non-indigenous communities in town halls to explain Bill C-262 and to explain what the UN declaration is all about, and I've answered the questions or concerns that people had about Bill C-262 at the time.

I can tell you that throughout my travels across the country, I did not leave one town hall, whether indigenous or non-indigenous, where people were opposed to Bill C-262 or the UN declaration. That work, I think, is a legacy in going forward with Bill C-15. We calculated that the indigenous organizations and communities that adopted resolutions of support for Bill C-262 represented approximately one million indigenous individuals in this country. That engagement has been extensive and it was comprehensive, and I think that's a legacy we can take on in moving forward with Bill C-15.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, let me begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you from the unceded lands of the Algonquin people in Ottawa.

I want to thank the panel, and particularly my good friend Romeo Saganash. We dearly miss him in Parliament, but I know he's not that far away when we need to reach him.

Thank you, Romeo, for your enormous leadership.

I was able to witness your work around Bill C-262 from the time you introduced it to the time it passed the House, and the enormous work you put into it. I want to thank you for that and, of course, the work leading up to it with the development of UNDRIP.

I want to get a sense from you, Romeo, about the type of engagement you did leading up to Bill C-262. You were on this committee before, and when we travelled as a committee to many parts of Canada, people would come up and say, “Romeo, you came here this summer. You talked to us.”

You had extensive engagements throughout the process of Bill C-262. Can you maybe give us a sense of how deep that was throughout the time that you were developing this bill?

[Dr. Sheryl Lightfoot, Canada Research Chair in Global Indigenous Rights and Politics, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to those on the west coast, and good afternoon to those of you further east.

I want to open by acknowledging the lands of the Algonquin people where the hearing is physically being held, then also the lands of the Musqueam people where I have the privilege to work and live and where I am currently sitting joining you virtually this morning.

I'm Anishinabe, from Lake Superior Band of Ojibwe. I am Canada research chair and professor of global indigenous rights and politics at the University of British Columbia.

I had the honour to appear before this committee three years ago, in April 2018, when Bill C-262 was being debated in Parliament. Along with many other first nations scholars, advocates and community members, I, of course, was deeply disappointed by the failure to pass that bill into law.

However, I'm very pleased to be with you here today in hopes that Parliament can soon correct this historic failure and pass Bill C-15. I want to thank you for the invitation to appear today.

International human rights instruments like the UN declaration are developed with the intention that they will be implemented in domestic contexts and in full. In legal human rights scholarship, there is often talk about rights ritualism. In short, this means that states say one thing in the international arena, the human rights arena, and then do something else at home.

In my own academic work as a political scientist, I've observed a pattern that I have referred to as “selective endorsement”. What this means is that some states have attempted to water down the rights in the UN declaration, accepting only some of them for implementation and then self-selecting out of other rights. This is simply not morally acceptable to pick and choose human rights that one will respect while others are left behind.

I want to point out that rights ritualism and selective endorsement, as phenomena, are not limited to any one government or any one political party. Governments of all political stripes have repeatedly broken their promises to indigenous peoples. Treaties have been violated and Supreme Court judgments are at times reinterpreted and occasionally ignored, all the while portraying Canada as a global model for democracy and human rights.

Of course, many out there wonder if Canada is really serious about reconciliation. I've heard some very frustrated indigenous people say, reconciliation is dead.

What are we to do? Do we give up, or do we continue to try to find better tools?

I'm strongly in favour of the implementation model that Romeo Saganash created when he first brought forward Bill C-641 and then Bill C-262 to 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, as has been discussed, the creation of an action plan, and it requires public reporting and accountabilities.

A large part of my own scholarly work involves looking at the comparative experiences of indigenous peoples around the world. I feel that Bill C-15 is advancing the global conversation and setting a very positive example for other states.

When we look around the world, we can see that a number of states have undertaken legal and policy measures to implement the declaration. As was mentioned in the first hour, committee members have heard about the national action plan process being developed in New Zealand, for example.

In addition, several countries in Africa have also implemented national legislation and policies to operationalize their commitments to the declaration. Constitutional reforms have also been an essential step, and Latin America has been especially proactive in this area.

National courts, from Belize to Botswana, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico and the Russian Federation have all cited the declaration in legal decisions nationally.

National human rights institutions in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Namibia, the Russian Federation and the United States have used the declaration as a framework for monitoring the implementation of indigenous peoples' rights at the national level. The declaration is also being implemented regionally, and examples here include the European Union and the Organization of American States, the African Commission and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also drawn substantially from the UN declaration.

For more than a decade now, the declaration has been used to set guidelines and standards on the international level. A number of organizations have developed policies and/or guidelines to align with it. For example, and my colleague Professor Gunn mentioned some of these as well, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the Inter-American and Asian development banks and UNESCO. Various UN agencies and programs have addressed indigenous peoples' rights as they relate to business practices and commercial activity as well. International treaty bodies for the conventions that were signed are also increasingly utilizing the UN declaration in their assessments of compliance, therefore making the declaration legally binding through those treaties.

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. Passing Bill C-15 into law will set a genuinely positive example for the rest of the world community. I know that other governments and indigenous peoples in other regions of the world are watching this process very closely.

Last week my colleague, Joshua Nichols from the University of Alberta and I published an opinion piece about the unfinished business of reconciliation. The Supreme Court has recognized reconciliation as a constitutional imperative. As Professor Nichols and I wrote, the court meant something much more profound and challenging than simply trying to get along. Reconciliation is about putting inherent rights and title into meaningful practice. As we said in the article, “Up to now, federal, provincial and territorial governments have largely left this crucial work in the hands of the courts. This has been a mistake.”

[Romeo Saganash, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

Good morning to other committee members. Thank you for the invitation to appear at this committee and make some opening remarks before we go into questions.

To date, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been reaffirmed by the UN General Assembly at least 10 times by consensus. That means it was done without a vote. So we can say safely today that no state in the world presently opposes the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That's what it means.

Last December the UN General Assembly highlighted that the declaration, “has positively influenced the drafting of several constitutions and statutes at the national and local levels and contributed to the progressive development of international and national legal frameworks and policies.”

The UN declaration affirms, as Professor Gunn mentioned, a wide range of economic, social, cultural, political, spiritual and environmental rights. These rights are inherent, or as we say, pre-existing. So it is urgent for Canada to finally respect and implement those rights in federal legislation.

I am pleased that Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, is based on my own private member's bill, Bill C-262, and goes further, as a matter of fact, in certain instances. In my countless meetings and conferences across Canada, Bill C-262 received widespread support from indigenous peoples and the general public. It wasn't easy tabling a private member's bill. My first bill on the UN Declaration, Bill C-641 was tabled in December 2014. It was defeated on second reading in April of 2015. In April 2016, I tabled a new and stronger Bill C-262. The House of Commons passed the bill at third reading on May 30, 2018. However, a filibuster by a few senators killed the bill in June of 2019, just a couple of days before the passing of my mom.

Therefore, I fully support Bill C-15 being tabled by the federal government in the House in early December 2020. 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. I would add security to that list. The bill must be implemented in Canada, as preambular paragraph 2 says.

As a survivor of Indian residential schools, I'm especially pleased that Bill C-15 acknowledges in its preamble the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the calls for justice by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, both of which call for the implementation of the UN declaration.

In reviewing Bill C-15, we see that it is important to underline that its 17 preambular paragraphs have significant legal effects. They add important content to the seven operative positions in the bill and they must be fully considered. For example, doctrines of superiority—preambular paragraph 9—which include discovery and terra nullius, are condemned as racist and legally invalid. All forms of colonialism—preambular paragraph 10—are also rejected, and the Government of Canada has committed to advancing relations based on such principles as justice, equality, non-discrimination and respect for human rights.

In the preamble, paragraph 11 emphasizes the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. The Supreme Court of Canada has also affirmed our inherent and pre-existing rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

In the preamble, paragraph 12 of Bill C-15 asks that the Government of Canada recognize that all relations with indigenous peoples must be based on the recognition and implementation of the inherent right to self-determination, including the inherent right to self-government.

As indicated in the two international human rights covenants, Canada has an affirmative obligation to recognize and respect our right to self-determination. This obligation has existed, as you know, Mr. Chair, since 1976 when Canada ratified the two international covenants.

In my introductory remarks, I would also like to emphasize two current problems with the current text of Bill C-15. First, in some instances, the English and French versions are not compatible, and this is a problem that must be immediately redressed.

A second problem is in section 4 of the act. As currently drafted, it erroneously conflates two distinct and separate purposes as a single purpose that appears to solely relate to the actual plan. This is patently incorrect and would not be consistent with C-262.

Section 4 should therefore read:

The purposes of this Act are

Followed by (a) and (b).

I think my time is up.

I'm looking forward to the questions from the members of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Prof. Brenda Gunn]

I think practically, and you're in a better position to know how government works than perhaps I am, there was nothing. There were, of course, challenges that we see. We all put in a lot of time and effort into Bill C-262. It had made it through the House. It had made through many steps of the Senate as well. I think we had all anticipated it successfully entering into law. We all had to shift gears when it quickly died in the Senate.

I think reformulating an approach after that happened took time. I think importantly the reason why we can't just do an action plan first is that the UN declaration under rules in Canadian law does have relevance already and is being used by the courts. I think we want to as much as possible have a coordinated approach. While it's important for the UN declaration to be able to used in litigation where necessary, we don't want to rely on that.

I think I would flip the question to say, if we don't move and clarify this recognition of the application in Canadian law, we're leaving it to the courts to have that interpretation. It leads to more uncertainty and irregularities, for example, between the provincial courts and sometimes what we're seeing in the federal courts.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've heard a number of people reference the action plan today, so I want to go to Ms. Exner-Pirot and just quickly ask the following question.

My understanding is that the bill as it is now requires an action plan, as did Bill C-262, but the bill does not require the action plan to include any targets and/or deliverables. Professor Gunn, in her comments earlier, referenced a lost three years on the action plan since 2018. She also talked about that as the time and place to sort out many of the issues.

To me, it looks like maybe New Zealand has figured this out. They're doing the heavy lifting and putting their action plan in place before they implement the legislation.

Ms. Exner-Pirot, can you maybe explain, from your organization's perspective, what the value of putting the action plan before the legislation might be in addressing some of the uncertainty that you talked about in your investors?

[Professor Brenda Gunn, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Northern Michif]

Hello, my name is Brenda Gunn. I live in Winnipeg and my family is from the Red River.

I am Métis, and, as noted by the chair, I am an associate professor at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Law. I have worked in both international and constitutional law, including the application of international human rights law in Canada, for almost 20 years now. I've developed a handbook on implementing the UN declaration and I've done many presentations on the UN declaration and how to begin implementing it domestically.

Today, I am speaking from Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Métis nation, my home territory. I want to acknowledge also the Algonquin people, as the House of Commons is located on unceded Algonquin territory.

Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I am very grateful to be here and I want to acknowledge my co-panellist as well.

I will start by saying that on March 22, 2018, I sat before this committee, invited to present on Bill C-262. As I prepared for my presentation today, I was wondering what I should say, thinking about what has changed and evolved over the past three years. I kept returning to the same thought: it is devastating that we have lost these three years, three years that could have been spent developing a national action plan building on the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the national inquiry, three years where indigenous peoples have continued to have lower socio-economic and health outcomes than other Canadians. Three years is a long time. In fact, it's a lifetime to my daughter.

I support this legislation because I think it is an important step toward reconciliation, toward recognizing inherent human rights, toward a fairer and more just Canada for all.

When speaking about the UN declaration, and why I believe it to be the framework for reconciliation, I often highlight four key preambular paragraphs that I'm going to read out to all of you now.

The first is, “Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such”.

The second is the UN is “Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests”.

The third is the UN is “Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith”.

Finally, the fourth is that the UN “Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect”.

What these four preambular paragraphs tell me is that in Canada we need to stop believing in mythologies that recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples is going to somehow tear Canada apart. We have to accept that we are broken, that indigenous peoples have paid too high a price for the development of Canada for too long. We have to accept that the only way to reconcile is to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and shift from a colonial relationship to a relationship based on justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith.

With this understanding of why we have a UN declaration, and its significance in Canada, I want to just highlight one key aspect to the substantive rights included within the UN declaration. Specifically, I want to note that the UN declaration includes economic, social and cultural rights in areas such as language rights, education, health care, housing and economic development, all of which are critical to the exercise of civil and political rights.

Under the international human rights system, there is no hierarchy of rights.

Under Bill C-15, a national action plan that can be developed is critical to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights receive the same level of attention and consideration as political and civil rights.

During the prolonged debate over Bill C-262 there was unfortunate fearmongering that claimed that it introduced uncertainty, highlighted concerns around indigenous peoples' right to free, prior and informed consent, and implied that indigenous peoples might try to stop all resource development projects from proceeding.

From my perspective, these so-called concerns highlight the need for a better grasp of the UN declaration in Canada and the need for a coordinated effort to implement the UN declaration into Canadian law in a way that builds upon the over 20 years of international human rights jurisprudence on which the UN declaration is based. Canada was very slow in turning its support toward the UN declaration. There is a lot of work to do. We've lost a lot of time and now is the time for action.

While Bill C-15 is not going to resolve all problem and tensions between indigenous peoples in Canada, it can be part of the solution. Bill C-15 includes some critical steps toward developing a plan to implement and realize indigenous people's inherent rights. It includes important accountability measures to ensure Parliament puts words into action. It addresses some of the misunderstandings of the application of the UN declaration in Canada.

Marsi. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

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 Roméo 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 roundtable 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 cooperation 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 cooperation 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.

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 the 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 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 hand washing, 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.

[National Chief Norman Yakeleya, Dene Nation, Assembly of First Nations]

Marsi.

[Witness spoke in Dene]

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In my language, I said thank you to my relatives on this call, and today is good weather outside. It's beautiful outside.

Members of the committee, friends and relatives, thank you for inviting me here today to join in sharing the perspectives of the Assembly of First Nations on Bill C-5, an act that will result in a national day of truth and reconciliation as a national statutory holiday.

While I encourage the building of relationships based on understanding and respect every day, I'm here to support the bill advocating for the creation of a national holiday. Creating a national statutory holiday for indigenous people will assist in promoting reconciliation while also commemorating those who need commemoration. We must not forget the past harm done to our communities and the long-lasting legacy of the residential school system and the impact it has had on first nations and indigenous communities.

There will still be challenges to the relationship building between the first nations and Canadians. A national statutory holiday could provide an opportunity for learning, education, and coming together for a better understanding of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, its goals and aspirations, and how all of Canada can move forward on the path to reconciliation.

As indicated in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides the framework for reconciliation. Article 15 of the declaration states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information.

2. States shall take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation with the indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous peoples and all other segments of society.

A national holiday could be used to combat prejudice, eliminate racism and promote tolerance. This holiday will serve as an annual act of reconciliation. First nations have welcomed many of the Canadians' recent commitments to promoting reconciliation, including supporting Bill C-262, the United Nations declaration act, and we look forward to continued initiatives that foster reconciliation. Several provinces and territories have already acknowledged the important day to celebrate the indigenous people.

In 2017, the Yukon government created legislation that led to June 21 becoming a statutory holiday. In the Northwest Territories, this date has been celebrated as a statutory territorial holiday for 18 years. This is not a new issue. The Assembly of First Nations has been calling for this legislation since 1982. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended this special day, and the chiefs-in-assembly have several resolutions speaking to this matter specifically.

As a party to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement, which led to the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the AFN has a unique mandate in advocating the full implementation of all 94 calls to action. Among these calls to action is number 80, which calls for a national day in a very measured outline of this proposed bill.

I'm aware of Canada's recent commitment to declare a federal statutory holiday to mark the legacy of the residential school system. We welcome the announcement of a day to honour the history of this period, as called for by the TRC.

The AFN executive committee recently passed a motion to advocate that Orange Shirt Day on September 30 become a statutory holiday for reconciliation. This date is near the time of year when children were separated from their families to attend the residential schools. It was named after the shiny orange shirt that was given to a six-year-old Phyllis Webstad by her grandmother in 1973 and taken from her and never returned when she attended St. Joseph’s Mission school in Williams Lake, B.C.

I paused just now, because I reflected. That also happened to a lot of us in our residential schools in the Northwest Territories.

I'll conclude my statement.

The AFN proposes that this bill be amended so that September 30 becomes a statutory holiday for reconciliation and that June 21 remain a national day of celebration. If Canada chooses to fulfill call to action number 80 through this bill, June 21 must accomplish the important task of ensuring there's an opportunity for all to honour and respect the legacy of survivors while celebrating our culture and our history.

There is a concern over the conflicting tones of these two objectives. Reconciliation is never easy. It will take substantial effort from all of the partners, both public and private, to ensure reconciliation is encouraged and promoted. Sustained reconciliation takes more than just one day.

I urge all governments to ensure that they keep front and centre the interests and the perspectives of the survivors. First nations are committed to action and change. It is time to restore the original relationship of mutual respect, mutual recognition, peaceful coexistence and sharing. It is a time for reconciliation.

I want to thank the committee and MP Jolibois for raising this important issue.

In closing, the Dene Nation, along with the Assembly of First Nations, wants to ensure that we walk together in these footsteps so that our children can truly have a place in society as first nations people.

We thank you. We thank our elders. God bless you. God bless our people who are in the Labrador country. We pray for you all.

We look forward to your questions.

Marsi cho.

[Romeo Saganash, As an Individual]

Thank you, Scott. It's a pleasure to see you again. I'll put on my timer because I don't want to go over my five minutes, as usual.

First of all, meegwetch to the committee for this kind invitation to appear before you. I also wish also to acknowledge the government for introducing Bill C-5. I think it's an important piece of legislation in moving forward in this country. I would like to express my deep gratitude as well to my former colleague Georgina Jolibois, who did some formidable work on this piece of legislation regarding reconciliation in this country.

I know this legislation only addresses one national day of truth and reconciliation, implementing, I believe, call to action 80, one of the important calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Let's not forget that there are 93 other calls to action that need to be implemented in this country if we wish to move forward on the path of reconciliation. I think it's important to remember that.

I understand that the government is also on the verge of introducing legislation regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is great. It's been promised since 2015. It's been a long time coming, but better late than never. I'm looking forward to seeing that piece of legislation in particular, since I had similar legislation not too long ago, Bill C-262, which finally died on the order paper in the Senate after being passed by Parliament.

Of course, UNDRIP legislation addresses calls to action 43 and 44; 44 is in regard to the action plan that's required to implement the UN declaration, and 43 calls on the federal government, the provinces, the territories and the municipalities to fully adopt and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So we're looking forward to that.

Let's not forget there are at least 16 references to the United Nations declaration in the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I believe that not only legislation in this country needs to be consistent with the UN declaration, but our policies and our operational practices as well.

I see that my time is running out fast, but I wanted to make a couple of points here, one of them being that reconciliation was addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 in the Haida Nation case, whereby the Supreme Court said that reconciliation is not an end in itself, but a process that we need to follow in this country, adding that the objective here—reconciliation—is to reconcile the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown. I think it's important to remember that Supreme Court case.

If we are truly all in this together, I think we need to address all 94 calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as well as the calls to justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. I think that's an important point here.

Indigenous peoples' rights are human rights. Let's not forget that. There's an interesting principle in the 2014 Supreme Court decision, Tsilhqot'in, whereby the Supreme Court acknowledges that the charter provisions in part I of our Constitution and section 35 in part II of our Constitution are “sister provisions”—that's the expression used—that serve to limit the powers of the federal government and the provinces. It's important to remember that.

In closing, I think those who have no intention of upholding the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples always talk about how we should have patience, or how these things are too complicated and it's going to take time. But they aren't. Just to give you an example, the first modern treaty in this country, which has about 500 pages, took one year to negotiate. This treaty is the most complex and complicated document, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It took one year to negotiate.

I'll just leave it at that, because my time is up. I'm looking forward to answering your questions, of course.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

I'd like to thank you, honourable member, for your question.

As you know, we're committed to advancing the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people across Canada and to really, as you have said, walk the path of reconciliation together. Part of that commitment is a commitment I mentioned, which you've just repeated, that by the end of 2020 we will introduce legislation on implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, or I prefer to call it just “the declaration”. That commitment was reiterated in the throne speech.

We're working very hard right now with national indigenous organizations, the national leadership as well as other levels of leadership across Canada, to best map a path forward and to see what we can do. We're using the old Bill C-262 as a base and seeing what we can improve now before implementing it. We're going to continue to work closely in partnership. We're also reaching out to other industry stakeholders just to reassure them that this is something that will help with resource development moving forward.

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 a 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.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

One of the things that we're looking for is to go beyond the duty to consult and accommodate. Working towards free, prior and informed consent creates economic certainty.

There's been such a dialogue, discussion and debate in this country regarding the UN declaration, and I spin it around and say that it creates economic certainty. It creates economic certainty in every province and territory once it's passed. Governments and industry will know what the rules and terms of reference are. That's what it is. You have to know what the rules are.

As indigenous peoples, we're not stakeholders. We're indigenous peoples with rights and title, and that has to be respected. That's what this speaks to. When we talk about a human rights impact assessment, it's having impacts on all that because when we started talking about CUSMA.... There are four chapters, labour, environment, gender and indigenous people, and people are asking what that has to do with business. Well, it has a lot to do with business when you want to create the right environment for investments and economic certainty, so it's very important.

Those are some quick comments within my time—I know the chair's giving me the eye. We have to get that passed in terms of economic certainty—Bill C-262. It does create that economic certainty, and that's what we all have to push for.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you so much.

My questions are for Chief Bellegarde.

I take your point that this was the most inclusive deal to date, but certainly we'd like to see a true, nation-to-nation.... We would like to see indigenous peoples at the table as full partners in the negotiations.

Well, first of all, I want to say thank you for your push on those important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-262, Romeo Saganash's bill. It's very important that this bill pass.

When you were here previously on the TPP in June 2016, you brought the issue of a development of a human rights impact assessment for all trade agreements. You talked about the recommendation from Olivier De Schutter, the UN special rapporteur, to use the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a basis for assessing the impact of all trade agreements. I wonder if you can speak to whether that was a consideration in this agreement, or if there was any movement made in this agreement towards that important step.

Also, I look at your document here, and the first item of article 19 states that indigenous peoples must have free, informed and prior consent. I'm wondering if that's been obtained around this agreement. If not, were there conversations towards how that would be implemented in further trade agreements?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, Assembly of First Nations]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

To all the distinguished members of the committee, I'm very happy to be here acknowledging you all as friends and relatives. I also acknowledge the Algonquin peoples for hosting this on their ancestral lands. For me, from our AFN, I'm happy to be here.

I want to share some perspectives. I'm very honoured to speak here on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations regarding Bill C-100. I'll also say a few words about the process to negotiate, ratify and implement the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.

Trade in resources and goods in this land, I always say, began with us, the indigenous peoples. The participation now in 2019 in international trade should not be seen merely as part of history. Going forward, how do we get more involved?

As self-determining peoples, we have interests and rights respecting today's international trade agreements. We've always said that for far too long we have not seen the benefits from international trade flow to our businesses or to our communities as first nations people. These facts should form a part of legal and political frameworks when Canada explores new free trade agreements. I've always said, from a first nations perspective in Canada, that whenever Canada goes out to negotiate or discuss anything from softwood lumber to trees, anything from potash in southern Saskatchewan, to uranium in the north or any oil, coal, or whatever natural resource it is, indigenous peoples should be involved and should be participating, because there's respect or reference that we still have unextinguished aboriginal title and rights to the land and territory and resources. It's a simple fact. So we need to be involved.

When Canada, through Minister Chrystia Freeland, welcomed me to be on the NAFTA advisory committee, it was very important, because to date, indigenous peoples haven't been involved. We also had indigenous officials working as part of the working group. In the end, we'll say that this work resulted in the most inclusive international trade agreement for indigenous peoples to date. It's not perfect, but to date it's the best that we have in Canada.

With the ratification of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, we would take a step to making international trade more aware of and more equitable in its treatment of indigenous peoples, and especially for indigenous women entrepreneurs. We still have more work to do.

We believe the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement is a step in the right direction with the new general exception for indigenous rights with respect to inherent and aboriginal and treaty rights. As well, with specific preferences to carve out procurement benefits and other opportunities for indigenous businesses and service providers, there's also a promise of future co-operation to enhance indigenous businesses. As well, importantly, the investor-state dispute settlement process, which was a threat to indigenous people's rights, will be phased out for Canada. This is the groundwork for positive change.

While the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement is a new example of the difference it makes to engage with indigenous peoples at an early stage, there must be increased opportunities for first nations participation not only in international trade negotiations but also in trade missions.

Canada should extend an official role to first nations in negotiations of all international agreements on trade and investments that impact inherent treaty aboriginal rights. This would better reflect the nation-to-nation relationship and the whole-of-government commitment by Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In addition, the inclusion of first nations leads to better decisions and better outcomes.

With regard to Bill C-100, what I'm recommending to all the committee members here is that there should be in place a non-derogation clause. It's a safe clause, that nothing in this agreement will affect existing aboriginal treaty rights, which are affirmed in section 35 of Canada's Constitution. I'm making that recommendation as well as that it be interpreted and implemented consistent with those rights in section 35. It's good to have it ratified by Canada, the United States and Mexico on one hand, but each nation-state will come back and do some sort of legislation with the implementation. That's the piece we're looking at making the recommendation on. I'm not advising that we open up the agreement; no, leave it the way it is, but move in tandem with the other two countries to get it ratified. We have to be careful to be not too fast and not too slow, because if one of the three countries doesn't get it ratified, the deal is not going to be implemented.

It's not just that international trade and investment agreements can impact our rights, but also how the agreement is implemented through domestic regulatory and policy matters. That has to be looked at. Once the agreement is ratified, we must work together to realize the economic gains and ensure the provisions related to indigenous peoples in international trade agreements are implemented in a manner that brings greater economic equity to first nations peoples.

The first area where indigenous peoples can see the benefits from this agreement is government procurement. Procurement is always a big thing. Everybody says this should be easy, that it's low-hanging fruit. Canada must move from policies and objectives to mandatory requirements for procuring goods and services from first nations businesses. The Assembly of First Nations is ready to work with Canada to make sure we develop legislation together for social procurement that benefits first nations and other indigenous peoples.

The only other thing I'd like to share here before concluding is there are three or four very important bills we want to see passed before this week is up. Bill C-91 on languages, Bill C-92 on child welfare, and two private members' bills, Bill C-262 and Bill C-337, all need to be passed. If in the event the legislature is called back, those should form the priority. But we're hoping and praying that all MPs, all the leadership here on Parliament Hill, will get behind and pass those pieces of legislation as soon as possible.

That's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the time.

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.

[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.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

It's a good question, again, and I know we've met with your leader as well many times and we've discussed these. I would say there are many important bills, but we always focused on C-91, languages; C-92, child welfare; and then C-262, the UN declaration.

I said that I'd be a happy national chief if they all pass by the end of June. I know the issue is free, prior and informed consent. People think, “Is it a veto?” and “Did you hear from Paul Joffe and other experts?”

I say that it's not a veto, but you have to respect aboriginal rights, inherent rights and treaty rights, and involve the rights and title holders sooner than later in any initiative. With free, prior and informed consent, when people.... You mentioned that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs are going to say, “Don't pass this”. That is a region and that's a regional chief. Grand Chief Arlen will be here to say that.

You know the numbers in Canada. There are 203 chiefs in British Columbia. There are 47 in Alberta. There are 74 in Saskatchewan. There are 66 in Manitoba. There are 134-plus in Ontario. There are 47 in la belle province of Quebec. There are 13 in Nova Scotia, 15 in New Brunswick, two in P.E.I., two in Newfoundland, 14 in the Yukon and 28 in the Northwest Territories.

Do you think there's unanimity?

There you go, but we have 400-plus chiefs supporting this. We have numerous resolutions to support this. I would encourage people to look at starting to fix this, because I'm going to disagree with people in a respectful way that the status quo is not acceptable, and it should not be acceptable to have 40,000 children in foster care. That's where my head goes at all times.

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

Thank you to all the witnesses. We've heard very compelling testimony.

As you are aware, this bill is supported on all sides of the House. It's just a matter of trying to make sure it is as good as it can be. I don't think anyone believes it is a perfect bill. I think we're trying to do our best to make it better than it is.

I'm going to start with Grand Chief John. The piece I've struggled with is there was talk about the UN declaration and embedding Mr. Saganash's Bill C-262 into the legislation. That would compel free, prior and informed consent from all the impacted first nations, indigenous peoples.

We're going to hear testimony later from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and others who are not supportive of this bill. Clearly, they are not giving free, prior and informed consent. I would really appreciate hearing how you align those two concepts. You're asking us to pass a bill. We know significant communities in this country—according to the article in the UN declaration and free, prior and informed consent—would be telling us not to do it.

[Grand Chief Edward John, Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, committee members.

I'd like to acknowledge the Algonquin people as well, and their traditional homelands.

We're from the same organization in British Columbia, so I won't go into that background. I do want to mention that on submitting this report, the Premier of British Columbia asked, given the significant numbers of children in care, to seek advice on what the province ought to be doing. It's close to a 200-page report with some 86 recommendations. It takes an extensive look at the impacts of laws, policies and practice standards.

I didn't start there. I started in the communities, asking them what they thought and how they felt about how these provincial laws, policies, regulations and practice standards impacted them. This story is really from their perspective. It's the practice side of this impact in our communities. The clerk has this, as well as a summary. There's another document that was tabled with the clerk with our position.

Bill C-92 represents a clear advancement for prevention, early intervention and protection services—in section 1—for indigenous children, youth and families in their respective communities while acknowledging and respecting the diversity of indigenous peoples.

The bill speaks to indigenous youth, but in the operative sections of the bill, the youth are not included. I think it's something that needs to be considered. It may be an oversight.

The national advisory committee is an advisory committee to the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada. The interim report from that committee was submitted to the former minister of Indigenous Services Canada, Jane Philpott, and the AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde. I chaired that committee. The recommendation from that committee was that the federal government consider enacting federal legislation to address the staggering challenges faced by first nations people relating to children and families. Minister Philpott concluded that these challenges amounted to humanitarian crises. We all recall that moment.

Indigenous peoples developing their own laws, regulations, policies and practice standards will exercise their responsibilities in a modern context and uphold and act on their inherent rights to support their children and families. Their laws: by them, for them. Clause 18, read together with clauses 2 and 8 provide a necessary and critical foundation for this.

The operative principles of “substantive equality” in subclause 9(3) and “cultural continuity” in subclause 9(2) are essential for indigenous peoples. When combined with the necessary and extensive support from the federal and provincial governments, they will help to address the deeply rooted ravages of over 150 years of deliberate and misguided assimilation of Crown laws and policies. The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called it “cultural genocide”.

Bill C-92 together with Bill C-91 on indigenous languages provide a substantive framework to remedy past government policy pillars to “kill the Indian in the child” by removing the child from siblings, family, community, foods, lands, territories and resources; and providing education to Christianize and civilize the child by declaring as inferior indigenous philosophies, teachings, languages and culture.

The proposed legislation has shortcomings and is not exhaustive. For indigenous peoples, there will be both internal and external challenges, obstacles and hurdles for the full and effective realization of this significant aspect of the right to self-determination. Constructive and desperately needed changes for indigenous peoples will take time.

I have three recommendations that I want to deal with.

Clause 15 should be strengthened by ensuring the necessary support and other measures for parents, extended family and community, so that no child is removed for reasons related to poverty or the socio-economic circumstances of the child's family.

The recommendation on financing and funding is critically important. There's only one reference in the preamble. The recommendation is that the underlying substance of this acknowledgement should be moved from the preamble to the operative provisions of the bill.

I agree with the recommendation on amending article 8 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are hopeful that the three bills, Bill C-262, Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, will be adopted and royal assent will be given before the end of this Parliament's mandate.

Finally, the budget implementation legislation, which contains many significant financial commitments to first nations, Inuit and Métis people needs to be adopted. We cannot have Canada's commitments die on an Order Paper. We've been through that once before.

Thank you.

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

[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.

[Hannah Martin]

My question has to do with Bill C-262, which is the private member's bill on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As you know, the Government of Canada spoke at the United Nations in 2016, officially declaring that Canada would be adopting this piece of legislation without qualification. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Personally—and this is the belief of many indigenous people in Turtle Island—I believe this document has to be presented and legislated as a full box of comprehensive rights. It can't be chopped up and divided, or it's going to lose its essence as a piece of legislation.

I would like to hear from anyone who's willing to speak to this.

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.

[Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild]

That's what I mean by the UN declaration. It's Bill C-262. They're complementary; they support each other. There isn't a contradiction—in my estimation, anyway.

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

Are you not including Bill C-262?

[Grand Chief Abel Bosum, Grand Chief, Cree Nation Government]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and honourable committee members.

[Witness spoke in Cree ]

[English]

I just wanted to give thanks to our creator for the gift of our language in Cree, and the ability to speak it. My name is Grand Chief Abel Bosum, and on behalf of the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, I am pleased to appear before you today. I am accompanied by Dr. Sarah Pashagumskum, chairperson of the Cree School Board and CEO of Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute; Dorothy Stewart, Cree language coordinator, social and cultural department; Tina Petawabano, responsible for indigenous relations with the Cree Nation Government; and Paul Joffe, legal counsel.

The Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee includes more than 18,000 Eeyou Istchee, or Cree, occupying our traditional territory of Eeyou Istchee. This territory covers around 400,000 square kilometres and is located mainly to the east and south of James Bay and Hudson Bay, with additional territories in Ontario.

The social and cultural department is responsible for the Cree nation's language program and policy. Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute is a museum, archive, library and research and education centre. The Cree School Board, over the past decades, has played a large role in Cree language research and program development as a primary instrument for Cree language maintenance in our territory.

From the outset, we wish to acknowledge the potentially far-reaching significance of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages. At the same time, we fully recognize the important challenges associated with reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of indigenous languages. Clearly, there must be adequate space and flexibility to accommodate the perspectives and priorities of each indigenous people or nation.

It is important to note that according to the General Assembly of the UN, sustainable development includes language and cultural development. Also, there is a consensus that no one must be left behind. This explicitly includes indigenous peoples.

In our experience, implementation and enforcement of legislation are always a challenge. In particular, adequate resources are urgently required to carry out the programs and other initiatives for language development and preservation at all stages. At this crucial point, we need more clarity in regard to the specific global amounts that the federal government is setting aside for at least the next five years. This will help our ongoing planning and other activities under Bill C-91.

Fluency in languages is recognized globally as the most important standard. We are pleased that Bill C-91 consistently refers to fluency as a key standard and objective. In addition, we wish to underline the critical importance of the bill in linking indigenous peoples' languages to the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

At the same time, it's important to underline here that as indigenous people with the right of self-determination, we view our rights in a holistic manner. All of our inherent and pre-existing rights are interrelated, and interdependent. Our rights to language and culture cannot be separated from other inherent rights, especially our rights to lands, territories and resources. With respect to Cree language and culture, the words we speak derive from our relationship with the land. The words, thoughts and world views that we pass on to our children are connected to the land.

These essential interrelationships are explicitly affirmed in the UN Declaration, in its seventh preambular paragraph:

Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.

Therefore, it's important to highlight the pressing need for umbrella legislation under the UN declaration. Such legislation, namely Bill C-262, has already been passed by the House of Commons and is currently at second reading in the Senate. We are proud that Romeo Saganash, a member of our Cree nation, sponsored Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act. This bill will advance the human rights of indigenous people in Canada. It will also set an important precedent for indigenous peoples in other countries worldwide.

As underlined in call to action number 43, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls on the federal government and all levels of government to implement the UN declaration as a framework for reconciliation. Therefore, implementation of the declaration is inseparable from the TRC call to action. Any member of Parliament who fails to support the UN declaration is also undermining Canada's national reconciliation initiative.

As highlighted in the preamble of Bill C-91:

...2019 has been proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations as the International Year of Indigenous Languages to, among other things, draw attention to the critical loss of Indigenous languages and the urgent need to maintain, revitalize and promote Indigenous languages;

Such loss or severe impairment of indigenous languages—whether through residential schools; dispossession of lands, territories and resources; forced assimilations; destruction of culture; or other acts of colonization—must be redressed in authentic ways. Such ways must respect our ability to determine ourselves how we will maintain our languages and the vehicles that we will utilize to do so.

We look forward to working harmoniously with the federal government and others to achieve the critical objectives of Bill C-91.

Meegwetch. Kinanâskomitin.

[Paul Joffe]

Okay.

According to their own world views, indigenous peoples also embrace, interpret and express their rights in a holistic manner. All of their inherent, pre-existing rights are interrelated and interdependent.

I won't read the seventh preambular paragraph in the UN declaration, but there it makes clear that indigenous peoples' rights are inherent.

Just to finish here, I should mention that the same provision that is in the seventh preambular paragraph is entrenched in the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by the Organization of American States in June 2016.

To date, the UN declaration has been reaffirmed by the UN General Assembly 10 times by consensus. Therefore, I respectfully urge every honourable member in both houses of Parliament to support the adoption of both Bill C-91 and Bill C-262.

Thank you.

[Paul Joffe, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable committee members. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I would also like to thank you for inviting me to appear before this distinguished committee and for your support of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages. I welcome this initiative to reclaim, revitalize and safeguard indigenous peoples' language rights.

I just want to make clear that I'm not here to speak at a profound level in terms of indigenous cultures. That's not my point here. It's more to discuss some of the legal aspects. The rich dialogue that we all heard before this is not my level.

In my opening statement, I would like to divide my presentation into two distinct parts.

In part one, I will propose some amendments to Bill C-91 that would serve to make the legislation more consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In part two, I will briefly clarify the important relationship between Bill C-91 and Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It is crucial that both bills be enacted as federal law, hopefully prior to the upcoming election.

Let's begin with some proposed amendments.

The ninth preambular paragraph describes “a history of discriminatory government policies and practices, in respect of, among other things, assimilation, forced relocation and residential schools were detrimental to Indigenous languages”. This preambular paragraph should be strengthened by adding that the assimilation was also forced.

We should also highlight the 1960s scoop, and not solely residential schools. Destruction of culture should also be added. This paragraph would then be consistent with article 8(1) of the UN declaration, which affirms, “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”.

The last preambular paragraph highlights “the need to take into account the unique circumstances and needs of Indigenous elders, youth, children, persons with disabilities, women, men and gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons”. This provision falls significantly short of article 22(1) of the UN declaration, which stipulates that “Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities”.

Rather than simply “take into account the unique circumstances and needs”, it would be much more appropriate to include the phrase “Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs” in the last preambular paragraph.

In addition, the term “men” does not belong in this essential paragraph focused on discrimination, nor is the term “men” included in article 22(1) of the UN Declaration.

Under the heading “Rights of Indigenous peoples”, it would be important to add, at the very least, a new provision after clause 3, namely that aboriginal language rights are reinforced by the treaties. This would reflect the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 14.

Clause 5 begins, “The purposes of this Act are to:”, and then paragraph 5(g) continues:

advance the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.

In my respectful view, it is not sufficient to simply advance the achievement of the objectives of the UN declaration. The urgency of maintaining, reclaiming, revitalizing, etc., is emphasized twice in the preamble of Bill C-91. Therefore, the purpose in paragraph 5(g) should be no less than to “achieve the objectives”—not “advance the achievement”—of the declaration, consistent with article 38 of the UN declaration.

Now, the preamble of Bill C-91 states that “Indigenous languages were the first languages spoken in the lands that are now in Canada”. Therefore, it is contradictory for the bill to claim in clause 6 that the Government of Canada “recognizes”, rather than “affirms”, that “section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include[s] rights related to Indigenous languages.”

I'd like to turn quickly to part two of my presentation. The main point is that Bill C-91 and Bill C-262 are interrelated, and both bills must be adopted and implemented.

There's no doubt that indigenous peoples' language rights constitute human rights. For example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, addresses human rights, including language rights. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an international human rights instrument that also includes indigenous peoples' language rights.

At the World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was adopted as a human rights instrument. This declaration affirms that:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner.... While...various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights....

According—

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.

[Ian Thomson, Policy Specialist, Extractive Industries, Oxfam Canada]

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for inviting Oxfam Canada to be part of this study today.

I'd like to join my fellow witness in acknowledging the Algonquin territory on which we're meeting.

My name is Ian Thomson. I'm a policy specialist with Oxfam Canada focused on the extractive industries.

Oxfam in an international NGO. We're active in more than 90 countries, working through humanitarian relief, long-term development programs and advocacy to end global poverty.

At Oxfam, we firmly believe that ending poverty and reducing inequality begins with gender justice and women's rights. Oxfam works with indigenous people's organizations in many parts of the world to support their struggles, to defend their rights and to protect their lands, territories and resources.

In 2015, Oxfam surveyed 40 leading oil, gas and mining companies to assess their commitments around indigenous engagement and community consent. Our community consent index revealed that extractive sector companies are increasingly adopting policies with commitments to seek and obtain community consent prior to developing major projects. It has become a recognized and accepted industry norm. It's good development and good business all at the same time.

Further research, however, has identified major gaps in the ways these commitments are being implemented. In several countries our indigenous partners have found that women face systemic barriers in participating fully and equally in decision-making by governments or companies around major resource development projects.

We have two recommendations for the committee to consider today.

First, indigenous engagement processes, whether by the Crown or by private sector actors in the energy sector, should become more gender-responsive and conducted in accordance with international human rights standards, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Second, the Canadian government should be proactive in promoting gender-responsive and rights-based engagement internationally through our trade, aid and diplomatic relations.

I would like to share some research and findings from two indigenous partners in Peru and Kenya that illustrate both the real challenges and opportunities in this area.

A decade ago, social conflicts over energy projects in Peru boiled over into violent confrontations. The conflicts revealed deep failures on the part of both governments and companies to engage indigenous peoples in a meaningful way in decisions around major projects.

In 2011, Peru adopted a new law on indigenous consultation or consulta previa. To date, 43 consultation processes have been recorded by the Peruvian government, 30 of them related to energy or natural resource projects. The Ministry of Energy and Mines reports that only 29% of the participants were women.

In December, with the support of Oxfam, ONAMIAP, the indigenous women's federation of Peru, published a study examining women's participation in these consultation processes over the past seven years. The study was aptly named “Without Indigenous Women, No Way!”. ONAMIAP had conducted surveys with indigenous women in different parts of the country to identify barriers to their participation. Women's participation was hindered by their limited experience of participating in public spaces, the domestic care work that was not taken into account by those organizing when and where consultations were held, the very technical content presented without adequate time or support for people to make sense of projects, lower literacy rates and language barriers, failure to recognize women's rights with respect to communal lands and forests, consultation methods that did not address gender needs, and a lack of genuine dialogue with processes directed at convincing communities to accept projects and conditions.

ONAMIAP recommends that governments and project proponents should be explicit about the differentiated impacts of projects on women and men. Women must be included fully and equally at all stages of decision making processes. Finally, public policy reforms are needed to recognize women's rights and access to communal lands and forests, which would facilitate their participation in these processes.

Last April, Oxfam invited the president of ONAMIAP to an indigenous women's gathering in Montreal, spearheaded by Quebec Native Women. Indigenous women leaders from a dozen countries gathered together to share their experiences, and they quickly learned that their experiences shared striking similarities. Everywhere they recognized that they were tackling an entrenched gender bias in how decisions are made around energy and natural resources.

Turning now to Kenya, where Oxfam is also researching indigenous rights, and in particular the free, prior and informed consent standard, our 2017 study called “Testing community consent” focused on Turkana County, one of the poorest and most remote regions of the country, where significant oil and gas deposits have been discovered.

While most people noted that company engagement practices though initially poor were steadily improving, many key ingredients of free, prior and informed consent were not present. In particular, we noted that pastoralist women who engaged in traditional livelihoods of nomadic herding had been unable to participate in community meetings over oil and gas development projects. Their livelihoods would be affected by the well pads and pipelines and roads being built in the area, but they were least likely to participate due to how the engagement process had been conducted. This year, Oxfam is planning to do follow-up research to look more closely into how those gender justice gaps can be addressed.

Our first recommendation to this committee would be to ensure that indigenous engagement is conducted in a manner that is gender responsive, advances gender equality, and that is consistent with international human rights standards, including the UN declaration. We believe that energy projects must go beyond “do no harm” and actually be transformative and positive changes to advance gender equality where they're being developed. This also means listening to and respecting indigenous people when they say no to certain projects. Project reviews that listen to women and men and take into account the differentiated impacts will result in better-designed projects and share benefits more equitably.

Oxfam is pleased that gender responsiveness could soon be added to federal impact assessment processes through Bill C-69, currently under review in the Senate. Oxfam supports this bill and hopes that gender-based analysis in project reviews will establish this norm across all industries and unlock even more systemic change. Likewise, we welcome Bill C-262, which would ensure that Canadian law is consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Interestingly, our stories from Peru and Kenya also have a direct connection with the Canadian energy sector. Peru's largest oil concession, known as Block 192, is operated by a Toronto-based company, Frontera Energy. In Kenya, the oil project in Turkana County that we studied is a joint venture that involves a Vancouver-based company, Africa Oil Corporation. Both of these companies, within the past two years, have had to temporarily suspend their operations due to indigenous protests over unresolved community grievances. Canadian companies operating internationally risk losing their social licence to operate if they can't foster positive and respectful relationships with indigenous peoples.

Our second recommendation is for the Canadian government to take action and raise the bar for Canadian companies operating internationally. The long-awaited Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, announced by the international trade minister over a year ago, should be appointed without delay and granted the necessary powers to investigate corporate practices internationally.

Canadian embassies should provide more support to women human rights defenders who are working to defend their rights and participate in major decisions around energy projects.

Export Development Canada should have a statutory requirement to respect human rights and gender equality in all of its business transactions.

Finally, Canada's international assistance should support indigenous peoples organizations to engage in and transform natural resource governance, particularly indigenous women's organizations like ONAMIAP in Peru, which have identified many of the solutions but are sorely under-resourced.

I would like to conclude by saying that we believe major energy projects in the future will look very different when they genuinely engage indigenous peoples and respect their inherent rights and title. An energy transition is under way, and Canada can position itself as a leader in the new energy economy.

I'd like to thank the committee for engaging in this study and would welcome any questions you may have.

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

Okay.

I'll turn to you again, Professor Dorough. You ran through that coverage of UNDRIP and FPIC pretty quickly. I just wondered if you could comment on how in Canada the government has expressed a desire to include UNDRIP in its laws and the way it operates.

My colleague Romeo Saganash had his private member's bill, Bill C-262, passed in the House of Commons. It asked the government to include those provisions in the laws of this land. I'm just wondering if you could comment on that process, on where we are and maybe on where other countries might be that have also signed on to UNDRIP and what we could learn from that.

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, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.]

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 forceably 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.

[Chief Byron Louis, Okanagan Indian Band, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you.

First, I would like to acknowledge I am giving this presentation on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

Members of the committee, friends and relatives, thank you for the invitation here today to share the perspectives of the Assembly of First Nations on international best practices for engaging with indigenous communities in major energy projects.

I would like to start with the important point from our national chief, Perry Bellegarde, who said that first nations are not opposed to the development, but we will balance what is right for the economy with what is right for the environment and our responsibilities to our traditional territories.

Clearly, when we consider the energy and mining sectors and how important they are to our local, regional and national economies, I am again reminded how closing the gap must be part of the energy discussion.

A key component of closing this gap is fulfilling the promise of a nation-to-nation relationship with clear decision-making processes through partnerships. This is a key component of achieving consensus—to realize a process that all Canadians and first nations can have confidence in.

We have been working in partnership to identify and address transboundary mining issues that impact our territories. This is reflective of some of the collaborative work that has been occurring in British Columbia. One of the examples I would like to give is our relationship with the Colville confederated tribes who reside in Washington state. The majority of our people reside in Washington, Idaho and Montana. They are Nsyilxcen-speaking peoples who are still members of our tribal council. One of the issues that came out of impacts to mining was a resulting case in the United States where they took Teck Cominco to court and successfully had a lawsuit against them for downstream damages from Teck Cominco, which is located in the Canadian portion outside of Trail, British Columbia. They were dumping tailings into the Columbia River for well over 100 years.

This resulting court case that had been launched and was successful found in U.S. courts that the Canadian mining firm, Teck Cominco, could be charged with damages to U.S. downstream effects.

The other part of this is that to date, through the Columbia.... This was starting in about 1946, with building the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington state. Canada had identified that there were no upstream impacts, resulting in not only the building of Grand Coulee Dam—half of it on Colville Reservation—but leading to Chief Joseph. I think there are upstream treaty and non-treaty reservoirs that serve this high-head dam for energy production in the United States, which basically benefits Canada in that particular area.

What I find is that sometimes people say hydroelectric energy is clean energy. No, it's not—not from an aboriginal context and the impacts to aboriginal people when you change the natural hydrograph to one that is developed along filling reservoirs that slow down the speed of the water where what was usually freshets carrying smolt salmon to the Pacific Ocean. It also impedes upstream migration of Okanagan sockeye that travel through nine dams in the United States.

Two or three years ago, we had changes. What happens in the Okanagan system is that in the water column, deoxidized water happens at a certain level where fish, especially salmon, can't survive. You have what's called thermal blockage, where salmon in the Columbia River can withstand temperatures to 22°C. When you have a dam, the water changes; it almost decants, where it takes off the surface of the water and flows into the next reservoir.

In the summer months you also have heated water that's flowing down through the systems that ended up in the Rufus Woods Reservoir in Washington state. As a result of this squeeze, we lost 200,000 of a return of 400,000 sockeye. At one time in the 1990s we had fewer than 600 sockeye returning to the Canadian portion. The Okanagan system is basically the only system within the Columbia Basin where we still have anadromous species returning to Canadian waters, which happens in the Okanagan sub-basin.

This is an example of a measurable outcome or impact of what would be classified as a major energy project.

To move along in there, I think the fact that in a 2015 report, an independent working group on natural resources called for immediate action to ensure all first nations participate and share in benefits of natural resources development in Canada. Recommendations included the establishment of a national round table inviting first nations, provinces, territories, industry and non-governmental organizations; the launch of a discussion on resource revenue sharing as the best means of eliminating socio-economic disparities; the establishment of central knowledge and information resources to support first nations; and the international forum to promote first nations trade and international partnerships.

First nations as rights holders, as owners and as a burgeoning labour market force must be participants in and part of solutions going forward. First nations businesses must be included in contracting processes and benefits from procedural procurement opportunities. Processes must bring together mechanisms that involve licensing, engagement and good practices.

The energy sector and, in fact, the broader Canadian economy is a much-needed partner and not excluded from the work towards a renewed relationship.

When we're talking about reconciliation, I think from a first nations perspective we really need to come to what is actually a definition of “reconciliation”. You look in the dictionary for an example or a meaning of reconciliation, and it is a renewal of relations after a long period of hostilities, which basically describes first nations' relations with Canada for a long period of time, whether it's with Canada or the provinces.

What is the definition of what we're using for reconciliation? Is it more or less the international model that could be actually construed as being an example of what happened after the Second World War with Germany, Italy and Japan being able to rebuild socially and economically? Is that the type of reconciliation we're talking about, or is it something less? Because with first nations I think we need the opportunity to rebuild, not only socially but economically. Major projects play a large role in that.

Before we get into specific examples, I want to start by framing where we are. This is an opportunity for real reconciliation. First, as we're well aware, Canada has announced its full and unqualified support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This declaration did not create any new rights as these rights are inherent or pre-existing; it simply affirms indigenous peoples' human rights.

Across government, including Bill C-262, we talked about realizing these rights and finding a better way to work together so that we don't have to spend millions of dollars and waste years in fighting the courts. Poor environmental processes lead to hundreds of unnecessary judicial reviews annually. Partnerships with first nations must respect and realize existing rights. It's about working with us to establish the laws, policies and practices needed to respect our rights and status as self-determining peoples.

Inevitably, the conversation will slip to the standard of free, prior and informed consent. To be very clear, free and prior informed consent was not created in the UNDRIP or the rights of indigenous peoples. It was not created in Bill C-69 or in Bill C-262. It was already existing in international law.

It is an essential element of the right of all peoples, including indigenous peoples, to self-determination, which Canada has recognized for decades. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, have, in their first article, that “All peoples have the right of self-determination.”

Consent is essential for nation-to-nation negotiation and for treaty interpretation, treaty-making in general. It is between self-determining nations. The first nations already have the right to participate in decisions that can affect their rights, property, cultures, environment and capacity to exercise their right to self-determination.

What does this mean in the context of this study? What is needed is a better process for major energy projects, one that is designed with first nations, one that involves first nations from the start. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Free, prior and informed consent exists around the world. There is already a lot of international jurisprudence to draw on.

On first nations leading the energy transition, when given the space, first nations have participated in and benefited from energy development.

As many of you already know, first nations across Turtle Island are achieving investments in clean energy and low-carbon economy. These investments are being supported by an aggressive Government of Canada approach to investing in energy sector projects that support the transition to a low-carbon economy: generation, transmission and export. For example, the federal budget commits $2.37 billion over four years to Canada's clean technology industry. As well, the government outlines its plan to invest $21.9 billion over 11 years in green infrastructure.

Our teachings have taught us to be stewards of the land. With that, first nations can be champions when it comes to clean energy and alternative energy moving forward. As a result, first nations are increasingly joining Canada's growing clean energy economy as a way to generate revenue in a manner that is consistent with our cultural and environmental values.

A focus of these efforts must be to encourage and support energy independence and assist with the transition away from diesel power generation for approximately 112 diesel-dependent first nations across Canada, 42 first nations in the territories and 70 first nations in the provinces.

One of the Generation Energy Council's five principles is “A collaborative transition … integrating Indigenous values into the process at every step and creating opportunities for reconciliation and new partnerships with Indigenous peoples.” In this report developed by the council, it's recommended that indigenous peoples have involvement in energy governance, investment tools and capacity development.

Last year, the Assembly of First Nations hosted a one-day session in advance of the Generation Energy Council process. The consistent theme from that discussion was a need for collaboration with first nations, a true and meaningful engagement, and federal government and territorial policy.

There is more, but my 10 minutes are up.

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?

[Cathy McLeod]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of moving forward. It's to acknowledge that even within the moving forward of Bill C-262, there is a lot of uncertainty in terms of what the implications will be in taking what was meant to be a declaration....

As you know, UN conventions are meant to be transposed into Canadian law. Declarations are to be guiding principles. As we move towards putting guiding principles in preambles, I understand from legislative drafters and others that we start to have significant implications that we, quite frankly, do not understand as of yet.

[Regional Chief Kluane Adamek, Yukon Region, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you.

I'm really pleased to be here. I want to acknowledge the national chief of CAP, and of course that we are on the unceded Algonquin territory and also paying particular tribute today to our aboriginal veterans. Today is the day we honour and acknowledge them, and I'm wearing my new piece of regalia.

I have a beaded poppy that I'm not wearing at this moment but it's on my jacket. It's a really important day. I'm very humbled to be here to share perspectives with respect to a day where we can celebrate who we are, certainly from an indigenous perspective, but not just for indigenous people; this is for Canada.

My name is Kluane Adamek and I'm from the Dakl'aweidi (Killerwhale) Clan. I'm a Yukon regional chief, and I've been serving in this capacity since last January. It is so important that members of this committee not only represent interests of your constituencies, but also bring voice and leadership to the commitment that has been made not solely by this Prime Minister. Of course, we know that the relationship with indigenous people as he describes it is the most important but this is 40, 50, 60, 100, 200 years in the making.

There's no question that supporting and ensuring that Canadians across this country have the opportunity to have a day of celebration with us to celebrate who we are on June 21 is incredibly important. We know that TRC calls to action identified this, the UN declaration identifies this and we know that through Bill C-262 this has also been identified.

Last year, in 2017, we had June 21 as a holiday in the Yukon Territory; 18 years ago, the Northwest Territories created June 21 as a holiday.

This comes to where we are now. The question isn't why anymore. It's how. How do we get to a place of advancing reconciliation and ensuring that our people are fully acknowledged in this country? This is an opportunity for all Canadians to spend a day to learn. In the Yukon, celebrations are held across the territory, but in particular, at the Adäka Cultural Festival, we welcome visitors. We share who we are. We drum and we sing because that's important. It's an opportunity to learn.

In addition to that, most recently, the national executive, the other regional chiefs, the national chief and I had a conversation about this day. Something for you to consider as a committee would be this. We have to have a day that we celebrate. As is our custom, there are celebrations for us in the Yukon. Our potlatching is alive and well. We know that was taken away from us and it's back and it will never leave.

We must also consider a day to commemorate. The day of commemoration is going to be a different day. This day acknowledges the survivors of residential schools. As we saw floods of orange T-shirts across the country, indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians understand that history. Those of us sitting at this table and my generation, your generation, our grandparents' generation, that shared history wasn't shared. That was taken from all of us. It is about that commemoration and ensuring that those residential school survivors are commemorated on their day, a special day for them.

It doesn't have to be on that same day on which we celebrate. In Israel, for example, they have a day where they acknowledge the history and a day after when they celebrate. This has been done around the world. New Zealand has a day, Waitangi Day on February 6. Canada can be leaders in this.

I feel that opportunity is now more than ever, and I look to our first speaker. I look to our national chief of CAP. I think about the business community, the public sector and the roles they have. I think of all those Canadians and all those kids. It's our responsibility to ensure they really understand the original relationship of this country.

We chose that recognition, understanding who we are, sharing our stories. We know these things, but it's time for action. We know why. It becomes about how.

For the committee, of course June 21 is celebrated right across this country. Solstice in the north is already a holiday. This would be the federal government setting a tone for the rest of the provinces and territories across this country to say this is incredibly important so provinces and territories should stand with us. Stand with the north, which has already take a huge step in this process.

This is also for your consideration: September 30 must also be a day of commemoration. We have to really understand that history, because we know, as our elders have talked about—I think about my grandmother and my father who both went to residential schools—that important history and that specific area of understanding has to be made. It has to be understood. We have to stand in support of those residential school survivors.

Those would be the reflections that I would share with you, committee, and as would, of course, the Assembly of First Nations. There have been many years and many discussions about this by our chiefs, our communities and our people. Whether it's in our communities or whether we are living in urban centres, we have a responsibility. Every single one of us has a part in this journey towards reconciliation.

I would like to be part of that celebration with you when this bill passes and becomes legislation. What we're hearing across the country is there's no cost to reconciliation. You can't put a number on it. Of course, there are going to be financial considerations that have to be made. But wait a minute here, how many other holidays have we had? How many other holidays have we celebrated and not once have we truly celebrated not only the commitment that we have to that relationship with indigenous peoples but the way in which our indigenous peoples, first nations peoples, myself as a Kluane citizen, have contributed to this country, to our economies, to the way in which we do our business? That is very important.

I wanted to thank the committee for the opportunity to join you and to put that challenge of ReconciliACTION out there. It's not a question of why, it's how and when. It's also a question of how we are going to ensure that our residential school survivors are commemorated. We think of Phyllis wearing her orange shirt, showing up so strong that day and having that taken away. This becomes about ensuring that that never happens again.

I would like to thank all of you for the opportunity to join you today. I want to particularly acknowledge my colleague at the Assembly of First Nations, Natasha. This has been a file that she's been working closely on. I know many of the people on your teams who are here today. Certainly for this committee, this is an incredible responsibility that you have. I wish you the best in your deliberations.

Gunalchéesh.

[Nika Collison]

Haw'aa.

[Witness speaks in Haida]

My name is Jisgang. My English name is Nika Collison. I'm the executive director of the Haida Gwaii Museum and co-chair of the Haida Repatriation Committee.

Haw'aa to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Haw'aa to Mr. Bill Casey for his vision and to all who have done a great amount of work on Bill C-391.

I would also like to take a moment to thank and recognize Mr. Saganash for his work on Bill C-262.

At the second reading of Bill C-391, Mr. Casey stated that he is open to anything that will make the bill better. I appreciate this opportunity to provide insight into Haida repatriation experiences and respond to the bill as it sits right now.

As museum professionals and human beings, we carry the responsibility to effect societal change by mainstreaming Canada's dark history with indigenous peoples while actively working to set things right.

In the indigenous and mainstream museum world, the path toward reconciliation has been shaped by what my Haida Nation calls Yahguudangang, the act of paying respect. The Haida Nation sees this work, more commonly known as repatriation, as based upon mutual respect, co-operation and trust. Yahguudangang has brought a new depth to our nation's healing and our ability to heal with others. It provides opportunity for western museums to become voluntary agents of change rather than the physical evidence of Canada's genocide against first peoples.

Saahlinda Naay, Savings Things House, also known as the Haida Gwaii Museum, is the result of one of the earliest acts of making things right—or reconciliation—in the museum world. It was a vision of both the Haida citizens and Canadian friends residing on our islands that brought this place into being, which opened in 1976. In 2007, we opened the Haida Heritage Centre, which expanded our museum. It was created for our people but also created to share. This is our gift to the world.

Since most of our treasures left Haida Gwaii during the height of colonial regimes, our museum didn't have much of a collection to begin with, but Haida and settler families generously donated Haida heirlooms. The Royal British Columbia Museum, under the lead of then curator Peter McNair, showed support by returning some monumental poles for our museum's opening. This quiet act of repatriation is probably the earliest in Canada. It was not required by law or policy. This act was done because of the humanity this one person brought to our table.

The Haida Gwaii Museum has since grown to include a considerable collection of treasures, mostly gained from private donations, purchases and long-term loans, as opposed to museum repatriation. We also present new works, as we are a living culture. We are not simply an institution. We are a part of the institution that makes up today's Haida society and the greater Canadian society.

In the mid-1990s, the repatriation of ancestral remains became a primary focus of our people. To date, over 500 of our ancestors have been brought home from museums and private individuals from across North America, and one from the U.K. This work has taken over 20 years and well over a million dollars in cash, sweat labour and in-kind donations.

When we visit these museums to bring our ancestors home, we also visit our cultural treasures and other containers of knowledge, such as archives. We bring the diaspora of our people's lives home through imagery, audio recordings, collection notes and the recreation of pieces, and through the physical, emotional and spiritual connections that forever bind us. A few times, family heirlooms have come home from these museums. We are now ready to bring more home.

Around the same time that we began to focus on our ancestors, the 1992 “Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples” came out. This report has had a very important influence on relationships between indigenous people and mainstream museums, but it's the past four decades of knocking on doors, patience and relationship-building by our people that have been pivotal in having the Haida world and the museum world come together to make things right.

NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of the United States, has played an important role there and, in a roundabout way, for us as well. The first cross-border repatriation of one of our ancestors was spurred by NAGPRA. Legally, the museum was not required to work with us because we are not a federally recognized U.S. tribe, but they wanted to see our relative come home. When we contacted the next couple of U.S. museums, they wanted to repatriate through our Alaskan relatives in order to align their process with NAGPRA, but these ancestors came from Haida Gwaii, and eventually the museums agreed.

England is far behind Canada in repatriation, with many mechanisms—or lack of mechanisms, depending on the situation—to prohibit such work. Despite this, through relationship-building and a lot of other hard work, we were able to bring home an ancestor from the Pitt Rivers Museum in 2010. The British Museum has changed its act to allow for repatriation of human remains, and we will be bringing home an ancestor from there imminently.

What we found in working in Yahguudangang is that you can instil a policy and/or laws around repatriation, but true Yahguudangang, or repatriation and reconciliation, is not fully achieved without respectful, genuine nation-to-nation relationship-building. We want people to want to give our relatives back and to see our treasures come home. We want people to want to make things right, and want to find a way forward together, not because they have to. Repatriation is the most important work I've been involved in around the work of reconciliation. The work is beyond monumental. It costs time and healing, and it involves everyone in our nation and our friends.

I'm worried about running out of time, so just give me a second here.

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, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.]

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.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the members who are here today and the staff who are here to support us. Also, I thank you, Madam Chair, and the clerk for making sure that the response to this request happened so rapidly.

Finally, I would like to thank MP McLeod for her motion.

The request was urgent and it's a very important one. I'm here to speak in support of this motion.

In our last session, my colleague Mr. Saganash had his Bill C-262 pass in the House of Commons. This bill really provides the understanding that moving forward we need to have a framework for all legislation and that the action coming from that legislation must be in accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That bill was an important one and one that many Canadians are wondering if this government will actually ever put into practice.

The Federal Court of Appeal's decision has brought to the forefront what indigenous communities and the NDP have been saying: the consultation for the Trans Mountain expansion has not been done properly. Sadly, this was a major factor in the last election. People were voicing their serious concerns that the then Conservative government was not addressing the real environmental impacts; nor were they consulting meaningfully with indigenous communities. Their failed process was again revealed in the Northern Gateway decision.

I am speaking on this motion.

Both the NDP and the Liberals ran on a message of addressing the environmental issues and creating a new process that this project, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, would go through. This was a direct promise from Prime Minister Trudeau. The Federal Court of Appeal decision is now another fact on a long list of broken promises that this government has had.

I hope the people in this room have read the decision, or, at the very least, closely reviewed the clear indications of the poor consultation process with indigenous communities. This report outlines the reality that the consultation process with indigenous communities was simply bureaucrats going out to listen to concerns and relay those concerns back to cabinet. The decision confirms very clearly that good faith is required on both sides in the consultation process. It is not good faith to send note-takers. The decision was very clear that the phase III consultation process was unacceptably flawed.

To quote directly:

To summarize my reasons for this conclusion, Canada was required to do more than receive and understand the concerns of the Indigenous applicants. Canada was required to engage in a considered, meaningful two-way dialogue. Canada's ability to do so was constrained by the manner in which its representatives on the Crown consultation team implemented their mandate. For the most part, Canada's representatives limited their mandate to listening to and recording the concerns of the Indigenous applicants and then transmitting those concerns to the decision-makers. On the whole, the record does not disclose responsive, considered and meaningful dialogue coming back from Canada in response to the concerns expressed by the Indigenous applicants.

Simply put, they were note-takers. There was no attempt to take and address the concerns. In fact, the crown consultation team and the government mistakenly thought that they could not add any more conditions to Kinder Morgan than the NEB had done. In this context, many, including me, ask why we would bother consulting anyway. Where is the commitment to the government's constitutional duty to address indigenous rights? Where is this government's commitment to dedicating itself to what it claims is the government's most important relationship? To be clear, there is a constitutional duty to consult with indigenous communities. This was not clearly recognized and the process was fundamentally flawed due to this. Canada may disagree and want to see it differently but the decision says this very frankly.

While Canada submits that the members of the crown consultation team were not mere note-takers, the preponderance of evidence is to the effect that the members of the crown consultation team acted on that basis alone. For the most part, their role was that of note-takers who were accurately reporting the concerns of the indigenous applicants to the decision-makers.

Too many times I've heard from indigenous leaders in my riding and across the country that they are tired of talking to people who are not decision-makers.

Simply put, this is not consultation, as the decision explains:

The Indigenous applicants were entitled to a dialogue that demonstrated that Canada not only heard but also gave serious consideration to the specific and real concerns the Indigenous applicants put to Canada, gave serious consideration to proposed accommodation measures, and explained how the concerns of the Indigenous applicants impacted Canada's decision to approve the Project.

We have heard repeatedly from indigenous communities that there is no serious consideration of their concerns. That is why we are here today. It's because this government's promise of meaningful consultation has been proven repeatedly to be a broken promise.

Whenever I contemplate consultation, I think of free, prior, and informed consent. Grand Chief Ed John said it best to this committee not too long ago. Speaking to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, he said:

I think there's a misconstruction of the concept of free, prior, and informed consent....Consent at the end of the day is a decision that's made after a process, so governments go through a process to come to some decision. First nations' governments are in that same place. First nations' governments will look at information ahead of time. They should be free from any coercion. It should be prior to decisions being made. There should be extensive consideration. It may require an environmental assessment process or some other process that would help inform the decision-making process. Free, prior, and informed consent essentially, at its core, is about governments making decisions. When the Province of British Columbia, the provinces, the national government, the territorial governments, or municipal governments are making decisions, that's what they're doing.

The fact is that this committee has a duty to have a robust study on why the consultation process was so flawed. What are the barriers that seem to hinder both Conservative and Liberal governments to meaningfully consult with indigenous communities? Canadians want certainty. They want respectful relationships to be built. Indigenous communities want to be respectfully treated and for their rights and opportunities to be as important as all Canadians'.

The decision outlines some very specific examples of the lack of this consultation process happening. Coldwater, for one, wanted the pipeline to take an alternate route that would avoid their aquifer. That is a significant concern for their community, and really, it would be for any community in Canada.

I will read directly from the report:

After Coldwater expressed its strong preference for the West Alternative Canada’s representatives responded that: [t]his issue is one which is very detailed, and will need to be recorded carefully and accurately in the Crown consultation Report. The Crown consultation report can highlight that project routing is a central issue for Coldwater.

At a consultation meeting held on October 7, 2016, again in the context of discussions about Coldwater’s aquifer, one of Canada’s representatives: …acknowledged that the aquifer hasn’t been fully explored, but explained that the [Board] process has analysed the Project and that the Crown will not be taking an independent analysis beyond that....The Crown (federally and provincially) will not undertake an independent analysis of potential corridor routes. That said, the Crown will take Coldwater’s concerns back to decision makers. … Coldwater asked what the point of consultation was if all that was coming from the Crown was a summary report to the [Governor in Council].

In the later stages of the meeting during a discussion...Coldwater stated that based on the discussion with the Crown to date it did not seem likely that there would be a re-analysis of the West Alternative or any of the additional analysis Coldwater had asked for. Canada’s representatives responded that: [The Crown’s] position is that the detailed route hearing process and Condition 39 provide avenues to consider alternative routes, however the Crown is not currently considering alternative routes because the [Board] concluded that the applied for pipeline corridor is satisfactory. The Crown will ensure that Coldwater’s concerns about the route are provided to the Cabinet, it will then be up to Cabinet to decide if those concerns warrant reconsideration of the current route.

The Stó:lo Nation reached out to the Minister of Natural Resources about the crown consultation report to share their concern that the Canadian representative left them to believe that the report to the Governor in Council “will be a summary” of what is being heard during its consultations with aboriginal people “with some commentary”.

It states:

The Stó:lo went on to observe that “[a] high level of consultation means more than simply gathering information on aboriginal interests, cross checking those with the Terms and Conditions of the project and reporting those findings to the federal decision-maker.” And that “[a] simple ‘what we heard’ report is inadequate to this task and the Governor-in-Council must be aware of its obligation to either reject or make changes to the project to protect and preserve the aboriginal rights, title and interests of the Stó:lo Collective.”

This statement clearly indicates the reality that a meaningful consultation process was not happening. Not only that, but the minister was clearly made aware of the process and the reality that it was not working. May I remind this committee of how many other cases this decision mentions and refers to. This is the legal system of Canada, which has outlined repeatedly the court decisions of this land on the process of consultation with indigenous communities. Canadians deserve to know why this has not been reviewed by this government and why we are here again.

The Upper Nicola's legal counsel clearly rang the bell on May 3, 2016, in a meeting:

Upper Nicola’s legal counsel responded that “the old consultation paradigm, where the Crown’s officials meets with Aboriginal groups to hear from them their perspectives and then to report this information to decision makers, is no longer valid.”

The Government of Canada cannot say they are surprised to be here. It is very clear from these examples, from the continuous engagement of multiple indigenous communities providing clear feedback, that this consultation process was not a consultation at all.

Another example comes from Mr. George, director of the Tsleil-Waututh treaty, lands, and resources department:

He affirmed that at a meeting held with representatives of Canada on October 21, 2016, to discuss Tsleil-Waututh’s view that the Board’s process was flawed such that the Governor in Council could not rely on its report and recommendations: Canada expressed that it was extremely reluctant to discuss the fundamental flaws that [Tsleil-Waututh] alleged were present in relation to the [Board] process, and even prior to the meeting suggested that we might simply need to “agree to disagree” on all of those issues. In our view Canada had already determined that it was not willing to take any steps to address the issues that [Tsleil-Waututh] identified and submitted constituted deficiencies in the [Board] process....

These are very good examples of why this process needs to be studied in this place. In fact, it could not be clearer, as the decision says:

Meaningful dialogue required someone representing Canada empowered to do more than take notes—someone able to respond meaningfully to the applicants’ concerns at some point in time.

The exchanges with the applicants demonstrate that this was missing from the consultation process. The exchanges show little to facilitate consultation and show how the Phase III consultation fell short of the mark.

Madam Chair, let me confirm that these are just a few of the examples from the substantial decision. It makes it clear that the consultation process was not considered thoughtfully and was rushed.

After the report came out, I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance continue with their lines. The Prime Minister in a radio interview downplayed the idea of appealing the important decision that has been brought before us here today. He said, “The court was very clear: You need to do more on the environment. You need to do more on consultations, if anything is...to happen, so that's what we are going to do.” Soon after, when asked about the appeal again, he said, “We are looking at what an appeal would look like [and] what it would mean.”

Which one is it? Indigenous communities deserve to know. When any Canadian hears or reads these examples of consultation, I believe they will see how empty this government's promises are. Who would not be frustrated in that seat to hear repeatedly that we will take your concerns to decision-makers, but no one will really talk to you about any accommodations or have any meaningful discussion about why it might be important to protect your rights—for example, your water supply?

Now Canadians are going to own the Trans Mountain pipeline. In fact, right after the decision came out, over 99% of the shareholders of Kinder Morgan voted “yes” to sell to Canada. Of course they did. They saw this decision and they are receiving more money than the pipeline is worth. Many Canadians and many indigenous communities are wondering when their vote will happen.

What does the finance minister say? I quote:

As we move ahead with the project and the purchase, our government remains committed to ensuring the project proceeds in a manner that protects the public interest. That means ensuring the highest level over governance — including environmental protection. It means upholding our commitments with Indigenous peoples and it means responsibly protecting Canada’s and Canadians’ investment.

How do indigenous communities have any faith in a consultation process with this government owning and clearly stating that this project has only one outcome? How can Canadians have any faith that the environment and the relationship with indigenous people will be done well after looking at this report? How do they have faith in a government that buys a pipeline and leaves the taxpayer on the hook? The government knows what proper consultation is. There are many examples of successful consultation in this country. It does require that the government do the work. What it means is that the government must have a two-way exchange, a real discussion, not just a place for indigenous communities to let off steam but to be part of a process in a meaningful way.

I am hoping to not have this happen but I am expecting to have to listen to the Liberals speak now and blame the Conservatives. I agree with them. The Conservative process was very flawed. We saw what the results were during their time in government. However, once the Trudeau government was elected, it was this Prime Minister and this government who moved forward with the same flawed process, resulting in the decision I have before me.

Now there is $4.5 billion invested in a project that the Federal Court of Appeal has stopped. In no way does a climate change leader invest this type of money in an old pipeline. In no way does a Prime Minister believe the most important relationship is with the indigenous people of Canada when the consultation process is so completely flawed.

I live on the Salish Sea. It is my home and I am very proud of the beauty of it. It provides for many of the communities I serve: with jobs, recreation, sustenance, and obviously, complete wonder. I serve that region and I'm mystified by the lack of understanding that this government has for the need to protect it. I think it is important to also address the fact that the Conservatives like to throw out the word "veto" when talking about indigenous consultation. This is a non-starter that shuts down discussion about consultation and brings fear of indigenous communities participating fully within Canada. It is not about veto. Like Grand Chief John said in the quote I mentioned above, it is about being an active part of the process and being a part of the decision-making.

I will support the Conservative motion, although I do have my own motion that I'm hoping will help us along this journey because I feel that in this committee what we really need to be focusing on is the process of consultation that's happening in this country. It is time that this committee be strong and recognize that we can do a study that will provide some real direction for the future of this country.

I hope that all the people at this table would agree that it is certainly time for this issue to be moved into a reality that benefits everyone in this country. Indigenous communities have simply waited much too long.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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 fulsome 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.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much for being here.

I'm going to start with you, Chief Bellegarde, if that's all right.

I want to thank you, first of all, for bringing up my colleague's bill, Bill C-262, on UNDRIP. I think it's a fundamental principle that we need to be looking at.

One of the things I find very interesting about what you're telling us today is exactly what we should be moving forward in, which is changing the process in Canada because of the wisdom of the indigenous people who were here in the first place. It's that sort of changing process, and understanding that free, prior, and informed consent is a lot broader than just on energy processes.

One of the things you talked about really clearly here is that we have a framework where the policies are just piled on top of each other and they're not functioning at all. Yet you have applied a lot of wisdom and knowledge in figuring out how to bring these multi-jurisdictional areas together through your hospitals. Could you tell us a bit about what you could share with the federal government around that expertise?

[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 my 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?

Report Stage

[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?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-262 under private members' business.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

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).

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I can pick up where my colleague from Winnipeg Centre left off.

First, I believe that human rights should not be a partisan issue in this place, because human rights are human rights. It is unfortunate that one party has expressed its opposition to this bill, but I respect its right to do so.

Second, I want to raise a point that I wanted to mention in my presentation but I ran out of time. I want to express my thanks to the many indigenous and non-indigenous organizations and communities across this country that have supported and endorsed Bill C-262 through resolution.

I would particularly like to thank the mayor of Val-d'Or, Pierre Corbeil, and his council. Val-d'Or was the first non-indigenous city in the country to adopt a resolution in support of Bill C-262 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I also want to thank the people of Val-d'Or.

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo rightly pointed out that declarations are not the same as international conventions or treaties, which are binding.

She is right in raising that point, but she forgets to mention that international declarations, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, do have legal effect, and our courts can refer to declarations when interpreting domestic law in our country. That is an important point we cannot forget.

I remember the days when the Constitution of 1982 was discussed and finally patriated in our country. No one knew at that time what aboriginal rights were, and we did not ask the government at that time to clarify what aboriginal rights were in this country. We adopted the Constitution of 1982, and it was up to the courts to interpret the concept of aboriginal rights.

In those years, when aboriginal rights and treaty rights were enshrined in the Constitution, there were fears expressed by many opponents. However, the good news is that the sky did not fall, and it is going to be the same with the human rights of indigenous peoples. It is important to recognize that.

It has been said that it took 150 years to get into this mess. This is the 151st year of this country. Why not take this major fundamental step in the right direction? This is what Bill C-262 is proposing to do.

Finally, I want to mention one thing that I have said in this place before. My colleague from Saskatchewan referred to the fact that I was sent to residential school. I spent 10 years in residential school. I should have been mad the rest of my life because of that, because it was not my choice to go to residential school. I was forced to do so. However, when I came out of residential school, I set out to reconcile with the people who put me away. Bill C-262 is all about that reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, this is my extended hand to you and, through you, to all members of this place and to all Canadians across the country. The 151st year of this country is a momentous occasion for us in this place, and for all Canadians, to do the right thing when it comes to the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples.

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

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased of the work the people of Winnipeg Centre did in getting the bill here today. People from across Canada had a profound impact on the bill and seeing it get to third reading.

Last summer, Steve Heinrichs met me on the streets of my riding and asked what I thought about UNDRIP, especially Bill C-262. I told him that I supported it, naturally of course. His next question was whether the government supported it. I told him that I had no idea what the government's position was or would be, but that I was willing to work to see the bill passed. I wanted it passed.

Steve Heinrichs set up one of the most interesting meetings of my short political career. It was a meeting full of passion and debate with the MP for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. It was not a conclusive meeting. The principal question that we looked at was how to move forward and see this passed into Canadian law.

After this meeting, Steve set up additional meetings. Later he said that the most important words he had ever heard in a very long time, and it is to the true Christian and Mennonite tradition, “It's about relationships. It's about relationships”.

As a result of the encouragement of citizens of Winnipeg Centre, I support UNDRIP and Bill C-262. I would support the bill no matter if it were from the opposition or from the government.

Citizens from Winnipeg Centre met me at Thom Bargen's coffee house. The met me at my meet and greet. They also met me at the Feast Cafe Bistro on Ellice, at my riding office, and finally at a press conference announcing public support of the citizens of Winnipeg Centre. What great work they did.

I would like to thank the CPT (Indigenous Peoples Solidarity), Leah Gazan, Steve Heinrichs, Chuck Wright, Erin Froese, Kathy Moorhead Thiessen, and all the participants of the indigenous rights walk from Kitchener to Ottawa.

The main thrust of the bill is extremely important. It has many clauses. It affirms the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. It states that it must work in consultation with indigenous peoples and take all measures necessary to ensure Canadian laws are consistent with UNDRIP, that the Government of Canada must, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, develop and implement a national action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP, and that the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada must report annually to the House for 20 years on the implementation of these measures and on the national action plan.

There are many more things that could be said, but we really want to see the legislation put into law. I am looking forward to hearing the final words from my colleague the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

God bless Canada for getting this done.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the great honour of meeting modern-day pilgrims coming from the faith communities across Canada, young people, people well into their eighties who had been walking for days. Members of the Mennonite Church and young activists were expressing themselves through their church in a way that I had never seen before.

The cause they had taken up, in the spirit of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, was to urge the government and Parliament to adopt Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was such a beautiful marrying of faith, activism, and commitment to improving the country, to indigenous reconciliation, and to our parliamentary process. To see protest signs with a bill number on them is not something we see every day. It was the bill that was advanced by my New Democrat colleague, the member of Parliament for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

I am so honoured to have been greeted by that final pilgrimage coming into Ottawa. I am also grateful to be at the service of the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith in Coast Salish territory, representing that riding at this time in Parliament, because this is a historic day.

My colleague said so powerfully in his opening statement this afternoon that there was no reconciliation in the absence of justice. He reminded us that UNDRIP had been reaffirmed eight times by the United Nations, by consensus. He reminded us that no state in the world opposed UNDRIP, and that even the Harper Conservatives in 2010 acceded to UNDRIP. Therefore, it is well past the time.

The framework for UNDRIP is the framework for reconciliation for Canada. It was used by Justice Sinclair in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as the framework for the report. In turn, Bill C-262 responds directly to the calls to action in the TRC report, specifically calls to action 43 and 44.

I am reminded of the words of my friend and colleague from Snuneymuxw, a former Snuneymuxw chief, Doug White III. Kwul’a’sul’tun is his Coast Salish name, his Hul'q'umin'um' name. He said:

...to those of us personally and intimately engaged in the struggle for justice for Indigenous peoples, one can sense that while the work remains fierce and intense, there is momentum building toward potential breakthroughs.

He further stated:

Canadians are far more aware of our history of colonialism, and the required work of reconciliation. I am hopeful that in 2018, Canadians will not succumb to voices that are intent on looking backward and maintaining what has been. The reality of what has been for Indigenous peoples is nothing to be preserved.

He urges specifically the endorsement of UNDRIP, and my colleague's bill, Bill C-262.

I asked this Parliament if we need this bill, given the government has acceded to the UN treaty. I say we do.

UNDRIP article 18 calls on governments to recognize that indigenous people have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures. Yet the government has approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline and its attendant oil tanker traffic running through the waters of the Salish Sea, through the riding I represent.

The hypocrisy of the government in saying that it believes that communities should control their own destiny, that it believes in the nation-to-nation relationship and then run roughshod over democracy and those promises tells us that we need the bill and we need to legislate a commitment to UNDRIP. Despite articles 21 and 22, which specifically point to the ending of violence against women and children and the particular role of indigenous women in our democracy, the government passed Bill S-3. It specifically chose to enshrine the continuation of discrimination against the rights of some indigenous women in the Indian Act over the urging and the voices of the six women, known as the Famous Six, who had fought for 40 years in the Supreme Court. We fully expected the government, given its feminist agenda and its commitment to a nation-to-nation relationship, to do better.

We do need this legislation. I am so honoured to serve with the member. The spirit he is offering to our country, especially given his own family's personal history with residential schools, is an extremely generous gift.

I urge the House in its entirety to vote together in consensus to move our country forward.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly honoured to rise in support of Bill C-262 and the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

Much has already been said about this bill, but as we embark on the third and final reading, I would like to pay tribute to the sponsor of this bill. At the age of seven, he was among 27 Cree children taken from their homes and their families to attend residential school in La Tuque. He remained there for 10 years. After leaving residential school and returning to his home community, he attended a meeting on the negotiations between the Cree and government officials on constitutional and resource rights, which sparked his interest in pursuing a law degree. He attended law school at L'Université du Québec à Montréal, and in 1989 became the first Cree to receive a law degree in Quebec. This was the beginning of a life's work representing and advancing the human rights and well-being of the Cree people.

Most notably, given the bill and debate today, 30 years ago the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou was invited to the United Nations to negotiate the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It is humbling to sit alongside such a distinguished member of this House and an honour to call him a colleague.

The rights of indigenous peoples is what this bill is about. It provides a legislative framework to ensure that no government going forward can deny basic human rights to the first peoples of Canada. Article 1 of the UN Declaration states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.

Indigenous peoples in Canada live in a world where their basic human rights have to be affirmed distinctly in international treaties and declarations. These basic rights and freedoms are taken for granted and afforded and enjoyed by non-indigenous Canadians, with few exceptions.

Just last week, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the right to vote being conferred on women—some women anyway, namely, white, middle-class, propertied women. The right to vote was not granted to indigenous people by the Canadian government until 1960. The laws of Canada are not in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and despite section 35 of our Constitution that recognizes and affirms indigenous rights, the government has not recognized those rights. Instead, government after government have forced indigenous peoples into lengthy, expensive court battles to have their constitutional rights respected and acted upon. The legacy of colonization and the denial of rights to indigenous peoples is alive and well.

Canada was an active participant in drafting the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples over a period of two decades, and as I mentioned earlier, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou played an important role in the drafting. Despite that work, Canada opted to oppose the adoption of the declaration in 2007.

On May 10, 2016, at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs stated:

Today we are addressing Canada’s position on the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am here to announce on behalf of Canada that we are now a full supporter of the declaration, without qualification.

In November of last year, the Minister of Justice announced that the government would support Bill C-262, and noted that 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. This, indeed, was welcome news because we cannot move forward and take our place among honourable nations if we do not acknowledge our past and work to make the future a complete repudiation of our past treatment of indigenous peoples.

The Truth and Reconciliation Committee has called upon the federal government, among others, to “fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.” The TRC has included the UN declaration in its 16 calls to action. Indigenous peoples have been waiting for a long time for the collective rights of aboriginal peoples living in Canada, including inherent rights to traditional lands and territories, self-determination, and recognition of culture and language. They are still waiting for equal treatment under the law. They continue to wait for clean water; equitable funding for education, social services, and health care; decent housing; and communities free of mercury, PCBs, and pesticides, and of tuberculosis and dysentery.

The indigenous peoples of Canada must not be an afterthought, treated as second-class citizens in law and policy or in practice.

I would like to close with a quote from Douglas White, councillor and chief negotiator for the Snuneymuxw First Nation:

UNDRIP is important because it is a comprehensive framework of recognition and reconciliation—a paradigm we have no domestic tradition of in Canada. Our future must be built on putting in place new foundations—including in legislation and policy. Bill C-262 starts that process and builds that new path, and we all should support it.

Meegwetch.

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

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

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

Lawyers from Cassels Brock noted:

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

They went on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

[Member spoke in Cree]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Motions in amendment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

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

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I call the meeting to order.

We are here at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. We are at the conclusion of studying a bill that relates to the United Nations declaration. It's 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.

Before we start, we always recognize the fact that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. It's particularly important because Canada, and all Canadians really, have started to talk, finally, in earnestness about the truth of our history and moving forward on reconciliation.

To that end, we have important work to do on this private member's bill.

Are we ready to go to clause-by-clause?

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), the consideration of clause 1, the short title, and the preamble is postponed until the chair calls clause 2.

Shall clause 2 carry?

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 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.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With respect to Bill C-262 regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, I have a motion that reads:

a) the Chair of the Committee write, as promptly as possible, to the Chairs of the following standing committees inviting them to consider the subject-matter of the said Bill:

(i) the Standing Committee on Natural Resources;

(ii) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

(iii) the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development;

(b) each of the standing committees, listed in paragraph (a), be requested to convey recommendations, including any suggested amendments, in both official languages, in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs no later than May 31, 2018;

(c) any amendments suggested pursuant to paragraphs (b) shall be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-262, and further provided that the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs may propose amendments notwithstanding the recommendations received pursuant to paragraphs (b);

(d) amendments to Bill C-262, other than the amendments deemed to be proposed pursuant to paragraphs (b), be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee before May 31, 2018 and distributed to members in both official languages; and

(e) the Committee shall proceed to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-262 on Tuesday June 5, 2018.

I have this in both official languages.

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

Thank you, Mike.

Thank you to everybody for your very good presentations.

I guess the question I want to ask everyone is this. Let's assume that Bill C-262 will get approved, but before that, do you have any suggestions for how we can improve this private member's bill? Do you have any suggestions for amendments as we go down this road?

Let me begin with Mary Ellen.

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

I want to refer to subclause 2(2) in Bill C-262 as well as clause 3. Subclause 2(2) says that Bill C-262 cannot be interpreted as delaying the application of UNDRIP in Canadian law, and clause 3 talks about UNDRIP being an international human rights instrument having application in Canadian law. I would like to know if our guests here agree with those two.

Maybe we should start with Justice Slade.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

I do think that that's a very significant objective and an imperative that has already been accepted by the federal government, from what I understood from the statement of the Prime Minister on February 14 in the House of Commons.

More generally, as a principle of international law as adopted by Canada, these are human rights, and this does relate to section 35. There have been deficiencies in addressing section 35 appropriately. I'm not saying that there haven't been some good individual decisions, but there have been very structurally significant problems with moving forward on section 35 in a respectful, positive way with an appropriate human rights lens.

Bill C-262 allows us to put that human right lens appropriately where it should have been all along, but the depth of our dialogue was constrained by many historical factors. At the same time, the depth of our dialogue is enhanced by the acknowledgement that we've had longstanding respect for the rights of indigenous people, but many of our laws, policies, and practices are premised on the colonial assumption that indigenous people were not on the land, that they did not govern, and that they didn't have family structures. That more oppressive colonial context, which we know is false, is where human rights help us to rethink it. It's not going to unwind everything, but will help us to reconsider.

Just as human rights evolve as a living tree, this is a living tree. I do emphasize that it's part of a tradition of a reasonable—I'm not saying incremental—thoughtful, constrained approach, but it should also become a part of a routine human rights concept. All human rights have limits, but they provide a very valuable way to understand how we relate to each other and how government relates to citizens.

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

Thank you, Madam chair, and welcome to our guests in Ottawa.

Welcome, Professor Borrows. I know that you are taking French classes at the moment, and I hope that they work out well for you.

I want to start with both professors. Some expert witnesses came to this committee and talked about the rights contained in UNDRIP as human rights, and that's how they have been treated for the last 35 years in the international arena.

Paul Joffe, one of our legal experts, talked about the charter rights that are contained in part I of our Constitution, and the section 35 rights that are contained in part II of our Constitution. The Supreme Court has referred to them as sister provisions.

We know that in our legal system, under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice has to make sure that legislation is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We don't necessarily have that obligation with indigenous rights, aboriginal rights, or treaty rights in our system.

I believe that the minister would have that obligation even without Bill C-262, but do you believe that Bill C-262 would achieve that? Whenever legislation is contemplated in the future, will the government have to make sure that its laws are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Maybe I'll start with Mary Ellen.

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

Thank you to everyone here, especially from my home province of British Columbia.

I hate to be like a dog with a bone on the FPIC issue, but I have to pick up from what we were just saying. If anyone was listening to the AFN in the last few days, there seemed to be a lot of different perspectives about what FPIC and Bill C-262 were going to accomplish.

Some of the witnesses here today have a very clear understanding of what they believe FPIC is, but even my NDP colleagues on TV last week and then in the House today, gave a much broader meaning to FPIC. This is part of the reason I truly believe it's important that the definition be such that, as some of you have indicated, there is a common understanding, or else we will be creating a lot of significant problems down the road.

Justice Slade, would you care to comment on that? We've had three definitions from one witness. We've had everything that's been said in the last few days, and so I think we have an issue with the definition.

[John Borrows]

I agree, and I would add that when legislation is passed by the House, it has an enforcement component to it. I think that we rightly spend a lot of our time thinking through the implications in relation to enforcement, but this legislation also has an educative function. To the extent UNDRIP is mentioned not only in Bill C-262 but also in legislation dealing with environmental assessment, it will help to perform that task of educating the public—those who are involved in and have to live in accordance with the assessment regime—that indeed UNDRIP is live and is a part of that process as well.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

Bill C-262 is a very significant centrepiece and serves as a national project of resetting appropriately the relationship, and reconciliation. Individual pieces of legislation, like the impact assessment legislation, should also have a reference to UNDRIP. It's not a single statutory instrument; it should be referenced there.

I'm also engaged with the chiefs of Canada in looking at legislation on child welfare. Minister Philpott, who spoke to our special chiefs assembly recently, has said that we need to recognize UNDRIP in a future piece of legislation on child welfare.

The acknowledgement and recognition of UNDRIP is a very significant piece of that imprint because it helps us to understand what the deeper issues are. Again, as Professor Borrows has said, it is not disruptive. It's additive to a tradition of trying to appreciate how we got to the places we got to. As a constitutional scholar, I would say that the debate you have heard in this committee about FPIC has been somewhat misrepresented. FPIC is not an absolute right; it is actually understood in a context. When we look at environmental or impact assessment, we are looking at engagement, we are looking at working together, and we are looking at reasonableness and fairness, all of which are aided by UNDRIP.

My respectful view is that Bill C-262 is extremely significant for Canada, but so, too, is a reference to UNDRIP in other statutory instruments, particularly ones that impact aboriginal people directly and for which the crown and members of the House recognize a need for clarity. Just as the Charter of Rights will be recognized, and has been recognized in different ways in policies and law, UNDRIP is a very significant component of setting an understanding.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to all of our witnesses today.

It is a treat to have you here. I will disclose to Professor Borrows that I've been a huge fan of his for many years, and this is a great moment to be able to ask you some questions about this bill. I'd like to extend my line of questioning and jump between Bill C-262 and Bill C-69, because there's a very live debate around the incorporation of UNDRIP in that context, and I'm sitting on that standing committee as we consider that bill.

My first question is directed to Professor Turpel-Lafond and Professor Borrows. Bill C-69 has been subject to some criticism for not sufficiently incorporating both UNDRIP and its principles. I will be bringing forward amendments to do just that in the days to come.

I don't presume that you have expertise or knowledge of Bill C-69, but I'm hoping that you do have some understanding. If you take it for granted that we're looking at an impact assessment regime, how should Bill C-262, if enacted, be properly reflected in a bill such as Bill C-69?

I put that to you both, please.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Director of Indian Residential School Centre for History and Dialogue, Professor, Allard Law School, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone.

I just want to identify the position that I now hold to give you some context for my remarks. I am a professor of law at Allard Hall Law School at the University of British Columbia, and I am the director of the Indian Residential School Centre for History and Dialogue. In my background, I had 20 years as a judge in Saskatchewan, and 10 years as a child advocate in British Columbia, and I was a law professor before that.

I come to the committee today first of all acknowledging that we are on Algonquin territory.

It's a great honour to be here.

Out of respect to the committee, I have had a chance to follow your proceedings and to read them. I had a chance to attend and listen as well, so I'm not going to cover ground that's already been covered. You've held extensive hearings and have received a great deal of evidence, so I'm not going to go into a lot of arcane legal issues, although I want to be available to answer any questions you might have, either in session or, more generally, to be helpful.

My perspective is really as an indigenous person but also as a constitutional scholar, as a judge, and as an individual who works very closely with addressing the legacy of residential schools and supporting reconciliation to be effective. It's also from a very pragmatic viewpoint, since I have dealt with, just in the child welfare area, 17,000 cases and have worked extensively with indigenous children and families and trying to address some of the more structural issues.

From that perspective, I want to make one general comment and a few small comments, but I'm probably going to use less time.

My general comment is that the fundamental transformation that UNDRIP brought 10 years ago was 10 years ago, but it was very significant and has become very settled. It's widely accepted. It's used extensively by indigenous people and non-indigenous people, and it's extremely helpful. I see UNDRIP, at the most fundamental level, as recognizing indigenous rights as human rights. I believe that Bill C-262 will assist us to come closer to the point of being able to have genuine reconciliation. It's extremely positive. I don't see it as any way disruptive or threatening, knowing what I do about constitutional law, history, and how courts deal with matters. Our Constitution is based on peace, order, and good government. There are specific provisions in UNDRIP itself. All human rights have limits. It is not a radical, disruptive measure to adopt UNDRIP. It's, in fact, an incredibly helpful tool.

I will just say that in my practical work with children and families, as many of you will know, there have been some very significant rulings of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dealing with indigenous children and disparities in funding. These matters are being actively worked on. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, when it issued its fourth compliance order this year, specifically looked to the language of UNDRIP as being helpful in dealing with issues for children and families.

I bring that to you because I appreciate that not everyone works closely with these intergenerational issues of residential school survivors, and they don't always appreciate that it didn't end when the residential schools ended. The grossly disproportional number of indigenous children in care, the need for indigenous families to be heard and understood, and the need to have reconciliation in our provinces and our territories will be very positively impacted by federal adoption and support for UNDRIP at the highest level in legislation.

In its most recent compliance order—which I'm not going to read—the Canadian Human Rights Commission has two paragraphs, paragraphs 75 and 76, that adopt UNDRIP as an interpretive value to understanding what's going on with indigenous children and families. In particular, it talks about the fact that children have the right to be free from discrimination—highlighting articles 2, 7, and 22 of UNDRIP and, more importantly, article 8 and how we have to understand that forced assimilation doesn't work. Indeed, the doctrines of superiority that were part of the residential school process—and part, frankly, of the child welfare process, where indigenous families are judged and assessed as being inferior, and their children are easily removed—made it very challenging in Canada to be able to push back and have a more respectful space for those families. I say this as a person who has dealt with 17,000 child welfare cases as a child advocate.

What UNDRIP does is that it provide an interpretive lens that helps us to have a conversation and to understand what's happening, such as the forceful removal of children and the systemic issues. It is not a disruptive, unhelpful thing. It's extremely helpful, and it will be received in a legal context that is methodical, plodding, and clearly about limits and reasonableness.

I really am happy to answer any questions. I have noted in reviewing the proceedings to date and following the questions that there seems to be some difficulty, wherein people accept UNDRIP but have difficulty accepting that it should be in legislation. I certainly am of the view that there's no difference between accepting UNDRIP and the context of what the bill says within itself as legislation. It really is a seamless process; it presents no terrible threat.

I have also followed your discussions on FPIC. In the same context, I would say to you that I heard former attorney general Geoff Plant—a very experienced individual—say the other day that it's part of civil society to work together. It's part of civil society to engage.

Unfortunately, we haven't had the best terms of engagement. I note, however, from the Saskatchewan viewpoint, taking treaty land entitlement as an example, that when people do engage and work together, it's not just a matter of consent, but there are huge successes that occur. I've seen this happen, and it doesn't matter whether it's a Conservative, a Liberal, or an NDP government, or what have you.

I urge you to take a generous and appropriate approach to this bill, because it's a tool that will be immensely helpful even in provincial and territorial systems. It is not a threatening or menacing matter. I do not feel that we have to have the Oxford University approach whereby we define every problem and issue.

There are 600-plus first nations in Canada. They have the capacity to engage in self-determination and move forward. It will be a slow, methodical process, but it's one that will be aided by a positive respect for human rights, and it is part of responding to the legacy of residential schools.

I'm happy to answer questions. I want to end before my time to prove a point, and I don't want to repeat anything you've already heard.

I have high regard and respect for the work of this committee, but I want to tell you that there are many people on the ground—children and families—who rely on UNDRIP and its fundamental concepts to give meaning, inspiration, and affirmation that their human rights are taken very seriously in Canada.

[Justice Harry Slade, Chairperson, Specific Claims Tribunal Canada]

I've had the experience.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and honourable members for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-262.

I am a justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, and since 2009, chairperson of the Specific Claims Tribunal Canada. The latter is an independent tribunal with a mandate to adjudicate certain categories of historical claims of what are described in the act as “first nations”. These arose primarily during the period from the early days of colonization up until as recently as 15 years ago.

The tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to claims arising around indigenous rights; in other words, section 35 claims.

My comments are not proffered as opinions on any question of law, or a preference on any matter of political controversy. They're personal, and informed by my experience as a lawyer representing indigenous groups from the late 1970s until my appointment to the court in 2001 and as a long-time observer of events in the context of indigenous crown relations. Here there a lesson from my work to establish the processes of the tribunal and adjudicate claims before it.

I should mention also that I am somewhat informed by my spouse Dee, a Tsimshian from the north coast of British Columbia, whom I must obey.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Shall we call the vote on a suspension of the study?

(Motion negatived)

We're going to move now to our presenters. As I was saying, we're hearing opinions from the public on UNDRIP and private member's Bill C-262.

Those of us in Ottawa are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

We have with us on video conference John Borrows, who is calling in from Victoria. Welcome. We can see you on the screen.

When we get to the question period, I'd urge you to identify who the question is for.

Without holding up the hearings any more, I will call on the Specific Claims Tribunal Canada, whose people are here with us, and I have them as leading off with their presentation.

You have up to 10 minutes. I'll try to give you subtle hints about our time, and then they become less subtle as we get closer to the end. Welcome to our committee.

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

Madam Chair, we will never get consensus on this, but there is a general sense of where FPIC stands vis-à-vis Bill C-262.

In our study we had a plan, and we're more or less coming to the end of that plan. It's almost disingenuous to bring this up at this stage. I think we're comfortable going ahead, and I don't think we need to suspend at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We are waiting for one more member, but we don't want to keep our presenters waiting.

We are here to discuss the United Nations declaration. It is 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.

Cathy?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Another issue that came up frequently in the written testimony, which we obviously take just as seriously as the oral testimony, was the issue of the incorporation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I have many constituents in the riding of Pontiac who belong to the Algonquin nation, and they have communicated to me the same thing, that they expect this bill to be reflective of our government's commitment to UNDRIP, to Bill C-262, which is presently being evaluated by another committee. I intend to bring amendments that would seek the incorporation of UNDRIP into this bill.

What is your reaction to those requests?

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

Okay.

Grand Chief, let's assume that Bill C-262 is adopted. What should the next steps be for the federal government?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

A champion would be Grand Chief Bosum.

It took you years and maybe decades to get that agreement with James Bay hydro. Is that something we can build on here now when we look at where Bill C-262 is going, at where you were some 40 years ago, and at where everybody wants to be in terms of that agreement you had with them and still have today?

When we talk around the table here, industry is on eggshells, right? We've heard from some, but maybe you can talk about your journey, the one that you opened up for your people, and there's the hope that it's going to continue.

[Chief Delbert Wapass, Thunderchild First Nation]

Thank you very much.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

I want to say good afternoon to members of the esteemed standing committee. Thank you for inviting the Indian Resource Council to testify on Bill C-262. I have made this trip on behalf of the Indian Resource Council, and not on behalf of Thunderchild.

My name is Delbert Wapass. I'm the Chief of Thunderchild First Nation from Saskatchewan. We are located in the heart of oil and gas country, Lloydminster, on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border.

The Indian Resource Council is a national advocacy organization of chiefs. Our mandate is to represent resource-based first nations by ensuring that their oil and gas resources are managed in their best interests. We work with Canada through Indian Oil and Gas Canada, IOGC, and with industry to ensure that our people participate fully in the energy sector and that we derive maximum benefit from these resources.

On behalf of IRC, we are pleased to share our perspectives as you study Bill C-262.

First, we note and recognize that we are making our submission on unceded Anishinaabe lands.

We acknowledge the Honourable Romeo Saganash, member of Parliament, who is championing Bill C-262, which requires the laws of Canada to be in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The IRC is pleased to support Mr. Saganash's private member's bill and his recommendation for the adoption and implementation of UNDRIP into Canadian law.

We also acknowledge the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, the recommendations of which, among those of many others, have placed UNDRIP in the spotlight of our discussion today.

We also appreciate the best efforts of the Government of Canada, especially those of the Prime Minister, to make UNDRIP a priority in the context of Canada's reconciliation with the indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister, on many occasions, has reiterated this commitment, and especially with his concise statement that “the Government of Canada is committed to a renewed relationship with Indigenous Peoples, based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.” We take these words to heart and believe that Bill C-262 embodies and gives life to these words.

When the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the Hon. Carolyn Bennett, delivered a speech at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on April 25, 2017, she too made that statement.

In direct response to the declaration, the Prime Minister has mandated the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to chair a working group to review all federal laws and policies related to indigenous peoples to reverse the colonial paternalistic approaches. This is about breathing life into section 35 of Canada's Constitution, which formally entrenches the rights of indigenous peoples in Canadian law, and yet which, for far too long, has not been lived up to.

IRC is here today to support these proposals and sentiments and to formally express our support for Bill C-262 and the Prime Minister's responses to UNDRIP, including an internal legal review, and the adoption and implementation of Bill C-262 with its main goal of developing and implementing a national action plan.

Bill C-262 is a new approach to first nations issues. When enacted into law it will advance the process of Canada's framework for reconciliation. IRC recognizes that this federal legislation is needed to reject the colonial structures that continue to oppress the indigenous peoples of this land and to replace these structures with new frameworks that are based on reconciliation.

Further, IRC wants to state clearly that any new legislation must be consistent with Canada's duties and roles, which include fiduciary duties and the historical trust obligations of the crown with respect to first nations lands and resources.

The metaphor of braiding international, domestic, and indigenous laws is relevant to many indigenous traditions in Canada, as stated by some indigenous academics and professionals. The braiding of sweetgrass indicates strength and the drawing together of power and healing. A braid is a single object consisting of many fibres and separate strands. It does not gain its strength from any single fibre that runs its entire length, but from the many fibres woven together. Imagining a process of braiding together strands of constitutional, international, and indigenous law allows one to see the possibilities of reconciliation from different angles and perspectives, and thereby to begin to reimagine what a nation-to-nation relationship, justly encompassing these different legal traditions, might mean.

This is a fitting metaphor for what is contemplated by Bill C-262. It has been 10 years since UNDRIP was adopted by the United Nations on September 13, 2007. It is the right time for Canada to end the debate. Pass and enact Bill C-262.

As highlighted in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues document, the UNDRIP confirms the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and recognizes subsistence rights to lands, territories, and resources. The IRC submits that first nation oil and gas producers and other first nations with the potential to produce oil and gas want to achieve self-determination by asserting their jurisdiction, and want their subsistence rights to lands, territories, and resources recognized in Canadian law.

Bill C-262 purports to provide such assurance. Our organization has been an active participant in developing oil and gas legislation that impacts first nations across Canada. It is our intention to develop our own institutional structures that will shift control of oil and gas from Canada and IOGC. This would be a true exercise of sovereignty and self-determination, as contemplated by UNDRIP and Bill C-262.

In 2005, IRC appeared as a witness before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Northern Development for its study of Bill C-54, FNOGMMA. In 2009, we appeared again at the standing committee for its study of Bill C-5, An Act to Amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act. In 2009, IRC appeared as a witness before the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for its study on that same bill, Bill C-5. Presently, in 2018, IRC continues to do joint work with INAC and IOGC.

If this committee decides to proceed with Bill C-262, IRC is willing to share our experience and offer to work jointly with INAC to develop a national action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP, and ensure that the fiduciary and historical trust obligations for first nation lands and resources are protected. Self-determination and indigenous sovereignty can be implemented in practice by UNDRIP through the implementation of free, prior, and informed consent. Critics of free, prior, and informed consent are concerned about the definition of this concept. Some have equated it to a veto. We at IRC have no such apprehensions. We know that we have rights and title to our land. Canadians courts, including the Supreme Court, did not create these rights; they merely confirmed the existence of these rights. UNDRIP did the same thing by confirming our rights, which existed long before we were colonized.

Free, prior, and informed consent is a tool that can be used to ensure respectful and meaningful consultation with indigenous people whenever and wherever their rights are being impacted. It is another tool for reconciliation.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Thank you.

[Grand Chief Abel Bosum, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable committee members.

I am Grand Chief Abel Bosum. On behalf of the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, I am pleased to appear before you today with Deputy Grand Chief Mandy Gull; Paul John Murdoch, corporate secretary; Tina Petawabano; Brian Craik; Paul Joffe; Bill Namagoose; Paul Workman; Melissa Saganash; and, our youth, Sehoneh Masty.

The Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee includes more than 18,000 Eeyouch, or Cree, occupying our traditional territory of Eeyou Istchee. This territory covers around 400,000 square kilometres and is located mainly to the east and south of James Bay and Hudson Bay.

Indigenous peoples in all regions of the world share common challenges and injustices. These include the debilitating effects of colonization, land and resource dispossession, racial discrimination, marginalization, and the devastating effects of severe impoverishment.

We are proud that Romeo Saganash, a member of our Cree Nation, is the sponsor of Bill C-262. The bill will significantly advance the human rights of indigenous people in Canada and, if adopted, Bill C-262 will also set an important precedent for indigenous peoples in other countries worldwide.

The central focus of the bill is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As underlined in call to action number 43, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls on the federal government and all levels of government to implement the UN declaration “as the framework for reconciliation”.

In regard to the UN declaration, collaborative processes will also be established with the federal government that will enhance harmonious and co-operative relations. In addition, the bill repudiates colonialism as well as fictitious and racist doctrines of superiority, such as as “discovery” and terra nullius. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that Bill C-262 is adopted by both Houses of Parliament. We urge every political party to support this human rights legislation.

Since the early 1980s, our leaders and representatives have attended and participated in the UN standard-setting processes that led to the adoption of the UN declaration in 2007. We always knew that we were both international and domestic actors. Our international personality has been repeatedly confirmed not only by the 20 plus years of negotiating the UN declaration, but also by the increasing number of indigenous issues and processes taking place at the United Nations with direct indigenous participation.

Our Cree Nation knows what it's like to be treated as if we have no inherent rights or no pre-existing rights. In the early 1970s, the construction of the James Bay hydroelectric project was announced by the premier of Quebec with no regard to our rights. At that time, it was the largest project in Canada's history. We had to go to the door of the Supreme Court of Canada before the government was willing to negotiate an agreement.

When the Cree entered into the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975, we saw it as a partnership in governance, environment, and development issues with Canada and Quebec. However, in the years after the signature of this agreement, relations between the Cree, Canada, and Quebec severely deteriorated. Both governments failed repeatedly to implement the agreement. For over 20 years, we were continually entangled in court cases with both governments, at great expense to all parties.

In February 2002 the Cree entered into a nation-to-nation agreement with the Quebec government. This 50-year agreement is referred to as the Paix des Braves. As affirmed in its preamble, this agreement “is based on a development model which relies on the principles of sustainable development, partnership and respect for the traditional way of life of the Crees”. To incorporate sustainable development in our treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the agreement was also amended.

Moreover, in February 2008 we entered into the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee. In particular, this agreement established the process of negotiating a Cree Nation government. We are pleased that the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee Governance Agreement Act, Bill C-70, was assented to on March 29, 2018.

La Paix des Braves and the Canada-Cree agreement both embrace the basic principles of co-operation, partnership, and mutual respect that are the highlights in the UN declaration. Both agreements reflect a consensual relationship. It has been about 47 years since Quebec's decision to proceed with the James Bay hydroelectric project in Eeyou Istchee without our consent. We have all learned that such unilateral action leads to bitter conflicts that are not in the interest of any party concerned. However, our consensual relations are not limited to governments. Consistent with our right to self-determination, we have entered into more than 90 agreements with Canada and business enterprises. I am well placed to emphasize this point relating to consent, or better yet adding value, since I have often been the chief negotiator in achieving such business and government agreements.

There may also be occasions when we turn down a proposed project. About five or six years ago, when a third party proposed a uranium project in Eeyou Istchee, the Cree Nation and the Government of Quebec rejected the proposal after careful examination and reflection. Our decision received support from the Quebec government and over 200 municipalities. We have the right to safeguard our environment, economy, and way of life from unacceptable risks. We have a responsibility to protect the health, security, and well-being of present and future generations.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that our treaties and other agreements must remain living and dynamic agreements for our present and future generations. When there are new and unforeseen circumstances, our treaties and agreements must be appropriately amended. In regard to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, there have been at least 24 complementary agreements. La Paix des Braves, similarly, was amended in December 2003.

We believe that the two collaborative processes in Bill C-262—to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN declaration and to develop and implement a national action plan—can be a useful complement to our treaties and agreements.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

[Geoff Plant, Partner, Gall Legge Grant Zwack LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. I'm honoured to have been invited to appear in front of you.

I'm here today to speak in support of Bill C-262. I have a few minutes of prepared remarks, but I'm sure it will be less than 10.

I want to begin with two observations from most of a career spent as a lawyer and politician and also as a student of indigenous history and policy.

The first is this. Ever since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1973 Calder case, courts have led the development of indigenous rights recognition policy. Governments have been in response mode, and the responses have often been reluctant and incomplete.

Nearly half a century on from Calder, the recognition and implementation of UNDRIP, as I'll call it, presents a unique opportunity for governments to take back the mantle of policy leadership—to be proactive rather than reactive. As a Canadian, I'm proud of that opportunity. As a British Columbian, I should also say that there is a potentially important and rare convergence, because both Canada's government and B.C.'s are committed to embrace and implement UNDRIP.

The second general comment I want to make is a broad historical summary, which is probably dangerous because of its breadth, but let me suggest that our thinking about indigenous issues has changed over time. Mine certainly has.

A century and a half ago, the stated goal was assimilation. This objective gradually—and thankfully—evolved into a different approach. Recognizing that indigenous peoples had pre-existing rights, these rights were half-recognized or sometimes converted into the form of claims, and the goal became how to design processes that would settle these claims, as if by settling them the claims could be made to go away, certainty could be purchased, and title could be settled.

Now, I suggest, we may finally be ready for a new, much better paradigm. The starting point is that famous last sentence of Chief Justice Lamer in his judgment in the Delgamuukw case where he said, “Let us face it, we are all here to stay.”

This sentence invites us to think less in terms of claims and claimants and more in terms of relationships—enduring relationships. We can begin to imagine a dialogue that's not about closure but about openings, a dialogue based on an equality of policies, where we're not aiming to settle title but rather to give meaningful effect to the indigenous right of self-determination. UNDRIP is a powerful tool for this purpose.

If asked, I would be the first to admit that Bill C-262 is an unusual bill. As someone who has drafted, debated, and enforced legislation, I'm a bit of a traditionalist. If government intends to require something by law, I usually want to know precisely what is being required. This is so I can predict the impact and implications and also the cost of what is intended. As a lawyer, I also value precision because it allows me to advise my clients about their rights and obligations. This bill does not satisfy those typical requirements, but it's not a typical bill. It's closer to constitutional than conventional law. It's perfect for its purpose.

Most importantly, perhaps, this bill leaves the details and the mechanics of how Canada's laws and practices will be made consistent with the objectives of UNDRIP to be worked out with indigenous peoples. The language in clauses 4 and 5, that phrase “consultation and cooperation”, is very important. Those words capture the important reality that it is not for the Government of Canada to decide unilaterally how the principles and obligations of UNDRIP will be achieved. This bill requires government to engage with indigenous peoples to make this happen. That legitimizes and empowers the indigenous voice and authority on these fundamental issues.

There are three reasons why this high-level commitment to consult and co-operate is important.

First, it allows for nuanced, local, site-specific solutions to meet the wide variety of contexts and circumstances in which recognition of UNDRIP will arise. It's simply not possible, nor is it desirable, to anticipate all of those situations in one piece of legislation. This bill gives marching orders to those who will have to do the hard work on the ground of making this real.

Second, it increases the likelihood that the solutions that will be found will have shared buy-in, which, I respectfully suggest, is an increasingly elusive goal in public policy decision-making these days.

Third, consultation and co-operation are themselves foundational principles for the needed new relationships. I envision relationships not characterized by line-item vetoes where consent is conditional on agreement to every single clause and condition of every decision, but rather through negotiated give-and-take in a manner that is familiar to anyone who has participated in complex government-to-government negotiations and problem-solving.

I know there are concerns that the full recognition of UNDRIP, no matter how well intentioned, will simply add more roadblocks to the development of lands and resources. That is certainly a concern of some here in British Columbia.

The concern, as I'm sure you all know, is with UNDRIP's statement that resource development requires the “free, prior, and informed consent” of indigenous landowners. I don't dismiss this concern, but I strongly believe that adoption of UNDRIP standards represents a tremendous opportunity to change how land and resource decision-making is done, in a way that will benefit everyone. Properly implemented, UNDRIP offers an opportunity to replace conflict on the land with co-operation and to make real progress towards reconciliation.

The starting point for a consideration of the requirement of free, prior, and informed consent is the acknowledgement that governments do not seek permission from every single one of us before decisions are made. Rather, we elect governments to make such decisions on our behalf. The result of this process of self-determination—that is, the right to choose by whom and how we are governed—is that those who govern, broadly speaking, have our consent to do so.

I suggest that we ought to see the idea of free, prior, and informed consent in the same terms. Full inclusion in decision-making processes, acknowledgement of the legitimacy of diverse perspectives, and shared participation, responsibility, and accountability for outcomes become the means by which the necessary consent is obtained.

What's needed, then, I suggest, are new decision-making processes. Today, first nations are consulted about proposals, but non-indigenous governments usually have the last word. There's a need for new models that include first nations as shared decision-makers, so that they are not simply affected by the decision, but are partners in it.

Bill C-262 should cause the Government of Canada to initiate processes of consultation and co-operation that will lead to the design and implementation of these new models, at least within the fields of federal legislative authority. Full inclusion not only respects indigenous ownership of their lands and resources; it also respects the right of indigenous peoples to decide for themselves how their lands are to be used and how they are to be governed. Full inclusion is the pathway to real consent. It meets both the letter and the spirit of UNDRIP, and it will move us away from conflict to co-operation. Full inclusion is a necessary step on the road to reconciliation.

There's no certainty here. Mainly, there is an opportunity, but it's the right opportunity. Bill C-262, in my respectful opinion—

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

D'accord.

Mr. Russell, first of all, thank you. It's good to see you again. We met a couple of years ago.

I noted carefully some of the words you used in your presentation. I agree entirely with some of the things you said, including the fact that Bill C-262 does not go “far enough”. Those were the words you used.

Which part of Bill C-262 would you see the possibility of strengthening? Is it changing “free, prior and informed consent” to a veto or something else? I don't want to focus on FPIC, because it's an error to focus on those specific articles when we have 46 articles and a preamble and paragraphs that are important. That's not how our legal system works, in any case. I'd like you to elaborate on that.

[National Chief Robert Bertrand]

The fact that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would now be framed in legislation could—I won't say “force”—push the government to negotiate a little more with us as to the scope of the decision in the ruling in the Daniels case.

As you know, as National Chief, I have to attend all the general assemblies of all our affiliates. Whether in Newfoundland, Labrador or Quebec, people are still wondering what we have gained from the Daniels affair.

As I mentioned earlier, we didn't discuss education, housing, hunting and fishing. There is so much to start the discussion. Many of these topics concern not only the federal government, but also the provincial and territorial governments. I was in Lac-Saint-Jean at the end of the week, and people were wondering about fishing on Lake Saint-Jean. Were they going to be allowed to as registered Indians? I couldn't answer them.

Maybe in five or six years, after discussions with both levels of government, we can come to some sort of agreement. But we haven't even started the discussion. I hope Bill C-262 will help us push the government to negotiate with us.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To our guests this afternoon, thank you, and thank you for your contribution to this study.

I would like to start with you Chief Bertrand.

First, I'm sorry to have missed part of your presentation. I arrived late because of a vote in the House this afternoon.

You talked about a process that continues to be drawn out in your case, even since the ruling in the Daniels case two years ago. The current government has been in power for two and a half years.

How do you think this process, or your case, would benefit from the framework proposed by Bill C-262?

What I'm really proposing here is a reconciliation framework. I would like to hear your comments on your specific case.

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

We know, for example, that article 19 talks about laws of general application and the obligation of the government. I'm looking at something like the marijuana bill as an example. We're hearing right now that as a result of the Daniels decision we're even having trouble defining where those conversations have to be, never mind getting to a place where the government could move forward, even in their four-year mandate.

They've made a commitment around legislating marijuana. If this bill is passed, they would not know whom they could talk to, so they would be unable to move forward with essentially anything during their four-year term, if they were to fully respect what Bill C-262 is doing.

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

Yes. I think it would be fair to say that if Bill C-262 passed tomorrow, the government would have an obligation.... Well, it has an obligation anyway, but they haven't figured out how to meet that obligation, given the Daniels decision.

Mr. Russell, I was going to go to you next.

I know you talked about its being very inappropriate to use the word “veto” in relation to free, prior, and informed consent. I respect your saying that, although I want to point out that a number of indigenous communities themselves use that word, so I don't think it's a word that is used that consistently. Indeed, one NDP member said, for example, that free, prior, and informed consent means that with a project that might cross boundaries, every single community impacted by it would need to give consent, or the project would not go forward. We have, then, a member of Parliament for the NDP on television stating that very specific perspective on what this bill means.

I think we need to flesh this out. If we don't have a common understanding, we're going to be in a very difficult position. Although you said it's a distraction, I don't think, when you have so many people who perceive vetos in every single community requiring support of a project, that it's a distraction; and I think it's an important point of discussion.

[Todd Russell, President, NunatuKavut Community Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to you, to your vice-chairs, and to all honourable members at this table.

A special welcome goes to Ms. Yvonne Jones, with whom I'm very familiar as my member of Parliament, and who is also a distant relative. We know each other, being indigenous in this country. We know who each other's families are, their histories, their loves, their wants, their needs. It's a peculiarity about indigenous peoples that is sometimes missed that our nations are very close. It's an important fact when we talk about the issues that are important to us.

My name is Todd Russell, and I am a proud lnuk. I am here today on behalf of the NunatuKavut Community Council and I represent the southern Inuit.

Let's begin by acknowledging that we are on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I hear this a lot. For some these may be mere words, but it is a profound fact, and that fact comes with meaning. Some of that meaning is embedded in Bill C-262.

It is important to understand not only this fact but who it is you're speaking with. When I speak, I speak on behalf of the southern Inuit, and I look at Bill C-262 through our lens. NunatuKavut means "Our ancient land." It is the territory of the southern Inuit who reside primarily in southern and central Labrador. Our people have lived in their traditional territories since long before Europeans set foot on our soil. As it was in times of old, and despite centuries of colonialization, we remain deeply connected to the land, sea, and ice that make up NunatuKavut, our home.

While we have never surrendered our rights or title to our land, the Government of Canada has never fully respected our rights and has not lived up to its constitutional obligations to recognize and protect who we are and the lands we occupy. Our concerns have often been ignored when it comes to resource development in our territory, and after decades of work we are still waiting for Canada to finally accept our claim for negotiation.

Bill C-262 provides us an opportunity to move past this colonial relationship and to enshrine our rights to our lands and to have them recognized and protected.

Let's look at the intent of Bill C-262.

I want to thank Mr. Romeo Saganash, MP for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, for introducing this bill. Its intent is to ensure that all federal laws are consistent with principles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as described in clause 4 of the bill.

What does this actually mean? In December 2017, Mr. Saganash provided some clarity around the intention of the bill when he recommended that it be referred to this committee. He said:

Bill C-262 would also allow us to begin to redress the past wrongs, the past injustices that were inflicted on indigenous people. This is the main objective of Bill C-262, to recognize that on one hand they are human rights but on the other hand that we begin to redress the past injustices that were inflicted on the first peoples of this country.

One of the things that we can do in the name of reconciliation is to adopt this framework that I am proposing through Bill C-262. I do not need to remind members that the world is watching.

While we are supportive of the bill and the intentions behind it, there is still much uncertainty as to what this legislation will actually do and how implementing it will affect the Inuit I represent. We also have concerns about whether the bill goes far enough for the recognition, protection, and implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples. We are, however, encouraged by the Government of Canada's support for the bill.

We note the following words from Ms. Yvonne Jones, parliamentary secretary to the minister of INAC, in support of the bill during second reading. Ms. Jones said:

Bill C-262 proposes a process of dialogue and the development of an action plan aimed at ensuring consistency between federal law and the declaration. Such an approach would be consistent with other ongoing processes, including the review of laws, policies, operational practices, and the permanent bilateral mechanisms that are in place.

Clearly the government's intention is to facilitate that dialogue, that process, and an action plan aimed at ensuring that Canadian laws are consistent with the United Nations declaration, and indeed that Canadian laws are aligned with Canada's commitments under the declaration.

In this regard there is much to be done, and it cannot be done in isolation. Comprehensive legislation and policy changes affecting indigenous peoples must be done in partnership with indigenous nations across Canada. The Inuit of NunatuKavut must be part of that process in a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government.

This bill must also be viewed through the lens of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, which speak directly to this declaration. In fact, this bill is a direct response to call to action number 43. The federal government has clearly indicated its commitment to implementing these calls to action, and implementation of the declaration is a critical part of this work.

The TRC specifically addresses reconciliation as relationship. As the first of its 10 principles states, “The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the framework for reconciliation at all levels and across all sectors of Canadian society.”

I also believe that this bill will only be effective when there is a clear plan around its implementation. To paraphrase Grand Chief Willie Littlechild—one of the architects of the declaration and the TRC report—there must be a clear vision and a clear path and plan for how it will be achieved.

What will Bill C-262 do? It is important to note that Bill C-262 is not creating any new rights for indigenous peoples. The rights of indigenous peoples as outlined in UNDRIP already exist in Canadian law; they are our inherent rights and are already recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution.

What Bill C-262 will do is create a positive obligation to ensure that existing and new legislation is consistent with our indigenous rights and clarify the circumstances in which those rights must be honoured in government decision-making. In other words, the bill will require the federal government, and indeed the provinces, to meet the promise of section 35 of our Constitution.

The ability of indigenous groups to oppose legislation or projects that adversely affect their rights operates on a spectrum. Indigenous peoples and the Inuit whom I represent specifically can and must have the ability to exercise self-governance and to make decisions affecting their lands.

This has already been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the Tsilhqot'in decision the court granted aboriginal title to more than 1,700 square kilometres of territory. However, the court also stated that the indigenous groups' interests must be reconciled with the greater public interest. Bill C-262 will not necessarily change this principle, but it strengthens it.

Free, prior, and informed consent, as contained in articles 19 and 32 of UNDRIP, is about self-governance. It is not in our view, as some would argue, about whether indigenous peoples have a veto. Members should ask themselves why certain people, in speaking about FPIC, use such pejorative words to describe indigenous decision-making and self-governance. Rather, these articles reaffirm the requirement for Canada to adhere to its already-existing obligations to consult, cooperate with, and accommodate indigenous peoples, and to do so with a view to obtaining our consent to activities that affect our lands and resources or to legislation that affects us.

In addition to clarifying when the requirement to seek consent applies, UNDRIP clarifies the nature of that consent: that it is to be obtained without coercion, that it be given prior to project decisions being made, and that it be based on the best available information.

What constitutes free, prior, and informed consent may vary depending on the circumstances and will be the subject of ongoing nation-to-nation negotiations and dialogue. Recent history demonstrates how the failure to implement and update laws to conform with UNDRIP can have quite negative impacts. The Muskrat Falls project, located in our territory, provides a prime example.

The passing of Bill C-262 cannot result in government simply continuing to follow existing policies and procedures with respect to the recognition of rights.

I just need one more minute to finish.

The federal government has recognized that its comprehensive claims policy does not adequately address the needs and realities of all indigenous groups. While I am optimistic about the newly announced recognition and implementation of rights framework, we will be watching closely to see how it will be put into action.

One concrete and meaningful step has been our engagement with the federal government on the acceptance of our claim for negotiation. As a further demonstration of the government's commitment to the principles of UNDRIP, we anticipate that this work to accept and negotiate our land claim will continue in a manner that facilitates the unique needs and positions of our people.

[National Chief Robert Bertrand, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples]

Thank you.

Chairman Mihychuk, vice-chairs McLeod and Saganash, committee members, representatives, and guests, I am National Chief Robert Bertrand of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples—in other words, CAP.

I am pleased to be with you all today and wish to acknowledge that we are on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples.

The teachings and wisdom of our ancestors are essential for guiding our work and our discussions today.

I would like to recognize NDP MP Romeo Saganash for his dedication and perseverance in advancing Bill C-262 and commend the Liberal government for its full support of this crucial bill. Enshrining the principles set out in the UN declaration in Canadian law is a momentous step toward genuine reconciliation and safeguarding the individual and collective human rights of all indigenous peoples in Canada.

For over 47 years, CAP has committed itself to advocating for the rights and needs of the off-reserve status and non-status Indians, Métis peoples, and southern Inuit, the majority of whom live in urban, rural, and remote areas. CAP also serves as the national voice for its 11 provincial and territorial affiliates, which are instrumental in providing us with a direct connection to the priorities and needs of our constituents.

From coast to coast, the provincial and territorial affiliates of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples play a leading role in providing us with direct access to the needs and interests of our fellow citizens.

Since Canada's full endorsement of the UN declaration, our people have been questioning what this means, what impact UNDRIP will have, and what the future now holds for them. During this time, we also witnessed Canada's commitment to advancing reconciliation, the TRC's 94 calls to action, and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition and implementation of indigenous rights.

As citizens of this country, we have come to recognize that to move forward together we need to have true reconciliation between all indigenous peoples, non-indigenous Canadians, and all levels of government. However, Canada's proclaimed renewed relationship with indigenous peoples and vision to achieve reconciliation has seemingly extended itself in a distinction-based approach to a select number of the five national indigenous organizations recognized by the Government of Canada.

Disguised as reconciliation, this approach is a strong indicator of the desire on the part of the federal government to simplify its political interface with indigenous peoples. This lends itself to creating a culture of exclusion, division, and inequality. One could argue that it further perpetuates competition for social, political, and economic interests amongst indigenous groups, communities, and families. As was done through the Indian Act, which created eligibility rules that classified status Indians as Canada's legitimate Indians for public policy purposes, Canada continues to justify its exclusionary relationship through public policy and law.

The federal government continues to pose the question: Who are non-status Indians? They are Indians who were ultimately forced into an identity category of the government's own creation. As of the 2016 census, non-status Indians—some 232,000 indigenous people—now account for nearly a quarter of the first nations population in Canada.

A great number of our constituents are skeptical that any significant changes would ensue as a result of UNDRIP and Bill C-262, as their voices have largely been ignored in terms of political recognition and engagement in policy development on substantive issues that affect them.

Certainly, the inherent rights expressed in the UN declaration are not exclusive or limited to federally recognized status Indians or indigenous peoples who live on reserve in Inuit Nunangat or the Red River Settlement.

Canada's ongoing unilateral decision-making on behalf of non-status Indians and the urban indigenous peoples must come to an end, as it is a direct violation of their fundamental human rights in UNDRIP.

Our constituents are the most vulnerable and marginalized of all Canadian citizens, who have and continue to fall through the jurisdictional and legislative cracks. In 1972, the Secretary of State for the Government of Canada submitted a confidential memo to cabinet showing that Canada was well aware that the Métis and non-status Indians were far more exposed to discrimination and other social disabilities and were the most disadvantaged of all Canadian citizens, living in circumstances that were intolerable, judged by the standards of Canadian society. Over 45 years later, we must ask ourselves why this situation remains the same.

For years, both federal and provincial governments in Canada have denied having legislative authority over Métis and non-status Indians, the federal government under the justification that subsection 91(24) of the Constitution has precluded them from doing so, and the provincial governments on the basis that the issue is a federal one. This has left many Métis and non-status Indians in what the Supreme Court of Canada has characterized as “a jurisdictional wasteland with significant and obvious disadvantaging consequences”. Justice Michael Phelan acknowledged that these consequences produced a large population of collaterally damaged people as the result of their being deprived of programs, services, and intangible benefits, recognized by all governments as needed.

In 1999, CAP addressed a crucial stalemate directly by launching a legal challenge in Daniels v. Canada. On April 14, 2016, after a 17-year court battle, the Supreme Court issued an unanimous decision on Daniels, declaring that the Métis and non-status Indians are Indians under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. This landmark ruling confirmed that Canada is constitutionally responsible for the Métis and non-status Indians. It also affirmed that the federal government has a fiduciary relationship with the Métis and non-status Indians just as it does with status Indians and has a duty to consult and negotiate with them on matters that affect them.

In the Supreme Court's decision on Daniels, Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella stated:

As the curtain opens wider and wider on the history of Canada’s relationship with its Indigenous peoples, inequities are increasingly revealed and remedies urgently sought. Many revelations have resulted in good faith policy and legislative responses, but the list of disadvantages remains robust. This case represents another chapter in the pursuit of reconciliation and redress in that relationship.

The Daniels decision, in addition to the application of UNDRIP and Canadian law, has the potential to transform the relationship between Canada, Métis, and non-status Indians, and help shape the framework, including new legislation to recognize and implement indigenous rights in support of its commitment toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

As of today, two years following the decision, Canada remains an inactive partner in engaging CAP on Daniels. CAP, and by extension, the voices of the Métis and non-status Indians continue to experience exclusion from crucial discussions with the Canadian government that impact the rights and the lives of our constituents.

Bill C-262 would require the federal government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with UNDRIP and develop a national plan to do so in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples.

This concludes my remarks this afternoon.

Thank you very much. Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Welcome, everybody.

It's a historic day, and now we are at the INAN committee. We are discussing 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 we sit in this relatively new committee room, we are actually on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. History is still alive and we must understand the truth before we can deal with reconciliation. We have begun the process.

The way it works is that you'll have up to 10 minutes to present. I'll try to give you signals, first very subtle and then not so subtle as we get closer to the time being up, so just keep an eye on me once in a while and I'll let you know. Then, after the presentations, we'll go to rounds of questions with the honourable MPs who are here, to get even more insight on your words of wisdom.

To begin with, we've got the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Hi, Robert. Welcome.

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

However, when you endorse something such as a document like Bill C-262, you're basically saying, “Go ahead; this is great,” that we all should be sitting here voting for it. That's important; what you say matters. If you haven't had that detailed discussion and in-depth look at it to come to those conclusions, I just wonder how....

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

Thank you.

I'm going to start with the chamber, and thank you both for your presentations.

The chamber has formally endorsed both UNDRIP and Bill C-262. Did your membership look at it? What was your process to come to a formal endorsement? Is it both...under Bill C-262?

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

Okay. It was surprising.

Moving back to Pamela or François, what suggestions do you have for us—we have less than a minute—to improve Bill C-262?

[François Dufresne, President, Forest Stewardship Council of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is François Dufresne. I am the President and CEO of the Forest Stewardship Council or FSC Canada.

I would to first acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples. FSC Canada has been welcomed onto this territory many times since our creation in 1996, and we have been honoured with their support for our work on sustainable forest management.

FSC Canada would like to recognize Mr. Saganash for introducing Bill C-262 to the Canadian public for review and debate. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been a guidepost for our work on establishing new standards for forest certification in Canada and around the world. We would like to thank this committee for including FSC in the lineup of distinguished guests to speak on the topic of indigenous rights; free, prior, and informed consent; and UNDRIP.

I will provide a brief introduction to FSC and then I will turn the microphone over to Pamela Perreault, our coordinator of aboriginal initiatives within FSC Canada, to provide an overview of our work on indigenous rights.

FSC is a global organization that is present in more than 80 countries with 200 million hectares of certified forests around the globe. It was created in 1993 after the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit as a voluntary forest certification system. Based on a consensus obtained with social, indigenous, environmental, and economic stakeholders, we set strict standards to ensure that FSC-certified forest products are issued from responsibly managed forests. The wood fibre from certified forests is tracked to retail stores through the FSC chain of custody system. FSC-certified wood, paper, and other forest products are then sold with the FSC label by certified companies in the marketplace. With 55 million hectares, Canada has the largest area of FSC-certified forests in the world. Sixteen per cent of Canada's forests are FSC-certified, and six of the 10 largest FSC-certified forests in the world are located here in Canada.

Pamela will now explain how FSC has worked within the UNDRIP framework to craft a standard that recognizes and upholds the rights of indigenous peoples.

[Susanna Cluff-Clyburne, Director, Parliamentary Affairs, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Great. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm used to presenting for five minutes, so I'll be fast, and I'll give my co-panellists the remainder of my time.

First of all, thank you very much for the invitation to be here this afternoon. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce deeply appreciates it. I'm Susanna Cluff-Clyburne, obviously, and amongst my files at the Canadian chamber is the indigenous affairs file. I too wish to acknowledge, as I'm sure has been done previously this afternoon, the fact that we're meeting on unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

The Canadian chamber is not a newcomer to the examination of relationships between business and indigenous peoples. I've had the opportunity to meet several of the members of this committee to talk about our work in the past and in the present as well. Our members know that indigenous peoples, the youngest and fastest-growing segment of Canada's population, hold the promise of being a social and economic powerhouse if they have the same opportunities available to them as all Canadians do.

Over the past several years, Canadian chamber members have given us the mandate and resources to examine public policy tools and business practices that would improve indigenous peoples' participation in, and increase their benefits from, our economy. Indigenous peoples in what is now Canada once enjoyed strong, nation-to-nation, social, military, and commercial alliances with European colonists. Had it not been for the co-operation of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples—for example, during the War of 1812—Canada might not exist, and that was before the Indian Act, residential schools, and a spate of policies and programs aimed at assimilating indigenous peoples.

It wasn't just government policies that caused harm. Canada's businesses have often fallen short on seeking respectful relationships with indigenous peoples. Governments, businesses, and all Canadians need to do the hard work necessary to restore these nation-to-nation, partner-to-partner relationships throughout Canada. They're critical to the well-being of each and every one of us.

In its final report, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called upon Canadian businesses to adopt the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for their relationships. Many of our members are doing so and had respectful, mutually beneficial relationships prior to the declaration's existence. Our members support Bill C-262. It's time that indigenous rights took their proper place in Canadian laws and regulations.

Our members also support the objectives of the approach being taken by the government, first, with its review of the laws and policies affecting indigenous peoples, and more recently, with the process to recognize and implement indigenous rights.

However—and unfortunately, there is a however—our members are frustrated with the lack of a formal process to allow for their perspectives to be heard as the government moves forward. The environment has become extremely complex on the issue of reconciliation, and our repeated requests to be part of the reconciliation conversation have, to date, fallen on deaf ears.

Last year, we were encouraged when it was indicated that the government's review of laws and policies would include a formal process to seek the input of stakeholders, including business. The government's engagement process for the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights does not have the rigour we had expected and hoped for, for such an important issue. Those stakeholders not invited to face-to-face round tables can provide their perspectives through an email address or a Canada Post address. However, the engagement guide is still not available online—that's as of this morning—and the deadline for providing input is not clear. I was able to obtain the guide by contacting an ADM at Indigenous and Northern Affairs. That's the only way I could get it.

Canada's businesses and other stakeholders, as well as indigenous rights holders, need a principles-based, reliable, consistent framework for the governance of their relationships. Until then, we will all continue to rely on a project-by-project approach, based on what we can negotiate and not necessarily on the correct principles. Too often, as it is today, the ultimate outcome will be determined by the courts, and this is not in anyone's interests.

Improving indigenous peoples' engagement in our economy is in every Canadian's interest. Companies that have worked hard to establish and now enjoy strong relationships with indigenous communities are the most vocal on the benefits of doing so.

It's not clear to Canada's businesses and those who invest in them what the government's commitments to reconciliation with indigenous peoples mean for them. A clear, rigorous stakeholder engagement process would greatly assist. The sooner it's clear what the government's commitments mean for Canada's businesses, the better positioned they will be to deliver on sustainable economic reconciliation and the quality-of-life benefits that often accompany it.

Thanks again for the opportunity to be here this afternoon.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

My question is based around that premise. Having had numerous conversations with Chief Paul, and Chief Ross and Chief Candice Paul and others, there are differing opinions on that issue, but those would be the three communities that would be the closest to Sisson. I recognize the differentiation between the Maliseet and the Mi'kmaq in New Brunswick and how that's traditionally been separated. But the federal process concluded that one group would be adversely affected and one group would not be adversely affected. How do you feel Bill C-262 would have changed the outcome of that?

I can also put that over to you, Mr. Simon.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Yes, Chief Ross, as well as Chief Candice Paul. I think that we work collaboratively despite some differences of opinion on multiple subjects. I think that we overall work very collaboratively together, and in the spirit of collaboration we're certainly putting our best foot forward. You referenced the Sisson project, energy east, and fracking as three specific instances where we've had trouble in New Brunswick. I want to get your opinion on how you felt Bill C-262 could have played a more positive role in the development of any of those projects or how you feel that those projects were adversely affected by its lack.

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

Maybe to both lawyers, do you think that Bill C-262 adds clarity to everything? I remember the discussions we had back in the days of the early 1980s, when the Constitution Act, 1982, came into effect and the whole concept of aboriginal rights wasn't very clear to me. Do you think Bill C-262 improves on that clarity?

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

Thank you.

Chief Knockwood, you're right that Bill C-262 refers to laws strictly, which have to be consistent with the UN declaration in this country. You suggested that we add policies to that. I agree.

The Prime Minister has talked in a speech about adding another element to laws and policies, namely operational practices, which have to be consistent with the UN declaration. An operational practice is, for example, when the Minister of Justice decides to appeal decisions that are in favour of indigenous peoples. That's an operational practice.

Do you agree that we should also add operational practices to the bill?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our presenters, and welcome. Thanks for the support for the UN declaration as well as for Bill C-262. It's very much appreciated. Having travelled throughout the country promoting Bill C-262, I know this is also the desire of all indigenous and non-indigenous communities across the country, so you're perfectly in sync with the rest of the country on this one.

I want to start with you, Chief Leween. I want to understand more in detail how your organization arrived at the position of using the UN declaration as the basis or framework for the work that you do on behalf of your members.

I took note of all the expressions that he used about UNDRIP: that your work is inspired by UNDRIP; that it matters for indigenous peoples; that It's the new future; that UNDRIP is about working together, about collaboration and partnership, and so on and so forth.

Were there difficulties or challenges in arriving at that position about using UNDRIP as a framework for the work you do on behalf of the coalition?

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

That's still leaving me with—which I think we frankly expressed upfront—some discomfort with proceeding forward until we.... I mean, as legislators, to not understand the implications to passing something....

I think we all recognize UNDRIP as important, so what we're talking about is Bill C-262.

How does the Daniels decision overlay into Bill C-262? Perhaps that is a question for the lawyers here.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Amos and I are on the environment committee and right now we're studying Bill C-69, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This, of course, is a key discussion as part of that act, what amendments need to occur to bring about that meaningful participation, that collaborative consent type of approach, and how we can put that within the act so it recognizes UNDRIP, and starts to work toward a rights framework.

In going forward with Bill C- 262, I would assume you would agree that we need to ensure that, as we are going through these other acts, we develop a consistent approach across legislation so we can arrive at the place you're discussing right now.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Do you think this is a potential flaw within Bill C-262, that there should be a definition of what FPIC is, or should we...?

There's this argument we've heard here about the legalistic defined approach and then the nation-to-nation relationship approach—you know, the black letter of the law versus political will. Some say that you can't really have one without the other, and others say that it can happen concurrently; it doesn't have to be stated right up front; the black letter of the law does not have to come first, before we enter into UNDRIP and the nation-to-nation relationship that will ensue, in developing a rights framework and toward conciliation.

What would be your view of that?

[Chief Rebecca Knockwood, Fort Folly First Nation, Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'taqnn Inc.]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Chief Rebecca Knockwood and I am the Chief of Fort Folly First Nation, and the Co-Chair of Mi'gmawe'I Tplu'taqnn, MTI, representing the Mi'kmaq residing in the province of New Brunswick. Beside me, I have Derek Simon, Legal Counsel for MTI.

I would first like to acknowledge that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples. I wish to thank the Algonquin Nation for the opportunity to be on their territory.

I would also like to thank the Creator for providing us with the ability to be here today to discuss this most important issue facing our indigenous peoples and facing Canada as a whole.

The Mi'kmaq are the indigenous people of what is currently known as the Atlantic provinces, parts of Quebec, and parts of New England. We are signatories to peace and friendship treaties with the British crown, to which Canada is now a beneficiary. We have never ceded title to our territory.

First, the Mi'kmaq of New Brunswick adamantly support Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act. We are most thankful to the Honourable Romeo Saganash for submitting this private member's bill in furthering the realization of indigenous rights in Canada.

In considering this bill, we would bring the committee's attention to the following most important issues.

The first is free, prior, and informed consent, which I will refer to as FPIC. Since Canada withdrew its objector status to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, in 2016, there has been much concern regarding Canada's adoption of UNDRIP. Specifically, articles 19 and 32 identify the necessity of free, prior, and informed consent and say that Canada must consult with its indigenous people to obtain FPIC where they wish to adopt and implement legislation that will affect them or where Canada wishes to approve any project that will affect indigenous lands or resources.

There have been concerns raised by many that, if Canada is to adopt UNDRIP, then these specific provisions would provide indigenous people with a veto over legislation and project development.

FPIC is not a veto. FPIC means that the government must consult with indigenous peoples with the goal of obtaining our consent to use our lands. Where they cannot obtain the consent of the indigenous groups, government must justify its conduct following a framework set down by the court. This is consistent with what the Supreme Court of Canada has said on this issue numerous times, most recently in the Tsilhqot'in decision in 2014. FPIC also means that indigenous people have a right to say no to projects or legislation that affect our rights or our lands.

This approach is consistent with our rights of self-determination, and UNDRIP's identification of FPIC provides a strong framework for reconciling indigenous rights within the larger context of Canadian society.

Under article 46 of UNDRIP, Canada has the ability to limit the rights set out in UNDRIP where such limitation is "necessary...for...meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.” This is the justification test that is similar to what government currently operates within with respect to the section 35 constitutional rights of indigenous peoples. As has been identified by the Supreme Court of Canada, section 35 aboriginal rights can be infringed upon, so long as Canada can justify the limitation based upon various things, including a legislative objective, conservation, safety, etc.

Thus, it is clear that there is no veto power for indigenous people contained in UNDRIP, but rather an approach that is consistent with the existing section 35 constitutional framework. That approach is also consistent with our peace and friendship treaties, which require Mi'kmaq consent for use and occupation of our lands.

What UNDRIP does is clarify Canada's existing legal obligations to indigenous peoples, including making clear the circumstances in which consent is required and the nature of that consent.

This is important, because while the courts have made the legal requirements clear, legislation and policy have not necessarily kept pace. Environmental laws and regulatory processes often treat indigenous peoples like stakeholders rather than rights holders, and government does not always approach the consultation process with the goal of obtaining consent, leading to costly disputes and litigation with indigenous peoples. We have seen this in our territory, with protests over fracking, disputes over the Sisson Brook mine, and the derailment of the energy east review process. If government had approached these projects with the goal of obtaining Mi'kmaq consent for these activities, rather than simply going through the motions of consultation, outcomes might have been different.

Bill C-262 creates a legal requirement and a process for Canada to ensure its laws are in compliance with UNDRIP. However, since policies often influence how government conducts its day-to-day business, we would recommend that the words “and policies” be added after “laws” in clause 4, and that policies be included in the national action plan required by clause 5.

Another important aspect of UNDRIP is its recognition of our rights to our lands, territories, and resources, and our right to readdress those rights. They have been lost. While these rights have already been recognized by the courts, articles 26 and 28 affirm these rights, and article 27 requires Canada to develop “a fair, independent, impartial, open, and transparent process”, having regard to our laws, customs and systems, to recognize and adjudicate our rights pertaining to our lands, territories, and resources.

Although the federal government has long recognized that its comprehensive claims and self-government policies do not adequately address the needs, aspirations, and realities of the Mi'kmaq as signatories to the peace and friendship treaties, we have struggled for some time to come up with an effective alternative to address the implementation of our aboriginal and treaty rights and the recognition of our aboriginal title.

Recently, the Mi'kmaq of New Brunswick, like our brothers and sisters in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island, have been working with the Government of Canada and the province to develop an effective process for implementing our aboriginal and treaty rights. This is called the rights implementation approach to negotiation. Much work still needs to be done, particularly on finding a way to achieve due recognition of our title. We would prefer not to have to resort to lengthy court battles in order for our title to be recognized, but we still lack effective mechanisms for addressing this outside of the courts.

The adoption of the UNDRIP bill is helpful as it creates a legal framework to ensure that our right to an effective process is grounded in law, and not just in policies, which can change from government to government. Beyond adopting this bill, we have suggested a number of specific actions the government can and should take to more effectively address our rights in our submission on the government's proposed rights recognition and implementation framework as well. We will provide the committee with a copy of that submission.

Wela'lioq for listening to me today.

I welcome any questions you may have.

[Chief Corrina Leween, Vice-Chair, First Nations Major Projects Coalition]

First of all, thank you, Madam Chair.

I am Corrina Leween. I am the Chief of the Cheslatta Carrier Nation. Our territory is situated in a semi-remote location in the north-central interior of British Columbia. Since 2015, I have served as Vice-Chair of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, which is the point of view I will be speaking from today. Before I begin, I also want to acknowledge our presence today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

With me today are two members of the coalition's technical support team; Niilo Edwards, who is our Executive Director; and Aaron Bruce, who is our Legal Adviser and also a member of the Squamish Nation in British Columbia. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Bruce are able to respond to questions the committee may have about the coalition's technical work.

I want to begin by thanking the committee for this opportunity to provide comments on the consideration of Bill C-262. In particular, I want to thank Mr. Saganash for his efforts to bring this proposed legislation forward. I also want to recognize Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and the Government of Canada for indicating their support for the consideration of this bill.

Today I see a historic opportunity for indigenous groups and communities to collaborate with other orders of government to create a better and shared future. Bill C-262 represents an important break with the past and a bold step into the future. UNDRIP is a tool of empowerment and a means of taking control of our destiny as the original owners of our traditional lands. This was not always the case. Our past is what has brought us here today, but it is our actions today and in the weeks, months, and years ahead that will give us a chance to set a new path, a path of our choosing.

I will start by outlining the work and the structure of the major projects coalition, which our nations established to convert our legal and constitutional rights into financial well-being and independence. Established in 2015, the coalition is a first-nations-led response to addressing community-level business capacity gaps. What started as a group of 11 first nations looking for equity ownership in major projects has grown into a first-nations-led organization of 40 elected and hereditary first nations. We have developed a comprehensive suite of economic and environmental technical models that can be used to benefit our communities.

Our mandate is non-political and business-focused. The coalition is a project-agnostic body that provides access to technical services and capacity support to our members upon request. The coalition's structure makes it possible to provide technical services to a large number of first nations dispersed over a wide geographic area. Services designed to support informed decision-making are provided to coalition members free of charge due to the funding received from the governments of Canada and British Columbia.

Our structure as a nation-based and community-driven organization has attracted the interest of first nations in other parts of Canada. We are building towards becoming a national initiative. At our March annual general meeting, members of the coalition moved to create an extra-provincial caucus, enabling first nations in other parts of Canada to join the coalition. The coalition and its services are, by design, inspired by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We have submitted a technical brief to your committee that compares key pieces of the coalition's work with articles of that declaration.

While much has been said at this committee about the political and legal considerations concerning Bill C-262, we are here to speak to issues that highlight its practical application at the community level. I believe discussions of this nature are needed to shape the implementation of this legislation.

The coalition's work gives examples of how the government can structure its interactions with indigenous governments to live up to the principles of the declaration. These interactions should, and rightfully so, challenge the status quo and bring about dramatic and substantial change. The presence of the coalition shows that UNDRIP matters in the lives of indigenous people.

The prospects for significant change also generate fear of the unknown. Consider the principles of free, prior, and informed consent. The coalition explores the principles in the context of major project development. It provides a foundation for shared decision-making processes between indigenous governments, other orders of government, and proponents backing development within traditional territories.

We often hear the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet say that the environment and the economy can be balanced. We can get to that balance by working together, but it is the approach to working together that matters the most.

Our tools and models ensure that the traditional and the cultural interests of our members can also be balanced with our commercial requirements. We can use financial prosperity to support our self-determination and self-reliance. This work is organized by the coalition through three cornerstone process documents: one, a model ownership tool kit; two, an environmental stewardship framework and project assessment standards document; three, project identification and capacity support criteria document containing project-scoring criteria, which is in essence a first nations definition of what a major project is to our members.

Government and project proponents need to understand that this work is currently under way. We are undertaking some of the work necessary to administer our own affairs and advance our own futures.

The Government of Canada is making comparable efforts through such measures as the rights and reconciliation framework and the sunsetting of the Department of Indigenous Services. That requires the indigenous groups and communities to develop the sustained capacity to fully develop their own decision-making processes. Our nations have and they are ready to act.

We also have to inform government about our needs and provide them with a road map to developing these collective skills. Likewise, governments can assist the process by engaging groups like the coalition in the technical discussions. These often take place at the political level.

We need to move these partnerships at the operational level within departments and central agencies. This openness to collaborate must become commonplace across government departments and central agencies, particularly as Bill C-262 is implemented.

In closing, we need to exercise tolerance and understanding. There will be missteps along the way by our nations and by other governments, but if we believe in UNDRIP, we will accept occasional errors, provided the spirit of collaboration remains strong. UNDRIP changes everything. It provides, finally, our communities with the opportunity to move forward at lightspeed. We call on governments to support our efforts to capitalize on the new reality. We ask them to collaborate with us to build on UNDRIP's potential: a new future, one based on indigenous rights, autonomy, and prosperity. It's within our grasp.

We want to see UNDRIP synchronized with Canadian laws and legislation. Our communities want control of their future. Bill C-262 is a major step in the right direction.

I thank you for listening to me, and I look forward to your questions. Mahsi cho. Awitza.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We are here at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs at the Parliament of Canada, and we are talking about 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 we sit here today and we're talking about some of the truths and we're in a process of reconciliation, it's important to recognize that we're on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people and that this is a live process that we're still working our way through.

We have two groups for the first panel. You'll get up to 10 minutes. However you want to split it up is up to you. I'll give you signals before your time is up. Then we'll go into rounds of questioning.

We're going to start with the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, Chief Corrina Leween.

Welcome. Please go ahead.

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.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Meegwetch for allowing us to have these meetings on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. It is so important for us to have you present here today to share your words and your thoughts and your concerns with us on this important bill.

Will and I sit on the indigenous affairs committee and are studying Bill C-262 on UNDRIP. I understand from what you're saying that the rights and recognition framework, the tables, and FPIC should be recognized and embedded within this bill. Would you agree with that?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our presenters.

Pat, please relay my greetings to Mr. Neumann and tell him I really appreciate the support for Bill C-262 from your union.

Thanks, Jennifer and Paul, for your presence here. I think it's important. Your combined experience on the declaration is about 100 years.

Paul, you said in your comments that the consent we find under international human rights law is the same consent we find in Canadian constitutional law. Can you point to any decisions of the Supreme Court where these elements were addressed: free, prior, and informed consent?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I want to say up front that the UN declaration has the support of all parties. What we're talking about is Bill C-262 not necessarily having the support of all parties.

When it's characterized that any objection to it is fear and rooted in colonialism, I take exception. As legislators, I think it's important that we understand the implications of any piece of legislation that's before us. I just want to make that note.

We heard from Mr. Joffe, who is very well recognized and honoured. We've heard from a number of lawyers who have a very different perspective in terms of what the implications of Bill C-262 might be in Canada. I think that is a legitimate and important debate, and we shouldn't shut down that debate.

I have one question. We can have a lot of lawyers speculating on what it will mean to Canada, but is this important enough that it should be a reference question to the Supreme Court, in terms of really understanding it and changing Canadian laws to be consistent with the declaration?

I'll put that out there. Is that something that should be done?

[Jennifer Preston]

To build on that as well, even when you look at a situation like Kinder Morgan, which has been so much in the press—and this question around that has been built up—signing an impact agreement doesn't mean you're necessarily for the project. You may have felt that was the only option. I think it's important to know that.

I would also say that I think one of the things about the NEB approval of Kinder Morgan is that it wasn't necessarily a good process. That has created part of the problem that we have. Having better processes before we reach this point, which is what Bill C-262 is all about, means that we're not hitting those conflicts.

Why did we hit a conflict wall? We hit a conflict wall because Tsleil-Waututh First Nation was not accommodated in that process. We hit a huge wall. If we have better processes that don't lead us to those enormous conflicts, we're going to be way better off.

[Paul Joffe]

I realize I have a little bit of time.

Yes, it's true. The Supreme Court has said, as I said, in 1987 and since then they've affirmed that international declarations are relevant and persuasive sources for interpreting human rights in Canada. So there's no question. But it goes farther than that.

First of all, indigenous governments, the federal or provincial governments, and all the human rights commissions in Canada under CASHRA, which is the umbrella group, support the UN declaration. People are free to use the declaration.

The benefit of having legislation is, first of all, that this legislation creates collaborative processes. That's always been a problem. When it isn't collaborative and legislators do things alone, unfortunately throughout Canada history has shown that there's been colonialism, there hasn't been an understanding, the problems have been entrenched in legislation, and we haven't gotten anywhere.

In terms of the recognition and rights framework—to be very quick—we'll have to see what that includes, but of course it fits with Romeo's bill. It's another step.

The way you implement the UN declaration in Canada, though, is not just to adopt Bill C-262. It's to integrate it in your various pieces of legislation. That way no one can say there's uncertainty. Let's say you're dealing with indigenous languages. If you fit it into, let's say, the preamble, the reference, or whatever, and show how it's going to be used and how it's going to reinforce the objectives of all legislators, that would help. It should be done with the proposed impact assessment act, Bill C-69. It should be done with Bill C-57. That way you not only create consistency but you also avoid uncertainty and meet the legislators...whatever.

I don't want to take their time.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much to the panel for being here.

Mr. Joffe, your name has come up over and over again with respect to UNDRIP, so we're quite honoured to have all of you here sharing your knowledge and wisdom.

I want to share my time with MP Vandal, but I do want to talk to you about one aspect of your presentation, and that is whether we need to have Bill C-262 in order for UNDRIP to be applicable in Canadian law. I know you suggested that international conventions and declarations essentially are part of domestic law. In this particular case, I would like to get your position as to whether we even need this.

The second part of this is your views with respect to the recognition of rights framework that was introduced several weeks ago by our government.

[Paul Joffe, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, honourable committee members. I'm pleased to be on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people and to have this opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee.

I commend the committee for examining Bill C-262, the short title of which is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act.

A strong bill, when adopted, will make a significant contribution to national reconciliation and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. In particular, I wish to acknowledge the determination of MP Romeo Saganash in bringing Bill C-262 to this critical juncture. His accomplishments to date are all the more significant since he is the only indigenous MP who is a residential school survivor.

Let's begin with the living tree doctrine. Aboriginal rights affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are subject to progressive interpretation. This is consistent with the living tree doctrine that applies to Canada's Constitution. As decided by Canada's highest court in 1984 in Hunter et al. v. Southam:

Once enacted, [the Constitution's] provisions cannot easily be repealed or amended. It must, therefore, be capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political and historical realities often unimagined by its framers.

The UN declaration constitutes a new social, political, and historical reality, a consensus human rights instrument that elaborates on the rights of indigenous peoples globally. As the Supreme Court indicated in Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, “A large and liberal, or progressive, interpretation ensures the continued relevance and, indeed, legitimacy of Canada’s constituting document.”

My next point emphasizes that indigenous peoples' rights are human rights. Mr. Saganash has repeatedly emphasized in Parliament and in this committee that indigenous peoples' rights are human rights. This crucial characterization is beyond question. Successive federal governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have confirmed to the United Nations that the aboriginal and treaty rights of indigenous peoples in Canada are human rights in Canada's domestic legal system. For over 35 years, indigenous peoples' inherent rights have been addressed within the UN human rights system. Therefore, all governments, business entities, academics, and others in Canada should recognize the human rights quality of indigenous peoples' rights.

In Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia from 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada underlined that the Canadian “Charter forms Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the guarantee of Aboriginal rights forms Part II.” The court went on to say, “Parts I and II are sister provisions, both operating to limit governmental powers, whether federal or provincial.”

In the 1987 Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act case, which was in Alberta, chief justice Brian Dickson emphasized that declarations and other sources of international human rights law “must...be relevant and persuasive sources for interpretation of the [Canadian] Charter's provisions.” In other words, if international declarations are being applied to interpret human rights in part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, then the same must be true for indigenous people's human rights in part II.

Thus it is essential that subclause 2(2) of Bill C-262 affirm:

Nothing in this Act is to be construed as delaying the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canadian law.

As confirmed in Canadian and international law, indigenous peoples' rights are inherent or pre-existing. In the absence of subclause 2(2), some people might claim that the rights in the UN declaration would not apply until the collaborative processes in clauses 4 and 5 of the bill determined the nature and scope of such rights.

Now let's turn to the important issue of consent versus veto. FPIC, or free, prior, and informed consent, is not created by the UN declaration. The declaration affirms and elaborates upon existing rights; it does not create any new rights. The term “veto” is not used in the UN declaration. Veto implies an absolute right, that is, no taking into account the facts and law in each case. There is no balancing of rights. This is neither the intent nor interpretation of the UN declaration, which includes some of the most comprehensive balancing provisions in any human rights instrument, especially article 46(3) which indigenous representatives negotiated with Canada.

Consent is an essential element of the right of all peoples to self-determination. This right is included in identical article 1 of the two international human rights covenants that Canada ratified in May 1976. FPIC and international law have the same meaning as consent in Canadian law. In both cases, if there is duress, there is no valid consent. The same is true if consent is sought only after a project is initiated or if the information provided is inadequate or misrepresented.

At the international level, the application of FPIC to indigenous peoples is supported by the UN General Assembly, the UN Secretary-General, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN treaty bodies, specialized agencies, UN special rapporteurs, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. None of these entities, bodies, or mechanisms describe FPIC as a veto.

The same is true for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. Consent must include the option of withholding consent. This conclusion clearly makes sense. It would be absurd to conclude that indigenous peoples have the right to say yes, but not the right to say no, even in the most damaging circumstances.

With a view to ensuring co-operative and harmonious relations, I respectfully propose three amendments to Bill C-262 for your consideration.

With regard to the first amendment, the current title of Bill C-262 does not fully reflect all of the matters addressed. Thus, I propose the title, “An Act to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and promote reconciliation”.

My next two amendments would fit nicely at the very beginning of the preamble.

The following new paragraph reflects the wording of both the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and would read as follows: “Whereas implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples constitutes a principled framework for justice, reconciliation, healing, and peace;”.

Finally, my third amendment just reflects the 18th preambular paragraph of the UN Declaration, and reads as follows: “Whereas affirmation of the rights of Indigenous Peoples in that Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between Canada and Indigenous peoples;”.

Thank you.

[Pat Van Horne, Legislative Representative, National Office, United Steelworkers]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank you for inviting the United Steelworkers to speak with you today.

My name is Pat Van Horne. I'm the legislative representative for the union, and I'm based here in Ottawa. I've also brought with me, in the peanut gallery, a number of our members who are here this week talking to MPs on another important issue, which is retirement security, but we won't talk about that now. I'm also here on behalf of our national director Ken Neumann, who could not join me today.

The United Steelworkers represent over 180,000 women and men employed in all sectors of the Canadian economy right across the country. Many of our members are indigenous peoples—first nations, Métis, and Inuit. Many are employed, for example, by Cameco, at the uranium mines in Saskatchewan; the Vale nickel mines in Voisey's Bay, Labrador; Glencore's Raglan Mine in northern Quebec; in logging and sawmills from Ontario to B.C.; at the Frontier School Division in northern Manitoba; and many other places.

USW has a long history of struggle for social justice and human rights for working people, their families, and their communities. Today, along with many Canadian organizations and institutions, which include unions, we are taking active steps to work toward reconciliation and full recognition of the rights of indigenous people.

Our support for Bill C-262 is based on an official policy position adopted by USW members in 2016, and it reflects their deep concern as citizens, co-workers, and community members from all walks of life in all parts of the country, over the unjust and racist history of Canada's treatment of indigenous peoples.

We also have within our union an aboriginal people's committee, which meets regularly and brings issues to the larger union.

The adoption of Bill C-262 would be a powerful affirmation of Canadians' collective desire to do better and engage in genuine reconciliation with first peoples. More than that, Bill C-262 would provide a practical, rights-based path that Canada must follow in order to ensure that reconciliation is comprehensive, far-reaching, and uncovers and redresses the colonial legacy embedded in Canada's legal, economic, political, and other systems, which, I dare say, includes our economic relationships with employers.

The rights-based approach of Bill C-262 is a key part of efforts to address crisis in many indigenous communities and among many indigenous people in Canada's urban areas. This crisis includes, as has been mentioned many times, inadequate education, health, child welfare, and housing. It includes gender-based violence, poverty, and the loss of language and cultural identity. These are big jobs to do, but I think Canadians are up for it, and this bill would help.

If properly implemented, Bill C-262 would help ensure that there is a comprehensive, consistent legal framework based in international law within which indigenous communities can work with private, non-state actors to arrive at equitable arrangements for resource and community development. In fact, the representative from PDAC alluded to that in his presentation.

The USW would never accept a mine design that was unsafe. The USW would never accept a mining operation based on the harassment or exploitation of workers and their families, or a mine constructed without environmental safeguards preventing the poisoning of local communities. Health and safety has been one of our major thrusts throughout our history and particularly over the last 25 years since the Westray mine explosion. Likewise, the USW can no longer accept mines built without consultation and participation of indigenous rights-holders in decision-making, in violation of UNDRIP. That, of course, means free, prior, and informed consent, among other things.

The USW is not concerned that the adoption of Bill C-262 would somehow paralyze resource development in Canada. On the contrary, the implementation of Bill C-262 would help ensure that the Canadian legal system offers a clearer framework for balancing rights and a more certain basis on which resource development decisions can be made. In our experience, when indigenous communities feel secure in their rights, they are quite prepared to entertain appropriate proposals, including partnership for resource development, collective bargaining, and other issues.

My final comment is simply that processes like this one, Bill C-262, to make human rights meaningful in a relationship fraught with racism and exploitation, in a framework of colonialism, will help organizations like the United Steelworkers to become instruments of reconciliation, where solidarity is the guiding principle.

Thank you for your attention, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Jennifer Preston, Program Coordinator, Canadian Friends Service Committee]

Good afternoon. I am the daughter of Sarah Jane and Richard Preston and the mother of Sarah Jane Howe. I was born in the territory of the Leni Lenape, and I spent significant time in my childhood in Cree territory. I now live in traditional Anishinabek and Haudenosaunee territory.

Canadian Friends Service Committee, CFSC, is the justice and peace organization of the Religious Society of Friends, Quakers. As a faith body, Quakers have been working for peace and justice for centuries. Quaker service organizations were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after the Second World War for our commitment to justice and peace. Quakers are what is called a “historic peace church”. Our peace testimony is at the root of our faith. Peace and justice are interlinked. We cannot be at peace where there is injustice.

I am not indigenous, and I do not represent an indigenous constituency. However, when human rights are violated, we all need to be concerned. When indigenous peoples' human rights are affirmed and promoted, we are all winning. In our view, the UN declaration is a good news story. Bill C-262 is vitally important to non-indigenous people in Canada.

For the past two decades, my professional work has focused deeply on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, first, in the international processes where it was developed and adopted, and then, for the past decade, on implementation. As someone with a long history of experience and expertise with the declaration, I have published extensively on the subject, including co-editing a book entitled, The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples : Triumph, Hope, and Action. I am often invited to present on the declaration to diverse audiences and am delighted to be here today.

CFSC fully supports Bill C-262, and we urge all members of Parliament to adopt it in a non-partisan manner. I gave much thought about what I should share this afternoon. You have heard already from many witnesses, and I don't wish to duplicate the efforts of others. At the same time, there are some elements surrounding Bill C-262 that are worth repeating. Indigenous peoples went to the UN to negotiate the declaration because they did not have justice in a domestic context. This is the most discussed human rights instrument in the history of the UN, and Canada played a significant role. Indigenous peoples did this work to ensure that changes would occur on the ground.

In the decade since the UN General Assembly's adoption, there have been pockets of interesting work on implementation accomplished mainly by indigenous peoples themselves, but it is overwhelmingly evident to those of us who work intimately with the declaration that we need the national legislative framework that Bill C-262 provides.

For many faith bodies, including Quakers, the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was critically important, and it created a watershed moment in this country. As you know, the Indian residential school system was part of the destructive forces of the colonization of Canada. The exemplary work of the TRC informs us of both the journey and the legacy of colonization.

What did we learn? The truth. We learned about the sexual, physical, and spiritual abuse. We learned about the widespread dispossession of land. We learned about the attempted destruction of traditional governance and legal structures; religious conversion; and attempts at forced assimilation, including the prohibition of languages, traditional culture, and spiritual practices. We learned about the racist and sexist Indian Act, much of which is still in effect. We learned about the secondary consequences associated with loss of culture, language, and identity, including intergenerational trauma. The TRC and the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, concluded that this constituted cultural genocide.

What does the TRC suggest to move forward now? What is reconciliation? I'm going to read a quote from a report released by the TRC entitled “What We Have Learned: Principles of Truth and Reconciliation”:

...“reconciliation” is about establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in this country. For that to happen, there has to be awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm...atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour.

I very much concur with call to action 43 that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the framework for reconciliation. It can also be described as the blueprint. Former UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon called the declaration the “road map” for reconciliation. The TRC very skilfully wove the UN declaration through their work. Sixteen calls to action refer specifically to the declaration. Any attempts to undermine the UN declaration are also striking at reconciliation.

This brings me to Bill C-262. This bill creates a legislative framework to ensure that we do indeed implement the UN declaration, not just talk about it.

The TRC concluded that a refusal “to respect the rights and remedies in the declaration will serve to further aggravate the legacy of residential schools, and will constitute a barrier to progress towards reconciliation”.

Bill C-262 offers Canada a crucial opportunity to move from a colonial framework that dispossessed indigenous peoples to become a nation-state that acknowledges the harm, atones for the causes, and commits to change.

Bill C-262 provides the federal government with the framework to create a paradigm shift that we so urgently need to move away from colonization.

This week, perhaps later today, the national leaders of many churches in Canada, including those that ran residential schools, are writing to leaders of all political parties to urge non-partisan support for Bill C-262. Many faith bodies have been actively championing the declaration and Bill C-262. Why? As people of faith we are committed to peace and justice. We recognize the injustice we have been a part of, and we are committed to change. We are committed to the deconstruction of power structures that have and continue to oppress indigenous peoples.

Change can be difficult or even scary. Of course, I am aware of the fear that has been generated around both the declaration and this bill. My analysis is that this fear is rooted into hanging onto colonial constructs of power and perpetuating domination and exploitation.

Last spring when I was on a speaking tour in northern British Columbia on both the declaration and on FPIC, I gave an interview to CBC North. The interview included questions around the fear, and finally I said, “No, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.” Clearly I was being glib, but the point is we have to let go of these unfounded fears. We need to embrace implementing the declaration through Bill C-262 as something we can all be proud of as we move forward into a new reality that's based on a contemporary human rights framework and not on colonialism.

Members of this committee have questioned other witnesses about FPIC, and I'm not going to go into detail on that. I am aware that Paul Joffe will be covering that later this afternoon. However, I wish to reiterate that FPIC was not created in the declaration; it is well established in international law, and Canada already has an affirmative legal obligation to respect FPIC.

I do have a possible addition to the preamble to further entrench the importance of reconciliation. The text could be something as follows:

Whereas, as concluded by Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the declaration provides the necessary principles, norms, and standards for reconciliation to flourish in a 21st century Canada.

Senator Murray Sinclair informed us that truth was hard and reconciliation would be harder. At the closing events of the TRC, he also instructed all of us, “We have described for you a mountain. We have shown you a path to the top. We call upon you to do the climbing.”

Over the past two decades occasionally people asked me why Quakers are so committed to this work. The answer is simple. There is no peace without justice.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here with us today. We've had a broad range of perspectives from a broad range of viewpoints throughout this study.

I'm going to start with Mr. Fox and Ms. Williams.

PDAC is an organization that has led on this file continually for a long time and has an outstanding reputation within the natural resources sector in Canada as a result. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on some of the key advantages that other industries, especially in the natural resources sector, could garner from the implementation of Bill C-262, and how that could positively affect the way they do business in the years to come, in other words, how they can leverage it as a strategic advantage.

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

Mr. Fox, you talked about partnerships and the need for clarity in the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I've taken your points very well. I think it's important to have that.

A prime example in this country is northern Quebec. Since 1975 when we signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Cree have signed, with your industry and others, over 80 agreements. Why did that happen? In my view it's the fact that, with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, we set the rules clearly for everybody. If they want to develop in northern Quebec, there are rules that they have to abide by.

Do you think that Bill C-262 would have the same effect?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Good.

I'm going to move over to the Quebec bar association, if you don't mind.

Thank you for your presentation. You said that Bill C-262 is not a complete answer; it's symbolic. We have said all along that Justice needs to be at this committee. You mentioned that.

Can you elaborate a little more on this angle? I mean, you're just one province out of 10 and the territories. How would Justice be involved here, in your opinion?

[Francis Walsh, Member, Comité sur le droit en regard des peuples autochtones, Barreau du Québec]

Given that the passage of Bill C-262 is but the first legislative step towards implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we will not comment on each of the articles in the declaration.

We do, however, wish to provide some practical advice on administering the future statute. Picking up on a recommendation put forward by the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Barreau proposes that the annual report prescribed in clause 6 of the bill be made publicly available. The report is an accountability tool that will serve to keep elected representatives apprised of how consistent measures in the area of indigenous law are with the purpose of the bill.

The Barreau also wishes to point out that the measures in the bill cannot be successfully implemented without the co-operation of indigenous peoples. Therefore, the government must do more than submit an annual report in order to achieve genuine and effective co-operation.

[Paul-Matthieu Grondin, President of the Quebec Bar, Barreau du Québec]

Madam Chair, I'll be doing this in French, if anyone needs the earpiece.

Members of the committee, I am joined today by Francis Walsh, a member of our committee on the law and indigenous peoples, as well as Julien Pelletier-David, our special adviser on access to justice.

We are very grateful for the opportunity to share our views on Bill C-262 with the committee.

The Barreau du Québec supports this important bill, which seeks to harmonize Canada's laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007 and signed by Canada on November 12, 2010.

This international instrument is the result of a lengthy process that began in the 1970s. It provides guidelines to states, the UN, and other international organizations on how to build harmonious relations with indigenous peoples based on the principles of equality, partnership, good faith, and mutual respect.

However, it merely represents a political commitment on the part of the states who voted in its favour.

Given that the declaration, itself, is not legally binding, provisions outside the realm of customary international law must be incorporated into domestic law in order to take full effect. This requires legislative measures. What's more, given that we have two levels of government, each must implement the declaration in accordance with its constitutional authority. Co-operation is therefore essential to the declaration's successful implementation. Keep in mind that full implementation hinges not only on good faith and legislative measures, but also, and above all, on funding.

The Barreau du Québec has repeatedly expressed its support for the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we are here today to reiterate that support. Bill C-262 is hugely important to the advancement of the rights of indigenous peoples in Canada and should provide the normative framework for the policies that the Canadian government needs to adopt swiftly in its efforts towards reconciliation.

We believe that respect for the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples is a priority. Crime, victimization, and incarceration rates among indigenous peoples are appalling; in Quebec, the communities in Nunavik are especially affected. When the number of criminal records in a community nears or exceeds the size of its population, the question we need to be asking is where and how has the justice system failed to bring that number down. The question is not how many additional resources the system needs to handle the cases.

The Barreau du Québec is of the view that the way in which the justice system treats indigenous peoples is untenable. Back in 2013, the Barreau was criticizing the glaring lack of resources in northern Quebec. Working in the region, the Barreau came to the unequivocal realization that the gap between the justice apparatus and the indigenous communities it was supposed to serve was ever-growing. We are fully aware that the problem is not limited to Quebec, with all provinces plagued by the same issues. Too little has changed thus far.

All too often, the justice system is used to deliver a front-line response, taking the place of basic services. The significant lack of social, medical, and prevention-based resources creates a void that is filled by the justice system. Courts are frequently called upon to address the socio-economic failings. What's more, all of these services must make up for decades of trauma inflicted on communities.

The Barreau du Québec recently appeared before Quebec's public inquiry commission on relations between indigenous peoples and certain public services, in Val-d'Or, and made 36 recommendations to improve the situation. One of those recommendations was that Quebec adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as Canada is currently doing. We also proposed ways that the justice system could meet the needs of indigenous people.

Daunting though the challenge may be, it is nevertheless clear that every effort must be made to give Canada's indigenous communities maximal autonomy over their system of justice. Part of that is creating indigenous law institutes, as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended in its report more than 20 years ago.

This endeavour requires far more than just cosmetic changes. A comprehensive reform is needed, and we are well aware that such a reform hinges on the clear political will of all stakeholders, not to mention adequate financial and human resources.

The Canadian government signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, committing to its full implementation in Canadian law. To that end, it is time for the government to turn its attention to the urgently needed changes that the country's indigenous people are owed. The declaration requires states to recognize the right of indigenous peoples to maintain their traditions, their legal customs and, where they exist, their systems of justice. Every level of government must exercise their constitutional authority and take appropriate action.

Openness, vision, creativity, and humanity must guide the eventual process of establishing legal systems that are truly tailored to the needs of indigenous peoples.

Simply passing Bill C-262 is not enough. In order to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the government needs to undertake a comprehensive review of Canadian laws and amend them accordingly. The Barreau du Québec applauds the creation of the working group of ministers on the review of laws and policies related to indigenous peoples and hopes that this long-awaited endeavour will bring real change. Still, there is no doubt that this bill is highly symbolic and meaningful, illustrating the government's commitment to implementing the declaration. Not only is it the first step towards implementation of the declaration, but it is also a step towards reconciliation.

In short, we urge the government to put the necessary measures in place to ensure harmony between Canada's laws and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This endeavour could ultimately lead to a more effective and equitable justice system for all Canadians. Bill C-262 is but the first step in the long road ahead.

I want to conclude by saying that the Barreau du Québec realizes just how much work lies ahead and extends its full co-operation in this essential effort towards reconciliation.

It is now my pleasure to turn the floor over to Mr. Walsh.

[Francyne Joe, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Weyt-k, bonjour, and good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the Algonquin and the Anishinaabeg peoples and thank them for allowing us on their unceded traditional territory, with special acknowledgement to the indigenous women and their families for whom NWAC exists.

Thank you for the invitation to share the Native Women's Association of Canada's perspectives on Bill C-262, which proposes an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. NWAC is in full support of this bill and all the implications that come with it.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not create new laws or rights. It enhances the existing rights of indigenous peoples and holds the Government of Canada accountable for ensuring respect to first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities. It also emphasizes that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. What this bill sets out to do is implement the inherent human rights that indigenous peoples have and to enforce those rights within the Canadian legal system. Indigenous people should not only be consultants of the government but also participating members of all decision-making. This is not about saying yes or no; it's about creating equal and inclusionary negotiations.

At the end of my remarks, I will be making recommendations specific to the needs and issues of indigenous women, but overall, Bill C-262 is a good first step towards a better and stronger partnership between the federal government and indigenous authorities.

Indigenous women exist at the intersection of multiple forms of discrimination tied to gender, race, and colonialism. As a result, indigenous women face many barriers and obstacles to accessing their basic human rights. A fundamental human right is the right to education. We are seeing indigenous women and girls with lower levels of education than the rest of the Canadian population as well as with less access to adequate education. Often this can be attributed to poverty and discrimination based on geographic location.

There is a growing number of the indigenous population who identify as having a disability or functional limitation, especially first nations women living on reserves. As a triply marginalized group, indigenous women with disabilities face systemic and structural barriers that are not typically faced by non-indigenous and able-bodied Canadians.

There's a lack of culturally appropriate services available to indigenous women, whether they are health services or social services. Health care is a human right, and being culturally sensitive and trauma informed is crucial to delivering those services in a way that doesn't re-traumatize or cause further harm to our communities.

Social, political, and economic marginalization of indigenous women limits access to necessary and appropriate supports and services that reduce the impacts of poverty. Housing is a necessity, and indigenous women are more susceptible to homelessness, poverty, and violence. The most successful method of combatting poverty is empowering women through increased employment, access to education, access to health care, protection of cultural practices, and fostering socio-economic autonomy.

As activists and grassroots women have highlighted for decades, indigenous women and girls and gender-diverse people continue to experience discrimination on multiple grounds and in various forms. In terms of violence, indigenous women and girls 15 years and older are three to five times more likely to experience violence. Indigenous women have reported fearing for their lives over the last few decades at a much higher percentage than non-indigenous women and are also more likely to be murdered by strangers than non-indigenous women.

Canada's national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is currently hearing first-hand accounts that provide a heartbreaking foundation to these statistics through the stories told by the families and loved ones of our murdered and missing sisters. I mention this to highlight that everyone in Canada has a charter-guaranteed right to life, liberty, and security of person, and we must do everything we can to ensure that this becomes a reality in the lives of indigenous women rather than remaining a mere paragraph in a government document.

In Canada, indigenous peoples continue to be overrepresented in the correctional system. According to Correctional Services Canada, indigenous women, who represent only 4% of the female population in Canada, make up to 41% of women in sentenced custody. This is a clear link to systemic discrimination based on racial, cultural, and colonial prejudices that need to be identified and scrubbed from our legal and judicial system. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and equal treatment under the law.

The correctional system isn't the only one that sees staggeringly high percentages of indigenous peoples. Child and family services is the other. Over 50% of children within the child welfare system are indigenous. Currently there are more indigenous children in care than at the height of residential schools.

As per article 2 of UNDRIP, indigenous women will be recognized as equal to all men and women. Article 22 builds on this, cementing that the government must ensure that all indigenous women and girls can access their human rights and fundamental freedoms in all political, social, economic, and cultural contexts.

Article 18 ensures that indigenous women have the freedom and right to participate in all decision-making matters that would affect their rights. As you can imagine, this is a particularly important article for NWAC because it reflects what we have been fighting for since our inception in 1974.

Articles 6 and 9 refer to the right to a nationality and the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation in accordance with their traditions and customs. As countless studies have found, and as indigenous peoples have been saying for as long as colonialism has existed, self-determination is a key part of empowering indigenous communities.

Finally, to ensure that Bill C-262 leads to the full and effective harmonization of Canadian law with UNDRIP, we recommend the following: one, development of a mechanism that will ensure accountability and consistency; two, a commitment to ensure that language is inclusive and will reflect the rights, respect, and co-operation of indigenous women and LGBTQ2S; three, the recognition of the intersection of multiple forms of discrimination tied to gender, race, and colonialism; four, going beyond UNDRIP by including the specific needs and issues of the diverse indigenous communities in Canada—this includes a specific distinctions-based approach that recognizes the diversity amongst and between first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities.

Thank you for your time. Kukwstsétsemc. Meegwetch.

[Michael Fox, President of Indigenous Community Engagement Inc., Co-Chair, Aboriginal Affairs Committee, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada]

Meegwetch. Wachay.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members.

I'd like to acknowledge that we are on the territory of the Algonquin Nation.

My name is Michael Fox. I'm from the Mushkegowuk Territory, from a community called Weenusk First Nation on Hudson Bay coast. I'm also an elected board member of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, PDAC.

I'm joined by my colleague Lesley Williams, the director of policy and programs of the PDAC.

The PDAC is a national voice of Canada's mineral exploration and development industry, representing over 7,500 members. We work to sustain a vibrant and responsible mineral industry and ensure that Canada is the top destination for mineral investment so we can continue to make new discoveries that will become tomorrow's mines and generate significant economic opportunities for Canadians.

Thank you for the opportunity for me to be here today to provide input on behalf of the mineral industry in relation to aspects of Bill C-262. Our comments will focus mainly on the evolution of the partnerships between the mineral industry and indigenous people in Canada. I particularly want to share the ways in which the on-the-ground activities of our sector demonstrate our leadership in indigenous engagement, which in our view are consistent with the spirit and principles of UNDRIP.

The mineral industry strongly supports the government's commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples. However, discussion of the process around UNDRIP proposed by Bill C-262 cannot be separated from the broader questions, such as what mechanisms would be used to achieve UNDRIP implementation in Canada and what it would look like in practice. While we do not have amendments to propose to the bill, we hope that sharing the story of our industry will provide a practical example of the indigenous community partnerships that exist in practice and in parallel to frameworks such as UNDRIP.

The value of Canada's mineral industry cannot be overstated. The mineral exploration and mining industry makes vast contributions to our country from remote indigenous communities to rural areas to large cities. It generates significant economic and social benefits for Canadians.

The relationship between indigenous communities and businesses in the mineral industry in Canada is a shared success story to be proud of. Our industry has made many advancements in all areas, in health and safety, the environment, and community participation, but we are especially proud of our leadership working with indigenous partners on engagement and participation. For all parties involved this has not necessarily been an easy journey. It remains a work in progress.

In recent decades the relationship has gone through a significant transformation, particularly as the landscape has evolved. Some might argue that the legal framework in Canada was the sole catalyst for creating an environment for companies to engage with indigenous communities. However regulations do not create relationships. I'll say that again. Regulations do not create relationships.

Companies are, of course, responsible for abiding by what is legally required, but it is increasingly understood and accepted industry practice that regulatory requirements are the minimum standards for operation. While they are necessary, they do not exactly translate into the development of meaningful partnerships. Mineral industry leaders realize that building partnerships with communities is critical to the success of their project, not because it's the right thing to do or because the law requires something, but because good partners lead to successful projects that benefit everyone.

The evolution we have seen in the mineral industry is unparalleled. More so than any other Canadian industrial sector the mineral sector has a proven track record of effectively working toward maintaining a positive and respectful relationship with indigenous communities. More importantly the result has been positive mutual benefits.

Proportionally the mineral industry is the largest private sector employer of indigenous people in Canada. We have seen over the last couple of decades markedly increased community participation in projects on a number of different levels, from project design, environmental assessment, employment, etc. We have witnessed increased industry awareness about indigenous people in Canada, specifically the history and unique cultures of local communities.

Mineral exploration and mining companies are also embracing indigenous traditional knowledge and are incorporating it while they seek input on their projects. In addition to the benefits of direct involvement in the exploration and mining companies, there has also been a proliferation of indigenous businesses that provide an expanding number of services to the sector, such as drilling, heavy equipment, camp catering, to name a few. Economic opportunities generated by mineral development have contributed improvements to the socioeconomic conditions of a number of communities, including investments in training initiatives and community development.

A key mechanism through which relationships and economic opportunities have been formalized in Canada is through community-company agreements. These voluntary agreements are increasingly recognized internationally as a leading practice. A significant number of agreements have been signed between companies and indigenous communities, with over 500 agreements signed since 1974, the majority within the last decade.

These agreements include various commitments, such as training and skills development, employment targets, contracting, joint venture provisions, community investments and development, environmental monitoring, and financial considerations. These agreements are a testament to the strength of commitment by the industry in developing mutually beneficial partnerships and to the interests of many indigenous communities and the economic development opportunities generated by the minerals sector.

Overall, a long-lasting, trusting partnership has been developed between the minerals industry and indigenous communities all across Canada, from early exploration to mine developments enclosure. These are positive, mutually beneficial relationships. You need to look no further than the Éléonore project in Quebec, Ekati in the Northwest Territories, or New Afton in British Columbia.

Despite the significant positive outcomes of company-community partnerships, the narrative that is, unfortunately, most prevalent is that there is widespread discord, which generates the perception that the nature of company-community interactions is adversarial. As I have demonstrated, this is not typically the case.

Relationships are complex, comprehensive, and constantly evolving. Naturally, challenges will arise, but these are not insurmountable. That said, there are larger public policy issues that have an impact on industry-community relations.

Numerous unresolved issues exist across Canada related to jurisdiction and land claims. While matters of jurisdiction are strictly negotiated between the crown and indigenous people, these challenges can generate a sense of uncertainty. Often industry can be caught in the middle of jurisdictional issues that are not within its control.

Ongoing socio-economic conditions for many indigenous communities remain dire and we can all agree require immediate action. Foundational investments that contribute to the improved quality of life for communities are needed. Challenges related to health, education, housing, etc., can impact the ability of indigenous people to participate in mineral projects and to fully realize opportunities generated by the industry. Furthermore, ambiguity and complexity related to the crown's duty-to-consult processes has resulted in delayed projects, increased costs, investor uncertainty, and negative impacts on company-community relationships.

PDAC's cross-country research identified some key, overarching challenges with the way in which federal, provincial, and territorial governments implemented the duty to consult. Some of these include the trigger for consultation in its scope; the process for identifying impacted communities; roles and responsibilities, including delegation to proponents; the crown's role in consultation costs; the timeline for the process; and defining accommodation.

Government has committed to renewed relationship with indigenous people. This has encompassed a commitment to implement the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a review of laws and policies, and the creation of a recognition and implementation of the rights framework. These actions are a positive step towards addressing some of the policy challenges I have raised.

These are not small tasks. There is a lot of work to be done. We applaud these efforts by the government in taking interest in how crown and indigenous relations will evolve. Meanwhile, the minerals industry will continue to be a leader. It will put into practice principles of engagement, and will reflect respect for indigenous rights, relationship building, and partnership development on the ground at exploration mining sites across Canada.

A strong, global, comparative Canadian exploration mining sector will be well positioned to deliver local, regional, and national benefits. As I have outlined here, it is the cornerstone of this strong, trusting relationship between companies and indigenous communities that results in mutual benefits.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I will start the meeting.

I want to recognize officially that we're on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people, an important fact and one that we try to remember and reflect on daily, as we're beginning a process of understanding the truth of our history of colonialism—apartheid here in Canada—and how we resolve the history through reconciliation.

We have a full agenda with two panels. We are talking about UNDRIP, the United Nations declaration and, of course, the provisions within it. It is a time for change in Canada, and I think that we're all privileged to be part of that positive change.

We are here pursuant to order of reference of Wednesday, February 7, 2018, studying 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 presenters, you'll have up to 10 minutes, and after all the presentations are done we'll go into a series of questions from the MPs.

It looks as though my friends from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada are first on the agenda.

Welcome, and we look forward to your presentation.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Amos and I both sit on the indigenous committee as well, and right now we're studying Bill C-262 around UNDRIP—the implementation of UNDRIP and the framework around it. Of course, FPIC is a constant point of discussion around that. There seem to be three definitions of free, prior, and informed consent: good faith, without necessarily obtaining it; a type of process, a consensus-oriented process that is sometimes referred to as collaborative consent; or a veto.

I know Mr. Gustafson mentioned earlier that they had made a submission around Bill C-68, for example, and within Bill C-68 they actually have quite an extensive overview of recognizing indigenous rights without actually spelling out UNDRIP itself.

What is your view of FPIC, and what is your view of C-68 in how they've defined indigenous rights and consultation?

[Chief Sharon Stinson Henry]

Bill C-262 does provide the legislative framework to implement the declaration, and it sets out the principles. UNDRIP is such a great document, and the bill supports it. Our board supports both, of course.

I don't know if that answers your question, but the framework is there and the work has to be done. In my view, if you try to mix two bills—Bill C-69, and I think there's a Bill C-332 out there, speaking to the finance side of things and amending the corporations act—and start to mix these things up, we'll just be spinning our wheels and won't get Bill C-262 through.

[Chief Sharon Stinson Henry]

Thank you, Mr. Saganash.

As I understand it, the bill is not creating new laws but perhaps strengthening existing laws. With regard to the working group of ministers the Prime Minister has formed, headed up by the Minister of Justice, the work they will do will examine all of the federal implications, laws, policies and operational practices, and that will help the crown establish a proper framework moving forward.

It's important, in our view, that Bill C-262 get the support, be passed, and allow that working group to do its work. It's about time. We've had enough indigenous people going to courts all the time, and all we do is spend money. The lawyers, with all due respect to lawyers—I know you're one yourself, Mr. Saganash—just continue to get rich, and the first nations, Inuit, and Métis people just wait. I think the group has to do their work.

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

Now, all of you expressed the idea that Bill C-262 is the first step in the right direction. I'd like to hear from all three of you on what you think the next steps are after Bill C-262 is adopted. You talked about sharing a meal, and I like that idea, but beyond that, what are some of the things you would like to see after this bill is adopted?

Maybe I'll start with you, Jessica.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and to our guests this afternoon.

I'm sorry, Kevin, that we shocked you. It wasn't intended, really.

Thank you for those presentations. I think all three testimonies were incredibly well expressed. I think it will help this committee in understanding what they're trying to do through this study and through Bill C-262.

First of all, I want to start by asking you a question, Sheryl.

In the Edwards case at the Supreme Court of Canada, in I believe 1984, I think it was one of the first occasions when the Supreme Court talked about the Constitution as “a living tree”. One of the reasons they said that back then was that for the framers of the Constitution, in particular with respect to section 35, not everything could have been predicted at that time. Not everything could have been imagined by the framers of the Constitution at that time. We have seen over the years with the rulings from the Supreme Court that our Constitution has grown, developed, and evolved, in particular with respect to the recognition and respect of indigenous peoples' rights.

Do you think the living tree doctrine applies also to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Do you think it's necessary to have that defined in the black letter of the law within Bill C-262 before you even move forward with it?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much for being here today to provide this witness testimony.

Through this whole process I'm trying to wrap my head around how we can.... Some individuals are saying that we have these three different ways we can deal with FPIC. Until we define that, we can't go ahead with Bill C-262 in a sense, or we can't go ahead with UNDRIP, because it's going to blow up the legal framework that we've developed in filling the box around section 35. It will have a direct impact on that. We have to have the black letter of the law first before we can have the nation-to-nation relationship. My whole view is why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Why can't they happen concurrently?

Of the three definitions that we've had around FPIC—acting in good faith without really obtaining it; or the type of process required through a consensus-oriented product, which the previous speaker called “collaborative consent”; or as a veto—how would you interpret this?

[Jessica Bolduc, Executive Director, 4Rs Youth Movement]

[Witness speaks in Ojibwe]

My name is Jessica Bolduc, and I am Anishinabe, from the Bear Clan of the Batchewana First Nation. I'm grateful to be here as a guest on unceded Algonquin territory, and I want to begin by giving thanks to the Algonquin people for their continued presence and stewardship of this land.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, meegwetch for inviting me to be here today to share on behalf of the 4Rs Youth Movement. I send my gratitude to Mr. Saganash for his leadership, alongside many others, in putting this bill forward. I had the pleasure of meeting Maïtée, who is doing work around indigenous youth voices. She has a beautiful fierceness that I'm sure she gets from you.

The 4Rs Youth Movement has evolved over the past four years as a youth-led collaborative seeking to change the country now known as Canada by changing the relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous youth. 4Rs started with honest conversation about Canadian identity. It shaped our vision and our mission, and was followed by a reflection of the values that were necessary to do this change-making work with integrity, via respect, reciprocity, reconciliation, and relevance—the 4Rs. We believe that a relationship-based approach to social change will enable youth to formulate strategies for reconciliation that rebuilds Canada for both present and future generations. Thinking about reconciliation broadly, this means confronting an incredibly difficult history, one that continues to be lived daily and impacts our individual and collective experiences as indigenous peoples.

For 4Rs, adopting UNDRIP is about putting in motion the Canadian framework for reconciliation that must centre the needs, voices, and perspectives of indigenous peoples, communities, and nations in the process of talking about and working toward reconciliation.

As young people in this moment of our history, I understand that we'll be the generation leading the implementation of the TRC calls to action. I, and the young people I work with, are taking this responsibility seriously. Reconciliation to 4Rs is first about developing deep, authentic relationships across individuals, cultures, and geographies as a foundation from which systems change and new paradigms and actions will emerge.

Truthfully, though, these past few months have eroded my belief in Canada's reconciliation process. I'm not alone in this sentiment. Indigenous young people are speaking out about the reconciliation rhetoric that lulls us into a false sense of progress, but does little to enact real change. How is reconciliation possible when indigenous youth like Colten Boushie are treated without human dignity and decisions are made that tell our people that justice in Canada is not for us?

Last week, Jade Tootoosis, Colten's cousin, spoke powerfully at the international table calling for the United Nations to undertake a study of systemic racism against indigenous people in Canada's judicial and legal systems. She said:

The Canadian justice system has failed Colten, our community, and indigenous people in ways that impede our human rights. We deserve better. My brother Colten deserves better.

We do deserve better.

4Rs is led by indigenous young people, young people who are not unlike Colten, from our staff to our governance. We are supported by a network of settler youth and adult allies, because change requires working across cultures and across generations. When it comes to reconciliation, investments are needed in indigenous youth and communities so we can enter reconciliation processes in wholeness and on our own terms. This involves investing in indigenous youth to find strength and pride and identity. It requires centring and restoring indigenous languages and knowledge before, and at the same time as, we seed reconciliation. It requires that we look to break the cycle of systemic racism that Canada's social, political, and legal systems uphold. When lands and waters are under threat from development and pollution, we don't have a healthy environment for our shared work. Any consideration of reconciliation must also take into account the well-being of the earth.

Where Bill C-262 has the potential to impact 4Rs' work the most is in the interconnected pieces of UNDRIP that relate to the reclamation of indigenous identity through language, culture, and connection to land—articles 13, 24, and 31—helping to transform intergenerational trauma into intergenerational resilience and healing.

On January 21 and January 22, 2018, 70 first nations, Métis, and Inuit youth between the ages of 13 and 26 from every province and territory across the country gathered in Ottawa for the Hope Forum, a national gathering of indigenous youth leaders on healing and life promotion hosted by the organization We Matter.

I attended day two of the forum, a national round table discussion organized in response to the current mental health and suicide realities of indigenous youth in communities. The live broadcast of the round table was seen by 16,000 people, and the recorded video by 58,000 people. From there, a number of calls to action were put forward calling on all sectors of government and key influencers in the community to take action. All of the calls these young people put forward fit within the guidelines of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, specifically relating to article 24, implementation of which is very important for indigenous youth.

Bill C-262 will make the recommendations of these indigenous youth undeniable. Recognizing on-the-land and cultural activities is a key aspect of indigenous mental health, wellness, and suicide prevention. Bill C-262, to me, is about furthering healing. It is about equity and restoration, as well as the preservation and survival of indigeneity, which is unique to the experiences and diversity of first nations, Métis, and Inuit youth.

Interpreting Canada's constitution, consistent with the declaration as proposed through Bill C-262, is a crucial step in implementing this reconciliation framework. It restores my hope that we can return to a process of reconciliation with integrity and mutual accountability. But in order to have integrity and be accountable, Bill C-262 requires Canada to build readiness, to do your work first to understand your role and responsibilities, and to work with respect, care, and collaboration with indigenous people, and then to set in motion a national plan of action.

This means that we all have a part to play, as individuals, families, leaders, organizations, institutions, communities, and all levels of government. I once heard an Anishinabe elder, Jim Dumont, say that language is the voice of the culture and culture is the strength of the language. This resonates with me because it demonstrates that the rights contained in UNDRIP are interconnected and interrelated, and therefore must be interpreted with the same holistic understanding and not be impacted by the constitutional division of powers between levels of federal and provincial governments, which tempt us to look at implementation in isolation.

However, implementation is not going to be easy, not because of the complexity of what is ahead of us, but because of fear. It's fear of the unknown; of getting things wrong; of having to share power, privilege, and resources; of hurting more people; and fears that limit Canada's ability to imagine a future with UNDRIP fully implemented. If we lead with fear, it will no doubt become embedded in the implementation of UNDRIP, eroding what is possible; destroying what is being borne; seeing history, yet again, repeat itself when it comes to upholding indigenous rights. Canada has to believe that UNDRIP is possible and embrace the discomfort and uncertainty that goes along with being in a relationship with indigenous peoples that is fundamentally different. It's not what we do that matters, but how we do it that will create the most change.

In that spirit I will begin to wrap up with some recommendations on the “how” for those of you who will be taking the next steps on Bill C-262.

Share a meal together. Get to know each other's stories, your hopes and dreams, but do it in the company of food.

Impart a relationship-based approach to implementation, not a top-down, isolated process that is removed from purpose and community.

Make this personal, if it isn't already.

Lead from a place of respect and caring and name your fears so that they can be worked on together and not left to fester.

Don't build fear and limiting beliefs into your implementation plan, making this inherently adversarial. Instead, lead with intention, hope, and possibility.

Acknowledge what you don't know. Reconciliation is a process of learning and unlearning. Ensure that all public servants working on Bill C-262 are educated in indigenous issues and policy, have undergone cultural competency training, and better yet, have lived experience—meaning, hire indigenous people.

Nothing about us, without us. Co-create with indigenous youth. Hire them as researchers, policy developers, negotiators, or lawyers. A whole mass of visionaries is waiting to be invited to be a part of the process and hold the solutions to the challenges that await you.

Be intentional about the inclusion of two-spirited, LGBTQ+ indigenous people. Explicitly state this in Bill C-262 and ensure that resources are allocated toward ensuring that their voices are heard and acted on.

Think and work in systems.

I have two more.

Take an ecosystem approach to implementing the national action plan. Bring systems change leaders into the conversation to help break down silos. Make your process transparent, inclusive, and accessible.

If my grandma, as an individual rights holder, cannot activate UNDRIP, then Bill C-262 is not adequate.

Take careful steps, but don't waste time. Individual rights holders must feel the impacts of implementation alongside the systemic and legal changes that are required. We cannot afford to lose any more indigenous lives.

Meegwetch.

[Chief Sharon Stinson Henry, Member, National Indigenous Economic Development Board]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Aaniin kina weya. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the invitation to speak with you today.

I would like to start by acknowledging that we are on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people.

My name is Sharon Stinson Henry. I'm a former chief of the Chippewas of Rama First Nation in Ontario. I'm here on behalf of the National Indigenous Economic Development Board.

Our board is made up of first nations, Inuit, and Métis business and community leaders from across Canada, whose mandate is to advise the whole of the federal government on indigenous economic development issues. On behalf of the board, I'm pleased to offer information that may assist the committee in your study of Bill C-262.

The board supports the principle set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and believes it should be enshrined in the laws of Canada. As such, the board supports Bill C-262 and its recommendation for the full adoption of the declaration into Canadian law. The board commends Mr. Saganash's initiative for introducing this important bill.

The declaration describes 46 articles by which the international community and Canada, as a signatory, can work to achieve socio-economic equality and end the systemic racism which has limited the development of indigenous peoples for far too long. In January 2017, our board released a statement welcoming Canada's decision to fully support the declaration without qualification. In this statement, we noted that “by taking actions that are meaningful, measurable, and concrete, Canada can demonstrate its commitment to the [declaration] and improve economic outcomes for all Canadians.”

The board has also commended the TRC's recommendation that Canada adopt and implement the declaration as the framework for reconciliation, including the development of a national action plan, as well as strategies and concrete measures to achieve the declaration's goals.

To date, your government has made bold and inspirational statements describing the Government of Canada's commitment to renewing the relationship between Canada and its indigenous peoples, and to moving forward with reconciliation based on recognition of rights, respect, and partnership. In fact, Prime Minister Trudeau has stated that “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples.”

Furthermore, in their mandate letters, Minister Bennett and Minister Philpott were directed to be part of the working group of ministers on the review of laws and policies related to indigenous peoples. The working group was tasked, among other things, with ensuring that the crown is fully executing its legal, constitutional, and international human rights obligations and commitments. Minister Bennett was specifically directed to work with the Minister of Justice to implement the declaration in full partnership with indigenous peoples.

Although we acknowledge recent steps taken by the government to implement the declaration, recent and upcoming reports released by our board show that there are still significant gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians in terms of completion of high school, university completion, labour force participation, employment, average annual income, and overall quality of life. Therefore, our board strongly believes that Bill C-262 would allow Canada to take concrete action towards achieving true reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Implementing Bill C-262 would enshrine the declaration in law today and for future generations, require the review of federal laws to ensure consistency with the standards set out in the declaration, require the federal government to work with indigenous peoples to develop a national action plan to implement the declaration, and require annual reporting to Parliament on progress made toward the implementation of the declaration. Our board believes that these requirements would promote and strengthen the spirit of partnership and mutual respect that marks Canada's stated commitment to reconciliation.

Among the declaration's articles, and of particular interest to our board, is article 3, which states that, “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Article 4 states, “Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.”

Indigenous self-determination is foundational to the board's vision of vibrant indigenous economies, characterized by economic self-sufficiency and socio-economic equality with the rest of Canada. To achieve self-determination, however, the right conditions for success are essential. In this sense, article 21 of the declaration states:

Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions....

States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions.

The board also believes that implementing the declaration would ensure the protection of reserve lands and traditional territories, and would allow for reserve sizes to go back to what they originally were. In this sense, article 8 calls upon states to “provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources.”

Article 10 further underlines this protection by stating:

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

Article 26 is also relevant in this regard, as it calls upon states to give legal recognition and protection to the lands, territories, and resources which indigenous peoples have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired.

In the past, our board has recommended that the Government of Canada take necessary steps to ensure that the standards set out in the declaration are met, and that it report annually on its progress toward these goals.

Specifically, we recommend that Canada ensure that indigenous peoples have equal economic opportunities in community development, education, employment, and access to capital; that indigenous communities have equal access to health care, clean water, safe and reliable housing, and healthy affordable food; and that Canada work in mutual partnership with indigenous people to develop legislative and policy alternatives to the Indian Act that would give further expression to the governance powers of indigenous peoples, and how they co-exist with the powers of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments.

Our board was, therefore, pleased to see that Bill C-262 aligns with our recommendations. We strongly believe that Bill C-262 will actively contribute to the reconciliation process in our country.

In closing, we believe that moving forward in the spirit of reconciliation, and rewriting laws and policies requires that we always work together to make sure that policies are not punitive or regressive, but that they are modern, innovative, progressive and, above all, fair.

As indicated in the declaration, “States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, shall take the appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to achieve the ends of this Declaration.”

Meegwetch. Thank you, Madam chair.

[Merrell-Ann Phare]

In my comments, I think I said that collaborative consent is a nation-to-nation approach to getting to the UN declaration. You have a couple of sets of commitments that are all around this, including this government's commitment to building nation-to-nation relationships. I think looking at them independently is one of the problems. You want to look at the specific requirements that are being set out in Bill C-262, which are about making laws and ensuring that they don't conflict. It's about an action plan of working together. My suggestion to you is that that's not as hard a job as it looks if you have the other structures, the governance reform that I talked about and consent-based governance relationships. If you have them in place, I think—

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

Mr. Isaac, I know you're suggesting we don't adopt Bill C-262 as is, right?

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

If you were to amend Bill C-262, what would you suggest? Are there areas we need to amend, or are you satisfied with the bill as is?

[Merrell-Ann Phare]

Well, I was about 16 years old then. At the beginning, for a very long time, nobody knew what section 35 meant. There weren't any cases that described what was actually included in the 1982 amendments. Since then, we have spent a lot of time in court, as my colleague pointed out, trying to define what it means. I think reconciliation is actually about not continuing to wait for court decisions to tell you how indigenous governments—not just indigenous people, but indigenous governments—can be part of the Canadian governance structure to prevent those kinds of fights. That's the whole point. Yes, you start from a place of ambiguity, and you work together. I interpret Bill C-262, the action plan, the laws and compliance provision, for example, as saying that we need to have a conversation. I know that a number of commentators have said this is about the start of a conversation. We have to figure it out together. That's the whole point.

[Thomas Isaac]

We have guidance from the court to date. I guess, more generally, reconciliation in part for me means indigenous peoples having valiant protection of their rights, having access to services like all other Canadians, being respected for being indigenous, and being able to exercise their rights, culture, and traditions freely in pursuit of their self-determination in Canada.

I have a very broad view of reconciliation. My point about reconciliation in Bill C-262 is that we, in my view, are at a point in our country where we can have a nuanced conversation to ensure that we continue moving forward. My comments were not against UNDRIP generally, but quite the contrary.

My comments were that Bill C-262 as presently drafted, for example, refers to the objectives of UNDRIP. As a lawyer, I want to know what the objectives are. I think reconciliation deserves that, quite frankly. I think indigenous peoples deserve to know exactly what objectives government, the Parliament of Canada, is signing on to, and I mean that very genuinely. We're at that stage in our development and I worry that rhetoric gets in the way of reconciliation. I'm not at all against the recommendations of from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. My issue is with how you implement them in a thoughtful, prudent way.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the panel for being here.

As this is my first occasion to speak after the incident in Toronto, I want to express my deepest sympathies to the victims at Yonge and Finch. It's an area that I'm very familiar with, as I spend a lot of time there.

With regard to the question of reconciliation, Mr. Isaac, you appear to have a fairly different view of reconciliation from, say, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I know that in calls to action 43 and 44, the TRC itself called for full implementation of UNDRIP. You say that Bill C-262 doesn't in fact talk about reconciliation, and I would say that the fact that Bill C-262 is coming in is what this is about.

You also referred to Desmond Tutu as saying that the core element of reconciliation is truth. I think perhaps there are different viewpoints on this, but I really want to get to the key point of what you think reconciliation means in your words. Surely it's not the status quo. Surely it's not being one of four countries to abstain in Geneva, or denying that we even need to implement UNDRIP. Surely reconciliation means more than what we've had in the last 10 years. In your mind, what does that mean to you?

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

You have used that word on a couple of occasions now, at least six times since you started, and I totally disagree with that characterization, because it's not a blunt international human rights instrument. I think it's the international human rights instrument that took the longest to negotiate and draft. In fact, it took us over 23 years to negotiate and draft this instrument, so it's not just a blunt instrument that came about. I totally disagree with that.

In fact, yes, there are covenants, conventions, and international treaties that don't necessarily have the same status as declarations. I agree with you on that, but that does not mean that declarations have legal effect in law in this country. Already, back in 1989, the Supreme Court confirmed a decision on a human rights case that declarations in international law are relevant and persuasive sources to interpret domestic human rights law. In Tsilhqot'in again, in their decision, it was even confirmed that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we find in part I of our Constitution and the section 35 rights that we find in part II of our Constitution are sister provisions.

That's the law as we speak today. I think it would be an error for this country to delay the application. It's an error for this country to even debate the human rights of indigenous peoples in this country.

Ms. Phare, I think I have two minutes. You specifically focused on FPIC. You talked about the collaborative consent your group has worked on, which is very important. I think Bill C-262 is a collaborative proposition that I'm making. I know that in law, even if the jurisdictions between federal and the provinces are there in our Constitution, the Supreme Court has confirmed they're not absolute, because there are aboriginal rights involved every time. Do you see a relation between FPIC, a veto, and a right to self-determination?

[Thomas Isaac]

Thank you, Member. I would agree about your framing of the right. My comments today were on Bill C-262 in their entirety. If it was simply about the right of self-determination, I'm looking at UNDRIP as a whole and having it apply holus-bolus to Canadian law without any particular guidance. That's the level of my concerns.

In no way whatsoever am I picking on any particular indigenous right—in fact, quite the contrary. I would argue that this in fact would be a good thing to look at, but to just sort of bluntly bring in UNDRIP without understanding how it's going to affect Canadian law—

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

In that sense, I'm puzzled or troubled by the fact that this is a human right that belongs to indigenous peoples, the right of self-determination, and you're suggesting to this committee that we should be careful about enshrining that human right, which already applies, in my view. That's what Bill C-262 confirms. It already applies to Canada.

In fact, the human rights committee back in 1999 confirmed that the right to self-determination under both covenants applies to indigenous peoples in Canada. That was in 1999, way before the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Assembly.

Why should we—us, as indigenous people—wait and be careful about how this right is going to be applied in this country?

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

Certainly, from my perspective, having a common understanding of what FPIC means in the context of this legislation is absolutely essential. We don't want courts defining it. We don't want to move ahead with Bill C-262 and then....

I appreciate that Ms. Phare has a perspective, and I certainly think hers is an ideal way of how we should be moving forward together as a country. However, I have to say that I'm watching Kinder Morgan right now and the British Columbia government, the Alberta government, and the federal government, and first nation communities, and I'm not seeing that there isn't a time when sometimes decisions have to be made and that co-operative consent is pretty difficult to achieve.

I wonder if we are setting ourselves up. I remember that the minister said this piece of legislation, perhaps, is a “distraction” from the important work we have to do around breathing life into section 35. She's since backtracked, but she clearly had some reservations at the time. I'll open that up for comments.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to both witnesses who clearly have brought two different perspectives on this particular piece of legislation.

I do not think that anyone at this table is saying that UNDRIP is good or UNDRIP is bad. We all agree that the UN declaration is an important instrument, an important tool, but we're talking about Bill C-262 in the context of Canada.

I listened to Ms. Phare's definition of consent. We also had someone who talked about three different definitions of consent that could apply within Bill C-262, or within how the courts might ultimately interpret consent.

I was on an APTN panel with a New Democrat member just last week. With regard to the Kinder Morgan pipeline, he said that every single first nation impacted by it had to give free, prior, and informed consent from his perspective. That is very different from how Ms. Phare talked about consent. We have first nation witnesses, like Pam Palmater, who have a definition.

Should Parliament determine and have that conversation about free, prior, and informed consent before we actually make a legislative commitment to implementation?

Mr. Isaac.

[Merrell-Ann Phare]

I know that announcement was met with some.... Different folks felt differently about it. Not all aboriginal governments support that particular initiative.

However, it works with the non-derogation clause in Bill C-262, which basically says that this bill is not intended to diminish the rights as affirmed in section 35 of the charter. Actually working on a process with indigenous governments to help define what those are.... Right now, we're leaving it up to the courts to define.

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

What suggestions would you have for this committee in terms of amendments to Bill C-262 if we were to move forward on this?

[Thomas Isaac, Partner, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, thank you to the committee for inviting me here today to give you some comments on Bill C-262.

My name is Tom Isaac. I'm a partner with Cassels, Brock & Blackwell. I'm here in my personal capacity. I practice exclusively in the area of aboriginal law across Canada.

My comments today are focused on why incorporating UNDRIP within Canada's already highly developed and world-leading legal regime. Protecting indigenous rights against unilateral and unjustified state action requires a prudent and thoughtful approach. This approach needs to be sensitive to existing Canadian law and the tremendous efforts undertaken by our courts, indigenous peoples, and some public governments over the last 25 years. Bill C-262, as currently drafted, does not reflect the necessary prudence or thoughtfulness required, in my respectful view.

UNDRIP and the embrace of the principles therein mark a critical step forward by some parts of the international community to recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples globally. This is a significant international human rights achievement. UNDRIP provides an important benchmark in a world that has too often harmed, mistreated, and exploited indigenous peoples.

You will note that I said “some parts of the international community”. Not all states with indigenous peoples are on the right path, and the process itself relating to UNDRIP has been divided. During the 2007 UN General Assembly vote regarding UNDRIP, only 42 states—that's out of 88, according to the United Nations at that time—voted in favour of UNDRIP. In fact, most of them put the same caveats on their vote in favour of UNDRIP that Canada ultimately did, in terms of its being subject to domestic law. So 42 out of 88 voted in favour of UNDRIP, while 4, including Canada at the time, took principled reasons to vote against it. As for the other 42, they either abstained, of which 100% of those abstaining that day were states with indigenous peoples, or they didn't bother to show up at the UN for the vote. Of those states, 93% had indigenous peoples.

My point here is that it's important to recognize that UNDRIP was drafted in the context of this division. By necessity, UNDRIP needed to be blunt and as easy to understand as possible, given that it was intended to apply globally to address those states that act without constraint against the rights of indigenous peoples.

This is not to suggest that UNDRIP has nothing to offer Canada. I want to be very clear that many elements of UNDRIP can be extremely relevant to Canada. In particular, I would focus on the ones relating to education, health, equality under the law, the development and maintenance of political systems and institutions, social and economic security, and gender equality. While these and other elements of UNDRIP are relevant to Canada, any effort to adopt UNDRIP must reflect the distance that Canada has travelled to date to prioritize reconciliation with indigenous peoples, the lessons we have learned over the past decades, and the significance—I would say the unique significance at law globally—of section 35, a uniquely Canadian creation.

Since the 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sparrow, the court has developed a framework for protecting indigenous rights and reconciling those rights with other indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians through nearly 70 decisions. The progress made so far has been the product of substantial and purposeful efforts and dialogue between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. Today, after decades of effort and investment by all parties, we have a constitutional regime that, for example, recognizes and protects Tsilhqot’in aboriginal title rights to land, and identifies the degree of consultation required when reversing the flow of a pipeline.

We also have a federal government that has expressly stated that Canada's most important relationship is with its indigenous peoples. As each year passes, Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, gain increased certainty and confidence in how indigenous and non-indigenous peoples can respectfully and productively live together.

In introducing Bill C-262 at second reading, the bill's sponsor said that the bill promises to “at least provide the basis or framework for reconciliation in our country”, with respect, suggesting that a new approach to indigenous rights is needed, one focused on reconciliation. Again, with respect, reconciliation has been the primary goal of the Supreme Court of Canada for nearly three decades. Again, I'm not here to suggest that we're done, but reconciliation is at the core of our case law to date.

Progress in defining and advancing reconciliation has resulted in increasing clarity and has allowed us to have more meaningful discussions, better protect aboriginal and treaty rights, and promote reconciliation through practice. Bill C-262, as it is presently drafted, risks disrupting the increased clarity within Canada's legal regime for protecting indigenous rights and as a result, risks becoming an obstacle to the pursuit of reconciliation.

UNDRIP itself cannot be meaningfully incorporated into Canadian law unless it is understood in relation to the existing Canadian legal framework, importantly, including section 35. For example, UNDRIP uses such terms as “indigenous”, “the lands and territories of indigenous peoples”, and “free, prior and informed consent”, each of which will need to be interpreted within the context of Canada's existing legal regime for the protection of indigenous rights.

It is presently unclear in Canadian law who “indigenous” refers to. In Daniels, the Supreme Court stated that the term included those individuals who do not possess section 35 rights. Additional instruction is needed to clarify the intended beneficiaries of the rights set out in UNDRIP. Is it intended to apply to all indigenous peoples throughout this great country, including those who self-identify as being indigenous?

Likewise, Canada has developed a highly sophisticated understanding of indigenous interests in land, including traditional territories, aboriginal title, a right to the land itself, and treaty lands. These terms aren't used in UNDRIP, which lacks specificity, including any relation to overlapping and competing indigenous interests, which is a very live issue in Canadian law.

Finally, much has already been said about free, prior, and informed consent. I'd be delighted to talk more about this concept. It means a veto, or a duty to consult that is consistent with what already exists in Canadian law, or something different. This phrase is clear on its face upon plain reading of UNDRIP, and I think credit ought to be given to the drafters. Any attempt at redefining the phrase in a less than forthright manner, in terms of its application to Canada, risks undermining the needed and necessary transparency in the reconciliation process. I say this with respect. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Nowhere does UNDRIP refer to reconciliation or give specific consideration to how indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians can respectfully coexist. Such considerations are irrelevant for most countries, where indigenous rights are fully subject to the acts of a government. In Canada, reconciliation and principles, like the honour of the crown, are at the core of the relationship between indigenous peoples and all Canadians and work to direct and constrain how governments interact with indigenous rights.

In the preamble of Bill C-262, it suggests that the Parliament of Canada recognizes the principles set out in UNDRIP. There are many principles enunciated in UNDRIP, which are all relating to things like democracy, the rule of law, and the charter, none of which are novel to Canada. However, section 5 of Bill C-262 refers to the objectives of UNDRIP, although UNDRIP makes no reference to its objectives, its goals, its aims, or its intentions.

With respect, the sponsor has said that Bill C-262 can advance “justice” and “reconciliation” and clarify “the existing rights of indigenous peoples” and establish “very clear rules”. As presently drafted—and again, with respect—the bill provides no clear or even vague direction on any of those matters, does not explain how it will advance justice or reconciliation, and does nothing to clarify the existing rights of indigenous peoples in Canada.

Finally, the bill is missing an element that should be essential for any legislation that proposes to alter Canada's legal regime, which would be a clear explanation of how the outcome of adopting the bill will differ from the current law existing in Canada.

Canada's legal regime relating to the protection of indigenous rights is evolving and can benefit from being examined critically against the clear, if bluntly stated, articles of UNDRIP. However, simply adopting UNDRIP, without clear direction of how it should interact with Canada's existing legal regime risks disrupting the increasing clarity that has been gained through unprecedented efforts and decades of decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada.

To conclude, to move forward, Canada requires a thoughtful and purposeful approach, consistent with the honour of the crown, and I suggest to the committee that this is what reconciliation deserves. To the extent that the bill can contribute to that dialogue, it should be revised to provide the context and substance required for promoting and enhancing reconciliation and protecting indigenous rights in Canada. As I wrote in my 2016 report as the minister’s special representative on reconciliation with Métis, “Reconciliation is more than platitudes and recognition. Reconciliation flows from the constitutionally protected rights...protected by Section 35 and...must be grounded in practical actions.”

Those are my submissions.

Thank you.

[Merrell-Ann Phare, Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources and the Phare Law Corporation, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to present to the committee.

My name is Merrell-Ann Phare. I'm based out of Winnipeg, Manitoba. I'm the founding executive director of the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources, which is a national first nation charitable environmental organization. Working together in 1994 with 10 chiefs from across Canada, including Phil Fontaine, Matthew Coon Come, and Manny Jules, whose names some of you will know, we built CIER. Since that time we've implemented across Canada more than 400 environmental capacity-building projects in as many first nations.

I'm a lawyer. I work and write on environmental indigenous law, water and water governance, and treaty land entitlement issues. In 2016, on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories, I negotiated two transboundary water agreements in the Mackenzie River basin, between the governments of NWT and Alberta and between the governments of the Northwest Territories and British Columbia.

I want to applaud both Mr. Saganash for his tireless work and the current government for their commitments to the United Nations declaration and on building nation-to-nation relationships. No government in Canadian history has made such important statements. However, to be more than aspirational goals, they must be enforced in law.

I've read the transcripts of evidence given to the committee to date. I'm going to assist you by trying to focus on just one thing—namely, the free, prior, and informed consent piece. I want to start by saying that it does not, in my view, mean a veto, but it does mean some very important process and substance elements, which I will explain.

Here's the issue as I see it. Indigenous nations were original partners in Confederation and should have been recognized as such. We should have, from the beginning, worked together as collaborating nations to build Canada. But we didn't. For example, we made treaties and then ignored them. This is the problem.

The solution, the one that would greatly prevent or reduce project-based disputes—think of pipelines when I say that—and the one that would also result in real reconciliation, lies in a government-to-government approach to consent. This is mutual consent between governments in Canada—federal, provincial, territorial, and indigenous. My colleagues and I call this “collaborative consent”. We believe it's a nation-to-nation mechanism to achieving the United Nations declaration.

Full reconciliation will happen when indigenous nations are recognized as partners in Confederation and Canada's system of governance is structured accordingly. Yes, this sounds high-minded, abstract, and theoretical, but it isn't. It's happening already. We have not only proof of possibility; I will share with you some examples. We just need to provide more oxygen to these examples. Bill C-262 can make that happen.

Collaborative consent is how you get to the United Nations declaration. It's simple to understand and hard to do, because it means a different attitude and a real change in practice, and also in institutions and governance. We first wrote about the collaborative consent concept in 2016. It was the approach we'd been using in the Northwest Territories since 2005 and more recently in negotiating the water agreements I spoke to you about.

You have an executive summary in front of you setting out the details of our seven hallmarks of collaborative consent. It's written in the context of a B.C. water application, but it applies to all situations.

A nation-to-nation approach to consent, to what we call collaborative consent, already operates on a daily basis in our own country, and it has worked well. Today federal, provincial, and territorial governments co-operate, collaborate, negotiate, and plan many things that are of common, overlapping, or even conflicting interest through a process called “co-operative federalism”. This process is ongoing, is not time-bound, is rarely ever perfect, and is necessary to make a complex society like Canada work. There's no real other way to do it. It's the way we do democracy in Canada.

Over the last 151 years, this approach has been tested well. We have grown and evolved as a country. We know how disputes occur and how they're resolved. We also know that they are very rare. Health care is a prime example of where conflicts can arise, as is anything to do with oil and gas, as we see from our headlines daily. But extreme conflict, such as intergovernmental litigation, is actually very rare. If you think about this, at co-operative federalism tables, jurisdictions are actually achieving each other's free, prior, and informed consent to proposals on the table. Collaborative consent is co-operative federalism as if indigenous nations had been participants from the beginning as part of the governance of Canada. We're partway there. We just need to go a bit further.

The day after this bill is passed into law, federal and indigenous governments should start formal transition to collaborative governance arrangements, as per co-operative federalism. I'll give you an example of an immediate change that could occur. In the 2016-17 fiscal year, there were 141 FPT—federal-provincial-territorial—intergovernmental meetings. Five of them were between premiers, 44 of them were between ministers, and 85 of them were between deputy ministers. This is where all of the work is done to set or partner on the policy and program directions for Canada about almost every aspect of Canadian society, regardless of who holds jurisdiction. This is where the real work of governing this country happens. Levels of governments bring their jurisdictional authorities to the table, and then they negotiate how they're going to work together on any given issue.

None of these meetings involved indigenous governments, and only one of them had anything to do with indigenous issues. These FPT meetings should include indigenous nations. They should be FPTI tables. It is clear that indigenous nations would have to self-organize in a way that is conducive to permanent participation. Many are in governance transition, it's true, but that's a solvable problem. The most important thing is that these tables of co-operative federalism must include permanent chairs for indigenous nations.

We need to achieve consensus at FPTI tables about broad directions, policies, and agreements that drive Canada. Think water and energy policy, climate change, and conservation targets. These are the upstream discussions necessary to preclude end-of-process or project-based disputes. Under co-operative federalism, agreement isn't always reached, and governments must or do flex when diplomacy and negotiations fail. This is unlikely to change. Governments will always have the things that they can resort to if other jurisdictions don't agree, such as legal action. Collaborative consent doesn't mean that indigenous governments won't sue other governments over specific disagreements. I just believe that it's less likely to occur.

I'll give you three examples of where collaborative consent is already happening in Canada. One example is in Manitoba. We are developing a collaborative governance table in southern Manitoba, involving 17 mayors, 10 first nations chiefs and, hopefully, the Métis. This is a collaborative consent process resulting in a permanent governance table. It covers 70% of the population of Manitoba and 68% of the GDP. Collaborative decisions can have a huge impact at this scale.

The NWT is another example. It has a territorial resource revenue-sharing agreement with all indigenous governments. What this means is that, regardless of where resource development happens anywhere in the Northwest Territories, 25% of all the revenues that the Government of the Northwest Territories receives from resource development is shared among all indigenous governments according to a sharing formula that the indigenous governments themselves developed. This is in addition to whatever local impact benefit agreement might be negotiated with the directly impacted community. This is the kind of solution needed to deal with linear projects like pipelines.

The NWT also created two laws, the Wildlife Act and the Species at Risk (NWT) Act, through a co-drafting process where all hands were on the pen, rather than a co-development process where, at the end of the day, justice holds the pen over the text.

To conclude, we are in the middle of rebuilding our nation, starting with nation-to-nation relationships. There are 150 years of work that should have been started long ago, yet the opportunity sits before us. We all will, by necessity, need to change.

I want to leave you with an image. Think of our FPTI governments as beams. We all need governments to bend towards the space where we can work co-operatively together at a fully occupied table of Confederation. We have had three of the four beams work, bend, and build for 151 years, but we need the final beam to be in place in order to achieve reconciliation of all Confederation. Bill C-262 gives us the focus and fortitude to bend all the beams and be more explicit about the necessity, not the luxury, of indigenous participation. The collaborative consent examples that I've shared show that it is happening in small places.

Bill C-262 will mandate that this thinking be mainstream, and will require everyone, no matter what their place in the system, to look at their role through the lens of compliance with the UN declaration. This committee needs to think about how we accelerate this whole thing so that it will happen everywhere, from top to bottom to top. This path we're on may seem very difficult. It's certainly complex.

However, as the Maori say, we have worked too hard not to work harder; we have come too far not to go further.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Congratulations on that incredible initiative.

The next question is to both Ken and Ryan.

Ken, you were asked whether there would be a better outcome for indigenous peoples once this legislation is passed and your answer was “maybe”. You're not too sure if anything is going to change for indigenous peoples with respect to UNDRIP. I sort of agree with that because as indigenous peoples we have a long-time experience with, on one hand, signing agreements, and the next day those agreements or treaties not being respected.

I feel that indigenous rights have been recognized and affirmed through section 35 of the Constitution. They've been recognized and affirmed under the UN declaration. They've been confirmed on many occasions by the courts. The problem has been that governments did not respect those decisions or those constitutional or international law provisions. That's the problem.

I think in a way this is going to continue even after the passage of Bill C-262, unfortunately, unless we have a brand new government on the other side of the room in Parliament that commits to doing things differently.

I would like your comment on that, both Ken and Ryan.

[Dr. Ken S. Coates, Canada Research Chair in Regional Innovation, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. I'm honoured to speak to you about an issue I consider to be of fundamental importance to the future of Canada. I speak to you today from the homeland of the Okanagan Nation. I was supposed to be in Norway, but Toronto can't handle winter so they closed down the airport and I ended up in Kelowna instead. That makes sense to me.

My name is Ken Coates. I'm a Canada research chair at the University of Saskatchewan. I'm delighted to speak with you today.

UNDRIP came out of a remarkable international process I think we should always recognize and honour. From that process came two really key messages: first, that indigenous people have been marginalized around the world, and second, that they have articulated a strategy for their own inclusion, autonomy, and cultural survival. UNDRIP also reminds us of a simple fact that indigenous peoples have never been “given” full recognition of their rights and they've have had to fight for them constantly over many years.

When UNDRIP came to be considered by the Government of Canada, it was presented as an aspirational document. It does spell out very clearly the dreams of indigenous peoples and what should be but are not yet the goals for the people and the Government of Canada. I endorse in total the spirit of UNDRIP. It identifies what indigenous peoples desire and deserve, and it has the capacity to hold the nations of the world accountable.

The main question for today, and for all of you, is whether Bill C-262 is the right mechanism for realizing the potential of UNDRIP. While I see many parts of it to be true, I think the answer is far from clear. By the way, I'm not a lawyer. I'm an historian and a public policy person. I'm not as skilled in the nuances of the law as everybody else might be. However, I'm a practical person, so the question for me is whether this bill will result in markedly better outcomes for indigenous peoples in Canada in the short term, medium term, and the long term. At this point, what I would suggest is that the answer to that is maybe. I think we can do better than that with this bill, but also with subsequent conversations.

There's a lot of conversation about duty to consult and accommodating free, prior, and informed consent. I want to not so much deal with that as focus on some other questions. UNDRIP is a remarkable document. It is extremely comprehensive. We should all be very much aware of how broadly it is based in the needs and aspirations of indigenous people. There are a lot of articles that relate to things like improved health outcomes and education, and the protection and preservation of indigenous languages and cultures. When I look at this and see this as harmonizing these laws and actually making them mean something, just think for a second what it would actually mean for Canada, with more than 60 first nations and different languages across the country, if we actually took seriously the commitment to improve education, including in indigenous peoples' languages.

That is something we should have done 50 years ago. It's something we should have done 100 years ago. Now we have most of those nations' languages on the verge of destruction and disappearance. To just take that one issue and make it into a national priority would cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

I'm very much in favour of what UNDRIP says about the right of self-government and a meaningful autonomy. When I think of what will actually make a difference for indigenous people, I see the re-empowerment of indigenous communities and nations with appropriate and equitable funding as being by far and away the most important thing we can have arise at the end of this, not necessarily more government programs.

One of the concerns I have about the bill is that it doesn't really outline a process for going forward and actually indicating the desired outcomes—how will we determine success? I share some of the concerns my colleague Dwight Newman expressed today about the possibility that UNDRIP could result in a rapid expansion in the legal context. If you actually look at this on a national scale over the last 20 years or 30 years, the fact that indigenous people have had no choice but to go to the courts repeatedly to fight for basic rights has had a huge impact on those communities. It has cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, without necessarily bringing the results and resolution we actually need and desire. The question is whether UNDRIP and its accommodation within Canadian laws change this dramatically.

I have another concern with this, and it goes back to when UNDRIP first came out. I work an awful lot with indigenous communities in northern Canada and across the west, and I go to talk to high school and university groups a lot. When UNDRIP first came out as a public document, there was great excitement because UNDRIP was so comprehensive and offered so many different things, promised so many different changes. My concern, and I ask you to take it very seriously, is whether Canada will once again over-promise and underperform regarding indigenous rights and entitlements. We have done so over and over again, and we have not broken that cycle. It's really interesting to think about these implications. Will this bill actually change this practice, or will it simply set us up for more evaluation and assessment over time?

We've had lots of commitments in the current government over the last couple of years: a statement of principles, a new framework for relations with indigenous peoples, a commitment to the rethinking of judicial processes. The latter I agree with very strongly. However, we've also had Cindy Blackstock's remarkable effort to expand social service support for indigenous communities and the fact that the battle went on for so long to address a problem that most people would recognize quite openly and consistently.

I guess the other part of this is whether indigenous communities can expect that UNDRIP would now set out operational priorities for Canada. How do we actually manage Canada under an arrangement that really does respect nation-to-nation relationships and the autonomy of indigenous people? I'm concerned that, through the annual reports, we'll now simply be annually reporting on what we haven't done, the fact that Canada has not actually responded to the opportunities before it.

I look forward either in this bill or in the subsequent implementation strategies that arise from this.... The references speak specifically to the security of existing negotiated agreements with indigenous peoples, to make sure that those agreements that have been already been put in place in good faith stay and continue on. More importantly, I'm really anxious to see that we have a commitment to a different way of making decisions in Canada. I'm in favour of what I describe as a co-production of policy. Co-production of policy is that when indigenous affairs are on the table, indigenous peoples are there as part of the process, and that when funding decisions are being made, you actually co-produce those funding priorities. It's not that a government, however well meaning, sort of sits back and does this from afar, but that it in fact negotiates with them directly.

I also would hope that, either in the presentation of this bill or in the bill itself, Parliament recognizes the complexity and potential cost of the UNDRIP commitments. To even go halfway toward meeting the obligations set out under UNDRIP would cost billions of dollars. I think it's money that we have to spend and we should have spent it a long time ago, but it will cost a great deal and take a great deal of effort to put in place.

As I look through this, I see we have an opportunity and obligation in Canada to tie all the various threads together. We have lots of things going on in the aboriginal space in this country. UNDRIP is part of the puzzle. We have the desire to build nation-to-nation relationships, the government statement of principles, the whole question of inherent and treaty and aboriginal rights, the completion of modern treaty processes, aboriginal self-government, the re-evaluation that I hope is the renegotiation of earlier treaties starting in the maritime provinces, the reform of judicial and conflict resolution systems, and the appropriate financing of indigenous services and infrastructure.

Will this bill move it in the right direction? I'm not so sure. I hope it does. I celebrate the spirit and aspirations in UNDRIP. I think the practical application is the part we have to focus on.

Let me just finish up with a quick observation. When governments make policy—not just specifically with aboriginal peoples but with all peoples in all policy areas—there are actually two elements. One element is the formulation of policy and legislation, the process that you honourable citizens are doing right now, bringing the legislation and passing it and basically declaring the government's intent, the intent of the Parliament of Canada.

The second part is the implementation of the policy. What do you actually do with it? What actually comes out the other end? We pay way more attention, as academics, policy-makers, and commentators, to the formation of policy and much less to the implementation. Without the second part, without focusing on implementation, if this bill comes into effect, if we are going to harmonize these laws, how are we going to do it, what is the time period, and what are the funding allocations? Will real change actually occur at the other end of this? Without that second level of conversation and discussion, UNDRIP will lose its effectiveness and become yet another sort of failed promise to indigenous peoples.

My overriding observation is simply this. Let's not set indigenous peoples up for failure at the hands of the Government of Canada again. We've done that too many times. We can change that trajectory and that agenda a great deal.

Thank you very much.

[Professor Val Napoleon, Associate Professor and Law Foundation Professor of Aboriginal Justice and Governance, University of Victoria, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm delighted to be here. I've been crossing things out, so my presentation will fit within the time frames.

In addition to being a professor and research chair at the faculty of law at the University of Victoria, I'm also the director of the first-ever in the world indigenous law degree program, being launched this September at the University of Victoria.

The perspective I'm going to offer here today is that of indigenous law, and I'm going to be drawing on my research over the last several decades in order to do that. My presentation will be organized under two themes. The first is along the question of, do we need this bill? The second is, what does consent mean, and how might that be informed by indigenous law?

On the first theme of whether we need this bill, I believe it is a modest and positive step toward reconciliation. With its call for alignment and for an application of UNDRIP to federal laws, it lays a solid foundation for the future of reconciliation.

Canada has a colonial history. We all know that. Canadian legislation has not been immune from that history. While much more is required than Bill C-262 to decolonize Canada and to create space for indigenous governments, laws, and jurisdictions, the bill is a first step.

On this point, I want to mention that UNDRIP is not the source of free, prior, and informed consent, rather, FPIC is an international standard of measure for self-determination. In 2008, about 100 legal scholars and experts gave their support to UNDRIP, and they argued that UNDRIP was essentially a principled framework for achieving justice and reconciliation. Further, that it was entirely consistent with the Canadian Constitution and charter. The balancing provision in UNDRIP requires that its interpretation be according to principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance, and good faith.

On the meaning of consent, I want to bring up an indigenous legal discussion, which I believe will substantively and constructively inform the implementation of Bill C-262.

If we think about consent as a collective legal and political construct that arises from systems of law, including indigenous law, it creates obligations. All legal systems recognize, create, vary, and enforce obligations. Obligations are central to the social role of law, and being able to explain obligations is about explaining authority within law. At the very minimum, we can understand consent as the voluntary acquiescence to the proposal of another. We can understand it as an act or result of reaching an accord. We can think about it as a concurrence of minds, and a willingness to act or allow an infringement of an interest.

In other words, and this is what's most important, consent is an act of reason and deliberation.

From an indigenous legal perspective, we need to think about how consent is constructed within indigenous law, and the necessary standards for consent according to indigenous law. The opportunity and the challenge created by Bill C-262 requires us to think critically about questions of indigenous law and about legitimacy. My starting place is that indigenous law must be treated seriously as law. Indigenous legal orders comprise the full scope of law necessary for any society to manage its collective affairs, be they social, political, or economic. Historically, our peoples dealt with violence, lands and resources, family issues, human rights, business and trade, and international relations.

Here's the thing. We know that indigenous law has not gone anywhere in Canada, but it's been undermined, and there are gaps and distortions. It's not enough to know what law is. What's important is knowing what to do when the law is broken. This means that at the very least, an indigenous legal analysis must include the legal processes for a legitimate response to a harm, a conflict, or a problem.

We need to know who the authoritative decision-makers are. What are the legal obligations? What are the substantive and procedural rights? What are the guiding legal principles? What are the public institutions that law operates through, historically and in the present day? Being able to answer these questions enables us to know what the law is and how it should be applied to today's problems. All indigenous legal orders have the intellectual resources to enable people to engage in principled reasoning processes, and that is exactly what creates legitimacy, including for the law of consent.

What are the necessary standards for consent according to indigenous law? Consent has to be lawful, according to indigenous law. In our work with over 40 indigenous communities across Canada, we see some overarching patterns. For instance, Canadian law, as with indigenous law and other systems of law, is founded on aspirations—the want for people to be better than whatever their particular circumstances are enabling them to be. We never live up to these aspirations, but what's important is that we have an opportunity to try.

Across Canada, with the different peoples that we've worked with, the aspirations have included community safety; inclusion in decisions; fairness of process for those harmed, those who have done the harming, and others who are affected; dignity and agency, based on an understanding that people have free will to operate individually and collectively; as well as flexibility and consistency in response to human problems. These aspirations can be understood as standards for consent today. They add up to conceptions of justice deriving from indigenous legal orders.

There are five takeaways that I offer here.

First is that indigenous law of consent is essential, and ensuring that expressions of consent in instruments and in political arrangements are stable and enduring means paying attention to how those matter to indigenous law.

Second, we have in Canada spaces of lawlessness created by gaps in indigenous law where it's been undermined and by a failure in Canadian law, and it's been indigenous women and girls who have faced the violence those spaces of lawlessness have created.

Third, indigenous law hasn't gone anywhere, but the ground is uneven. The important work today is to rebuild indigenous law, and it's going to take just as much work as with any other system of law in the world.

Fourth, indigenous law will make Canada a better place in ensuring that there's a multi-juridical process of working out problems. Law is one of those distinct modes of governance.

Lastly, indigenous law must be conceived on a larger legal-order scale, and the rebuilding must include indigenous human rights from within indigenous legal orders as a part of indigenous governance.

Thank you.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

What I've been able to surmise.... Actually, this has been a perfect panel of taking the legalistic side of society and the nation-to-nation side of the argument.

Really, I guess I'd say that this is a black-letter law type of argument versus the political will side of the argument, a legalistically defined approach versus a nation-to-nation relationship defined approach, and Bill C-262 forces us to deal with this head on.

Would you agree with that?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses today. I truly appreciate your contribution to our work on Bill C-262, as well as your comments. I think they're all helpful. I'm going to ask the same question to all three of you.

We've lived in a constitutional supremacy in this country since 1982. The rights in our Constitution—both in part I, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in part II, the section 35 rights—the Supreme Court has recently said are sister provisions that serve to limit the powers of federal and provincial governments. That's the state in which we are today.

I have a very simple question for all three of you. Do you agree that the rights contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are human rights? That's how they're viewed internationally.

Second, subclause 2(2) says that this legislation does not have the effect of delaying the application of the UN declaration in this country. Clause 3 talks about the UN declaration as being an “international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law.” These rights are said to be inherent, so they do exist because indigenous people exist in this country.

It's the same question to all three of you. I only have seven minutes, one crack at this, so that's why I'm asking the same question to all three of you.

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

I think you again flagged some things that I have addressed, whether it's Bill C-45, C-68, or C-69. This bill has significant implications for all those other three bills and that is something that I don't think we've perhaps looked at or addressed very well.

I do want to talk about Kinder Morgan because I think it's a pretty good example of some of the challenges that we have. I think a mining project is somewhat easy in terms of free, prior, and informed consent, identifying whose territory it's in and ensuring that the rights and titles are respected and acknowledged and the projects move forward.

You talked about concerns from your community, Mr. Richardson. I have chiefs who run down that pipeline and who are saying, “We took it to our community. They voted 85% for it. One-third of the pipeline is going through our territory.” We have communities along the whole pipeline route, and it's more than just the benefit agreements. They've taken it to their communities and 85% is not 100%, but it is significant.

What we have is rather like Canadians in general. We have a complexity of very strong feelings on this particular issue. How will government ever, if we have something like Bill C-262, align all those important considerations? Again, I look at the communities, the Shuswap people who are predominantly in one area.

It's difficult. It's complicated. I know we were grappling with it until midnight last night. It's important and I worry about where we're going to end up in terms of making sure we respect rights while still being able to move forward with things that are important for everyone who lives in this country.

Maybe we'll hear from Mr. Newman and then Mr. Richardson.

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

Thank you.

I certainly appreciate all the testimony we've had today. It doesn't matter your position on Bill C-262, I think the spirit of what we need to do lies with all parties in Parliament.

We're talking about Bill C-262, an important part of that path, or is there ultimately a better route forward in what we do?

In my opening speech on this, I indicated I was concerned that it wasn't government legislation because it didn't have drafters from the justice department. Mr. Newman, because it is a signatory commitment of the government, first of all, should it have been appropriated as government legislation?

I like the way you talk about the different interpretations of consent. You had it laid out into three different interpretations. Truly, I believe we should have a common understanding, or indigenous peoples should come to some kind of common understanding about that language, or is that going to have to happen after?

Again, Mr. Newman, could you speak to those issues? I have concerns about the interpretations. I think this should be government legislation.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to our esteemed witnesses. It's really fabulous to have this panel before us.

I'm going to start by asking a question similar to Mr. Newman's and Mr. Richardson's, but from the flip side of the same coin. I'll ask you both to answer, one after the other, if you would.

Mr. Newman, I've read your brief. I appreciate your pointing to potential uncertainties, a series of prospective legal risks that you see may be associated with the language that has been advanced in Bill C-262. Clearly the members on this side, as well as member Saganash and our government, are very supportive of this bill, but I think that anyone who's looking at this clear-sightedly recognizes that there is going to have to be both governmental treatment as well as judicial treatment of whatever bill is enacted.

Looking at this as it is presently drafted, in a reconciliatory spirit what would you be recommending—and I invite you to make further written submissions—if you see a path forward? What mechanisms could be put in place in the context of this legislation to mitigate some of the uncertainties and to enable better interaction between existing constitutional protections for indigenous peoples and their rights, as well as through this legislation?

To Mr. Richardson I put the same question, but the other way around. I understand that there are people who are reticent, who are uncertain when they see this legislation. They don't know where it's going to take us, but as you said, we've seen the decisions one after the other, and your nation has been a leader in this regard for many years. How can greater certainty and clarity be provided to those who are concerned about writing a law into the unknown, as it might be expressed?

I feel as though I'm asking you to reconcile your positions right here and now.

[Miles Richardson]

I am Miles Richardson. I'm from the Haida Nation out on the west coast. I'm very pleased to be here today. I also acknowledge the Algonquin people, the Algonquin nation, on whose territory we're gathered today for this very important discussion.

I want to thank Romeo Saganash and all parliamentarians for this bill, which I believe is an important signpost on the road to righting the relationship between Canada as a nation-state and the indigenous people who were the first peoples of this place we all call home and we all call Canada today. In my view, it's high time that we did this properly.

We've been to this fork in the road before, and the fork in the road is very simple. There are two routes forward. Continue on the road we're on, the colonial road, the one of denial and assimilation through the instrument of the Indian Act and all those actions that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has confirmed for all of us is the wrong path. We could continue on that path, I suppose. The choice of the other path is exactly the right path, in my view, which the Government of Canada has stated is the chosen path for Canada, and that's establishing a proper nation-to-nation relationship between each indigenous people and Canada as a state.

Bill C-262 is a signpost for that path which, in my view, is the correct path. In 1763, we began to face the same choice. In those days, first nations in this part of the country had a bit more leverage, I'd say, on Canada. You all know the story. Britain, in right of the crown, brought to Niagara Falls its commitment on a relationship with indigenous peoples, a relationship in which the crown committed that first nations would not be disrupted in our powers, in our authorities, in our interests, or in our jurisdictions without consent through a treaty with the crown itself.

That was the commitment that Britain brought to Niagara Falls. The 27 tribes, nations, on the east coast who then met with them brought their commitments, the Two Row Wampum and the Covenant Chain. The Haudenosaunee and others brought commitments that still would pass, I would say, the test of acceptance by first nations today. I've talked to my people. I've led a lot of our negotiations and our position in terms of being respected as a nation, and working with the constitutional framework of Canada is very much in line with the Two Row Wampum and those commitments that were made in Niagara Falls. I think those were honourable commitments that didn't last long.

Last year we celebrated 150 years of Canada, and very soon, as treaties 1 to 11 began being negotiated, Canada forgot those commitments and devolved to one of the first pieces of legislation of that Parliament, the Indian Act, and the policy of the denial of our humanity and of our fundamental human rights as indigenous people began. We get to the point we are today.

I would really appeal to all of you as parliamentarians to work together as the Government of Canada to implement this proper nation-to-nation relationship. Bill C-262 is a beginning, as my friend says. It can't be the end. This has to be a whole-of-government approach. There are going to be many discussions about the legislative implications and the relationship implications. The longer we put it off, the more uncertainty is going to breed uncertainty. We're going to face many more situations like we are on the west coast today, and that's just one of them. That's so predictable in this current climate.

As we go down this path of establishing a proper nation-to-nation relationship, we should be guided by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 43, 44, and 45, which you can all read.

Action 43 asks us to use UNDRIP and free, prior, and informed consent as the framework for reconciliation. That's a wise recommendation. When we look at nation-to-nation relationships, we shouldn't be turned off by the notion of consent. We're talking about respecting each other on an equal level, and I know my people, the Haida people, expect nothing less. We come to every table with that expectation and with the acceptance, as the wise judge said in the Delgamuukw case, I believe—in the Supreme Court of Canada anyway—that we're all here to stay and that we can make this constitutional framework, including section 35, which brings our indigenous law alongside the framework of Canadian law.

We can make this work, but it's going to take commitment. Because of all the nuances that we have to work through, the one thing it's going to take is political will. If you look at the courts in the last 25 years, there's a pretty impressive winning streak of first nations asserting our title, basically legitimizing the position our people have always taken, since contact.

What has changed? Very little. Do you know why? It's because Parliament and the legislatures have not done their jobs. Those laws amount to a hill of beans. You've been put in place as parliamentarians. Those laws, those decisions of the courts amount to a hill of beans if you don't enact them. Bill C-262 is another opportunity to do the right thing.

I was going to tell you a story about Sparrow and how that... I was on the B.C. claims task force, designing a treaty-making process for B.C. in the early nineties, while RCAP was holding its hearings. We had a notion in there. We had mutual recognition on a government-to-government basis, but as soon as first nations were recognized, we had to have interim measures to balance all the federal and provincial statutes that had never contemplated aboriginal title or right.

The Minister of Fisheries flew out to B.C. and met with the first nations. I remember that he said something like, “Look, I've got a problem. Six months ago, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in Sparrow. Indigenous people have fishing rights, and I need to do something about that. I want an interim measure.”

We started negotiating an interim measure, which turned into the aboriginal fisheries policy, which started out with really good intentions and very soon degenerated into the same old “we make the rules here in Ottawa; you stand up and get your portion”.

As we go forward again, Parliament failed a major opportunity and still the courts.... There was the Heiltsuk and the herring spawn decision in 1996, which was a pure victory. They have the right to sell. The Ahousaht decision a few years ago upheld their right to sell all the fish in their territories, and still they're sitting on the beach watching everybody else do it.

Now we see the Kinder Morgan pipeline being pushed through British Columbia. We're all going to learn something from this. You mark my words. We're going to learn a lot of lessons from this situation.

It's unfortunate. In the face of commitments to a proper nation-to-nation relationship and this relationship being the most important, the pronouncements of the last few days that “at all costs this pipeline's going through” to me are like a dog whistle to industry and to those who have kept marginalizing indigenous people all these years, signalling that indigenous, aboriginal rights still mean nothing in this country. If anything, they mean, “You indigenous people can have the scraps after we're done.” That's just not the way to move forward.

Bill C-262 is a signpost to the proper way. It's going to take a lot of effort, it's going to take a lot of commitment on all of our parts, but it's the right way to go.

I'm really interested in hearing Val Napoleon's presentation later, after we're done, on indigenous law. If we can't do this through negotiations, this is how indigenous people are going to have to achieve our justice: through implementing our laws and figuring it out as the dust settles, I imagine.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to any further discussion.

[Dr. Dwight Newman, Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Good afternoon. It's an honour to speak with this committee as it studies Bill C-262. I'd also like to acknowledge the Algonquin people on whose territory this meeting occurs.

My name is Dwight Newman. I'm a professor of law and Canada research chair in indigenous rights in constitutional and international law at the University of Saskatchewan.

I come here today with full respect for the very noble aspirations reflected by Bill C-262 and the passion and lifelong advocacy efforts of the member who has introduced it, the support for the bill by many civil society organizations, and the profound importance of Canada working to implement the aspirations reflected by United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

However, I am going to say something different than some of the other witnesses. I do come to say that I think Bill C-262 as presently drafted is framed in ways that have the potential to cause enormous unforeseeable consequences. It has a range of highly unpredictable legal effects due to two things: elements of uncertainty on the international norms referenced, and legislative drafting issues in the bill itself.

In the next few minutes I'll try to introduce some of those, although I'd also refer you to my written brief for further reference, particularly on some of the legislative drafting issues.

I would suggest that the range of possible implications of this bill is very wide, from courts giving it no effect at all on through to the courts giving it massive, unexpected effects that could inadvertently cause governance gaps, for example, by the potential implied repeal of existing statutes, on through to legal effects that could depend in complicated ways on the order in which different bills currently under consideration in Parliament are passed.

I'll explain some of that momentarily, but my ultimate question is whether it wouldn't be better for Parliament to determine what, more precisely, it's trying to do and to enact a clear bill to do exactly what it's trying to do.

In my few minutes, I'll make three main points: one related to the substantive content of UNDRIP, one related to the drafting issues in the bill, and then a third one, quickly suggesting the need for further analysis by other committees.

First, the substantive content of UNDRIP is itself subject to more debates than often realized, and a statute drawing upon the declaration is no less subject to uncertainties that arise from these ongoing debates. To offer just one prominent example, a number of articles of UNDRIP refer to the concept of free, prior, and informed consent, or FPIC. Some of those articles of the declaration refer to a requirement to have FPIC before taking certain steps, and others refer to consulting and co-operating in order to seek FPIC. The first special rapporteur after the declaration was adopted, Professor James Anaya, attributed significance to that difference and suggested that a spectrum of different duties arose in relation to different articles.

In the years since, in general terms, in international law scholarship, three main interpretations have emerged in relation to the declaration on FPIC. There's an ongoing, growing literature, but I might mention Mauro Barelli's chapter in the new Oxford commentary on UNDRIP, released this year, as a particularly helpful piece in outlining some of those concepts.

One interpretation reads the text more strictly and says that in some circumstances, the declaration says it's enough to seek FPIC in good faith without necessarily obtaining it. I've suggested that this is the implicit position that Canada's 10 principles document, issued last summer, took somewhat slyly, as I put it in an op-ed. It's arguably that interpretation, though, that is most consistent with the French-language version of UNDRIP, and with one possible interpretation of the English-language version.

A second interpretation says the FPIC requirement is really about the type of process required and that it's possible to move away from talking about consent itself as long as one has the right type of consensus-oriented process. That interpretation fits with the approach of many practitioners who are trying to work with FPIC in practical ways.

A third interpretation sees FPIC as grounding rights analogous to vetos, and that interpretation is, and continues to be, urged by many indigenous advocates. A prominent Canadian example would be found in articulations by the scholar Pam Palmater.

In the context of Bill C-262, just which of these interpretations filters through from UNDRIP has drastically different legal consequences that matter. Not knowing that poses difficulties for everyone.

We've seen in the events of the past week around the Trans Mountain pipeline how legal uncertainty can affect the investment climate that can contribute to prosperity for both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, though obviously in the context of a project on which people have many different views.

My main point is that legal uncertainty doesn't help anyone, and this bill may draw Canadian law into new uncertainties coming from uncertainties around the interpretation of UNDRIP itself.

Second, the bill as presented has significant issues from a legislative drafting perspective, which I highlight at more length in my written submission, but I'll mention some of those briefly.

One, it uses a number of legal terms that have either no, or almost no, prior use in Canadian statutes, meaning that one's essentially gambling on how the courts might interpret those terms. That might render the whole bill merely symbolic at one end or it might lead to it having very significant effects, or anything in between.

Two, the different sections of the bill are subject to some tensions as to whether it requires immediate implementation, whether it requires implementation over a multi-decade period, or something in between. That could undermine clarity of meaning.

Three, the English and French versions of the bill may not line up in terms of their language. The French versions of terms from the English side are not the same as the French terms used for the same English terms in other pieces of legislation, again suggesting that there may be more drafting issues to be carefully considered.

Four, the way in which the bill may interact with other statutes or bills gives rise to some real complexities. I go through that in what is probably painful legal detail in the brief, but I suggest that if the courts were to give the bill substantial meaning, it could lead to the implied repeal of other statutes, or provisions of other statutes—maybe the Indian Act—overnight, in a manner that could lead to governance gaps and legal vacuums. That's not the way to abolish the Indian Act, which should of course be done but needs to be done in a clear way that doesn't generate problems in the process for indigenous communities who use its governance structures.

I also raise the prospect that because of the underlying legal principles on dealing with multiple statutes enacted by Parliament, the meanings of Bill C-68, Bill C-69, and Bill C-262, if all passed, could end up being significantly different, depending on the order in which they're passed. With respect, there needs to be a coherent plan and clearer legislative drafting to address some of these issues.

Third, just very briefly, Bill C-262 has the potential and indeed the aim to affect a huge range of areas of Canadian law. Is this committee alone well placed to consider the effects on Canada's intellectual property regime of something like clause 3 in the bill? Is this committee alone well placed to consider the implications on various religious freedom contexts arising out of UNDRIP?

My written brief lists some of the very wide areas of policy-making that could be impacted if the bill is adopted, and indeed the bill hopes to affect. With respect, it's analogous to an omnibus bill, which I would suggest could warrant attention from almost every other committee of Parliament. I would urge that there be some kind of further consideration of those effects.

In conclusion, my overall view is that Bill C-262 warrants further study and careful analysis. The legislative drafting does not meet all of the standards that we would hope for in the best legislative drafting of a bill on behalf of indigenous peoples to support a better relationship between indigenous peoples and other Canadians. There are a range of highly unpredictable effects across almost every area of government policy, and those deserve study. There could well be amendments that could improve the bill, but they need to be developed with legislative drafting expertise of the sort that the justice department has but presumably hasn't provided enough of in support of this committee at this point.

The government has committed its support, but I would hope that we would see further tangible results in terms of the details of the bill, and that there would be that legislative drafting support so that the government's commitments to implementing UNDRIP are realized in the way that best fulfills those.

I urge that the committee call for more support for its work in examining this bill and not rest with brief statements that have been offered by the justice officials who have appeared before it thus far.

Thank you for your attention, and I'm happy to discuss matters further in questions.

[Paul Chartrand, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In light of the nature of the subject, I should say a few words about me and my background. I'm a Michif person from Manitoba. I'm one of 12 children of a Métis trapper, fisherman, and carpenter. I was born in 1943. I've seen life in very different circumstances from what we live today. I am a retired professor of law, a practising lawyer, and I spent some 28 years, on and off, participating in deliberations in Geneva on the UN declaration.

I shall comment on three basic points today. First is the matter of interpreting the text of the declaration to apply it in Canada. I'm arguing against the formalistic approach. I will also argue the need for a rational and defensible federal recognition policy respecting the section 35 aboriginal peoples. Finally, I will suggest that the federal Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which reported in 1996, ought to be considered in designing the plan of action contemplated by Bill C-262. That was a commission, I must disclose, of which I was a member.

First, on interpretation of the text I begin by emphasizing the important statements in the preamble of the bill that treaty and aboriginal rights as well as human rights are underlying values and principles of the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, we know that no foreign ideas are being introduced here. Canada's initial hesitancy and refusal to adopt the declaration was a rather shameful retreat from what a friend and colleague described as Canada's international image: that of a boy scout. The image had been garnered by Canada's efforts internationally since the days of Lester Pearson, as you will know. It seems to me that the adoption of Bill C-262 would help to wash the mud off the boy scout's face.

Pardon me for reading some of these notes verbatim. It helps me not to yield to my propensity to act as a didactic twit, given my long career in universities.

Opposition to adoption of the declaration seems to lean, at least in the public eye, upon reasons that flow from a formalistic approach to its interpretation. The exegete must not be seduced by a close scrutiny of each word in a text. Let us keep in mind that the text of the declaration exists in six official and very different languages. The interpretation of the declaration requires throwing away the looking glass of the formalist approach, which examines each word or phrase in isolation. In each case, we must consider the relevance of all the various human rights standards evident in the declaration, as well as elsewhere in international law, and apply them to Canadian circumstances.

A realist approach to interpretation will seek to apply to each domestic situation engaging state-indigenous relations the principles and the values behind the declaration, infused as they must be with the values of the indigenous peoples to which the facts draw attention. The question is about how the human rights standards, viewed holistically, ought to apply to the facts of each case. The issue is not so much what the declaration says, but what it means.

Canada must begin to accept the existence of power and authority residing in various sources. I emphasize that the purpose of the declaration is to guide state-indigenous relationships. Consequently, after some time, after Canada has adopted the declaration and implemented Bill C-262, if we have focused upon the values and the purposes of the declaration, I believe that interpretative approach would allow us to say, “Well, we're getting along better now, aren't we?” Is that not the true object?

My second point is that Canada must adopt a defensible policy to recognize the aboriginal peoples, in section 35, and to perform its constitutional duty to make those rights effective.

Who are the aboriginal peoples? I have a book with that very title. Nobody on the indigenous side wanted to touch this question in Geneva. Some states were reluctant to accept the declaration without a definition. My point here is that adoption of the declaration will add little to the promotion of an understanding of the issues here, and it's a very vexed issue.

The most salient issues are reaction to the 1982 recognition of the rights of aboriginal peoples. Our problem lies in history, in Canada's traditional policy, which has been rooted in the Indian Act. Unilaterally, in a breach of treaties, this act purported to offer legal recognition to Indians. The problem is that the Indian is a ghost of the European imagination.

Canada's aboriginal peoples, the ones who have been here aboriginally or since the beginning, are the Mi'kmaq, the Tlingit, the Cree, notably the Haida, and so on. The descendants of some of these aboriginal peoples who have not been recognized in the act are trying to fit themselves into the category of section 35, aboriginal peoples.

The name that's been applied to these people historically has been non-status Indians. Their situation has been obscured by the large number of claims from self-identifying mixed-blood peoples across the country since the 1980s. As the courts have held, section 35 affirms rights that are based on historical state-indigenous relations of peoples, not upon personal antecedents. One of the points is that the consultations that have to occur under Bill C-262 must keep these points in mind.

My final point concerns the national action plan with consultations. A serious look should be given to the analyses and recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Even the recent Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended a royal proclamation as a good symbolic start. The federal government itself reorganized its structures by splitting into two departments. I have a commentary in public media on that point.

A first ministers' conference is necessary, because the provinces must be engaged in order to make the Constitution and the treaties effective, and to make the Constitution legitimate. New institutions will have to be designed. I can't think of a more important one than the model of the lands and treaties tribunal. I really urge you to have a look at volume 2 of the RCAP's analysis, which leads to the recommendation of an aboriginal lands and treaties tribunal. The specific claims policy and its related policies really do not work, and they ought to be rejected.

I will yield to the time constraints, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

This is the meeting of the INAN committee on a very serious issue, one that will move Canada forward in terms of reconciliation in dealing with historic wrongs. I'm very pleased to have you here.

I'll start by recognizing that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people, as a reminder of the importance of that process as not only being honorary but actually reminding all Canadians of our history and the fact that we have a lot of unfinished business. This is a very timely and important discussion and we're very anxious to hear from you, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 7, 2018, on 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.

You're here to present to us and our format is that you have 10 minutes for each presentation. After that, we'll go into a series of questions and answers from the MPs.

Paul, are you going to begin? Then I have Dwight after that.

Welcome.

[Chief Kluane Adamek, Interim Regional Chief, Yukon Region, Assembly of First Nations]

Good morning.

[Witness speaks in Tlingit and Southern Tutchone]

My name is Kluane Adamek, and I am from Kluane First Nation in Yukon Territory. I am the Interim Yukon Regional Chief. I introduced myself in Tlingit and Southern Tutchone. I come from the Dakhl’aweidí killer whale clan and my traditional name is Aagé.

Our territory in Kluane First Nation also encompasses Kluane National Park, which many of you may have been to.

This morning, I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations. To members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to share the perspectives of the Assembly of First Nations on Bill C-69, an act to enact the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

In the next 10 minutes, I am going to speak about three things.

First, I will speak to first nations participation in the environmental and regulatory reviews, the mandate of the chiefs and assembly, and the role of the AFN in this regard. Second, I will talk about perspectives on framing where we are and why we feel we must continue to press for reconciliation, given your commitments to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Third, I will speak about the 10 principles and the rights recognition framework, and propose critical amendments to improve on the reforms that have been tabled by the government in this part of Bill C-69.

With cautious optimism, in 2016, first nations overwhelmingly participated in the legislative reviews that laid the foundation for the bill you have in front of you. This work illustrates how first nations envision the complete overhaul of key environmental legislation and regulations.

Concepts such as jurisdiction, inherent and constitutionally protected rights, nation-to-nation relationships, and reconciliation come up over and over again. Unfortunately, many of these concerns are not yet addressed in the current legislation. Issues such as maintaining ministerial or cabinet decision-making and approving major projects using a public interest test remain red flags for first nations and the proposed nation-to-nation relationship. Moreover, from the perspective of many Yukon first nations and other self-governing nations, these provisions are inconsistent with our expressed jurisdictions and agreements, which languish with the failure of Canada to fully invest and respect commitments to implementation.

As a result, Bill C-69 does not withstand an analysis using the 10 principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. We recommend that the government ensure that the legislation is a beacon for all of Canada to signal that we are in a new era, where first nations rights, interests, and jurisdictions are promises kept by this government, not ignored and not overlooked. This would serve to support that reconciliation called for by the TRC, including observing and implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Chiefs and assembly have passed numerous resolutions about this process, calling on the AFN to work with Canada to ensure the legislation respects first nations treaties, rights, title, jurisdiction, agreements, and recognizes the responsibilities to their traditional territories. However, the chiefs also made it very clear that any phase in this engagement process cannot be construed as consultation, and additional time must be afforded to consult directly with rights holders in a manner that is respectful to their unique protocols, processes, and elements.

To be clear, AFN plays a role in communication, coordination, and facilitation for first nations across the country, but we are not a rights holder.

Before I get into the specific amendments, I want to start by framing where we are and why this is an opportunity for real reconciliation. First, as you are all aware, Canada has announced its full and unqualified support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This doesn't create any new rights, as these rights are inherent and pre-existing. The UN declaration simply affirms indigenous peoples' human rights. However, this does not mean that Canadian law, even the common law, is meeting these minimum standards, and we are committed to work with you on that effort.

Legislators should not forget that they are here to legislate about section 35 as well, and that we have been frustrated by government officials telling us this law includes common law standards, without clear legal language that pushes our rights forward. Across government, including Bill C-262, we are talking about realizing those rights and finding a better way to work together, so that we don't have to spend millions of dollars and waste years fighting in courts.

Indigenous lawyers are discussing how the bill could be strengthened to assist the inevitable judicial reviews because of the continuing use of a public interest test and the regulatory choice of a project list. To be clear, we are not satisfied with these policy choices, but we realize that real legislative time limits require us to make this bill a workable law that will actually achieve free, prior, and informed consent.

This bill must enable first nations to realize our rights and fulfill our responsibilities. It's about working with us to establish the laws, policies, and practices needed to respect our rights and our status as self-determining peoples.

Inevitably, the conversation will slip to the challenge of achieving the standard of free, prior, and informed consent, FPIC. To be very clear, FPIC was not created in the UN declaration. It was not created in this bill nor in Bill C-262. It already exists [Technical difficulty—Editor] in treaties in Canada. It is an essential element of the right of all peoples, including indigenous peoples, to self-determination, which Canada has recognized for decades, for example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Consent is the essence of mature relationships and was and is the premise of treaty-making between self-determining nations.

The UN declaration set the standard [Technical difficulty—Editor] of partnership, detailing the right to participate in decisions that can affect our rights, property, culture and environment, and our [Technical difficulty—Editor]

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

To Marie-Claude and Valerie, I saw that one of your questions was about how these rights will be given life. With the exercise we started over a month ago on recognizing and trying to define the rights in section 35, I see that as breathing life into UNDRIP, and Bill C-262, which we are talking about today, as one of the first steps we have to take.

[Marie-Claude Landry, Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission]

Good evening.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Human Rights Commission to take part in your study into Bill C-262. I'm joined today by Valerie Phillips, the commission's general counsel.

Allow me to briefly tell you about the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Internationally, we are recognized as Canada's human rights watchdog. Domestically, we promote and protect human rights in Canada.

As part of our protection mandate, we receive and assess human rights complaints that relate to federal jurisdiction, and once we assess them, we determine if a complaint is referred to a separate body, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, for adjudication.

The commission embraces the declaration and supports this bill as an effort towards ensuring that human rights justice is available to all indigenous peoples in Canada. Implementation of the declaration moves us all towards greater reconciliation.

Testimony you have heard or will hear from indigenous peoples is of capital importance. The commission would like to offer a unique perspective—a perspective nourished by our experience and our work with indigenous people.

As an early adopter, the commission has integrated the declaration in all aspects of its work, such as its training of employees, its pleadings, its public statements, its publications and its work in policy development.

Integrating the declaration in our work is done in an effort to further the goals of this important human rights instrument. More specifically, it's a matter of normalizing its use in Canadian law and society.

Over the past 10 years, since the repeal of section 67 of our act, 9% of the commission's complaints have involved indigenous people or issues. The declaration deals with the principles of equality and non-discrimination that parallel the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As a result, numerous litigations have been impacted by the declaration, most notably the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society v. Attorney General of Canada (Representing the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada).

Based on this experience, we have two questions for your consideration. First, who will have access to these rights when the bill is passed? Second, how are these rights given life?

First, when this bill is passed, will it be clear who has access to these rights? At first glance, the answer may appear obvious—first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples—yet issues surrounding indigenous identity are a source of continuous, lengthy, and costly litigation.

Over the course of the last 10 years, the commission has dealt with approximately 160 complaints that touched upon indigenous identity issues, engaging matters such as band membership, legislative benefits or rights, and status. These complaints can be lengthy and oftentimes very complex.

This is also evidenced by the numerous challenges to the Indian Act, the Daniels case, and an older Supreme Court decision about whether Inuit people fell under federal jurisdiction. What distinctions, if any, are to be made regarding first nations, Inuit, or Métis peoples? Clarification of this issue should be made a mandatory requirement in the national action plan or in the framework on the recognition and implementation of rights announced by the federal government in February 2018.

A second question we have relates to how the rights embedded in the declaration will be made available to the rights holders. If the UN declaration informs the content of section 35 of the Constitution, then rights holders will be able to assert these rights through a variety of court processes and administrative tribunals. However, our experience has been that proving these rights under section 35 has been an uphill battle for indigenous peoples.

We are concerned that this high onus will create a barrier for those seeking to exercise their rights as articulated in the declaration. If the goal is to ensure broad access to these rights, then clear language should be added to the legislation specifying how rights holders can access their rights.

It is our position that these rights should be made broadly and proactively available to all indigenous peoples and should be easy to access, and that there should be clarity to the scope of these rights and how they will apply in Canadian law. Greater and easier access to justice is a key component of human rights justice and, one could argue, of reconciliation as well.

These two questions—who is covered by these rights and how—may strike you as more theoretical in nature, yet our experience has clearly shown that organizations like the commission continue to struggle with them.

Article 1 of the declaration speaks of both collective and individual rights protection. From our perspective, concrete guidance is needed to relieve the tensions between collective and individual rights. This includes the universality of human rights protection as it relates to indigenous self-determination and self-government.

The clearer Parliament can make the application of rights, the more likely these rights will be accessed. We know this because easy access to justice has not always been the case.

In 2008 a significant barrier was lifted, giving indigenous people the ability to make a discrimination complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act when it relates to the Indian Act. Up until then, there had been a 30-year ban on these kinds of complaints.

Yet since these changes to the act were made, there has been ongoing litigation about the scope of these rights as they apply both to the federal government and to indigenous governments. This past year, the commission argued the Matson and Andrews case before the Supreme Court of Canada, which touched upon all of these issues. We are awaiting this important decision, because it will address the question of Parliament's intent regarding the commission's ability to accept complaints related to a person's Indian status.

In conclusion, one thing we know after 40 years of human rights experience is that people living in vulnerable circumstances will often abandon their complaints rather than fight these lengthy legal battles. Time, cost, access, and lack of clarity all serve as barriers and may prove to be counterproductive to the ultimate goals of the bill.

The commission is eager to see the full potential of the UN declaration realized. Our experience in integrating it into the core principles of human rights justice has been positive and will continue to guide our work.

Madam Phillips and I are happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you very much.

[Craig Benjamin, Campaigner, Indigenous Rights, Amnesty International Canada]

Good afternoon. My name is Craig Benjamin. I am here on behalf of Amnesty International. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Algonquin people, whose traditional territory we have the privilege of meeting on today.

I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak with you today on such an important subject, one about which I feel very strongly.

The adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples more than 10 years ago, on September 13, 2007, was an extraordinary moment in the global history of human rights. Here is an international human rights instrument specifically dedicated to ensuring the survival, dignity, and well-being of individuals, families, communities, and nations around the world that have been the subject of extreme systematic and pervasive violation of every right imaginable, resulting in situations of impoverishment, marginalization, and dispossession that are the tragic and appalling shame of the global community.

Despite the ravages that have been inflicted, here is a progressive, inspiring human rights instrument that was developed through the expertise, advocacy, and persistence of indigenous peoples themselves. In fact, the UN declaration represents the first time in the history of the United Nations that the very people whose rights are at stake, the very people who best understand the patterns of abuse that put their lives and cultures at risk, were able to sit down with representatives of states like Canada and consider how the international human rights system could be adapted and applied to meet their most urgent needs.

I'm a member of Amnesty International's campaign staff in Canada. I'm responsible for the research, policy, and advocacy work that helps our organization and our membership across Canada and around the world stand as allies in the promotion of the human rights of first nations, Inuit, and Métis individuals and communities. My job most days is to help call out the pervasive and profound injustices that have so often characterized Canada's treatment of indigenous peoples.

However, today I want to emphasize that the adoption of the UN declaration is a story in which Canadians can take genuine pride. I had the opportunity to represent the global movement of Amnesty International in the concluding years of the development of the declaration at the United Nations. I saw for myself the crucial role played by indigenous experts from Canada: people such as Romeo Saganash, Grand Chief Edward John, Celeste McKay, and Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild, who also addressed the committee. I saw the important supportive role played by Canadian non-governmental organizations such as the Canadian Friends Service Committee and Rights and Democracy.

I also witnessed the critical role played by Canadian government officials in the final days of the negotiation, when federal government representatives at the UN working group were able to build an effective working relationship with indigenous peoples from Canada and with the global indigenous caucus to help advance the declaration.

This collaboration set a positive example for other states. It made visible the spirit of the declaration and its repeated calls for partnership and collaboration, and it allowed this spirit of co-operation to triumph over the rigid defence of the status quo that had locked many other states into unconstructive, adversarial positions.

The text that eventually emerged was the product of the consensus reached between states and indigenous peoples. This consensus, this hard-won achievement, is also part of what makes the declaration so powerful and so important today. It's only fitting, then, that with Bill C-262, Canada again has an opportunity to set a positive example for the rest of the world.

Amnesty International has endorsed Bill C-262, and we commend all those members of Parliament who have supported it so far. Bill C-262 sets out a principled framework by which the promise of the UN declaration can be brought to life in Canada. The elements of the bill, a legislated commitment to reform laws and policies, to elaborate a national plan of action for the implementation of the declaration, and to ensure regular reporting to Parliament, are exactly what international human rights bodies like the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination have called on Canada to do.

Just as important, Bill C-262 sets out a framework for collaboration between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples in this important shared work. This is wholly consistent with the spirit in which the declaration was developed, and it now takes that work to the next logical and necessary step. Bill C-262 is about how the declaration will be implemented in Canada, the principles that will guide this implementation, and the relationships among indigenous peoples, government, and Parliament necessary to do this in the best way.

Critically, the passage of Bill C-262 is not about a choice of whether the UN declaration will be implemented in Canada. That work has already begun. Canadian courts and tribunals routinely turn to international human rights standards to help understand how the laws passed by Parliament can be best interpreted and applied. It's a well-established Canadian legal principle that courts can and should presume that Parliament intends to honour Canada's international obligations, and that domestic laws must be interpreted in a way that complies with these obligations.

These are principles that are already applied across a wide range of law in Canada. There is no reason that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be excluded. In fact, the declaration is already being used in exactly this way.

To take one example, in 2012, as part of the long legal battle in a case well known to this committee, the first nations child welfare case, the Federal Court of Canada explicitly stated that the UN declaration should be used in the interpretation of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the federal government's responsibilities under that act.

After the first nations child welfare issue went back to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, many of the parties to that case, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International, made arguments based on the interpretation of the declaration. In its final ruling, the Human Rights Tribunal did in fact make significant use of the declaration. In its discussion of the declaration, the tribunal also made this statement, which I think is particularly relevant to today's discussion. The tribunal said, “Canada’s statements and commitments, whether expressed on the international scene or at the national level, should not be allowed to remain empty rhetoric.”

There are numerous other examples of how the declaration is already helping shape how the laws passed by Parliament are interpreted and applied. For members of Parliament interested in better understanding the declaration's provisions on free, prior, and informed consent, there is an excellent summary in a 2014 report from a federal impact assessment panel, one that reviewed the proposed New Prosperity mine in British Columbia. That panel appropriately took note of the fact that the Tsilhqot'in Nation had withheld their consent. It took that lack of consent into consideration in its finding that the mine would have serious impacts on their lives and culture.

We can anticipate that Canadian courts, tribunals, and other bodies will continue to play a role in interpreting and applying the declaration in the future, but there are obvious drawbacks if indigenous peoples have to continue to rely on such mechanisms as the primary way to give effect to rights and protections set out in international law. Chance can play a large role in deciding what issues end up before the courts. Legal and administrative hearings can be extremely slow and costly to all involved. Requiring indigenous peoples to go to court if they want their rights respected imposes an onerous and unfair burden, and such processes are inherently adversarial, something that runs contrary to the intention of reconciliation.

Bill C-262 provides an alternative: an opportunity for a collaborative process in which priorities can be mutually agreed and systematically advanced, where Parliament will remain apprised of the progress made and the government will be held accountable. This is a model that's not only needed in Canada; it's one worth promoting to the world.

Finally, on that note, Canada should not interpret and apply the UN declaration in isolation. Other countries are also grappling with its implications. International mechanisms, such as the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and treaty bodies, all continue the work of interpreting the standards that are set out in the declaration. While Canada has the potential to set a positive example for the world, Canada also has much to learn from these processes.

Thank you.

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

You're so generous.

[Member speaks in Cree]

I respect that you have a time limit here. I'll be very quick with my questions.

Subclause 2(2) and clause 3 of Bill C-262 declare that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has application in Canadian law already. Do you agree with that?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

I would hope that they would see a gap being closed, the gap that exists between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples in Canada, because you're going to create economic certainty and economic stability, and you're also going to create greater involvement by indigenous peoples in the economy, with a balancing of the environment and the economy with our full involvement and inclusion.

The gap that I continue to talk about and needs to be addressed and closed is the “sixth versus sixty-third” gap. According to the United Nations human development index on quality of life, Canada is rated sixth, but when you apply the same indices to indigenous peoples, first nations people, then we're sixty-third. That's sixth versus sixty-third.

For the Algonquin people and the non-indigenous people in your riding, you can say to them that once Bill C-262 is adopted, and once the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is fully embraced, endorsed, adopted, recognized, and implemented, you will see a greater involvement of indigenous peoples in the economy. You'll see greater participation by and success rates for young first nations men and women who are graduating from high school, because proper education will be in place. This gap will start to close.

That's the really meaningful outcome and output of the adoption of Bill C-262 and the UN declaration. It really truly is a road map to reconciliation. I've always said that in this country nobody is going anywhere, so we have to find ways, roll up our sleeves, do the tough work of dialogue, and find that common ground. That's what I'd say to them.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Not directly, but Romeo had an extensive consultation process across Canada on his own. He's been to numerous tribal councils and PTOs, and there have been resolutions of support passed. We didn't have to do anything. He did all the work.

However, we did discuss and pass it in our AFN chiefs assembly as well, so there is a clear indication of levels of support from leadership across Canada for Bill C-262.

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

You've acknowledged the work of our colleague Romeo Saganash. Can you advise us in terms of consultation in developing this legislation? Did the AFN and your members play an integral role in developing Bill C-262?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

It's a good question, MP Gary. I think we've said that it's a start, a beginning. At least adopt this. Going forward, you can build upon it. That's the simplest and shortest answer I can give. It's a good start.

We know from the February 14th words of the Prime Minister that the rights and reconciliation framework is going to be worked upon, but this is something that's here now, so you can use that and build upon Bill C-262 going forward.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be sharing my time with MP Amos.

Grand Chief and panel, welcome back to the committee.

I'd like to start with respect to an overall framework for the implementation of UNDRIP. Is Bill C-262 as a stand-alone enough? Or do we need other measures in order for us to fully implement the provisions of UNDRIP?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks, Gary, for that attempt. I have another function, but I'll get right into this, Madam Chair.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

I'm happy to be here thanking you all.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

I give thanks to the Creator for this day.

Also, we acknowledge the Algonquins, the Anishinaabeg peoples, and give them thanks as well.

To the members of the committee, I do have this written text, so we'll get right into this.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, friends, and relatives, thank you for inviting me here today to share the perspectives of the Assembly of First Nations on Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act.

First nations across the country strongly support a legislative framework to advance the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and support Bill C-262. We have waited a long time for this. We continue to call on all parties in this House and on each and every parliamentarian to support Bill C-262.

At the end of my presentation, I will suggest a few amendments to enhance the text and to reflect the current text, but I want to start by making a few simple points.

The United Nations declaration doesn't create any new rights. Neither does Bill C-262. These rights are inherent, and they're pre-existing. The UN declaration affirms indigenous peoples' human rights. What we're talking about now is realizing those rights, implementing those rights, and enforcing those rights, and finding a better way to work together so that we don't have to spend millions of dollars and waste years fighting in courts instead of advancing reconciliation. Closing the socio-economic gap for first nations and building a stronger economy and a better Canada for us all is what this means.

This bill is about working with first nations to realize existing rights. It's about working with us to establish the laws, policies, and practices needed to respect our rights and our status as self-determining peoples, replacing the laws, policies, and practices that have denied our rights for decades and have led to the socio-economic gap we are working to overcome today. This bill is reconciliation in action—real reconciliation—and this is where the rubber meets the road and actions replace words.

The chiefs in assembly have passed numerous resolutions calling on the Assembly of First Nations to work with Canada to advance the full implementation of the declaration. They support this legislation. They support the co-development of a national action plan, as required in this bill and by call to action number 44 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action, which Canada has pledged repeatedly to fulfill.

Prime Minister Trudeau, Minister Wilson-Raybould, and Parliamentary Secretary Yvonne Jones have all affirmed the government's support for Bill C-262.

Bill C-262 will provide momentum and a plan for implementing the UN declaration in Canada, working with first nations in an orderly and timely way. This is something that Canada has repeatedly committed itself to do under several UN resolutions, including the declaration itself.

Passing this bill will advance Canada, as well as first nations peoples, in many ways. It will implement key aspects of the TRC calls to action. It will see Canada move forward on existing international commitments regarding human rights. It will provide a framework for the federal government to work in partnership with first nations to ensure that Canada's laws, policies, and practices are revised to realize rights, recognize rights, and implement and enforce rights, rather than deny rights. Also, it will provide transparency and accountability for everyone by requiring an annual reporting to Parliament.

I want to spend a few minutes now to talk with you about free, prior, and informed consent. That seems to be a focus of concern, so I want to be very clear on that. I know that it's talked about federally and provincially and by industry, so I want to focus on that right up front.

FPIC—free, prior, and informed consent—was not created in the UN declaration. It was not created in this bill. It already exists in international law. It is an essential element of the right of all peoples, including indigenous peoples, to self-determination, which Canada has recognized for decades.

Consent is the essence of treaty-making between self-determining nations. First nations already have the right to participate in decisions that can affect our rights, property, cultures, and environment, and our capacity to exercise our right to self-determination.

We already have the right to determine our own priorities, and we cannot be denied our own means of subsistence. What's needed is a better process, one that is designed with first nations and involves our people from the start. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Free, prior, and informed consent exists around the world. There is already a lot of international jurisprudence to draw on.

A lot of people want to focus on that V-word, “veto”, but the word “veto” doesn't appear in the declaration. It isn't in this bill. The declaration acknowledges the interrelationships between the rights of all people and peoples. To those concerned about free, prior, and informed consent, I would say this: you simply cannot tell a people that they have no right to say no to what happens to them in their own territories.

Imagine a system where you can't say no. That's what we have had for more than a century under the Indian Act, and that's what has led us to this mess we're in today. First nations must be part of the regulatory processes and all the decision-making respecting anything that affects us.

Working with us to figure out what that looks like is not only unavoidable and not only the right thing to do, but it's the smart thing to do. It will lead to more balanced, fewer acrimonious and better decisions, fewer court battles, more timely decisions, and better outcomes for us all. If you want economic certainty and economic stability, embrace the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and embrace the support for Bill C-262 going forward.

First nations are already exercising our right to say yes and our right to say no in regard to major energy and natural resource projects. This is all part of the broader conversation that takes place every day between different governments about resource projects—federal governments, provincial governments, territorial governments, first nations governments, and municipal governments. We are already part of that national intergovernmental dialogue, but we have more work to do, and we'll continue to exercise our inherent jurisdiction, sovereignty, and treaty rights as equal partners, not as subservient or junior jurisdictions.

This committee will no doubt offer some comments to enhance Bill C-262 in light of recent developments. In closing, I'll leave behind some recommendations, and I'll touch briefly on them now.

In the preamble, the bill refers to “doctrines” of “superiority”. First, the AFN suggests specifically naming the doctrines of discovery and terra nullius. The text could read as follows:

Whereas all doctrines, including discovery and terra nullius, and all policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.

We also suggest some additional paragraphs in the preamble. Canada has repeated four principles to guide the approach to working with first nations: recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. Including those principles in this law would be a welcome addition to this bill. I also suggest that there is a value in highlighting the importance of treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements.

My suggestion for additional text for the preamble is already in the leave-behinds you have. It reads:

Whereas Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to relationships with Indigenous peoples that are based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership, which are essential elements in Canada's constitutional framework and international human rights law;

Whereas the standard of Crown conduct in all actions, including government litigation strategies, must be consistent with these elements; and

Whereas treaties...and other constructive arrangements, and the relationship they represent, are the basis for a strengthened partnership between Indigenous peoples and States.

I just note that this last proposal on treaties is already affirmed in the 15th preambular paragraph in the UN declaration.

Finally, I want to hold up and acknowledge Member of Parliament Romeo Saganash for his long-standing commitment both to the declaration and to ensuring federal legislation is brought forward.

I also wish to acknowledge first nations leadership and advocates over the past three decades, who have helped to bring us to this point: Grand Chief Willie Littlechild, Mr. Kenneth Deer, and Grand Chief Ed John. They're just a few of the many who have worked for decades to advance the declaration.

Passing this bill and implementing the declaration will build a stronger country for us all. It will advance reconciliation between Canada and first nations, and it will help to close the socio-economic gaps in the quality of life between first nations and the rest of Canada.

This legislation is something that every member of the House should support. I want to read something for you very quickly. In a very historic address to the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly on September 21, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau acknowledged the failure of Canada to fully respect the rights of indigenous peoples, and acknowledged that the UN declaration is not merely an aspirational document. He said:

We now have before us an opportunity to deliver true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation between Canada and First Nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit peoples.

And as we embark upon that process of reconciliation, we are guided by the minimum standards adopted here, in this chamber, ten years ago this month.

I know that Canada has a complicated history with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We actively campaigned and voted against it, then endorsed it in the most half-hearted way possible, calling it an “aspirational document.”

The Declaration is not an aspirational document. It means much more than that to the Indigenous Peoples and others who worked so hard, for so long, to bring the Declaration to life.

In the words of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Declaration provides “the necessary principles, norms, and standards for reconciliation to flourish in twenty-first-century Canada.”

That's not an aspiration. That's a way forward.

Now I'll take your questions. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

This is meeting 100 of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs of the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. We're talking about UNDRIP and, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 7, 2018, 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.

Before we get started, we recognize that we're on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people here in Ottawa. We are in a process in Canada of coming to terms with the truth and moving in reconciliation.

It's our great honour to have the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations in front of us today.

We welcome you. You'll have 10 minutes to present and then we'll move into questioning.

Excuse me. Before I open the floor to you, I see that we have maybe a bit of business to conduct.

MP Anandasangaree.

[Natan Obed]

I want to thank member of Parliament Saganash for his leadership in the development of Bill C-262. Inuit were approached and have been consulted over time by the member of Parliament. We didn't develop this in partnership. There was no formal structure in the way in which the bill was drafted. At the same time, there was no discussion and consultation with this current government when the justice minister decided to endorse Bill C-262 as well.

Over time, we have reserved comment and have been generally supportive of legislation within this country for the implementation of the declaration in Canada, but now is the time when we are asserting ourselves. It started with our position paper in 2017. We continue to try to shepherd through any positive mechanism that helps with the implementation of our rights in this country.

I apologize; what was the second part of your question?

[Natan Obed]

We draw on our rights in different ways, and the United Nations declaration is but one of a number of different ways in which we create our rights-based standing within this country, and it is a welcome conversation for Canada to be a leader within the declaration implementation in a global setting.

You can't go to another country and see a road map of successful implementation of this declaration, especially thinking of and wrangling with constitutional and legislative structures. The worry that we have as Inuit is if Bill C-262 is more symbolic than structural, then it allows for the Government of Canada to restructure its obligations to the Inuit into a different stream.

If an action plan is created and compliance with the action plan is developed by the government, there is no obligation for indigenous people to play a role in that, and the definition of success then changes.

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

The bill was drafted purposely to be the minimum legislative framework in this country, and you talked a lot about the other issues that could improve this bill and other improvements.

Does this bill in any way hinder your own processes that you have established with the crown? Should the improvements that you talk about be incorporated in Bill C-262, or in another framework that the Prime Minister has talked about recently, the reconciliation framework? I'm not sure if it's going to take the form of legislation or policy. I haven't been told, but where should these other improvements that you talk about—and I totally agree with them—be incorporated?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to our guests today. Thank you for that thorough and very principled presentation. It was a pretty good overall view of Canada's international obligations, UNDRIP, and so on and so forth.

I want to ask a very simple question. Clause 2(2) of Bill C-262 says that the bill should not be interpreted as delaying the application of the UN declaration in Canadian law. Clause 3 talks about the UN declaration being an international human rights law instrument that already has application in Canadian law.

Do you agree with that?

[Natan Obed]

The reason we are here today and talking about Bill C-262, the importance of linking international law and its effect, and the obligation of the government of Canada to implement, I believe, goes beyond one government. It is a behaviour that needs to be unlearned, in that there is a call and response—a cause and effect, if you will—for the obligations that Canada has under international law and the way in which it must act within this country.

As you're categorizing it as a broader issue, I would say we are working with this government to ensure that we give them the specific steps they need to take to satisfy the partnership or the respect for indigenous people by allowing for self-determination within the decisions that are made. Whether it's legislation regarding marijuana or whether it's the implementation of the United Nations declaration, there is a road map. Our position paper, especially for Bill C-262, gives very clear direction, and it would be great to follow that road together.

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Nakurmiik.

Thank you very much. It's good to see all of you. I've become a bit of a regular, and it's always nice to be able to have conversations about important indigenous issues such as Bill C-262.

I grew up in an indigenous rights or Inuit rights household. My father went away to work on the repatriation of the Constitution and worked on land claims negotiations for a number of years. The idea of the United Nations declaration and the time that it has taken not only for it to go through the UN processes but then also for Canada to adopt it, still falls generally within my lifetime of a little over 40 years.

I want to start with that, the idea that it has taken over 30 years to develop the declaration. It represented the first time that indigenous peoples worked with states to develop an international instrument. After the declaration was passed by the General Assembly, it took almost 10 more years for Canada to offer an unqualified endorsement of the declaration. Even then, we could interpret this endorsement as including the qualification that the declaration should be interpreted through the lens of Canada's Constitution.

The declaration represents an international consensus regarding the minimum standards of treatment of indigenous peoples as human beings. It's an articulation of the existing minimum standards of treatment of indigenous peoples under international human rights law. The purpose of international human rights law is to ensure that all persons and all peoples do not experience atrocities, are treated with dignity, and may live in societies free of discrimination.

One of the reasons for the declaration is that international human rights law did not adequately protect the rights of indigenous peoples due to our close connections to our homelands, a global legacy of colonialism and genocide, and the collective nature of many of our rights. The point is, the declaration is not a gold standard or a ceiling; rather, it's a minimum standard to avoid genocide and to ensure our dignity as human beings.

International human rights instruments such as the declaration are meant to ensure the protection of indigenous peoples from state conduct that might violate their rights. Failing to address economic, social, and cultural rights as rights means that the socio-economic gap between Inuit and non-Inuit will continue to grow.

The declaration is not a policy instrument. The UN declaration is an articulation of international law standards, which are binding on Canada under international law and which apply to indigenous peoples. It's not aspirational in its list of objectives linked to reconciliation. It actually has the force of law.

Compliance with Canada's international obligations means more than changing program criteria or operational practices in one or two federal departments. Canada's Constitution must be interpreted consistent with the declaration, and not vice versa. This includes section 35 of the Constitution, as well as the constitutional division of powers. They're not valid limits in the implementation of the declaration.

This government talked about section 35 and a “full box of rights” concept when the Canadian government adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. From a very practical, logical standpoint, Inuit would understand, then, that the Constitution would have to be opened up, that we would actually have to place the declaration inside of the Canadian Constitution in order to have the recourse and the restitution that usually accompanies rights.

In the absence of restitution or recourse for violations of our indigenous rights, we still would have to depend upon the courts and upon Supreme Court rulings in order to continue the slow path towards fully understanding how to assert our rights in Canada, rights that the Canadian government does not create and that exist in international law and for indigenous peoples. It would be inconsistent with the nature and character of the declaration or any other human rights to suppress and deny them whenever a country deems compliance to be inconvenient.

The enforcement of human rights involves restraining the conduct of a state. Through this lens, it doesn't make sense to propose requesting the state report to itself on compliance with its own international human rights obligations. Independent oversight is essentially important to the success of Bill C-262. For example, statutory human rights mechanisms across this country are responsible for promoting and enforcing human rights rather than government departments.

Last year we produced two discussion papers on the implementation of the UN declaration. Among other things, these two papers called for a comprehensive legislative approach for implementation and outlined what we consider to be comprehensive.

First, when it comes to understanding an instrument such as the declaration, it's critical to recognize that the rights contained in the declaration are interrelated, interdependent, indivisible, and interconnected. It's not helpful to attempt to approach implementation of the declaration by examining individual articles as specific obligations. In our experience, such an approach leads to very narrow interpretations of the obligations and serves to hinder implementation rather than facilitate it.

Second, many of the standards articulated in the declaration implicate the constitutional division of powers. The federal government has several policy levers that it can use in order to encourage implementation of the declaration sub-nationally, ranging from reporting on implementation in provinces and territories to using the federal spending power to link implementation of the declaration to transfers to provinces and territories. The mere existence of a constitutional division of powers is no excuse to ignore the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples.

Third, a comprehensive scheme for implementation requires a means of seeking redress for alleged violations to the declaration. If the declaration articulates the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples, then we ask, what is a right without a remedy? ITK has proposed the development of a national indigenous human rights institution operating consistent with the Paris principles to accomplish this. The 1993 Paris principles provide the international benchmarks against which national human rights institutions can be accredited by the the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.

Finally, reporting on implementation must be done by an independent party. Those who are tasked with implementing the declaration should not also evaluate their own success.

We note that you have already heard from many who recognize that Bill C-262 alone will not accomplish the full implementation of the United Nations declaration. Others have referred to the need for additional reforms, policies, and operational practices. For ITK, full implementation of the declaration requires a comprehensive approach. We would seek to improve Bill C-262 in order to ensure that the legislation fills gaps that cannot easily be accomplished through changes to policies, programs, or operational practices.

I think of language rights in this country and how they have evolved over time. I especially think of the francophone language rights, and I think of francophone language rights being articulated in a complex, overarching, rights-based framework in this country. Even minority francophone populations have the right to go to school and to have school boards within those specific spaces. They have the right to government services in the French language. These are very practical things.

For indigenous peoples, especially in relation to Inuktut, our language, we have rights that are articulated through the United Nations declaration. We now have a government that has pledged to implement those rights, but you cannot compare the implementation of the rights for indigenous languages in this country to the implementation of francophone rights for language in this country.

We want to get to that same space, and the mechanisms and the legislation that we create and the way in which we use the Constitution, federal legislation, and then mechanisms within the provinces and territories will hopefully one day get us to that space where we have the same ability to exercise our rights as other ethnicities do in this country to exercise theirs.

I give that as an example because I think it is a practical one and one that completely overlaps with the way that you can think about Bill C-262 versus the way that you might think about your own place in this country and the rights that you hold.

Nakurmiik.

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

I want you to comment on something. I think you clearly understand the purpose of Bill C-262 as a vehicle or as a framework for the future development of policies and legislation. I'm glad you raised that. Can you imagine or give us an example of how it would work, once this bill is in place, with regard to the future development of any legislation or any policy that you have in mind?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both of you for your presence today. It's very well appreciated. Your comments are extremely important for our work on this proposed legislation. I wholeheartedly agree that this Bill C-262 is important for reconciliation, as you said, Brenda, and critical as well.

I believe that, because there is no precedent around the world for this kind of legislation, it is a framework legislation. There is no precedent. In that sense, it will allow Canada to, as you said, come back to the forefront in the protection of and respect for indigenous peoples' fundamental rights. Thank you to both of you for your comments.

I want to start with you, Brenda. You spoke about this bill and its provision on periodic reporting. That provision comes from previous federal legislation that was adopted back in 1976, I believe. For the implementation act of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, we had a similar provision. For the next 25 years, the minister had to report to Parliament.

Do you see a difference between this periodic reporting that's provided for in Bill C-262 and the kind of periodic reporting that Canada has to do with respect to its international obligations?

[Professor Brenda Gunn, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, so much, for having me here today. I am really excited to be here, both to speak about something that I spent a lot of time thinking about, which is the role of the UN declaration in promoting reconciliation in Canada, and also, particularly today of course, the bill before this committee.

I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional territory. I thank the Algonquins for their hospitality and for allowing us to be here. I recognize that this is unceded territory.

I also want to acknowledge a couple of the committee members. I already spoke briefly with the chair. That is the riding I grew up in, so it's very nice to meet her. I would also like to acknowledge member Saganash, who has worked so hard on these issues, both internationally and domestically.

Thank you for your work and for having me here.

I would be remiss not to acknowledge Will Amos. We worked briefly together at Ecojustice, a dog's age ago. I think I was articling and you were just starting at Ottawa, so it's very nice to see you as well.

My name is Brenda Gunn. I am a Métis woman from the Red River. I am an Associate Professor at the University of Manitoba, and I work in both international and constitutional law. I have developed a handbook on implementing the UN declaration, and I've done presentations all over the country and internationally about what the UN declaration means for us in Canada.

I'd like to commend this government for the strong commitment that it has made toward indigenous peoples, including the commitment to implement the UN declaration. I thought I would start today by explaining why I see the UN declaration as being important for reconciliation in Canada and then talk about why I think this bill is so important in its implementation.

When you read the preamble, you see a very compelling story being told, particularly one that's significant in Canada. That is, in 2007, the UN finally recognized indigenous peoples to be peoples and part of the family of the world. We were no longer these “fierce savages whose occupation was war”, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall in the Marshall trilogy, which continue to impact Canadian law today. We are now peoples with all the rights that come with that.

We're also indigenous, and we have a right to be indigenous. We have a recognized right to our collective identities, and there's a recognition that sometimes special measures may be necessary in order to protect our inherent rights. The UN declaration recognizes that colonization occurred and that it has a negative impact on indigenous peoples, in particular, through the dispossession of their lands, territories, and natural resources.

The UN declaration continues to state that the UN is convinced that the path forward requires resetting the relationship between indigenous peoples and Canada through recognizing and protecting indigenous peoples' inherent rights. Contrary to the opinion of some that recognizing special rights for special people would tear Canada apart, the UN declaration is clear that full and robust protection of indigenous peoples' rights will actually enhance harmonious relations between indigenous peoples and Canada.

The UN declaration explains that it is the denial of indigenous peoples' rights that is the cause of the current divisions between indigenous peoples and the rest of Canadians. If we want to reconcile in Canada, that means we have to shift the relationship, forming a new relationship based on the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination, and good faith. Doing so shifts the relationship from a colonial one, where Canada has control over all aspects of indigenous peoples' lives, to one where indigenous peoples freely determine their own futures and are actively involved in all decisions that specifically impact their rights.

When you look through the UN declaration, the substantive rights, one of the key areas is that it recognizes that economic, social, and cultural rights in areas such as language rights, education, health care, housing, and economic development, are critical to the exercise of civil and political rights. There is no hierarchy of rights.

I think the bill before you today is an important step towards implementing the UN declaration in Canada, and it can put this government's words on reconciliation into action because of the way in which it clarifies that the UN declaration applies in Canada, requires a review of laws for consistency, and sets out the need to develop a national action plan and the expectation of periodic reporting.

In my reflection for today's comments, I was thinking about the way in which Canada really led the way on the recognition and affirmation of indigenous peoples' rights when it protected indigenous rights in the Constitution 35 years ago. But unfortunately, Canada no longer leads the world on indigenous rights protection. However, through Bill C-262, Canada can again come back to the forefront of indigenous rights protection. Implementing the UN declaration is also key to fulfilling Canada's international human rights obligations.

One of the challenges I've seen in my work on implementing the UN declaration is the general lack of understanding of how international law applies in Canada.

While the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence is clear that declarations such as the UN declaration can and should be used to interpret domestic laws, including our Constitution, there has been hesitance by lawyers and judges to rely on the UN declaration in interpreting domestic law, mostly, I think, due to the lack of understanding of the role of international law domestically.

I think this bill is critical to overcoming the reticence and ignorance of many in the legal field on the relevance of the UN declaration in interpreting Canadian laws, including the Constitution.

This process of interpreting Canadian law in line with Canada's international human rights obligations may occur through court processes, but it can also occur through general legislative and policy reviews and the taking of necessary amendments, as well as through negotiation. It's important to remember that law is not static, not international human rights law and not Canadian constitutional law.

We often say our Constitution is a living tree, with strong roots and an ability to grow and adapt to circumstances. I think the UN declaration is key to helping our Constitution grow and adapt to the changing circumstances in the Canadian context. The presumption of conformity, where domestic laws are interpreted in line with Canada's international human rights obligations, is a well-established principle. More importantly, I think that through this bill, we can also allow Canada to implement its international human rights obligations owed to other nation-states.

Interpreting the Canadian Constitution in light of the UN declaration is also really important because of the fact that Canada, when it goes to international human rights bodies, often points to the Canadian Constitution as something in which it has implemented its international human rights obligations. By using the UN declaration to interpret the Canadian Constitution, we both advance reconciliation in Canada and can help Canada implement its international human rights obligations.

I want to thank the committee for its time this afternoon. I look forward to your questions.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I know that Bill C-262 deals with the legislative piece, the laws of the land, but we're trying to also look at how we expand it around policy and program implementation as well. Can you maybe talk to that, as to how receptive that is, to just the different stages at which different communities and nations are moving in this direction, and to how we can help them move there more quickly?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Minister, as always, it's a pleasure to have you here today. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your incredibly busy schedule to visit with us, and for your speech and your statements.

Last month, the Prime Minister delivered a speech to Parliament in which he announced that the Government of Canada will develop in full partnership with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples a recognition and implementation of rights framework. He made it clear that while the results of consultations with indigenous people will guide what the final framework will look like, the government believes it should include new legislation and policy that will make the recognition and implementation of rights the basis for all relations between indigenous peoples and the federal government. Budget 2018 has significant investments targeted at moving towards a recognition of rights framework and building capacity for indigenous self-determination.

Sorry for the long preamble, but in terms of questions, can you update us on how the consultations are going in regard to the recognition and implementation and that work?

As you noted in your remarks, the committee is currently studying Bill C-262, which seeks to ensure that federal laws are in harmony with UNDRIP. In your opinion, is that bill consistent with the government's new approach to rights recognition and self-determination? How can we expand upon Bill C-262 to capture all of that?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for your warm invitation to this meeting, which we are holding on the traditional territory of the aboriginal peoples, on this International Day of the Francophonie.

Before we begin, Madam Chair, we want to thank you for the recent report on indigenous land rights, which you tabled yesterday. As you know, this is very relevant to the ongoing discussions we're having with first nations to identify fair and practical measures to improve the claims process.

We are currently reviewing the committee's recommendations to help inform our efforts to reform our approach to claims.

I can already point to the fact that, as recommended in your report, the government will be replacing the use of loans with non-payable contributions to fund indigenous participation on the negotiation of modern treaties and specific claims, which was in the budget.

More broadly, our government is committed to creating a new recognition and implementation of rights framework, which is currently being codeveloped through a national engagement. Your report is extremely helpful in the context of the new recognition and implementation of rights that was announced by the Prime Minister on February 14.

Also, in terms of your ongoing study of Bill C-262, we are also wanting to ensure that federal laws are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so it's all very timely. As you know, the government is supporting this bill, and we believe that the comprehensive study that you're undertaking will also inform this broader work on rights recognition and implementation.

I'm appearing today to discuss crown-indigenous relations and northern affairs, lovingly now referred to as CIRNA, our supplementary estimates (C), and, for the first time, the interim main estimates.

These estimates (C) show a net decrease of approximately $46 million, which reflects $63 million in net transfers of existing funding to the new Department of Indigenous Services.

We know that relationships built on colonial structures have contributed to unacceptable socioeconomic gaps.

That is why, in August of last year, the Prime Minister announced the dissolution of INAC, as recommended in RCAP 21 years ago, to create two new departments, Indigenous Services Canada and CIRNA, so following the order in council last fall, there was a transfer of resources from our department to create the Department of Indigenous Services Canada.

The final structure of these two new departments will be determined in partnership with indigenous people, and we've been meeting with our partners from coast to coast to coast about how, as they say in architecture, form follows function, and how we can make sure there is a distinctions-based approach in design and processes of these two new departments.

Together, we will chart a path forward that advances reconciliation and builds a stronger future for indigenous people and all Canadians alike.

Supplementary estimates (C) also includes new funding of approximately $17 million for initiatives, including the Canadian heritage rivers Inuit impact and benefit agreement, the Nunavut devolution agreement-in-principle, the Anishinabek nation education agreement, and indigenous tourism.

I would be happy to discuss these important investments in more detail during the question and answer period.

Supplementary estimates (C) also re-profiles approximately $600,000 of the nutrition north program funding to this year, which is less than 1% of the annual budget. This is related to our government's investment of $65 million over five years to expand nutrition north Canada food subsidies to 37 additional communities. Re-profiling this money will ensure this funding is preserved for our government's ongoing support for northern families to have affordable, healthy, culturally relevant foods; however, we know much more needs to be done. That's why the government is also continuing to work in partnership with northerners to overhaul the program to ensure it better reflects the needs of northerners.

Our appearance today is in the context of an evolving estimates process, as our government moves to increase transparency and modernize how estimates are presented and approved. Parliament recently approved a change in the main estimates approach in which the 2018-19 main estimates will be divided into two distinct exercises: interim estimates and main estimates. The interim estimates will provide the department with funding for the first three months of the fiscal year, while main estimates will provide the remaining funding for the entire fiscal year as well as incorporate some budget 2018 approvals.

This will better align the federal budget and the main estimates.

I am pleased that we are able to review these documents in the context of Budget 2018 investments. This will allow for a much more comprehensive discussion about my department's planned spending in the coming year.

Budget 2018 invests an additional $5 billion over five years to close significant socio-economic gaps, move towards recognition of rights, and build capacity for indigenous self-determination.

This is our government's third budget. I believe it's important to highlight that it builds upon the historic investments of $8.4 billion in budget 2016 and $3.4 billion in budget 2017, for a total commitment to date of almost $17 billion of additional funding for the priorities of indigenous peoples, a commitment recognized by our partners.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde commented on budget 2018 saying, “the long-term investments in First Nations governments and infrastructure sets a strong foundation for re-building our nations.”

Manitoba Metis Federation President Chartrand said that budget 2018 “finally addresses the needs and aspirations of the Métis Nation.”

The president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Natan Obed, characterized budget 2018 by saying, “That is a game changer, if you will, for self determination.”

Budget 2018 outlines new steps the government will take to increase the number of modern treaties and self-determination agreements in the context of a recognition of rights approach.

This is at the core of my mandate.

Since 2015, approximately 60 discussions on the recognition of indigenous rights and self-determination have been launched with over 320 communities—a total of over 700,000 indigenous peoples.

To date, 19 negotiated agreements have been codeveloped and signed through the discussion process, and others will follow in the coming months.

Budget 2018 commits $51.5 million over two years to support these discussions and the codevelopment of agreements that advance a recognition and implementation of rights approach.

Budget 2018 will also help nations rebuild and accelerate self-determination and self-government with investments, including $105 million over five years to support the capacity-building efforts of indigenous groups that are seeking to rebuild their nations in a manner that responds to the unique needs and priorities of their communities; and $74.9 million over five years to provide permanent funding to support the permanent bilateral mechanisms with first nations, Inuit, and the Métis Nation.

These sustained investments over multiple budgets confirm our government's ongoing commitment to reconciliation and to renewing Canada's relationship with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples.

I look forward to discussing these issues with you and welcome your questions.

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.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to get right to it because with my past experience in the committees I sit on and caucuses, I'm very happy about this whole process. Not only with UNDRIP and setting the culture and setting the principles as the PM has done in the past year or so, if not longer, but also with Mr. Saganash with the direction he's taken with his private member's bill C-262. I want to congratulate him for that because it does accelerate the process, as was mentioned earlier.

Having said that, now it's time to accelerate the process, to look at education, which I think is first and foremost. When I say education, I don't mean education of the indigenous community, I mean educating us, government and the general public: understanding, establishing, pursuing, and then of course recognizing the outcomes.

The second part of that is putting strategies, the blueprint, in place. How we're going to operate, move forward nation-to-nation, and with that, establishing that strategy, the objectives, the action plans attached to those objectives and then of course most importantly, executing those action plans. Third, as you mentioned earlier, is the alignment based on that culture.

We have the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Transport, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Justice. Who is going to facilitate the strategy and therefore establish the outcomes, attach the action plans, and then execute them? We know at the upper levels of government—federal, provincial and territorial—that sometimes things go awry because there's no intergovernmental facilitation.

This is the most important part, establishing that success, and of course the ultimate outcomes. Who is going to facilitate it? The next step is the blueprint, the strategy. Who is going to be the steward? Therefore having this become a reality versus just a culture.

That question is to all of you. Good luck.

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

I asked the question, because the government now accepts the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. One of the calls to action is to make sure that indigenous people get the legal opinions that governments ask for when it comes to their rights and interests. That's the reason I asked that.

I want to go a bit to free, prior, and informed consent. I think this is an important discussion with respect to Bill C-262, but also to UNDRIP.

Genevieve, I think you mentioned how you're trying to work together with indigenous people in order to get, as you said, the better outcome for different projects. Engaging with them early is also a principle that you expressed.

Is your department or the other departments aware of the human rights committee? Under the human rights committee, there's an expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous people. It did a study in 2011 or 2012 on exactly that question of free, prior, and informed consent.

Have you taken the time to read the study?

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

Did you get it for Bill C-262?

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

I'm asking all three of them, because this bill has an impact on natural resources, on fisheries and oceans, and on the environment. I imagine that all three departments have asked for a legal opinion on the impacts of Bill C-262.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses.

I think a lot of the purposes and objectives of Bill C-262 have a potential of impacting all of your departments, and I'm glad to have you here today.

One of the simple questions I would start with is that I wonder if any of your departments have sought or obtained a legal opinion on Bill C-262 and how it would impact your work.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Bill C-262 has not passed into law yet. We are on that way. It looks like the government's going to support it, I assume without amendment.

When it does pass, say a year from now, what changes for your department? Are you planning that difference? How is your department going to function differently after this particular bill passes into law?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Bill C-262 has a focus on ensuring that there's an alignment between UNDRIP and Canadian laws, but comments had been made that we should also be looking at policies and operational practices being a part of that.

The previous panel had said that they already do embed that into their forward-looking policies and operational practices. It sounds like in your presentation you had emphasized that specifically.

Is that really now the basis of everything that you do, that that's how we ensure that a whole-of-government approach is actually taken to ensuring that we're aligning with UNDRIP?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you all so much for being here today. They were great presentations.

The panel members talked a lot about how UNDRIP would serve as an interpretation tool that the courts would use to interpret Canadian law and how the different departments were also using it as a tool to interpret how Canadian laws would be developed moving forward. In looking at that, and now looking at it through the lens of FPIC in the same fashion, it's such a complex issue. You can't interpret it, as has been indicated by the other side, in a black-and-white, simplistic, yes-or-no interpretation. As our colleague who formed this legislation, Bill C-262, had said, the rights of one group do not abrogate the rights of another, so we must take a different approach in looking at FPIC.

I would say that, based on your presentations, it seems like you are taking this type of an approach, and I would like to expand. When you're looking at the development of a project, do you approach it in this similar fashion? If there are disputes that arise, you use dispute resolution mechanisms or finally, ultimately, the courts. Would you care to comment further on that?

[Genevieve Carr, Acting Director General, Indigenous Policy and Coordination, Department of Natural Resources]

Good afternoon, and thank you for your attention.

I, like my colleagues, wish to acknowledge that we are meeting today on unceded Algonquin territory.

Thank you for the invitation to speak today to support your study of Bill C-262.

My name is Genevieve Carr. I am the acting director general of indigenous policy and coordination, a new unit in the Department of Natural Resources, which reports directly to the deputy minister and which was formed to support efforts to foster reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples.

I wish to acknowledge my colleague, who has joined me today, Mr. Terry Hubbard, who is the director general of the petroleum resources branch in the energy sector of Natural Resources Canada.

My remarks today will focus on some the areas where Natural Resources Canada is working to proactively ensure that our policies, programs and legislation align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

My department is transforming its internal operations and culture, reviewing its policies and practices, and working across government to align with the principles, norms and standards of the United Nations Declaration.

We support Minister Carr—I should note there is no relation, despite our shared last name—in his role as a member of the Working Group of Ministers on the Review of Laws and Policies Related to Indigenous Peoples. We work closely with our colleagues across government to support horizontal engagement and policy initiatives, such as the permanent bilateral mechanisms established with national Inuit, first nations, and Métis organizations, federal responses to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, and the recently launched engagement of a recognition and implementation of rights framework.

We are also advancing corporate change within our organization to increase cultural competencies of all staff within the department, and we are helping to transform the department so that it can become an employer of choice for indigenous Canadians.

Natural Resources Canada is changing how we work and partner with indigenous peoples, placing emphasis on creating lasting relationships that respect and recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. Examples include the department's Generation Energy dialogue on the shift to a low-carbon future, which was heavily shaped by its engagement with and perspective of indigenous peoples from across Canada.

This engagement is ongoing as the vision that grew from Generation Energy moves to being implemented. NRCan is driving inclusion of indigenous leadership in federal, provincial, and territorial fora, such as the Energy and Mines Ministers' Conference, and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, as well as international trade delegations to facilitate with jurisdictions that control many of the levers for resource development. The geo-mapping for energy and minerals program is another example that has allocated close to $1 million to northern indigenous organizations to develop tools and capacity to integrate science knowledge into decision-making by northerners, for northerners.

Natural Resources Canada is also taking measures to support self-determination through full and fair opportunities to indigenous peoples to participate in the natural resources economy. Some examples include the establishment of an economic pathways partnership to make it easier for indigenous groups potentially impacted by major pipeline projects to access existing federal programs, and help support job training and business opportunities. The indigenous forestry initiative supports forest-based indigenous economic development across Canada. This year it will provide over $2.5 million to indigenous communities and organizations for capacity and business development. The IFI is exploring options to move toward a shared governance model with indigenous peoples.

The green jobs science and technology internship program is starting to take action to target career-stream jobs for indigenous youth, recognizing the importance of opportunities for indigenous youth employment in the natural resources sector.

The interim approach for major project reviews allowed my department to enhance public and indigenous participation in projects undergoing reviews by the National Energy Board. As part of the interim approach, Minister Carr appointed a three-person panel, one member of which was indigenous, specifically to create opportunities to share views not already heard by government on the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline project. Enhanced indigenous engagement through the review process led to an $86-million federal investment to establish and co-develop two indigenous advisory and monitoring committees for National Energy Board-regulated pipelines. These committees are now actively working with the National Energy Board as projects move to construction. They're an important example of how co-development can advance shared goals of safety and protection of environmental and indigenous interests for federally regulated projects.

Lastly, my department is changing laws and policies to entrench a new way of doing business, both for government and for the private sector that has an interest in developing Canada's resources. The active participation of first nations, Inuit, and Métis organizations and communities from across Canada was key to our efforts to modernize the National Energy Board, given concerns around the nature and process of indigenous peoples' participation in the regulation of pipelines under federal jurisdiction.

To note, two of the five members of the NEB modernization expert panel were indigenous. Appointed by Minister Carr, the Minister of Natural Resources, the panel was tasked with conducting a targeted review of the board's structure, role, and mandate. Natural Resources Canada provided a total of $4 million in participant funding to 157 indigenous groups over a two-year period, to provide capacity for those groups to participate in the NEB modernization review.

Our experiences through the interim period, and the lessons learned through the NEB modernization process, were critical to shaping the proposal for a new Canadian energy regulator that was tabled as part of Bill C-69 last month in Parliament. The Canadian energy regulator, CER, will help oversee a strong, safe, and sustainable Canadian energy sector as we transition to a low-carbon economy. The regulator will conduct reviews that are more open, accessible, inclusive, and transparent. This will give communities and indigenous peoples a greater voice in their future.

I have provided a brief overview of some of the work my department is undertaking to align with the United Nations Declaration and have focused my remarks on: internal corporate changes and support to whole-of-government priorities; changes in how we partner externally to build meaningful relationships and create space for full and fair access to economic opportunities; the application of lessons and experiences from the last two years to propose new legislation for energy regulation in Canada.

This government set a new path for its relationship with its indigenous peoples in Canada, and our work is not done. We will continue to work closely with other departments on programs, policies, and initiatives that are aligned with the key principles of the declaration. We will also continue to support self-determination and engagement through programming that develops the capacity of indigenous peoples to participate in the natural resources sector and leverage that wealth creation to support their own priorities. We will continue to work closely with indigenous peoples to advance policies, programs, and regulations, including approaches to consider and protect indigenous knowledge in federally regulated energy project reviews; outline expectations for early engagement, planning, and roles for monitoring and oversight; enter into collaboration agreements on project reviews; and ensure we have appropriate indigenous representation on boards and panels.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Robert Lamirande, Director General, Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I would also like to acknowledge our presence on the unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples.

I would like to thank the chair, vice-chairs, and committee members for the invitation to speak to you today to support your study of Bill C-262 and for the opportunity to elaborate on the suite of programs, policies, and legislative initiatives under the purview of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard that have made and will continue to make advances toward reconciliation with the indigenous peoples of Canada.

I am Robert Lamirande, the director of indigenous affairs and reconciliation directorate at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I would like to introduce my colleague, Marc Sanderson, acting director general, national strategies of the Canadian Coast Guard.

My directorate is responsible for providing policy advice on indigenous fishing and other matters toward advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples; negotiating and implementing program, treaty, and other constructive agreements on Fisheries and Oceans management; promoting fisheries related economic opportunities through programming to support indigenous capacity to fish safely and effectively; and building relationships and partnerships with indigenous communities through effective engagements, which we do hand in hand with the national strategies directorate of the Canadian Coast Guard.

We do this work because the sustainable use of the fishery resource, the protection of fish and fish habitat, the conservation and management of our oceans, and the safety of those on the water are a priority for the department—a priority held in common with indigenous communities.

And because Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard have presence in many coastal and rural communities across Canada, we have worked hard with indigenous communities and groups to collaborate and partner on all aspects of our operations. These relationships are comprehensive, complex and dynamic. They are adaptive to the capacity of each indigenous community or group to participate in economic opportunities and in co-management.

We are now on a clearer path to a renewed, nation-to-nation, crown-Inuit, and government-to-government relationship, one that builds on the relationships and partnerships developed over the past decades. These relationships with indigenous communities are the touchpoints through which we will collaborate to articulate what reconciliation means in the context of Minister LeBlanc's portfolio.

This includes those changes to programs, policies, and laws necessary to demonstrate that we are moving to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This commitment to reconciliation is guided by the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. These principles, as you know, are themselves guided by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples.

I want to highlight for you how Fisheries and Oceans Canada has worked in collaboration and in partnership with many indigenous communities. Through the innovative and successful Atlantic and Pacific integrated commercial fisheries initiatives, Fisheries and Oceans Canada provides commercial fisheries access, business management capacity, and training needed to build self-sustaining, indigenous-owned and operated commercial fishing enterprises.

Through the aboriginal fisheries strategy and the aboriginal aquatic resource and oceans management programs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada helps indigenous groups acquire the scientific and technical capacity, means, and training to meaningfully participate in fisheries, oceans, and habitat collaborative management, including employing aboriginal fisheries guardians.

Budget 2017, a year ago, has taken these programs a major step forward, investing over $250 million over five years and $62 million ongoing annually. This includes ongoing funding for the Atlantic and Pacific integrated fisheries initiatives and northern expansion through a new northern integrated commercial fisheries initiative.

As we embark on the renewal of these programs, we are also undertaking a review to see where and how these programs can be strengthened in collaboration with the National Indigenous Fisheries Institute, a technical organization established in May 2017 whose board is made up of experts from national and regional indigenous organizations. The institute is enabling the co-development, co-design, and co-delivery of our indigenous programs.

However, working collaboratively and in partnership with indigenous communities is not focused solely on fisheries.

The Oceans Protection Plan, for example, is enabling indigenous communities and groups to meaningfully participate and partner in Canada's marine safety system, from waterways management to emergency preparedness and response.

We are working with indigenous communities and partners to create a new indigenous chapter of the Coast Guard Auxiliary in British Columbia. And discussions with other indigenous communities are exploring opportunities to establish additional auxiliary units in the Arctic and in British Columbia to bolster responses to emergencies and pollution incidents.

A national strategy on abandoned and wrecked vessels will build an inventory of the problem vessels, and a risk assessment methodology. Indigenous communities will be invited to participate in these assessments and to help prioritize interventions.

Through engagement with indigenous communities in British Columbia, the Canadian Coast Guard has launched an environmental response officer recruitment program. We are also nearing completion of a process to recruit Inuit students for a new rescue boat station in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut.

Ongoing training programs across the country will provide participants with the knowledge, skills, and hands-on experience to enable them to play a greater role in marine safety in their communities in a safe and effective manner.

As you know, reconciliation also means self-determination of indigenous communities often but not exclusively through negotiation and implementation of treaties. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is participating in over 40 active rights reconciliation self-government negotiations with indigenous communities on fisheries and oceans matters.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is also making systemic changes to better enable collaborative partnerships with indigenous peoples, and we have done so through important proposed legislative changes: Bill C-55, An act to amend the Oceans Act ; Bill C-64, An act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels; and Bill C-68, An act to amend the Fisheries Act. Proposed amendments to the Oceans Act will strengthen, among other things, the ability to designate marine protected areas on an interim basis and, as with all marine protected area designations, partnering with indigenous communities is the foundation for the successful protection of these unique aquatic ecosystems.

The proposed Wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act, under the Minister of Transport, with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, would enable, among other things, agreements with a government, council, or other entity authorized to act on behalf of an indigenous group to exercise the powers and perform certain duties or functions of the minister.

The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act and the programs enabled by these changes include certain amendments specifically aimed at advancing reconciliation, including new tools to enhance opportunities for partnering with indigenous peoples in the conservation and protection of fish, fish habitats, and shorelines; and amended provisions to enable agreements with indigenous governing bodies and any body, including a co-management body, established under a land claims agreement, to further the purpose of the act. Such agreements could enable the declaration of the law of an indigenous governing body, including a bylaw, to be equivalent in effect to a regulation under the Fisheries Act.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard have advanced and will continue to advance reconciliation through concrete changes to programs, operational practices, and legislative frameworks that give voice to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As we move forward we will seize on the relationships and partnerships we have with indigenous communities to articulate renewed nation-to-nation relationships with indigenous peoples within the mandates of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Thank you.

[Dominique Blanchard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public and Indigenous Affairs and Ministerial Services Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you.

I'd like to acknowledge that we are here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

My name is Dominique Blanchard. I am the assistant deputy minister of the public and indigenous affairs and ministerial services branch at Environment and Climate Change Canada. I am joined today by my colleague Brent Parker, who is from the Canadian Environment Assessment Agency.

Thank you to the committee for inviting my department to contribute to this session on the subject of Bill C-262. In my remarks today, I will discuss the actions of Environment and Climate Change Canada in advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples and in working toward fulfilling the government's commitment to adopt and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I will address the work already under way as well as the opportunities we see to further enhance relationships between my department and indigenous peoples and governments.

Indigenous peoples are leaders in conservation. They have long been stewards of the environment and have well established rights related to the use of the land, waters, ice and wildlife. They have knowledge of the environment that spans generations.

The mandate of Environment and Climate Change Canada is to protect the environment and to conserve the country's national heritage. We undertake weather forecasting; wildlife conservation; air and water quality monitoring and protection; water quantity monitoring for informed water management decisions; and, oversee and contribute to measures that mitigate against and adapt to climate change.

Accordingly, it is critically important for Environment and Climate Change Canada to maintain and build strong and positive relationships and partnerships with indigenous peoples, and to collaborate in defining our environmental future. This is a responsibility that extends to each and every part of our department.

We have a history of establishing and supporting partnerships that enable us to reflect the perspectives of indigenous peoples in the delivery of our mandate. We are proud of recent efforts we have made to expand and deepen those relationships at local, regional, national, and international levels. For example, we have established joint distinctions-based senior bilateral tables to support nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-crown, and government-to-government relationships to assist with the implementation of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. We work with indigenous peoples on projects to support the stewardship of natural resources, including through, for example, the co-management of conservation areas, wildlife management boards, and indigenous-led projects supported by the aboriginal fund for species at risk.

At the international level, Canada has been recognized for its leadership in advancing the local communities and indigenous peoples platform under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Indigenous peoples have joined us in representing Canada on the delegations for this and other international fora, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

We're also establishing countless partnerships at the local and regional levels. For instance, the Canadian ice service is partnering with Inuit communities to understand sea ice information needs in light of changing ice patterns in the north. We are collaborating with first nations on a project to develop training curricula related to environmental monitoring. We are also supporting indigenous-led efforts to address environmental challenges affecting the Great Lakes.

Finally, we and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, along with other federal partners here at the table, worked closely with indigenous partners in developing the recently tabled Bill C-69, which proposes important requirements concerning the engagement of indigenous peoples in the environmental review process and the use of traditional knowledge to inform decision-making.

Sustaining and enhancing partnerships of this nature, and supporting the broader work being done across government to advance reconciliation, has required Environment and Climate Change Canada to look internally, as well.

In May of last year, our department created a new branch, which I lead. Part of our mandate involves bringing cohesion and organization to the department's indigenous affairs and reconciliation activities, and bringing to ground broader government efforts in these areas within our department.

In this vein, we're developing governance structures to ensure effective cross-departmental collaboration, developing tools to support broader engagement and consultation with indigenous partners, and implementing training and awareness opportunities to develop the intercultural competencies of our employees.

We are also working closely with many of the colleagues you have and will be hearing from today in implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous people and, relevant to our discussion today, the United Nations declaration.

In our view, working towards aligning our work with the provisions of the UN declaration presents an opportunity for us to build trust with our indigenous partners; enhance the integrity of our policy-making, research, and analysis; and achieve better environmental outcomes for all Canadians. Several articles in the UN declaration are tied closely to our mandate in that they reflect indigenous people's rights concerning the stewardship of the environment. For example, article 24 speaks to rights related to conservation of medicines, plants, animals, and minerals. Article 31 relates to the maintenance and manifestation of traditional knowledge, including in relation to flora and fauna. Importantly, article 32 confirms the rights of indigenous peoples to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development and use of their lands and resources.

In regard to these articles, Environment and Climate Change Canada is well situated to build upon existing practices and relationships. Through our engagement in the negotiation of treaties and other arrangements, ECCC works with indigenous partners to collaboratively conserve and protect wildlife and other environmental resources. Also, as a science-based department, we are working to ensure that traditional knowledge informs our work, and we are reviewing and refining our approach that freely shared traditional knowledge can better complement contemporary scientific research to inform decision-making. Lastly, we're working to build transparent and comprehensive engagement processes that respect the rights of indigenous peoples in determining how lands and resources are used.

Environment and Climate Change Canada recognizes that there is more to be done. This will involve the continued examination of our contribution to the government's reconciliation agenda, including the implementation of the United Nations Declaration. This will mean further strengthening our engagement with indigenous partners, and assessing new opportunities to align departmental programs, policies, laws and regulations with indigenous rights and interests. And we will need to do more work internally to build greater awareness amongst our employees of indigenous rights and interests, and of our related responsibilities.

In closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to highlight some of the efforts under way at Environment and Climate Change Canada to move forward on our commitment to support reconciliation with indigenous peoples, including through the implementation of the UN declaration. As a department, we are steadfastly committed to this important work.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, panel, for joining us.

I'm just picking up, Stefan, on your assertion that UNDRIP is an interpretative tool with respect to Canadian law. How important is the passage of Bill C-262 for this to be used under Canadian law, right now?

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

Would that improve or strengthen Bill C-262 if we decide at this committee to make that amendment to include policies and operational practices?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the witnesses for coming to testify on Bill C-262. Your presence is highly appreciated.

I want to continue on that very question that my colleague, Cathy McLeod, posed. The question we need to ask ourselves in response to that question is, in what way will Bill C-45 affect aboriginal treaty rights? I see very few ways that Bill C-45 will affect aboriginal treaty rights.

You referred to additional measures that would be required to further the implementation of the UN declaration above and beyond Bill C-262. I certainly agree with that. The Prime Minister, on Valentine's Day, made a speech in the House of Commons to which I responded. One of the things he talked about was that necessity to have a major shift in the political culture of Ottawa towards indigenous peoples and their fundamental rights. Joe referred to a “transformative shift”, and I agree with those terms.

Bill C-262 refers to making sure the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Prime Minister referred to laws, policies, and operational practices. Article 4 of my bill refers only to laws. Would you suggest we now add or amend that article to include policies and operational practices?

[Stefan Matiation]

The UN declaration is the declaration of the United Nations, and its role in Canadian law is to serve as an interpretive tool that courts can use in interpreting legislation and in interpreting Canadian law.

Bill C-262, in section 3, refers to the application of the UN declaration in Canadian law. That's consistent with the way courts can draw on international instruments, like the UN declaration, today as interpretative sources of guidance.

[Stefan Matiation]

Bill C-262 reinforces the government's commitment to implement the UN declaration.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. We appreciate the testimony and the written substance as well.

I'm interested in the intergovernmental dimension of this. Obviously, there are impacts. I have raised the question before. I would direct my questions to Mr. Wild and Ms. Stuhec.

How do you foresee the federal government's ability to implement legislation such as Bill C-262 and to implement it in a manner that recognizes that not all provinces are at the same point as the federal government in relation to this project towards reconciliation, or they are at different stages, or they have different interpretations? I'm particularly thinking about issues relating to land use management. Obviously, I represent Algonquin constituents in the riding of Pontiac, so my focus is in that context. I'm less focused on the north.

Could you comment on how we get to implementing the heart of what is intended in Bill C-262, recognizing that we don't have all of those levers related to land use planning or resource management?

[Hubert Lussier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also wish to begin by acknowledging that we're on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. We thank the committee for the invitation to Canadian Heritage to provide information on Bill C-262.

My brief remarks will describe how currently Canadian Heritage addresses initiatives that align with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I will address indigenous languages which is raised in article 13 of the declaration, then cultural heritage issues as it relates in particular to articles 11 and 12.

In December 2016, before the Assembly of First Nations Annual General Assembly, the Prime Minister committed the government to enacting legislation to preserve, promote and revitalize indigenous languages. The Prime Minister also stated that the legislation would be developed jointly with indigenous peoples.

In June 2017, Canadian Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly joined National Chief Bellegarde from the Assembly of First Nations, President Obed from the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and President Chartier from the Métis National Council in announcing the launch of a process to co-develop this legislation.

Since that time, the four parties have been working diligently and collaboratively on the co-development of the legislation. I would like to add that those groups are not the only ones that will be consulted, of course. All rights holders will be included in the consultations.

By helping preserve and restore indigenous languages, Canadian Heritage is following through on the government's commitment to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action in the spirit of reconciliation.

On the financial programming side of things, Canadian Heritage delivers the aboriginal language initiative. That component supports community-based, indigenous-led projects that focus on the revitalization, preservation and promotion of indigenous languages. The component's resources were increased from $5 million to $19 million in Budget 2017. Canadian Heritage also delivers a program component called northern aboriginal broadcasting, the purpose of which echoes article 16 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Articles 11 and 12 of the declaration include issues of access, preservation, and repatriation of cultural property and human remains, particularly those that are in the possession of the state. Currently, Canadian Heritage provides financial support to indigenous communities and eligible Canadian museums to assist communities to access, preserve, and transmit their heritage to future generations.

A modest amount of funding is also available to support such repatriation activities. The department is working on revising details of its funding programs in order to better address the needs related to repatriation to indigenous communities, for example, by expanding the kinds of institutions that are eligible under our program and by including different kinds of eligible expenses. Repatriation from public collections such as the national museums is undertaken directly by those institutions that operate at arm's length from the government.

In response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission call to action 67, also in relation to this issue, the Department of Heritage is providing funding to the Canadian Museums Association to undertake, in collaboration with aboriginal peoples, a national review of museum policies and best practices to determine the level of compliance with the United Nations Declaration and to make recommendations.

This concludes my remarks.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I would like to start by acknowledging that we are meeting here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Thank you very much for the invitation to speak today on Bill C-262. I will be focusing my comments on giving an update on the Government of Canada's efforts to ensure we're not hindering the implementation of indigenous rights, which include work to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At its core, the declaration affirms that indigenous peoples have the right to live, develop, and thrive according to their unique circumstances and priorities, that is, to determine their futures for themselves.

We've long worked to advance self-determination and improve indigenous well-being. For over 30 years now, there have been efforts driven by and grounded in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which section recognizes and affirms indigenous rights.

For example, the ongoing negotiation of modern treaties and self-government agreements advances the implementation of articles 3, 4 and 5 of the United Nations Declaration, which affirm the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination and self-government.

Since 2015 we have also been engaged in recognition of indigenous rights and self-determination discussions. Through these discussions we have sat down with indigenous groups based on how they want to organize themselves and start from a place of recognizing their rights. We have ongoing rights recognition discussions with communities, travel councils, historic treaty groups, and Métis organizations, as well as other community-based organizations that are coming together to rebuild their nations on their terms.

Through these discussions we are exploring shared priorities that our indigenous partners raise. We come to the table without predetermined mandates and we work together to chart a path forward to achieving the outcomes that matter to indigenous communities. We are striving to build flexible arrangements, support indigenous communities in achieving self-determination on their terms that can evolve along with our relationships. Through this innovative process we are living out our commitment to co-development, which is reflected in article 18's declaration that indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making about matters affecting their rights through their own representatives.

Working with self-determined groups to advance shared priorities, including nation building and governance, also responds to articles 3 and 9, which assert the rights of indigenous peoples to determine and belong to their own communities, nations, and political entities.

The declaration also makes repeated calls to respect the principle of free, prior and informed consent when making decisions that affect indigenous peoples.

Consistent with these calls, both section 35 and the duty to consult serve to protect indigenous rights from crown action, and reconcile the rights of indigenous peoples with those of wider society.

We still have work to do to implement the full scope of free, prior, and informed consent. Canada has established a whole-of-government approach to these obligations in response to court decisions and best practices established by federal departments and agencies to meet their specific needs.

These are just a few examples of the many ways that our work has been advancing and continues to advance the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

More recently the Government of Canada has taken bold new steps to lead collaborative efforts that support indigenous peoples' treaty rights and their inherent rights as recognized in section 35, while also meeting the objectives outlined in the UN declaration.

On February 14, the Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada will develop a recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework in full partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

To truly renew the relationship between Canada and indigenous people, the Government of Canada will make the recognition and implementation of rights the basis for all relations between indigenous peoples and the federal government.

This is at the heart of what the UN declaration aims to achieve, and the declaration is a foundational piece upon which we build the framework. While our work to date has gone considerable distances toward implementing elements of the declaration, we know that more work is required. The framework for the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights will provide the mechanisms necessary for all federal departments to fulfill the commitment to recognizing and implementing rights, facilitating a whole-of-government approach grounded in law and policy.

To determine the contents of the framework, Minister Bennett is leading a national engagement with first nations, Inuit, and Métis partners with a particular focus on women, youth, and elders. The engagement will also include industry, the general public, and our provincial and territorial partners to support a pan-Canadian commitment to the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights.

Make no mistake though, our partners in this process are the rights holders, not the stakeholders.

We will work in partnership with indigenous peoples to determine the shape of a renewed crown-indigenous relationship.

Through this process we are putting into practice Bill C-262's call to work in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples to implement their rights in Canadian law. What we are learning through engagement also builds on existing sources of knowledge such as the Report of the Royal Commission on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Penner report, and the tireless work of many indigenous advocates.

To use the language of Bill C-262, this is our “national action plan” for advancing indigenous rights and achieving the objectives of the declaration. Based on early feedback, the recognition and implementation of an indigenous rights framework may include a number of elements such as: legislation to formalize the standard of recognition of indigenous rights as the basis for all government relations with indigenous people; a new policy that reflects the unique needs of first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to replace the current comprehensive land claims policy and the inherent right policy; reforming government policies and practices to support the implementation of treaties and self-government agreements; mechanisms to support the rebuilding of indigenous nations and governments and advance indigenous self-determination and the inherent right of self-government; creating new dispute resolution approaches to address rights-related issues, including overlapping territories, treaty implementation, and historic grievances, that move us from conflict to collaboration; tools to strengthen a culture of federal government accountability and to build greater trust between indigenous peoples and the federal government; and legislation to replace Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada with two new departments that will better serve the distinct needs of first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples.

These likely components represent preliminary thinking on what shape the framework will take but respond directly to key elements of the declaration. The goal is to chart a new way forward for the Government of Canada to work with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples and to end decades of mistrust, broken promises, poverty, and injustice.

Working together with first nations, Inuit, and Métis partners to define how we recognize and implement indigenous rights in federal law and policy is vital to overcoming the legacy of colonialism and re-building indigenous nations and governments. This transformative shift in our relationship will not happen overnight. We are working towards a longer term vision for a better Canada in which healthy, prosperous, self-determining, and self-governing indigenous nations are key partners.

This goal is echoed in Bill C-262, which will support us on the road to making the vision of the UN declaration a reality and fulfilling the promise of section 35.

We are committed to delivering real results that improve indigenous well-being and bring Canadians together in a more just society, so that we can continue on in our journey towards reconciliation.

Thank you.

I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Ana Stuhec, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio, Department of Justice]

Before I begin, I would like to recognize the Algonquin Nation on whose traditional territory we are gathering.

We would like to thank the committee for inviting the Department of Justice to appear today with respect to this private member's bill, Bill C-262. As you know, in May 2016, the federal government expressed its unqualified support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and committed to its full implementation, in partnership with indigenous peoples.

Since then, the government has taken many steps toward implementing the UN declaration, which have been highlighted on various occasions by the Minister of Justice as being a necessary component of the transformation that the federal government wishes to undertake in renewing its relationship with indigenous peoples.

Establishing the Working Group of Ministers on the Review of Laws, Policies and Operational Practices Related to Indigenous Peoples was a key step in this process.

In announcing the creation of the working group in February 2017, the Prime Minister indicated that its objective is to seek to ensure that the crown is meeting its constitutional obligations with respect to aboriginal and treaty rights, adhering to international human rights standards, including the United Nations Declaration, and supporting the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Further, in July 2017 the Government of Canada adopted and publicly released “Principles Respecting the Government of Canada's Relationship With Indigenous Peoples”. The principles are rooted in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the UN declaration, and are informed by the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. The principles, as well as the UN declaration, guide the review of the laws, policies, and operational practices and form a foundation for transforming how the federal government supports indigenous peoples and governments.

In carrying out its mandate, the working group has also heard from many indigenous leaders and organizations about their vision for how Canada should adopt and implement the UN declaration in full partnership with indigenous peoples. As explained by the Minister of Justice when she announced the government's support for Bill C-262 in November 2017, this bill broadly aligns with the government's commitment to implement the UN declaration and its commitment to transform the crown-indigenous relationship. It represents one critical aspect of the shift that must be made to transform indigenous-crown relations based on the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights.

Bill C-262 calls for the alignment of federal laws with the UN declaration. The bill's proposed approach, similar to the approach taken to date by the federal government, reflects an acknowledgement of the need to implement the UN declaration in co-operation and collaboration with indigenous peoples through a range of diverse measures, including legislative policy and administrative measures. The nature, scope, and type of approach taken in specific areas will necessarily vary.

The bill also reflects article 38 of the United Nations Declaration, which states the following:

States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, shall take the appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to achieve the ends of this Declaration.

For this reason, and as many have observed, the bill alone will not accomplish the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration. A comprehensive approach including additional efforts and measures to implement the United Nations Declaration is needed.

On February 14, 2018, the federal government took additional steps to advance this implementation. The Prime Minister delivered a statement on the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights in the House of Commons that confirmed the shift to a recognition of a rights-based approach to relations with indigenous peoples and committed to the development of new legislation and policy through a new recognition and implementation of rights framework.

The measures proposed in Bill C-262, as well as the important discussion the bill will generate before this committee and across the country, are part of accelerating the shift to recognition of rights-based relationships.

Madam Chair, we look forward to answering questions from members of the committee on this private member's bill, Bill C-262. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Welcome everyone. We have a very large crowd. I'm glad everyone's here. We are starting a new study, but before we get into the hearing itself, we have a bit of committee business to take care of.

Prior to that, I want to recognize that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. Part of a process that more and more Canadians are taking part in is recognizing the lands of our original peoples, where we hold public hearings or ceremonies, which is an important part of the process of truth and reconciliation.

Pursuant to order of reference on Wednesday, February 7, 2018, 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, is the topic we are going to be discussing.

Before we get into presentations, I would ask the committee to have a look at the budget. We need to approve $1,700 to complete our lands study. It is moved by Mike and seconded by Gary that we approve it.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

We have a full agenda, and we have many experts in the room. We want to hear from you. Many Canadians are interested in the topic, especially one of our members, Romeo Saganash, who is the presenter of the bill and is bringing it forward for Canada.

We are going to start with the Department of Justice. We have two representatives. The way it works is that you'll present for 10 minutes, then we will move to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, then to Canadian Heritage. Each group will have 10 minutes, after which we will go into rounds of questioning. I will give you signals for three minutes, then two minutes, if you need it for a heads-up for when to wrap up. If I go like this, it means you're time's run out, and you should please wrap up your presentation.

Thank you very much for your attention. We're going to start with the Department of Justice. We have Ana Stuhec and Stefan Matiation. I leave it up to you how you want to work the presentation.

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 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.

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

I think the problem is governments, successive Liberal and Conservative governments at the federal level. Although we've had many decisions from the Supreme Court, their tendency was never to respect those rights and to forget about them in our legislation. Although we have the duty as members of Parliament to uphold the rule of law, upholding the rule of law doesn't mean sending in the police or the army to put down a barricade that indigenous peoples have raised. No. Upholding the rule of law in our system means that we need to respect the Constitution, and in our Constitution is section 35 on aboriginal and treaty rights. We have omitted to do that, although it is our responsibility to do it.

Bill C-262 will help in that regard for the future. That's why it's important for this country. It's important for indigenous and non-indigenous people in this country, if we're true about reconciliation or justice in this country.

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

I think it has a pretty strong basis already. We can move forward from here even with that piece of legislation but if the government wishes to change free, prior, and informed consent into a veto, that's their business. I don't think indigenous peoples will be against that. Sure, there are possibilities to strengthen Bill C-262 in many respects. I've always offered my assistance and my collaboration to continue from here on. I don't deny that Bill C-262 has a very strong basis going forward in the right direction with indigenous peoples in this country. Let's pick it up from here, but I think the bill needs to be adopted first.

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

Do you think the proposed legislation, Bill C-262, goes far enough? Is it sufficient for the implementation of UNDRIP, or does the government need to do more to ensure the full realization of the declaration?

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

Let me finish.

The other aspect of all this is that if you read subclause 2(2) and clause 3 of Bill C-262, both talk about the UN declaration having application in Canadian law as we speak. Maybe you don't agree with it, and maybe they didn't realize that, but having this bill passed in third reading and through the Senate, we'll be clear on that for the future. I think that is what is needed in order to avoid that confusion.

Similar confusion was created when section 35 of the Constitution was adopted. What is the content of section 35 with respect to aboriginal rights?

Similar confusion was created when the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the first modern treaty, was signed in 1975. I remember those conversations. In these hunting and fishing associations throughout the province, people said, “Well if we're going to recognize the rights of the Cree and the Inuit to be able to hunt, fish, and trap throughout the year, without conditions, then there goes the entire moose population, there goes the entire caribou population, and there go all the fish in our lakes in Quebec.” Well, guess what. It never happened.

It's a similar situation here, in my view. Those rights exist because it is said that they are inherent, which means these fundamental rights exist because we, as people, exist right now, here—I'm talking to you, right?—and those are our inherent rights.

That does not create new law in any way, and it does not create new rights in any way. They already belong to me and my peoples.

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

If we implement Bill C-262, article 19 will create some requirements, just as introducing something like Bill C-45 will clearly impact every Canadian. Article 19 would apply, which would trigger the need for free, prior, and informed consent.

Would that be a reasonable assessment of this, that it would have a sort of domino effect?

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

I think we need to understand that Bill C-262 provides a legislative framework in this country for whatever we do, including in Parliament. If there is, for instance, legislation that would attempt to replace the Indian Act, the minimum standards are contained in the UN declaration. That's what this bill does. If you want to come back with first nations control of first nations education, then the minimum standards are contained in the UN declaration. That's what the bill does.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First, allow me to congratulate you, Mr. Saganash. I know you have been working passionately on this project for indigenous peoples for a long time. I commend you on your clarity of vision. You have been working on this bill for years.

I understand—and I've only been here two years—that a number of private members' bills very similar to your Bill C-262 have intended to enact legislation to implement UNDRIP in the past, but all have failed to pass at second reading. Can you explain to this committee why, in your view, you think the time has finally come to move past second reading and actually have this legislation pass third reading and become law?

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

Thank you, Chairperson. I'm very happy to be here today and that I was asked to come speak with you. I'm really happy that I'm the first one who's able to talk about this document I presented here in Ottawa. I hope you are going to ask me questions about this document, about what we're going to be doing today. I'm really thankful that you invited me to speak about my thoughts on this. I'm really thankful, again, that I'm here. I'm telling you right now that this document is really big and it's going to help us, not only aboriginal people but the whole nation in Canada. I think it's going to help us a lot in the future. I'm going to tell you why it's like that.

[English]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Those were words of greeting on my part. I was hoping to have my mother with me today, because she wanted to participate and listen in to this important discussion. She was the one who insisted that I go to law school. She is the one who insisted that I continue to defend my people, my land, my territory, and the resources on those lands and territories, and she put it this way. From the outset, she said, if you do this, go to law school, learn about the laws of the country and the world, that will allow your brothers and sisters, those who have chosen to continue with their way of life, to be able to do so on their land, where they come from.

I think that was the balance that we searched for in our families. Some of us had to choose to go to school. Some of us preferred to stay on the land. I want to salute my brothers and sisters who did choose to stay on the land and continue with the Cree way of life. About 30% of Cree still live off the land through hunting, fishing, and trapping. That is why the Eeyou Istchee, as we call our territory, is so important to all of us.

I started the debate in the House of Commons over Bill C-262 by saying that indigenous peoples' rights are human rights. For a long time, over 30 years now, the international community and the international forums have treated indigenous rights as human rights. It's been three decades now. I think in this country whenever we speak about indigenous peoples, we should speak about their rights as human rights as well.

You perhaps may know that the Supreme Court is going in that direction. If you read the Tsilhqot'in case, the Supreme Court refers to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we find in part I of our Constitution and section 35 rights that we find in part II of our Constitution as sister provisions. That's the word the Supreme Court uses, sister provisions. Both parts of our Constitution serve to limit the actions of governments, both provincial and federal. I think it's important to remember that.

I think it was important for me to start off by expressing the thought that the rights of indigenous peoples in this country are human rights.

I introduced Bill C-262 because I think, and we all agree around this table, that the time for reconciliation and justice for indigenous peoples in this country has come. I don't think there's anybody around this table who disagrees with that. The idea of a legislative framework does not necessarily come from me. Article 38 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples calls on member states to work on all measures possible to make sure that the ends of the declaration are met, including legislative measures. Article 38 of UNDRIP talks about that legislative measure.

As you all know as well, in the recent past, there was an important development in terms of reconciliation in this country, with the tabling of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report and the 94 calls to action. If you read carefully Bill C-262, you'll notice that clauses 4 and 5 are the legislative translation of calls to action 43 and 44.

In call to action 43, the commission called on us to fully adopt and implement the UN declaration as the framework for reconciliation in this country. In fact, it calls on the Government of Canada, the provinces, the territories, and the municipalities of this country to fully adopt and implement the UN declaration—they use both words “adopt” and “implement”—as the framework for reconciliation. Although all of the other calls to action are important, I think the fundamental and core call to action remains 43.

Under the heading “Reconciliation” in the calls to action, you find 43 and 44, and 44 talks about the national action plan that needs to be developed in co-operation with indigenous peoples of this country.

In fact, in the 94 calls to action, there are 16 references to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That's how important this document is for indigenous peoples in this country, but also for the almost 400 million indigenous individuals around the world who live in more than 70 countries on this planet. I think it was only appropriate that the first legislative step we need to take in that context of reconciliation and justice in this country will remain Bill C-262.

I also mentioned during the debate that I consider Bill C-262 as perhaps the most important legislation that this Parliament of Canada has had to consider in a long time. I want to take that opportunity to welcome the support of the government. I'm hoping that at the end of the day, at the end of the process, the official opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, will also support Bill C-262 as a way forward for reconciliation and justice in this country.

I see that my time is running out, but there was one element that struck me during the debate. It came from the official opposition, whereby adopting this bill would create an uncertainty. As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, I think the opposite will happen. If there's one provision in our Constitution that has created that sort of uncertainty, it is section 35. What did we mean by “aboriginal rights”? We know a little about treaty rights and their clarity in the treaties, but what did we mean by “aboriginal rights”? Does it include the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples? Does it include my right to speak my language in the House of Commons?

Those are the kinds of uncertainties and ambiguities that the adoption of section 35 created. That's why we have ended up most of the time in the court systems, because there was no agreement over the content of aboriginal rights. I think this bill will clarify that. Indigenous peoples have a right to self-determination in this country. The human rights committee back then confirmed that, with articles of the human rights covenants that Canada had signed on to, the right to self-determination applies to indigenous peoples. That was determined as early as 1999.

Madam Chair, I'm looking forward to questions within the next hour, and I certainly hope that I can answer the questions that are put forth.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Welcome, everybody, to the public session of meeting number 95 of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, INAN, of the first session of the 42nd Parliament.

Today we are proud that one of our own is in front of us as a panellist to introduce his private member's bill, known as 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.

Before we start, we always recognize that we're in a process of truth and reconciliation, really initiated by our Prime Minister but even before that by the Conservative government, which initiated a study. As we move through that process, we always recognize the lands we are on. We are meeting in Ottawa, the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

At this point, the committee is proceeding as normal. Our presenter will have 10 minutes and then after that we'll have a series of questions.

Bonjour and welcome, MP Saganash. It's over to you.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-262 under private members' business.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, meegwetch.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[Translation]

I wanted to start by expressing my gratitude. I would like to thank all of the members who have spoken about this very important bill, even those who expressed concerns about it. I appreciate their comments. I am looking forward to taking a very close look at this bill in committee because I think some of the questions and concerns people raised are worth discussing.

I know I only have five minutes, but there are a couple of things that are important to talk about in reply.

It was said that the UN declaration is an aspirational document. I have heard that before and I heard it again today. I want to respond to that. I also heard that the UN declaration is going to create some uncertainty in this country. I want to respond to that as well. Let me remind members that Bill C-262 is the first piece of legislation in the country that explicitly rejects colonialism. If we are going to move on to reconciliation, then we have to reject colonialism. It cannot continue within that framework in this country.

This is what former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said about the declaration:

The Declaration is a visionary step towards addressing the human rights of indigenous peoples...and provides a momentous opportunity for States and indigenous peoples to strengthen their relationships, promote reconciliation and ensure that the past is not repeated.

The other thing I heard in this place today is that Bill C-262 might be incompatible with our Constitution as it stands today. Back in 2008, in response to that very same claim, over 100 experts, law professors, international human rights experts, and scholars said:

The Declaration provides a principled framework that promises a vision of justice and reconciliation. In our considered opinion, it is consistent with the Canadian Constitution and Charter and is profoundly important for fulfilling their promise.

It is important to remind people of that very fact. It is important to remind people that it is not appropriate to try to read provisions of the declaration in isolation. When we talk about prior and informed consent, we have to read those provisions alongside the other provisions. There are 46 provisions in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we have to combine them.

Paragraph 3 of article 46 of the UN declaration states:

The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.

I think one of the reasons that article was drafted in that way is that we need to balance the rights that are enshrined for indigenous peoples contained in the UN declaration with the rights of others. That is important to remember when considering the UN declaration.

I thank all the members who stood up to speak to the bill. I look forward to the work in committee on the bill.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, was adopted by the UN General Assembly more than a decade ago, on September 13, 2007. This declaration enshrines the rights that “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world.”

Passing and enacting Bill C-262 is a critical step for the government to take in order to fulfill its promise to implement all of the calls for action made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The TRC refers to the UN declaration as “the framework for reconciliation”, and the declaration is included in 16 calls for action. Bill C-262 provides a legislative framework for implementing the UN declaration, and would affirm its central significance in the process of national reconciliation efforts. Its implementation would highlight the necessity of harmonizing federal laws so that they are consistent with the UN declaration. It would affirm that the declaration has legal application in Canada.

Bill C-262 calls for a national action plan to be created in collaboration with the federal government and indigenous representatives to set a pathway for matters of implementation. I would argue that, most importantly, it calls for a yearly report on how progress is being made.

At its heart, Bill C-262 would provide the foundation to move the UN declaration from an aspirational document to an actionable one with accountability measures. The importance of that simply cannot be understated. For far too long, successive governments have made aspirational statement after aspirational statement. However, as we know, there has been a long succession of promises made and promises broken by successive governments. We have all heard that the current government will be different, that it will treat indigenous people fairly, that it will stop the discrimination, that it will address the intergenerational impacts of trauma, and that it will restore the important nation-to-nation relationship. Tragically, too many times, these statements have rung hollow and have not been met with action.

As we know, there are numerous examples of systemic discrimination and inaction to address ongoing historical wrongdoings perpetrated against indigenous peoples. To be clear, as of October 31, 2017, there were still 100 long-term drinking water advisories for first nations communities. Just imagine that it is not safe for them to drink their water. There are an additional 47 communities with short-term advisories. A disproportionate number of indigenous people are homeless. We just heard from my colleague, who talked about teen suicide. This was a crisis in this House when we discussed this issue, yet the crisis continues.

Instead of providing funding for these incredibly important initiatives, the government instead did things like spend $110,000 in court fees fighting against a young first nation girl to block the payment of a $6,000 orthodontic treatment. It is these actions and inactions that highlight the systemic discrimination that is ongoing against indigenous peoples in Canada, and highlights the importance of passing Bill C-262 and taking further action to follow through on the TRC calls for action.

At the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the hon. Senator Murray Sinclair, formerly Justice Murray Sinclair, the chair of the TRC, stated his support for Bill C-262. He also provided valuable insight into the systemic racism that indigenous peoples and others in Canada face when he stated:

...systemic racism is the racism that's left over after you get rid of the racists. Once you get rid of the racists within the justice system, for example, you will still have...rules, procedures, guidelines, precedents, and laws that are inherently discriminatory and racist because those laws, policies, procedures, processes, and beliefs—including beliefs that direct individuals on how and when to exercise their discretion—come from a history of the common law, which comes from a different culture, a different way of thinking.

Passing Bill C-262, alongside the UN declaration and the TRC's calls for action, will finally lead to real action being taken to address that leftover racism.

Another supporter of Bill C-262 who appeared at the committee was Dr. Cindy Blackstock. Dr. Blackstock is a fierce and unstoppable champion for the rights of first nations children in Canada. She spoke to the chronic and discriminatory underfunding of first nations child welfare in Canada. She noted that, not 10 years ago, not during the sixties scoop, not during the height of the residential school system, but today, there are more first nations children in care than at any other time in our history.

She further spoke to the chronic and simply unacceptable underfunding of first nations education. She made it quite clear when she said:

For those who say it's too expensive or too complicated, I ask you this: if we are so broke as a nation that the only way we can fund things like arenas or subway systems is through racial discrimination against children, then what are the children losing to? What does this country really stand for?

For those who ask what the adoption of Bill C-262 will look like, Bill C-262 lays the groundwork to fundamentally examine and act on our aspirations to end this systemic discrimination. It is not an end point, but it lays a path to reach one.

Let us get to work and stop asking why we have to do this.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first time to rise this session, I want to say how pleased I am to have the new role as deputy whip. It is an honour to continue my work on behalf of the great people of North Island—Powell River in this place.

In December, I was meant to be here to do my speech with the amazing member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Sadly, I had to rush home to be with my mother, who had a stroke. I apologize to the member for missing his important speech and thank him for his kindness during a very difficult time for me and my family. As my mother slowly heals, it makes me reflect on how often many of us are here, away from home, and I hope that we all take time to appreciate the people who love us most.

When I was four, I was adopted after two years of my mother and I being part of my father's family. I did not find out I was adopted until I was almost nine. This is important today, because this is how I am able to say that my family is from Stellat'en First Nation, and my aunt is my hereditary chief, Hatix-kuwa, which means “peace within the frame of a house”. I am very honoured to be a part of my family and all the great and courageous work they do.

My granny, Minnie Mould, went to residential school from the time she was four until she was 16. The impact on our family has been powerful due to the abuse she suffered there. She has been gone for many years, but I can promise members that this is not a place where she would ever have thought one of her granddaughters would be speaking. There are days when I feel her spirit sigh with relief. She told me many times, “No complaining, we are still here.”

The very reason we are speaking to this bill today is that indigenous people are still here after many attempts to assimilate them. Today, we speak about how important this bill is, 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.

This bill would provide clarity. Across my riding of North Island—Powell River, communities and businesses are asking for clarity. They want to know how to move forward. They continuously ask me about this bill and ask for a secure definition of what nation to nation means.

This bill would move Canada in that direction by providing a legislative framework that would begin to harmonize Canadian laws with the UN declaration. To repeal the Indian Act means that we need a new legislative framework.

On April 12, 2016, the Minister of Justice stated in the House of Commons:

It is not easy to remove the shackles of 140 years of life under the Indian Act....

[T]he Indian Act is not a suitable system of government. It is not consistent with the rights enshrined in our Constitution, the principles as set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or the calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report.

As Canada moves toward repealing the Indian Act, we require a new framework. In my riding, Tla'amin recently signed a treaty. It was a difficult process with a very close vote that was hard on the community in many ways. However, there was a very clear celebration, where the community members burned the Indian Act because it no longer applies to them. In a supportive movement of reconciliation, the wider community was invited and attended the ceremony.

The reality is that reconciliation is happening on the ground in many communities across Canada. I know of many in my riding. It is well past time that the federal government get on this pathway by passing this bill.

There are concerns. The biggest one I have heard is about the idea of indigenous communities having the power of veto.

Grand Chief Ed John said it best:

The bad thing about the media and those who don't support the declaration is, “How could those Indians have a veto?”

I think there's a misconstruction of the concept of free, prior, and informed consent. The better interpretation of free, prior, and informed consent.... Consent at the end of the day is a decision that's made after a process, so governments go through a process to come to some decision. First nations' governments are in that same place. First nations' governments will look at information ahead of time. They should be free from any coercion. It should be prior to decisions being made. There should be extensive consideration. It may require an environmental assessment process or some other process that would help inform the decision-making process.

Free, prior, and informed consent essentially, at its core, is about governments making decisions. When the Province of British Columbia, the provinces, the national government, the territorial governments, or municipal governments are making decisions, that's what they're doing.

This bill is not about giving away power; it is about making sure that everyone is at the table. Currently, in my riding, a very long-term issue has been gaining momentum as several indigenous communities have begun occupying fish farms. This has been a very divisive issue for many years. I want to be clear. There are some indigenous communities that support fish farms and some that do not. Within the communities themselves, there are people working for fish farms and some who are occupying them. The concerned indigenous communities have been asking for a process of consultation. The federal government has not shown up. Just last week, there were discussions between indigenous communities and the provincial government. The federal government was invited, specifically the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but he did not show up. In fact, two DFO staff showed up, but no one from the minister's office.

My hope is that the government will take seriously the commitment of Bill C-262 and make sure everyone is at the table so the best decisions can be made. In my riding, workers and indigenous communities are filled with uncertainty, and this is not good for anyone. I hope to see the government respect the rights of indigenous leaders so that they have a voice on what happens in their territories and are part of the decision-making process.

Across my riding, the process of a nation-to-nation relationship is in action. A couple of summers ago, I went to Tahsis for a flag-raising ceremony. The communities of Gold River, Tahsis, and Mowachaht/Muchalaht signed an MOU on how to work together. The flag-raising was to add the Mowachaht/Muchalaht flag along with the Canadian, provincial, and town flags. The knowledge that they are all in this together has become a cornerstone of their economic and social decision-making.

These are not the only communities that have signed agreements. Tla'amin and Powell River, K'ómoks and the Town of Comox, the Village of Alert Bay and 'Namgis are but a few of the examples across the riding. They know that together they can work for the betterment of all of their people. Like my granny always said, “We are in this together”.

Last summer, I had the honour to participate in a discussion with a high school, the teachers and care people, in my riding on the issues of reconciliation. Many non-indigenous teachers asked how they can help when they are so worried they will cause harm without intending to, beautifully honest questions from people who really care. What we came to was simply this. We have to be honest about what we know and what we do not know. A safe place must be created for conversation and guidance from elders is a must. This is reconciliation in action.

A couple of weeks ago, a young indigenous man aged 19 committed suicide successfully in one of our communities. The impact has been painful, to say the least. We know in too many indigenous communities across Canada, we are losing our young people. Many of these communities are calling for help. This bill would increase the attention on the realities that too many indigenous communities face. These are the ongoing impacts of colonialism and with this bill, we would see a legislative framework that would begin to take into account the realities of intergenerational trauma, severe impoverishment, epidemics of suicide, impairment of mental and physical health, and the profound loss of hope, and they should receive the attention they so richly deserve. We are all in this together and it is time to face the history of Canada, to let go of blame and shame, and finally focus on working on healing. Our children deserve it and they can no longer wait.

Paulo Freire said, “Any situation in which some [individuals] prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence. The means used are not important; to alienate [human beings] from their own decision-making is to change them into objects.” For too long, indigenous communities across the country have been treated like objects that do not deserve the right to engage in the process of decision-making. This bill is a step toward reconciliation, a step in moving from words to action.

I must say that there is just so much that Canada and this place can learn from indigenous communities. In my riding, I have been approached my many people, indigenous and non-indigenous, asking if we could not work together here to change the culture of this place. Would it not be better if rather than yelling at one another, we spoke to one another, listened, and made decisions that were more balanced? I hope this bill leads us in that very direction.

I believe that reconciliation is also about learning from the first peoples of this land. There is much to learn.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for bringing forward this private member's bill, Bill C-262. I would also like to acknowledge the important contribution to the discussion on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Before addressing the private member's bill, I would like to echo the observation made by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is worth repeating today: “Section 35 of our Constitution and Canada's existing laws has in the past, and will in the future, ensure that indigenous rights are protected in Canada.” That is a profound statement.

Today, I want to add my voice to the debate on this important piece of legislation.

Bill C-262 is important to Canada as a whole, and it is vital that we get this right. My hesitation on this stems from the fact that it is a private member's bill and as such will not be subject to the same scrutiny and debate that a government-sponsored bill would be subject to.

I would like to read from the UN website a question and answer that will prove my point. Here is the question: “What is the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?” Here is the answer:

The Declaration is a comprehensive statement addressing the rights of indigenous peoples. It was drafted and formally debated for over twenty years prior to being adopted on 29 June 2006 during the inaugural session of the Human Rights Council. The document emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.

It is obvious that the member states recognized that this was an important declaration to be made and debated for over 20 years. Here we are, in a country that is directly affected, and we cannot afford the time to question the minister herself on the legislation, not to mention the experts. As a member of the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I want the opportunity to ask questions and to get straightforward and complete answers to my questions.

Let me give the members an example. In her address to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs stated:

Today, we are addressing Canada's position on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I'm here to announce, on behalf of Canada, that we are now a full supporter of the Declaration without qualification....

By adopting and implementing the Declaration...we are breathing life into Section 35 and recognizing it now as a full box of rights for Indigenous peoples in Canada.

I represent the riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is home to a vast population of indigenous peoples, both on and off reserve. I want to know from the minister what this full box of rights would look like. I want to know if the indigenous community viewed the box at the same level of fullness as the minister did.

Here is another question. If it took over 20 years for the 193 United Nations member states to debate and finally adopt this declaration, is it not incumbent upon all of us 338 Canadian legislators to fully understand any and all possible outcomes of adopting the legislation that we are being asked to vote on?

Yet another question comes to mind. In her address to the Assembly of First Nations on July 12, 2016, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada called the adoption of UNDRIP into Canadian law “unworkable”.

She went on to say:

...a cut-and-paste approach to making UNDRIP compatible with domestic laws [is] an overly simplistic and untenable method of protecting indigenous rights in Canada.

However, the following year, on July 25, 2017, in my province of Saskatchewan, in the capital city of Regina, the minister addressed the same group and said:

as many of you know, over the years I have attended the AFN AGA [Annual General Assembly] in various capacities: with my father as his daughter, as a treaty commissioner, as an elected councillor of my Indian Act band, as the Regional Chief of British Columbia, and in the last couple of years as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

There is no doubt that the minister is very experienced, very well educated, and a very informed member of cabinet.

She went on to say:

Of course, if proper relations had occurred at the time of Canada’s founding, the first 150 years of Canada’s history would have been markedly different. So, the challenge now, knowing the past and learning from it, is to make sure that today, for the next 150 years and beyond, we give life to a new and transformed era of Indigenous-Crown relations.

Further on she states:

This is why in February our Prime Minister formed a working group of federal ministers to review 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 United Nations Declaration.

I was very pleased to have been asked to chair this working group. Never before has a federal government created a body of ministers with this unique flexibility and scope of action on a whole-of-government basis.

There we have the question. On July 12, 2016, the adoption of UNDRIP into Canadian law was simply “unworkable” for the minister. Then, a year later, on July 25, 2017, she was very pleased to be asked to chair the working group reviewing the laws, policies, and operational practices to ensure that we are fulfilling our UNDRIP commitments.

What monumental change took place in that year to make this workable? I would like a chance to ask her that. In fact, I am sure all of us in this place would like to ask her that.

When the minister appeared at the indigenous and northern affairs committee meeting on November 30, 2017, in her response to a question from my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, she said:

I think we have been very clear that free, prior, and informed consent is not a veto. It means you have to work very hard at the earliest part of a project to try to work together to find an outcome that is mutually acceptable. That is the way indigenous groups are seeing themselves in the project.

How do we know that? It may be that the current national chief does not see this as veto power, as she suggests. What about the next national chief? Is it our responsibility to have issues such as that debated and clarified before this becomes law?

Finally, in the midst of all these unanswered questions about UNDRIP, we have the dismantling of the very department responsible for indigenous affairs in this country and the so-called creation now of two departments, one to be responsible for indigenous services and another for relations with the aboriginal communities in Canada. I find it very disturbing that the government would go ahead and create this turmoil while supporting this legislation that could have far-reaching ramifications for the future of this country.

I have serious reservations about the many unanswered questions and the prospect that they will continue to be unanswered until it is too late and all Canadians, indigenous or not, are left with what the Liberals think is best for us, with absolutely no regard for input on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the unceded and unsurrendered land of the Algonquin people to speak to 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.

I want to first thank my dear friend from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for his leadership in bringing forward Bill C-262. When we travelled together across the country for our work on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee, we heard a great deal from many indigenous communities and leaders expressing support for the bill, and, in particular, Canada's acceptance of UNDRIP.

I want to thank and acknowledge our indigenous caucus, our Ministers of Justice, Crown-Indigenous Relations, and Indigenous Services, as well as their parliamentary secretaries.

For me, the starting point of this debate is the mere fact that many of our laws are not in line with, or respectful of, or even acknowledge indigenous peoples. As we concluded our 150th anniversary of Confederation, we had the opportunity to take stock of where we are and what this federation means to us. For many of us, Canada is a work in progress and full of paradoxes. Settlers to this land, including me and my family, have benefited from this land, its natural resources, and its laws. These laws have protected me, and in fact have given me safety and refuge. Millions of others, since the 1600s, share this experience.

Concurrently, and in the simplest of terms, these laws continue to limit the rights of our indigenous brothers and sisters, and in many cases continue to oppress them. In fact, the Indian Act, passed in 1876, remains one of the most regressive, racist, and colonial pieces of legislation in Canada's history, and I would dare say in world history. While many advances have taken place in the area of human rights, the regressive legislation and practices that hold our indigenous peoples back, in virtually every barometer of social development, are unacceptable.

On December 10, 2018, we will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet during the first 35 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, very little progress has taken place relating to indigenous rights in Canada. The Constitution Act, 1982 enshrined section 35 rights for our first nations, Inuit, and Métis people. Asserting these rights over the past 35 years has led to some modest advances through a highly litigious process that has resulted in incremental changes.

Due to the work of so many indigenous leaders from Canada, including Chief Willie Littlechild, our friend from Abitibi—James Bay, and others, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN in 2007. Regrettably, the previous government failed to adopt it.

In 2016, our government accepted UNDRIP and, last spring, our Minister of Crown Indigenous Relations, along with many of our colleagues, went to the United Nations in New York on the 10th anniversary of UNDRIP to assert the unconditional support of the Canadian government for the declaration.

These pronouncements have been coupled with the following steps undertaken by our government: one, establishing the working group of ministers on the review of laws and policies and operations practices related to indigenous peoples; two, adopting and publicly releasing the 10 principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples; three, creating three permanent, distinctions-based policy forums with the Assembly of First Nations, ITK, and the Métis National Council and its governing members; four, adopting new strategies for resolving disputes that prioritize negotiation over litigation; five, pursuing environmental assessment and indigenous languages legislative initiatives; and, six, establishing over 50 recognition of rights and self-determination tables.

These have been important and necessary steps toward reshaping how government engages and partners with indigenous peoples. That being said, our commitment to indigenous peoples will not be measured by individual steps taken but rather by a continuous and persistent effort to advancing reconciliation in a way that is transformative. As such, our government intends to build on these initial steps and continue down a path that will see relations shift based on the recognition of indigenous rights and self-determination.

The implementation of the UN declaration is an important part of this work. Bill C-262 calls for consistency between the standards set out in the UN declaration and federal laws, as well as a national action plan and reporting mechanisms to ensure its implementation. This is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action no. 43, which calls upon our government to implement the UN declaration as a framework for reconciliation. Both call on our government to enact measures to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and to ensure indigenous communities are able to thrive, socially, economically, and culturally. That is what reconciliation means.

As a starting point, our government understands that reconciliation is not possible without recognition. Indeed, recognition must occur before reconciliation can truly begin to manifest itself in the lives of indigenous peoples, and all Canadians, and in their relationships. This is why the fundamental next step is to address the legacy of denial that lies at the heart of federal laws and policies, and to replace it with the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples.

When we speak of recognition and implementation of rights, including historic and modern treaties, we mean what indigenous peoples have always meant by these terms, that rights are inherent, that they are grounded in the reality that indigenous peoples had systems of government and laws, and that they owned and used the lands which make up Canada prior to the arrival of Europeans.

The lack of recognition of rights and the patterns of relations based on denial of these rights have contributed to the unacceptable socio-economic indicators for indigenous peoples that were so starkly outlined by the Minister of Indigenous Services, in January, during the important emergency meeting on first nations, Inuit and Métis nation child and family services among governments, indigenous leaders and experts. These include life expectancy up to 15 years shorter for indigenous peoples than the rest of the population, infant mortality rates that are two to three times higher for first nations and Inuit, overdose deaths in Alberta and B.C. up to three times higher for first nations people, and Inuit tuberculosis rates that are 270 times higher than the rest of the population.

Implementing a framework for the recognition of rights is fundamental to closing the socio-economic gap; alleviating poverty; ending the scourge of youth suicide; building healthier families, communities, and nations; and ensuring that all generations of indigenous children to come will live in ever-increasing conditions of well-being, prosperity, and opportunity.

It is imperative that we, as a country, have a long overdue conversation about the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights, not only because of our constitutional obligation to recognize those rights, but because the social and economic gaps that continue to exist between indigenous and non-indigenous communities are a matter of national shame. Now is the time for action.

Both turning the tide and shifting our laws, policies, and operational practices to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples will require a range of measures, including legislative measures such as those set out in Bill C-262 as well as many more steps to come. This is entirely consistent with article 38 of the UN declaration, which recognizes that implementation requires governments to take a range of appropriate measures, including legislative ones, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples to achieve the ends for this declaration.

For this reason, in addition to supporting Bill C-262, our government will continue to work with indigenous peoples to bring forward further legislative and policy shifts that effect a change to relations based on recognition and implementation of rights.

Indigenous peoples and their leaders and communities must necessarily be a part of effecting this shift. It is important to acknowledge that indigenous peoples have long advocated for the recognition of their rights here in Canada and internationally. Our government's commitment to renewing its relationship with indigenous peoples calls on us to hear and act on those calls at last.

We look forward to continuing our mutual co-operation and partnership. As I have stated, the many actions taken thus far do not represent the completion of our commitment but rather the start of an evolving and continued commitment to true reconciliation.

We are in the midst of an opportunity to build on current efforts, gather momentum, and to accelerate progress towards a better, more effective relationship. As the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou noted when Bill C-262 was discussed in this place in December, the work required to achieve objectives like reconciliation and the recognition of rights can only be achieved “if we all work together”.

Our government must and will be a leader in these efforts, as well as every first nation, Inuit, and Métis community and organization, and indeed all Canadians, including youth, women, and elders.

We look forward to continuing this important work in collaboration and co-operation with our colleagues, indigenous peoples, and all Canadians.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to recognize the testimony of over 6,000 Canadians before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the many who have advocated for the enactment of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I particularly wish to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, for his dedication and persistence in both the creation of the UNDRIP and its affirmation in Canadian law.

It is truly an honour and a privilege to speak 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 bill was tabled by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, the NDP critic for reconciliation. It affirms the UNDRIP as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. It requires that the government take all necessary measures to ensure that Canadian laws are consistent with the declaration and to do so in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples in Canada. It also requires, through that same inclusive process, an action plan to achieve those objectives.

As early as 2006, former NDP leader Jack Layton expressed our party's support for the UNDRIP, saying that it was our belief in social justice and equality that led us to support the declaration. Related bills and motions were introduced during past Parliaments by former NDP MP Denise Savoie and the member for London—Fanshawe. In the previous Parliament, a bill similar to Bill C-262 was tabled by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, but it was defeated at second reading by 17 votes.

This declaration was overwhelmingly adopted by the members of the UN General Assembly in September 2007, following more than 25 years of deliberation and debate. This process included decades of dedicated work by a number of esteemed Canadian indigenous leaders, among them the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild, esteemed commissioner of the TRC.

As my colleague has shared, this milestone in the enshrining of human rights was the first time that rights-holder indigenous peoples had been given a central role in the creation of a global rights instrument. The declaration affirms the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination across every matter touching their lives. It underlines the prohibition against discrimination and genocide in international law.

Bill C-262 would enshrine the UNDRIP into Canadian law. It is important to note that voting in favour of a UN declaration is just the first step in showing commitment as a nation. A next critical step is the enactment of a law to affirm those principles in law, and then an action plan must be developed and delivered to actually implement the principles. By way of example, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity was enshrined in Canadian law through the Species at Risk Act. However, the struggle continues to ensure that the rights and benefits accorded under separate treaties are also observed in implementing that law.

It may be noted that the Federal Court held that a previous federal minister of the environment had erred in law by failing to consider the rights accorded to indigenous peoples, under treaty, for the recovery of woodland caribou. Sadly, little has changed, necessitating continued intervention by the courts and UN agencies. Indigenous leaders will be closely examining the coming bills regulating environmental assessment, major energy projects, fisheries, and navigable waters to verify that they are made consistent with the UNDRIP.

We were encouraged that the current Liberal government has moved beyond the position of the previous Conservative government that the UNDRIP is merely “an aspirational document”. In May 2016, then minister of indigenous and northern affairs announced her government's full support of the declaration, without qualification. However, confusion remained due to continued qualifiers for that support and a continuing refusal to enact the declaration in federal law.

The final breakthrough came in November last year, when the Minister of Justice publicly announced:

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.

In enacting the UNDRIP in Canadian law, what will the Liberal government be committing to deliver? The declaration contains 46 articles specifying the rights to be accorded to indigenous peoples to affirm self-determination and an end to discrimination and genocide. It provides a detailed framework for justice and reconciliation.

Bill C-262 is consistent with the TRC call that any legislation be developed in consultation and collaboration with aboriginal peoples.

It is also important to recall the commitment made by the Prime Minister to deliver on all 94 of the calls to action issued by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to action nos. 43 to 52 specifically call 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.”

Bill C-262 mirrors the TRC call for a national action plan, measures to ensure consistency between the UNDRIP and all federal laws, and government accountability through annual state of aboriginal peoples reports outlining plans to advance reconciliation. By this promise, the Government of Canada has therefore committed to “develop a national action plan, strategies and other concrete measures” to achieve the UNDRIP goals, including to enact legislation to establish a national council for reconciliation.

The TRC, in its interim report, recommended that all governments use the UNDRIP as the framework for reconciliation in Canada. The council, now established, is led by former TRC Commissioner, now Treaty No. 6 Grand Chief, Wilton Littlechild. As he recently reminded me, the declaration also clearly calls on all states to honour and respect the treaties and other agreements entered into with indigenous peoples.

In closing, I wish to share a message that Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild shared with me, which he recently delivered to the leaders of treaties nos. 1 to 11. He stated, “As with the eagle that represents first nations, one wing of the eagle represents the treaties we signed in good faith. The other wing represents the UNDRIP. It requires both wings to lift up and enable indigenous peoples so they may soar. Forty years ago indigenous leaders came together because their treaties were being violated and disrespected. They worked together to develop and seek global commitment to the UNDRIP to ensure that these treaties are respected.”

By supporting Bill C-262, we can provide the assurance that the UNDRIP will finally be enacted into law. However, we must remain vigilant in ensuring expedited action in delivering on those rights. Promises to respect land rights, rights to self-governance, access to safe drinking water, comparable education and services, and language and culture can no longer be considered adequate if delivered eventually.

As the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has said, “The UN Declaration is a powerful assertion by Indigenous peoples that we have survived, that we will survive, and that we insist on fair and just treatment by governments and communities. The implementation of the UN Declaration...could be a world-changing development.”

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the House today to talk about Bill C-262. At the outset, I would like to thank the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for his passion and his lifelong work to advance the causes of indigenous peoples, both in his riding and across the country. He is a passionate defender of indigenous rights. He is a passionate defender of indigenous languages. He is a survivor of the residential school system.

It was a pleasure to work with the member when I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of aboriginal affairs in the last Parliament. We had discussions about this. He brought forward a similar bill calling on the Government of Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canadian law. At the time, when I spoke to his bill, I said:

It must be said at the outset that our government is dedicated to protecting aboriginal rights in Canada. Indeed, Canada already boasts a unique and robust legal framework through which aboriginal rights are protected....

More than just lip service, we have enshrined the rights of aboriginal peoples in our Constitution, one of the only countries in the world to do so. As my hon. colleagues will know, aboriginal and treaty rights are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act and reaffirmed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover, our government has also issued a statement of support for the principles of the very document at the core of this bill, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which are consistent with our own commitment to continue working in partnership with aboriginal peoples to improve the well-being of aboriginal Canadians.

However, we have also been clear from the outset that while we support the general principles behind the declaration, there are several portions of the document with which our government has grave concerns, and we have articulated those concerns clearly to Canadians and to the international community, particularly as they relate to the concept of free, prior, and informed consent....

That really is at the crux of this debate. Can the concept of free, prior, and informed consent reconcile with section 35 of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Can we reconcile free, prior, and informed consent with the Canadian concept, which has been developed by Canadian legislatures, by Canadian Parliaments, by negotiations, and through jurisprudence, of the duty to consult and accommodate where necessary? Can the two be reconciled, or would the implementation of UNDRIP and FPIC, as they are called, supersede the work that has been done over the last 15 years especially, by the courts, by government, to create the duty to consult and accommodate? That is still a concept that is under constant refinement. It is one that is uniquely Canadian, and it responds to the unique circumstances Canadians have, which include section 35. We are one of the only countries in the world that specifically outlines indigenous rights and has them enshrined in our Constitution.

There is grave concern that if we were to simply adopt the United Nations convention how it would interact with our laws. That is why our previous government supported the goals and the underlying principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People but said that it was an aspirational document that should serve as a guide, not as a legal text.

That is a significant difference between the vision of the NDP and the current government. The government has now indicated that it will support the bill, which says that the Government of Canada must adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and make Canadian laws compliant with it.

One of the issues the member took with my speech and my position in the last Parliament was the subject of whether free, prior, and informed consent constituted a veto.

There are specific articles of the United Nations declaration that speak to natural resource development, for instance, on traditional territories. The member took great offence when I indicated that this would constitute a veto for indigenous communities, but I am not the only who has said that. Dr. Pam Palmater, an indigenous activist and commentator, said very clearly in a CBC interview:

We have...a legal right to free and informed and prior consent.... First Nations aren't asking for anything. First Nations have the right to free, informed and prior consent. That right is guaranteed in law and in effect that is a veto. First Nations say no on their territory, that means no. And [the Prime Minister] said very clearly that no means no when talking to First Nations. His job is to try to find ways in which to go forward with a yes to make sure that...the environment is protected and the economy goes forward, but not one at the expense of the other.

On February 8, 2017, under the headline “[The Prime Minister] has forgotten his promises to Indigenous Canadians”, she went on to say:

During the 2015 election campaign, [the Prime Minister] told First Nations that if we elected him, he would absolutely respect our legal right to veto any development on our territories. And yet his government has approved two major pipelines.

We have no choice but to challenge the Canadian government over its pipeline plans, and continue to fight.

Clearly, there are some indigenous scholars who believe that simply agreeing to the principles of UNDRIP means that a right to veto has already been granted to indigenous communities. Clearly, more work needs to be done. We cannot simply rush into a process where there is no agreement on what these articles mean and how they would be applied in Canadian law.

I want to quote Frank Iacobucci, the former Supreme Court justice, who said:

An important tenet of UNDRIP is the consultation of indigenous peoples “in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent.” Future legislation, government policy and judicial interpretations will determine whether these principles differ significantly from Canada's existing jurisprudence on the duty to consult.

Regardless, the principles of free, prior and informed consent and the existing duty to consult share the same goal: to protect Indigenous peoples, remedy historical disadvantage and provide a foundation for a more respectful and mutually beneficial relationship.

Clearly, that is the goal of all parliamentarians. We want to find a way to make our laws and system work better for all indigenous communities in Canada. We want to make sure that they see the benefits of responsible resource development. We have certainly seen cases where the government has had no concern for the indigenous communities that support natural resource development. On the Eagle Spirit Energy pipeline, for instance, they were not consulted at all on the issue of the tanker moratorium in northern British Columbia. The northern gateway pipeline was cancelled without consulting indigenous communities that stood to benefit by a $2-billion equity share in that project. There is not even agreement yet in Canada as to which group would grant free, prior, and informed consent, the new concept that has been envisioned in UNDRIP.

We all want to move together toward reconciliation. Conservatives have made efforts on that. It was the Conservative government that launched the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, the Conservatives believe that we should respect Canadian law, Canadian jurisprudence, and the duty to consult and accommodate. We believe that this bill goes down a path of uncertainty that would create greater uncertainty in Canada, which would not lead to reconciliation. It would lead to greater fear and discord. We believe that we need to work together to come up with a Canadian solution to this issue and not simply adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We need to work together, using the tools available in our Constitution and in our courts.

The House resumed from December 5, 2017 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Prof. Vicki Chartrand, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Bishop's University, As an Individual]

Before I begin, I would actually like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land on this unceded territory of the Anishinabe people. It's an honour and privilege for me.

I also want to thank the members of this standing committee for their time and energy in embarking on such important work.

As noted, I am Vicki Chartrand. I am currently associate professor at Bishop's University in Sherbrooke, Quebec. Previous to this, I was the executive director of a women's transition house in the northern interior of British Columbia. I also worked at the national office of the Elizabeth Fry Societies. Prior to that, I worked at Correctional Service Canada in the voluntary sector in the parole office.

You may know that in 2016 Macleans magazine published an article entitled “Canada’s prisons are the 'new residential schools'”. The statement builds on a substantial body of research that explores how Canada's criminal justice system works against indigenous people at every level: police checks and arrests, bail denial and detention, sentencing miscarriages and disparities, and of course, the high rates of imprisonment. These trends are also well documented throughout other settler colonial regions, such as the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.

It's clear that the problem is systemic to settler regions like Canada. While the prison is not a residential school per se, we have to keep in mind that it was born of the same modern logics of segregation and reformation of the individual. I don't think it's a coincidence that in the 1950s and 1960s, as we started to see Indian assimilation policies begin to recede, we also started to see the prison and the child welfare systems silently take their place in the lives of indigenous people. In fact, prior to the 1960s, there was only 1% to 2% of indigenous prisoners. Since the 1960s, that number has increased consistently every year after.

As you have likely heard, indigenous women represent 2% of the general population and somewhere between 36% and 39% of the federal prison population. This reality is woven into a backdrop of colonialism, where indigenous women are more often criminalized and then imprisoned for what are referred to as “crimes of survival” that are linked to poverty, lack of educational and employment opportunities, lifestyles of substance abuse, mental health concerns, and histories of sexual abuse, violence, and trauma. In your study, it's important for the committee to consider how the prison system often parallels and reinforces the same realities of repression, abuse, and violence experienced by indigenous women from the onset of colonialism.

I've visited prisons all across Canada, in Australia, and I've even been in a prison in Cambodia. Prisons are characterized by authoritarianism, marked power imbalance, violence, enforced restriction of movement and activities, isolation, lack of freedom of association, and enforcement of arbitrary and trivial demands. This is also very characteristic of colonialism itself.

Indigenous women end up on the deepest end of the system, and continue to be subject to some of the most restrictive levels of penal practices, such as maximum-security classifications, segregation, involuntary transfers, physical restraints, strip searches, lockdowns, use of force, dry cells, institutional charges, lack of medical attention, and also with higher rates of self-harm and suicide. When you end up on the deep end of the system—and I don't mean to be macabre—you often don't come out alive.

Adaptive or coping strategies commonly exhibited by women in prison, such as angry outbursts, substance use, or self-injury, are often cultivated in response to the prison environment and compounded by their histories of abuse, violence, and trauma. Women's resistance to the institutional order, or their inability to adjust or cope, is often interpreted as non-compliance, perceived as a security threat, and met with intensive control, which also results in more time in prison.

For example, there are two cases in the media that I'm sure you're familiar with.

Kinew James, who died of a heart attack after her sentence after her emergency button call in her cell was routinely ignored, was initially serving a six-year sentence for manslaughter but accumulated dozens of charges while in prison, which resulted in a 15-year sentence.

Renee Acoby has also been in the media. She accumulated an additional 21 years of charges in prison, spent more than half her time in segregation, and was eventually given a dangerous offender designation, which, effectively, keeps her in prison for life. This is particularly germane for indigenous women whose resistance to control or violence is a part of their survival in their communities or on reserve, whatever the case may be.

Since 1848, from the Brown commission, we've been looking at the systemic repression and brutality in the prisons.

Since the 1960s we've been looking at remedies to address the rates of incarceration of indigenous people in Canada that have included more penal interventions, and clearly to no avail. It is a mistake for us to continue to make the prisons part of a remedy to the rates of indigenous incarceration when that reality is arguably endemic to its character.

I have solutions that I want to build on that echo the significant work others have been doing in this area already.

First, front-end strategies that are indigenous-led are more long-term. There's a bill on the table, Bill C-262, that outlines the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I want to commend the current government for supporting this bill. It's in line with the TRC recommendations.

We need to make sure that basic rights of indigenous people are being met. There are basic national standards of clean water, electricity, employment and educational opportunities, social service support, health care, and the like.

Second, we have to minimize and mitigate the harmful impacts of the prisons, such as, for example, by abolishing segregation, at the very least, for women. My understanding is that the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies has a pilot project in place that looks at dynamic security measures, rather than more restrictive ones, such as force measures. We can also accomplish this through external, independent oversight and accountability. That can happen by way of judicial review, as outlined in the Arbour report, or through parliamentary oversight in the intermediary, as outlined by Senator Kim Pate.

Finally, we need decarceration strategies and community options. There are existing remedies in the legislation that include, in the CCRA, section 29 agreements in the community for people with mental health concerns, and sections 81 and 84, whereby indigenous and non-indigenous prisoners can serve their sentence and parole in a supported way in the community.

In implementing these remedies, we obviously need the necessary resources. We have to build on the internal strengths and capacities of indigenous communities—I could talk more about that—as well as be creative in our options.

I just want to remind you that prisons don't disappear problems; they only disappear people.

Thank you so much for listening.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This is very important.

The government has said the nation-to-nation relationship is their top priority. This has advanced even since I put forward my proposed amendment. The government has now publicly declared to indigenous people that they intend to support and vote for Bill C-262, and that means they are going to put the UNDRIP into federal law. That doesn't say how they're going to apply it.

In the same way, just simply mentioning the polluter pays principle or the precautionary principle doesn't say how they will be applied. It's simply saying that we will give thought to them—we will give thought to this principle, we will give thought to that principle. It doesn't say that in every individual case, this is exactly how we're going to apply it.

I am raising this point because the justice minister had declared—and now in the House on the debate of the bill, government members have said—that they are going to be supporting this bill, and therefore it is critical that we make sure that our laws align with the UN declaration. This is the opportunity to do that.

I am recommending that it's the opportune moment to do it. When will this act be amended again? Is it “eventually”? It's up to the members here to vote, but I think the government has been clear that its position is that it will now put UNDRIP in law. No one knows, on the timing, which bill will come forward first, but I think the intent is clear there.

I just rest my case that this has been declared by the Government of Canada, and so I think it's appropriate that it be specific. I'm very concerned about the wording of proposed paragraph 5(g) because it immediately narrows any international obligations or commitments simply to “traditional knowledge” and “knowledge of lands and waters”, which I think is inappropriate.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Since the bill was written and tabled, the government of the day, through the Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould, has stated that the government will be supporting Romeo Saganash's Bill C-262, which states that the Government of Canada,

must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples.

She has said, then, that it acknowledges the application of the UN declaration in Canada and calls for the alignment of the laws of Canada to the UN declaration. She has said that she will now ensure that all the laws of the nation will be aligned with the UNDRIP. That's a very specific commitment.

The problem with the way that proposed paragraph 5(g) is written right now is that it's a very narrow and tiny aspect of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. When you go through that, particularly if you go to articles 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 31, or 32, there are many provisions of the UNDRIP that relate to sustainable development, far beyond traditional knowledge and unique understanding of lands.

It was also recommended, as I recall, by the commissioner, and also by Scott Vaughan, the former commissioner, now the head of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, that there should be specific reference to the UNDRIP in this. That's why I'm recommending replacing paragraph (g), which includes only a very narrow aspect of what Canada has committed to.

If we're talking about his broad definition of sustainable development, we need to make sure, when we're speaking of indigenous rights, that we're embracing all of what Canada has said that it embraces. It did say it embraced it before, but it's going to put it into law, and the laws of the land should be consistent.

To me, the simplest way to do it is to reference the UNDRIP.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, reiterated, our government is proud of our commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We are pleased to be here today discussing our support for Bill C-262.

In considering the elements of the proposal, it is imperative that we consider it within the context of where we are now and where we are going. We are in the midst of a number of ongoing processes and initiatives that will assist in the implementation of the UN declaration in Canada. In addition to the establishment of a process to review laws, policies, and operational practices relating to indigenous peoples, and the creation of permanent bilateral mechanisms with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the Métis National Council, a number of other initiatives are furthering our pursuit of a renewed nation-to-nation, Inuit-crown, and government-to-government relationship with indigenous peoples. For instance, the Government of Canada has undertaken a review of Canada's environmental assessment and regulatory processes, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, the Fisheries Act, the Navigation Protection Act, and the National Energy Board Act.

The United Nations declaration was, and continues to be, considered one of the key elements of these review processes. Indigenous peoples were engaged in all four reviews. The government is currently considering the wide range of recommendations from the review reports, including those on how best to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and involve them in decision-making processes.

Since 2015, we have been engaged in recognition of indigenous rights and self-determination discussions with indigenous groups to address their rights, interests, and needs, and enable greater self-determination. At last count, there were more than 50 such discussion tables under way, representing 300 indigenous communities and a population of more than 500,000 people. Additional rights and recognition tables are also being contemplated.

Discussions like these are contributing to the development of new relationships and approaches that are ultimately intended to support the actualization of self-determination and contribute to reconciliation. These discussions are also resulting in the co-development of section 35-related policy reforms. All of this work aligns with the UN declaration. Concrete action reflecting the minimum standards of the UN declaration has also been taken in a variety of policy and program areas, including economic development, housing, education, access to safe drinking water, and governance.

The proposals in Bill C-262, including the development of an action plan aimed at ensuring consistency between Canadian laws and the declaration, are consistent with this work and highlight the importance of providing opportunities for dialogue on what changes can be made to federal laws and policies to advance reconciliation in this country.

However, Bill C-262 will not, on its own, operationalize the United Nations declaration in Canadian law. What is required to do that is to move from dialogue to tackling real issues faced by indigenous communities across Canada. Let me take a moment to describe some of the concrete progress we are making.

For example, the Inuit-crown partnership committee is working together to identify and oversee the implementation of short, medium, and long-term initiatives and solutions for addressing the housing crisis in the Inuit territory. As part of this process, we are currently co-developing an Inuit Nunangat housing strategy. This approach recognizes the direct role of Inuit organizations and governments in addressing housing needs in Inuit communities, the need for long-term sustainable investments, as well as the importance of ongoing collaboration among Inuit, the federal government, and provincial and territorial governments.

First nations communities and the government are also working towards long-term solutions to improve on-reserve water and wastewater infrastructure, ensure proper facility operation and maintenance, and strengthen capacity into the future. Since the commitment of $1.8 billion over five years for water and wastewater infrastructure in budget 2016, 348 projects have been completed, or are under way, or are planned to address and prevent long-term drinking water advisories now and into the future.

Together these projects will serve approximately 270,000 people in 275 first nation communities.

We are also working with indigenous people on the development of distinctions-based legislation to promote and revitalize Métis, Inuit, and first nations languages. In October this year, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs introduced Bill C-61, the Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement act. This legislation would give effect to an agreement negotiated between Canada and the Anishinabek Nation that recognizes Anishinabek control over education for 23 participating first nation communities.

Each of these specific measures and initiatives play an important role in contributing to achieving the standards described in the UN declaration. However, there is more to do to get us where we are going.

The process of dissolving Indigenous and Northern Affairs to better align with the needs and rights of indigenous people is one such forward-looking measure. This shift to a new department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs coupled with the department of Indigenous Services will better support indigenous peoples in strengthening their own political, cultural, and economic institutions. In turn, this supports indigenous self-determination, reflected throughout the UN declaration. In this context, the approach proposed in Bill C-262 would continue to build on the progress that has already been made, and it deserves serious consideration by the committee.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise today to support Bill C-262, which was introduced by my colleague and friend from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

As we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the place we now call Canada, we must take this opportunity to pursue genuine reconciliation with indigenous peoples. A good look at the living conditions of many of Canada's first nations might dampen our celebratory mood.

This year also marks the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Drafted over a period of more than 20 years in collaboration with indigenous nations around the world, this living human rights instrument seeks to enhance harmonious relations between states and indigenous peoples.

Unfortunately, Canadian governments of the past 150 years have opposed the adoption of this declaration and its fundamental principles or have failed to take the necessary measures to implement it, a pattern that continues today.

I was very pleased to learn recently that there is some openness among certain members of this government, and I hope that we have enough support to finally implement this important declaration within our own legislative framework.

It is unacceptable and particularly shameful that a disconnect still persists between the official recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and the implementation of policies that allow those rights to be fully implemented on the ground. It is high time that we did something, that we stopped talking and started acting, so that the first peoples of this country do not have to wait another second for their fundamental rights to be protected, respected, and recognized.

I sincerely thank my colleague and dear friend from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for playing such an important role in actively contributing to the drafting of this declaration. Above all, I congratulate him on having the courage and daring to introduce Bill C-262, giving us this historic opportunity to debate the fundamental rights of indigenous people here in the House of Commons.

The fight for indigenous rights is very near and dear to me. However, it is very frustrating that so much work remains to be done to ensure the survival, dignity, and well-being of indigenous peoples in Canada.

In 2012, as the official opposition housing critic, I went on an extensive Canada-wide tour to determine the extent of the housing crisis in our country. As long as I live, I will never forget the time I spent in the ridings of my colleagues from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

Thanks to them, I had the opportunity to meet with northern Inuit and Cree communities from Nunavik and members of the first nations of northern Saskatchewan. That is when theory became reality, and I grasped the scope of the indigenous housing problem in Canada.

I have a hard time understanding how the government can remain so idle on this file when we know that it is not uncommon, in indigenous communities, to see 15 family members living under one roof, with walls covered in mould, often with no access to potable water. They are living in conditions that we would never accept if those conditions were as widespread in the non-indigenous population.

What is more, the housing units they live in are not adapted to their traditional way of life or to the climate. This painful reality affects them deeply, but no targeted strategy was included in the national housing strategy that was announced less than two weeks ago.

Housing is not the only area in which they experience discrimination. As we speak, indigenous men, women and children are still subject to archaic, colonial, racist, discriminatory, and sexist laws. Indigenous peoples continue to be excluded and marginalized and to suffer serious violations of their fundamental rights.

Intergenerational trauma, the wave of suicides, and the deterioration of mental and physical health should receive the attention they deserve. I could go on and on, as there are many problems.

What is certain is that past and current colonialist measures and policies of governments and churches have resulted in the dispossession of their lands and resources, the shameful residential school system, and the cultural genocide brought on by the denial and destruction of indigenous languages and cultures.

It is now 2017, and our country claims to be in an era of reconciliation. If the time for reconciliation has truly arrived, if we are truly sincere, these actions must stop immediately.

It is imperative that we stop talking and start acting, because the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples are no longer negotiable. They are universal and should be treated accordingly.

Members will surely recall that last year, in call to action no. 43, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called on the federal government “to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.”

In call to action no. 44, the commission called on the government 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.”

Today, Bill C-262 gives us an opportunity to reject our colonial past and to reverse the historical patterns and decisions that were imposed and that threatened the survival of many indigenous peoples. It gives us the opportunity to adopt a new approach based on justice, equality, respect for human rights, and good faith, an approach that should have been taken and recognized a long time ago.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets out a series of human rights and fundamental freedoms that indigenous peoples have the right to enjoy. Article 9 of the declaration specifically states that:

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.

The days of forced assimilation and cultural genocide are over. Whether we are talking about education, health, or environmental protection, preserving their identity and their customs and traditions has to be the top priority.

The declaration also allows for the right to self-determination, the right to maintain and develop their own political, religious, cultural, and educational institutions, and the protection of their cultural and intellectual property.

Article 33 of the declaration states that:

Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.

[They also] have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.

Another key aspect of the declaration is control over their own lands, territories, and natural resources. The history of the indigenous peoples teaches us that they have lived on these lands since time immemorial.

Despite treaties and commitments to live in harmony on this land, the settlers did not keep their promises. There needs to be a return of lands, territory, and resources, as well as fair and equitable compensation.

On that note, article 19 of the declaration 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 before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

This article of the declaration would allow us to change the way we do things and our historically colonialist attitude and implement a process for true nation-to-nation negotiation, on equal terms.

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, the creation of national and international courts, and regional mechanisms for denouncing and examining human rights violations.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the culmination of more than 25 years of collaboration, and the bill from the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou will enable this country to build a truly meaningful nation-to-nation relationship at last.

This legislative framework will allow us to leave a lasting legacy by gradually correcting the mistakes of the past, serving as a catalyst that will ultimately lead to the repeal of the shameful Indian Act, and effectively banning the discriminatory doctrines of discovery and terra nullius.

Lastly, this legislative framework will affirm the significant value of the national reconciliation process. Without justice, there can be no reconciliation in Canada.

It is high time we adopted and implemented the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so that the fundamental rights of first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples can finally be restored and recognized.

In closing, I would like to note that we are on unceded Anishinabe territory.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for bringing forward his private member's bill, Bill C-262. I note his important contribution to the discussion on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I would also like to share my profound respect for my colleague and acknowledge the important work he has done over many years that has significantly impacted indigenous policy in this country.

Before addressing the private member's bill, I would like to make a general observation. Section 35 of our Constitution and Canada's existing laws has in the past, and will in the future, ensure that indigenous rights are protected in Canada. We only need to reflect on a number of historical court decisions to understand how section 35 is shaping these rights. From the 1999 Marshall decision that confirmed the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet treaty right to catch and sell fish, to the 2014 Tsilhqot'in decision that granted aboriginal title to more than 1,700 sq kilometres of territory, a first in Canadian law, it is clear that our understanding of indigenous rights is constantly evolving. Just last week, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision regarding the Peel watershed, which upheld aboriginal land use rights protected in treaties.

It might be suggested that the gap or problem in Canada is not our legal framework, but our frequent failure to live up to the obligations and the honour of the crown.

The bill before us today seeks to implement the 46 articles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as stated in the document, “a standard...to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect”. All parties in the House acknowledge the need for reconciliation, a better shared future, and the importance of the declaration. The 46 articles are essential guiding principles for that journey.

I do have some unanswered questions regarding how this international document will transpose into a domestic framework. In my opinion, we need some clear answers before we can move forward on Bill C-262. Let me share some general and specific concerns that need to be addressed.

In the past, the Liberals have argued vehemently that any small changes to the Indian Act and the Labour Code must only be introduced as government legislation, where there is an opportunity for comprehensive reflection and not just a couple of hours of debate. I would suggest that the bill before us today has more far-reaching implications than the right to a secret ballot for union certification. For the Liberals to support an NDP private member's bill to implement UNDRIP and not put it forward as government-initiated legislation is unfathomable. The debate will not be afforded the due diligence that it requires and deserves. Even today, members might have noticed that we did not hear from the minister. We did not have an opportunity under private members' business to even question the minister. In my mind, that is a problem.

To get into more specifics, first and foremost was the statement by the Minister of Justice in 2016, and I quote, “Simplistic approaches such as adopting the United Nations declaration as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work actually required to implement it back home in communities.”

The justice minister, unlike many of us who will be speaking to the bill, has access to all sorts of comprehensive briefings and advice. The minister would not have made that comment lightly, so it is critical for her to explain why she made the comment at that time, and how she now reconciles that with her recent commitment to support the bill. I would note that because it is private member's bill, we are very unlikely to get a chance to ask her that question.

On Thursday of last week, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations was at committee. At that time, we had the opportunity to ask a number of questions, and I want to provide a brief summary of that testimony.

Article 19 suggests that the government ensure free, prior, and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative measures that may affect them. When the minister was asked if that would apply to laws of general application or only laws that exclusively impact indigenous people, she clearly indicated that there would be a broader application. That brings us to a question of what future laws of broader application in this country would require free, prior, and informed consent, and how will that be determined in a country as diverse as Canada. How will that consent be given?

The national organizations acknowledge they are not rights holders, they are not the authorized decision-makers, and their mandate is advocacy. The indigenous community has indicated that it has to do a lot of work in terms of nation rebuilding. Therefore, what government structure or consultation framework would be put in place to actually engage in these consultations? To what degree would this commitment around the laws of general application fetter the government's ability to move forward? I will give some recent examples.

We certainly know that with Bill S-3, the government is committed to engaging in a consultation process. Clearly, that is not a general application law, but the government is going to have consultations with bands across the country. I have no idea how the government members are going to determine when they have concurrence and how long they are going to have to spend in a process where there will be human rights competing in terms of consent, and at the very dichotomy of the many consultations they will have to have. In that case it is first nations, but we also have the Métis and the Inuit.

The marijuana law is another example of broader application that is clearly going to have an impact in indigenous communities. Under our current framework, the government only engaged in a general consultation process. Would that bill be subject to article 19, and if so what would it do to the government's timelines and how are the Liberals going to move forward? The answer to that question is unknown, but it is important.

Today, we have been debating in the House Bill C-58, which is the privacy law. Again, we have a number of indigenous communities whose representatives have said that they have grave concerns. They have referenced the UN declaration in terms of their right to have input, and free, prior, and informed consent, but we have no system or process in terms of how we are going to move that forward. That is important work that needs to be done.

Where a lot of people have focused, the laws of general application are something we need to pay particular attention to, but there is also the issue of free, prior, and informed consent as it relates to the development of the natural resources. The minister has suggested it was not a veto and the position was supported by National Chief Bellegarde. However, he noted on three occasions that free, prior, and informed consent means the right to say yes and the right to say no. A number of lawyers have said the whole discussion is really a bit of semantics and whether it is veto or consent it has the same effect. Again, it leads to a question in law. What is the difference between “free, prior, and informed consent” and “consult and accommodate”, which is what we have in law right now? Certainly there is no question that the declaration proposes that change in our law and we need to simply know what that is going to mean because it is important. From what I have seen, the legal opinions out there are as varied as they possibly could be. As members might imagine, it leaves confusion in the minds of not only the indigenous communities but Canadians in general. We have some work to do in terms of developing a common understanding before we commit to an implementation into our legal framework.

Article 29 talks about the right to territories, lands, and resources. In British Columbia alone, that is 100% of the province. What are going to be the practical implications for perhaps the tourism operators in the Chilcotin or the ranchers who have depended on crown land, as these decisions get made? We have not talked about impacted third parties and how, as we correct the injustices of the past, we should not create a new injustice.

In conclusion, as members can see from my 10 minutes of speaking, there are a lot of important unanswered questions. My first concern is the fact that the government has committed to implementing this as a private member's bill where we are going to be limited in the debate and our opportunity to create a shared understanding. The shared understanding of all these concepts is going to be critical in terms of moving forward into success in the future for all.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today as an Inuk woman in Canada and to be part of a government that has been clear that Canada is fully in support of the UN Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples. As has been stated by our ministers and the Prime Minister, we are committed to its adoption and implementation in Canada. This means translating the standards set out in the declaration into effective change.

I want to reassure my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who asked a question earlier, that UNDRIP and its components in Bill C-262 are a priority for our government and that we fully intend to honour these priorities.

Bill C-262 bill proposes a process of dialogue and the development of an action plan aimed at ensuring consistency between federal law and the declaration. Such an approach would be consistent with other ongoing processes, including the review of laws, policies, operational practices, and the permanent bilateral mechanisms that are in place. It would also consistent with our government's commitment to advance the recognition and implementation of indigenous peoples' rights. As a result, we are pleased to support Bill C-262, while remaining committed to further action, in partnership with indigenous peoples.

To begin, I would like to acknowledge the member for Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik—Eeyou for his tremendous work not only in this Parliament, but also in recognizing and putting forward Bill C-262, as a supporter of the declaration of indigenous people in Canada.

I also want to recognize and congratulate many others who may have worked with our government to advance these goals. I saw one of our former chiefs, Chief Willie Littlechild, here today. He worked with the member of Parliament in making this a reality and on a united declaration. I know there are many others as well.

As our government has emphasized, it is time for a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples, one that is based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. We see Bill C-262 as a good next step in the ongoing work of transforming the relationship with indigenous peoples. I think that is the vision my colleague held when he brought this bill forward to the House of Commons.

Bill C-262 would continue to build on the progress made by our government to date. We have already established 50 recognition of indigenous rights and and self-determination discussion tables across the country. We have created a permanent bilateral mechanism with a national indigenous organization. Further, we have established a working group of ministers to review federal laws, policies, and operational practices to ensure that they align with section 35 of our Constitution, as well as the UN declaration. That process is being led by our Minister of Justice, a first nations woman in Canada.

Also, as a government we released 10 principles with respect to the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. The principles reflect the views expressed by indigenous peoples over generations, and reinforce the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, a document dating back more than 20 years that has not really been enacted in Canada.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and UNDRIP, combined with all of these others, are certainly the groundwork that we needed to really advance our relationship with indigenous people in this country. These and other efforts are part of the government's approach in advancing reconciliation and improving the lives of indigenous people in Canada.

We really appreciate all of the people who have been involved, both indigenous and non-indigenous people in this country, in speaking out for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We heard today a passionate plea from my colleague opposite, a plea that was built on life experiences and came from the heart. That is what we have heard expressed by so many indigenous people across our country. We know that view is far-reaching and we also know what must be done to operationalize the United Nations declaration provisions in Canadian law. This includes pursuing comprehensive legislation and policy changes in partnership with first nations, Inuit, and Métis nations, in order to fully adopt and implement the declaration and meet the promise of section 35 of our Constitution.

A transformative shift in relations is required, and that is what we are doing. Relationships must be based on the recognition of rights and a shift that enables tangible change to the marginalization and disempowerment that have been experienced by indigenous people and communities for far too long. This shift cannot be achieved through just one piece of legislation alone.

For this reason, our government is working with indigenous people to bring forward further legislative and policy shifts that will be based on the recognition and implementation of rights. This may include new legislative standards for crown conduct based on recognition, mechanisms to support indigenous self-determination and the inherent right of self-government, and changes to core policies regarding indigenous people. I am sure that many of my colleagues in the House are, as I am today, happy to hear that the government is prepared to walk that line and bring forward the legislation that will be necessary to implement this declaration.

I think we can all agree that while the principles speak of the shift to recognition, they cannot operationalize this shift themselves. The same is true for the UN declaration. Words are not enough; action is needed. Therefore, we need to build a framework, in full partnership with indigenous people, that embeds recognition in all federal decisions, actions, and negotiations; that aligns federal laws with the UN declaration; and that creates mechanisms that have been supported by indigenous governments for a very long time. That includes transitioning out of the Indian Act.

In closing, I want to congratulate the member for bringing forward this motion today. We, on this side of the House, are proud to support this private member's bill and give him our guarantee that we are on this path together, all indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, and we will do what is long past due in this country, which is to bring forward the right legislation and standards to ensure that self-determination and the inherent rights of indigenous people are respected in the lands that we all love.

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

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, I just thanked the Anishinaabe for allowing us to be in this place at this moment. We often forget that there are families who lived on this territory before Parliament Hill was established and that is the Pinaceae family. I want to thank them for allowing us to be on their territory, and we always need to recognize that fact.

I want to say from the outset how privileged I feel to be able to stand in this place and talk about the fundamental rights of the first peoples of this country. I say privileged because there are a lot of indigenous people in this country who do not have that voice, so I am privileged to be able to stand in this room and speak on their behalf so that they can be heard as well. My mom only speaks Cree, and I do not think she would be able to be a member of Parliament because of that very fact. She only speaks Cree, and this place does not allow us to be able to do that. Therefore, I want to honour those people who are not often often heard and are not often listened to.

It is also quite fitting that this bill is being debated on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. We are now beginning to discuss the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples as human rights. That does not happen a lot, very rarely as a matter of fact, so it is important that we remind ourselves that the indigenous peoples' fundamental rights in this country are indeed human rights.

Bill C-262 would also allow us to begin to redress the past wrongs, the past injustices that were inflicted on indigenous people. This is the main objective of Bill C-262, to recognize that on one hand they are human rights but on the other hand that we begin to redress the past injustices that were inflicted on the first peoples of this country.

Mr. Speaker, you already know that I am a survivor of the residential school system where I spent 10 years incarcerated culturally, politically, linguistically, spiritually even, in the residential school system. I set out to do exactly two things coming out of residential school: first, to go back to the land where I come from and live off the land, hunting, fishing, and trapping. That is exactly what I did the first year I came out of residential school. The other thing I said to myself was that when I came out the objective for me that I set out was to reconcile with the people who had put me away for 10 years. That was my objective, to reconcile with the people who had put me away for 10 years.

Bill C-262 is my response and my extended hand to you, Mr. Speaker, for reconciliation and, of course, through you to all Canadians and to all parliamentarians in this place.

There are momentous occasions and this is a momentous occasion for all of us as parliamentarians. One of the things that we can do in the name of reconciliation is to adopt this framework that I am proposing through Bill C-262. I do not need to remind members that the world is watching. This is an occasion for us all to show that we are truly sorry and the world that we in 2017, in this time of reconciliation with indigenous peoples, are ready for what I am proposing in the bill, namely, that our minimum standards for relations with the indigenous peoples of this country be those set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I want to thank the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and their colleagues for finally accepting that this should be a framework for reconciliation in this country. I also want to thank previous members of Parliament who have proposed similar instruments in this place, in particular two other MPs who have proposed similar bills here.

The UN declaration has been decades in the making. In fact, it took more than 20 years to achieve. It has been 10 years since the UN General Assembly formally accepted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There is no member state in the world as we speak that objects to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In fact, the United Nations has reaffirmed at least five times in the past this declaration as a universal human rights declaration.

This is a momentous opportunity to set a global precedent that is expected of a country like Canada. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians, as the UN charter calls us to do, to respect and promote all human rights, including the human rights of indigenous peoples. The rule of law in this country obliges us to respect the Constitution, and in the Constitution there are the section 35 rights of indigenous peoples. That is what the rule of law is. It calls on us to respect and promote the universal rights of indigenous peoples.

I want to remind my fellow members that with Bill C-262, we are not creating new law or new rights. Those rights are fundamental and they exist. They are inherent. They exist because we exist as indigenous people.

In that sense, it is important to recognize that we need to continue to promote, and we have an obligation as a country to promote, those fundamental rights.

Bill C-262 also does away with colonialism in this country, very explicitly. We have explicit ties with our territories. We have spiritual ties with our territories. We need to recognize that once and for all.

Bill C-262 is about human rights. Bill C-262 is about justice. Bill C-262 is about reconciliation. If we are true to our commitment to reconciliation, this is the first step in that direction. No one in this place, or in the galleries, opposes the human rights of indigenous peoples. No one in this place opposes human rights. No one in this place is opposed to reconciliation.

This is the way forward. This is a first step in the right direction. Let us stop talking about those rights and the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples of this country; let us do something about it. This is what we are proposing today.

I want to quote former secretary-general of the UN when, in talking about the declaration in 2008, he said that the declaration is “a visionary step towards addressing the human rights of Indigenous peoples”, and, he added, “a momentous opportunity for States and Indigenous peoples to strengthen their relationships, promote reconciliation and ensure that the past is not repeated.

It is important to realize that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation this House will have to deal with. We are talking about the first peoples of this country. We are talking about the fundamental human rights of the first peoples of this country. This is a step in the right direction.

In closing, I wish to underline that I am committed to, and am looking forward to, working with the ministers across the way on improving the rights of indigenous peoples. The work can only be fully achieved if we all work together. That is what I am proposing: the recognition that the rights must remain in the framework of international human rights standards.

I know my time is almost up, but I also want to quote what many have said in the past with respect to the UN declaration. The former attorney general of British Columbia had this to say recently about the UN declaration:

There's a better approach. As the Supreme Court of Canada has said now on several occasions, Indigenous peoples are the beneficial owners of their traditional lands. They have the right—guaranteed by our Constitution and reflected in UNDRIP....

I agree with that. That is the road we need to take from now on.

I appreciate this moment to discuss Bill C-262 to recognize those rights we have as the first peoples of this country. If we are serious about reconciliation in this country, we need to take that path of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We have waited far too long to get here. We are here now. This is an opportunity for this House to recognize that those universal rights that also belong to indigenous peoples need to be enshrined in our way of doing things in this country.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the many promoters of the bill. I call them the Steve Heinrichs of the country, and there are several of them in the gallery today. I want to thank them for their support. Without them, we would not be standing here talking about this today.

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.

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

Thank you.

Again, I think before supporting Bill C-262, a very descriptive...of each article, what it's going to mean, how you plan to implement it.... With Bill C-262, we recognize it as a very important document. We recognize that there are many things that need to be done, but the actual implementation, as the minister said, needs to be articulated to Canadians because what you're saying is hugely important.

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

I'll make my questions short so that you can use your time effectively, Minister Bennett.

In 2016 Minister Wilson-Raybould said, “Simplistic approaches such as adopting the [UN] declaration as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work actually required to implement it back home in communities.” Your government has recently indicated that it's going to support Bill C-262, which does implement the declaration.

First of all, I want you to reconcile the minister's statement with the new stance on Bill C-262. Also, would you describe your approach to UNDRIP as applying within the confines of aboriginal rights under section 35, or will you propose having the principles of the declaration succeed the current framework of the Constitution?

[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.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

My colleague, Romeo Saganash, has tabled a bill, 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. I think people know about this bill. I want a quick answer, yes or no, from everybody around the table as to whether or not the CLC supports it, and also from yourself, Dr. Cindy Blackstock.

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

One of the things that has been said over and over again throughout these hearings—and we started a couple of days ago in Vancouver—is with respect to the process. Many have argued it's not independent enough and is too adversarial, but however we tweak these policies that are in front of us, they still remain policies, hence the importance of your reference to having a legislative framework.

I'm happy to inform you that Bill C-262 will be debated next September and will provide exactly that legal framework, UNDRIP as the legal framework, for everything we do from here forward. Whether it's policy, legislation, or what have you, these standards will be the minimum standards for this country, so I'd like you to comment on that because—

[Grand Chief Sheila North Wilson]

I'll start.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

I could hear and understand your different dialect, and I was very excited about that, because I was listening very closely. This is another educational moment here: we have different dialects of Cree. All four of us speak Cree, but we all have different dialects, and I have to listen particularly hard to Romeo Saganash.

Thank you for the welcome, and thank you for being here and representing Cree people at this committee.

Your bill, Bill C-262 is necessary because if that's what the governments need to find a way to practicalize the treaties, then let it be. I think that's what it is for a lot of us. If the treaties are too broad, too basic, or too vague, then have a tool like UNDRIP to set the process. I see hope in this. I think we have to fully implement it to start working at these deeper issues that are outstanding, and ultimately bring our people up to a modern day civilization where we're self-reliant. Thank you for that. I do believe that's the avenue we need to follow to take us to that next level.

Back then, we needed a process like that. Our people say that when the treaty-making process was happening, and even recently in the seventies with the MFA, our people weren't in the mindset of negotiating to those specifics, and a lot of it was in good faith. Grand Chief Dumas talks about our kindness all the time, and that's basically what our ancestors were going on. It is the basic human ability to tell the truth, to be kind, and to actually live up to your word. That's what our ancestors relied upon, but now we know how far that's taken us, and that broken relationship needs to be mended. We can't just go on basic human abilities. We have to have something like UNDRIP to take us to the next level.

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

Meegwetch.

[Member speaks in Cree ]

I think all of you talked about the policies and about how these policies do not necessarily respond to the challenges that we have, either in treaty implementation or in terms of the other issues that we face as first nations.

I have to tell you first, Nelson, that when you welcomed the grandchildren of the settlers, I did not feel welcome at all.

Sheila, when you talked about broken promises, even if I said to you, “Welcome, to the club,” it would be a bad joke.

I just want to acknowledge those two things first.

I'll ask the question that Gary asked, but from a different perspective.

You all talked about UNDRIP and the importance of having the UN declaration as a framework for moving forward in this country. I think we all agree, and I thank you for your full support for my private member's bill. That's exactly what Bill C-262 intends to do. Whatever we work on in the future, whether it's on treaty implementation or land recognition or rights recognition and so on, those need to be the minimum standards that we will have to use moving forward.

I'll ask my question in the opposite way from how Gary did.

Do we therefore need a policy for all of these things we are discussing today, or would it be simpler to use an instrument like the UN declaration or the jurisprudence that stems from the Supreme Court of Canada?

There are a lot of decisions that respond to a lot of the challenges that we're talking about, so is there a need for a policy? That is perhaps the first question I want to ask all three of you.

[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?

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

Since the adoption or patriation of the Constitution Act of 1982, we live in this country in what the Supreme Court calls a “constitutional supremacy”. Since 1982 we have have moved from parliamentary supremacy to constitutional supremacy. The Supreme Court has confirmed over the years that even in your own areas of jurisdiction, federal and provincial, those jurisdictions are not absolute because, among other things, aboriginal rights exist. I think Bill C-262 is one of the ways to move forward on reconciliation in this country.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to go back to my last question because the answer wasn't clear. In some ways, at least for me, it was disturbing.

One of the problems we encountered when we enshrined section 35 of the Constitution Act in 1982 was that the concept of aboriginal rights was so large and broad that, most of the time, we ended up in court because we couldn't agree on what was contained in section 35. At least with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it's pretty clear what those rights are. Those rights are fundamental human rights. I don't understand why anybody wouldn't accept them or why anyone would have to engage and consult.

My fundamental human rights are not up for debate. They exist. The UN Declaration confirms that the rights enshrined in the UN Declaration are inherent—they exist because we exist as indigenous peoples. It shouldn't be a problem for any government, especially if the government committed and promised and accepted all of the calls to action made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

If you read it carefully, under the heading, “Reconciliation” in that report, where it calls for action, there are two calls for action—43 and 44. Number 43 calls on 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. It's pretty clear and you've accepted that. Why is it such a problem to say yes to a bill proposing to do exactly that? Bill C-262 proposes to implement calls to action 43 and 44.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to refer to the report produced by Mary Simon. I think it's a pretty good report, with important recommendations with respect to housing in particular. In her concluding remarks she talks about the noteworthy signposts that have happened from the Constitution Act of 1982, Canada's endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the commitment of your government to implement the that commissions calls to action. She says in her remarks that “these advances must become both roots and branches in a new Arctic Policy Framework”. I would suggest that these advances must also become the roots and branches of any future policy development of your government, any future legislation of your government, because the rights enshrined in the UN declaration, as you know, are considered to be the minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well-being of indigenous peoples in this country.

If you are true to your commitment to adopt and implement the UN declaration, I think we need to be clear about it. I asked you this question about a year and a half ago. Maybe you weren't prepared to answer it, so I'll take this opportunity to ask it again a year and a half later. We need to do away with that confusion of not responding clearly to questions about the UN declaration's call for free, prior and informed consent.

I have proposed a legislative framework. It's Bill C-262, which I introduced in April last year. It would provide that legislative framework as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as your leader proposed during the last election and recommitted to after being elected. Will your government, yes or no, support Bill C-262?

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?

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

Charmaine, I will also tell you that I understand. As I hear you, I understand you. Thank you. Your story affects my heart, and I understand you. It's highly thought of and you are doing well.

I thank you for speaking the Cree language in this setting. Thank you very much for doing so.

[English]

Madam Chair, those were just words of thanks for allowing Charmaine to speak in Cree. It's nice to hear my language here. Although I didn't understand 100%, I got a good 75% of what she said. I think it's an important recognition on the part of the chair and this committee to allow Charmaine to speak in her language, so thank you for that.

I want to go on. Dawn, you spoke about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and I want to take the opportunity to mention that I do have legislation before the House stating that, as a legislative framework in any future legislation and policy development, we should act in accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is coming up for debate some time in September, on the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the UN declaration.

I invite your organization to endorse Bill C-262, as many other organizations have, and even many non-indigenous municipalities have, and as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called for.

You spoke about jurisdiction. UNDRIP also contains a statement on access to our own resources for our own development, which I guess is part of your mandate to promote economic development for the communities. That framework is important. When a government endorses an instrument like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, every policy development or legislation should use that as a framework, and I invite the government to do that.

“Reconciliation” is a word that was used by the Supreme Court way before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada was established. Back in 1984, in the Haida Nation case, the Supreme Court talked about reconciliation, and this is what the Supreme Court had to say:

Treaties serve to reconcile pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty, and to define Aboriginal rights guaranteed by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Those are the words of the Supreme Court of Canada, not mine. Do you agree that should be the basis of our discussion in this country?

[Sylvia Johnson]

The Métis have always been left out and virtually ignored. We have no resources and a lack recognition as indigenous people, other than saying under section 35 that we are part of the three indigenous groups.

But things are improving for us. The Métis Nation of Alberta signed an MOU with the Minister of Indigenous Affairs, Carolyn Bennett, last week. With those kinds of positive things going forward, we are very pleased to be involved, hopefully, with Bill C-262. Of course, we want to be involved. We have recommendations that we want to bring forward. We're also going to put forward our paper. This was a small introduction to us, but with the lack of resources and the lack of recognition we are hoping that our people in the future will have a lot more validation and a lot more things coming their way.

Thank you for that question. It's very important.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses who are here today. Thank you for your powerful testimony, and to Ms. Johnson as well, who's joining us on the phone.

Obviously, our committee is looking for some very concrete recommendations that we can put forward to the government with respect to suicides on first nations and in Métis communities. One of the recommendations we've heard far and wide, not just with respect to tackling suicides but also more broadly in terms of wellness and moving forward with a new relationship with first nations and indigenous communities, is the need to adopt and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That's the legislation put forward by my colleague and our indigenous affairs critic, Romeo Saganash. It's actually Bill C-262, and it also reflects the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I understand that Grand Chief Littlechild has also communicated with my colleague's team with respect to this important piece of legislation.

My question for you, Ms. Herrera, and for you, Chief Bear, is how important is it to move forward with adopting and implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Do you see this as a way of establishing a solid relationship with first nations and indigenous communities, decolonizing the relationship that exists? Do you see this as having positive impacts for the next generation of indigenous youth?

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 you, Mr. Speaker, 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.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

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

moved for leave to introduce 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured to rise in this House to introduce this bill to harmonize the laws of Canada with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

As members know, a central component of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action is to use the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation. Therefore, if this bill is adopted, that would provide the legislative framework for a national reconciliation that is long overdue in this country. This would entail a collaborative process to ensure that federal laws are consistent with the declaration, and a national plan of action.

I am deeply honoured to introduce this bill.

In the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations and calls to action, call to action 43 states that governments should adopt and fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and that is what this bill sets out to do.

I remember the first question I asked in the House of Commons. It was addressed to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. She thanked me for the work I have done on this bill over the past four years.

She also asked all members of the House to help with the work of reconciliation. Today, I am showing how I can help.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)