Bill C-15 (Historical)

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

This enactment provides 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, and must prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his frequent participation in debate on all matters in this House.

The bottom line is that when we enact and seek to enact the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples via Bill C-15 into Canadian law, what we are saying is that we must consult with indigenous peoples in all of their heterogeneity, and I think it is an important point that the member raises.

We know that there are indigenous people on the western prairies who believe in resource development, including pipeline development. We know that there are indigenous communities in the north that may believe in drilling in the far north. A requirement to consult and a requirement to do that outreach must apply across the board with all aspects of the community with respect to all projects, whether it is a resource-based project or one that would prevent such a project from moving forward.

[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—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will ask a brief question.

In testimony before committee, Mark Podlasly of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition asked for a clear definition of what consent means in the context of Bill C-15. I will not read the quote, as I am conscious of the time.

Will the member commit to ensuring that clarity is added to the bill? Many first nations have expressed to me that it lacks a great deal of needed clarity.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Parkdale—High Park.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

In December 2020, our government introduced Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Since then, I have received many letters, calls and emails from my constituents in Mile End, Outremont and Côte-des-Neiges. They asked me to pass the bill quickly, and they urge the House to do more to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples.

Most of the people who contacted me told me that they were not indigenous. They were proud to say that as Montrealers, Quebeckers and Canadians, the nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples was important to them. It is an issue that speaks to the foundation of our Canadian identity, no matter our background.

We must correct past injustices as much as we can and continue to move forward on the path to reconciliation. Through Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we are taking another step along that path. As its name suggests, Bill C-15 seeks to protect and promote indigenous rights, including the rights to equality and non-discrimination, in order to establish stronger relations with indigenous peoples.

The bill provides the necessary legislative framework for Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Through this bill, the Government of Canada will be required to collaborate with indigenous peoples on developing an action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP. If passed, this bill will represent another major step forward in our shared journey toward reconciliation.

Passing Bill C-15, which would ensure consistency between Canadian laws and the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, is an important step forward on the path to reconciliation. The bill requires the development of an action plan to implement the objectives of UNDRIP and requires the ongoing involvement of indigenous peoples at all stages, while mandating annual reports to Parliament.

Bill C-15 would enshrine the principles of UNDRIP, which include affirming the general application of international human rights laws to indigenous peoples; the right to participate in decision-making, with free, prior and informed consent; the right to culture, religious and linguistic identity; the protection of treaties and agreements with first nations; and of course the protection of the rights of indigenous women, including an obligation for governments to work with indigenous peoples to end violence against indigenous women.

Let us talk for a moment about what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada chose to uphold.

The findings and evidence of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada forced us to confront the discriminatory and oppressive practices that continued unabated for nearly 150 years in Canada's residential schools. In addition to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action 43 and 44, which call on the government to adopt and fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and develop an action plan to achieve its objectives, all of the calls to action cite the UNDRIP. Our commitment to upholding indigenous rights by acknowledging and redressing the damage caused by assimilation policies and practices is unwavering.

Passing Bill C-15 will not only address calls to action 43 and 44, but will also provide the Government of Canada with a framework for broader reconciliation.

I would also like to talk about what our government is doing right now to demonstrate our commitment to our first nations.

Throughout the pandemic, our government has shown its commitment to supporting indigenous communities in very real and tangible ways. Let us look for a moment at our vaccine rollout.

We know that remote indigenous communities are more at risk of getting COVID-19 and that health systems in those communities are more vulnerable to outbreaks. That is why we as a government prioritized indigenous communities in the procurement and delivery of vaccines for COVID-19.

To date, nearly 300,000 doses have been administered in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, with over 50% of people having already received a COVID-19 vaccine. In the Northwest Territories, 55% of the entire population has received a first dose. In the Yukon, 59% of the population has received one dose, and already 43% has received both doses. This accelerated rollout has contributed to a dramatic drop in COVID-19 cases in our indigenous communities, with a decline of 80%. That is something we can all be proud of.

Let us also discuss for a moment where we are with respect to eliminating boil water advisories. Like many in the House, I am sincerely troubled by the fact that any boil water advisory still exists in any corner of our country, but real progress has been made and is sometimes overlooked.

When our government came into power, there were 105 boil water advisories in the country. We have eliminated 106 of them, and as of March 2021, 177 short-term drinking water advisories were also lifted. In fact, access to clean water has been restored to approximately 5,920 homes in first nations communities. I know and understand that much more work still needs to be done on this, but never before have we had a federal government in Canada that is more committed to getting that work done.

We have also made historic investments in education, housing, police services and shelters in indigenous communities.

The 2020 fall economic statement includes an additional investment of $781.5 million over five years starting this year as well as ongoing funding in the amount of $106.3 million to fight systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples and expand efforts to fight violence against indigenous women, girls and LGBTQ2 and two-spirit people.

These proposed investments include the following amounts: $724.1 million to launch a comprehensive violence prevention strategy to expand access to culturally relevant supports for indigenous women, children and LGBTQ2 and two-spirit people facing gender-based violence; $49.3 million to support the implementation of Gladue principles in the justice system in order to help reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice and correctional systems; and $8.1 million to develop administration of justice agreements with indigenous communities to strengthen community-based justice systems and support self-determination.

There is still a lot of work to do, but we are working even harder.

Bill C-15 is an action plan that will confirm that the declaration is a universal human rights instrument that applies to Canadian law and provides a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the declaration. It is an essential step toward reconciliation, and it is long overdue.

I therefore ask all members of the House to pass Bill C-15 as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today about my opposition to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is evident that much of our contemporary political debate is denominated in terms of human rights, with both sides' various questions using the language and philosophy of rights to justify their conclusions. This is most evident in contentious debates about social issues, where one person's assertion of a right to die is measured against another person's assertion of a right to encounter a health care system that does not make distinctions based on ability, or whether one person's assertion of a right to bodily autonomy conflicts with the potential claims of another person in terms of someone's right to life. In these cases, it clearly is not enough to say one is for or against human rights as such. Rather, one has to develop a procedure for determining which rights claims are valid and which are not, or for determining which rights claims can be justifiably abrogated, or for determining which rights claims take precedence in the case of a conflict.

When we are evaluating these questions of how to compare competing rights claims, it matters very much where we think rights come from. We need to establish where rights come from if we are to determine which rights claims exist and which rights claims take precedence. On this point, let us say there are three general categories of options. Rights either come from positive law, from social consensus or from nature.

Some seem to take the view that rights exist because they are called “rights” by the state or some multilateral body. This would imply that those rights only come into existence when the associated statutes or declarations are promulgated, and that nothing can be called a violation of rights if it is done legally. This view of rights would imply, falsely in my opinion, that no violation of human rights occurred in the context of horrific, violent actions against indigenous peoples in previous centuries, if those actions were legal. That seems to be a monstrous conclusion. I therefore reject the view that rights come from positive law. Arbitrarily depriving some of their lives, freedom, culture and community is a violation of their rights, regardless of whether it is recognized as such by domestic or international law.

The same general issues arise if we see rights as derived from social consensus. There have been many times and places in which a social consensus existed in favour of policies that also arbitrarily deprived people of their lives, freedom, culture and/or community. As such, if we wish to justify the conclusion that these acts of violence have always and would always constitute violations of human rights, then we must start from the premise that human rights emanate from nature as opposed to from law or convention: that is, human rights come from being human.

Deliberations in the House or international bodies about human rights are not fundamentally about creating rights, but rather about discovering rights. Rights are discovered, not invented. If rights exist in nature, as gravity exists in nature, then we should be able to identify a procedure for discovering rights objectively. Whether such a procedure can exist or not, it does not seem to be invoked often in this House. More often, we hear the assertion of the existence of a certain right as being self-evident. We hear a call for more rights, not fewer rights. We hear rights referred to as “hard won”, and perhaps referenced in the context of some domestic or international text deemed sacred by our legal tradition.

If rights come from nature, then members should argue for how we can know that a right exists, not simply point to a text that says it does. If rights come from nature as opposed to from text, then texts that claim to codify human rights may contain gaps, errors or other problems. It is possible to believe that human rights have all been correctly codified by UN documents because of some metaphysical process by which the deliberation of these bodies is protected from error. However, believing in this idea would require a kind of faith in a metaphysical process: a faith that I do not think can be grounded in reason alone.

The particular legislative proposal before us today, with respect to human rights, is to graft UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, onto existing law and practice in this area. Much of the debate today has centred around the importance of indigenous rights. I think we all agree about the importance of indigenous rights, but that is not really the core question we have to evaluate when determining whether to support this legislation.

The question really is about what impacts or changes the implementation of this legislation will have on existing rights frameworks, and whether those changes will advance human rights for indigenous peoples or not. With this question, I think it is also important to challenge some of the Hollywood-ized framing of indigenous communities. Many of us will have seen the 2009 movie Avatar: a movie about a group of human colonizers who seek to exploit and destroy a natural environment guarded by an indigenous community that lives in perfect harmony with it.

Although filmed in colour, the moral message of the film is very black and white. Those who fully absorb the message of this film will perhaps come to the conclusion that indigenous communities never want development, but this is, of course, false. The complex history of European settlement in North America involved a great deal of colonial violence and oppression, as well as mutually beneficial exchange and collaboration. Today, many indigenous communities want development.

As wonderful as being in harmony with nature in this sense is and that some people ideologize, generally development can be associated with higher standards of living and amenities associated with modern life. For me, defending indigenous rights means respecting the rights and choices of indigenous peoples, and indigenous nations acting autonomously to make their own choices about their own development paths. It is about competing balance: how they balance traditions with opportunities to develop in new ways. These are choices that individual communities and nations should be able to make for themselves.

Sadly, we have seen many attacks on indigenous rights by anti-development forces, advancing a kind of green colonialism based on this Avatar-informed view of the world, which seeks to force indigenous people to live in the equivalent of national parks even if they would much rather enjoy the benefits that come from resource development in terms of jobs and convenience.

While my friends on the political left like to assume that their opposition to natural resource development aligns them with the wishes of indigenous people, they are increasingly offside with the wishes of indigenous people in areas where resource development is taking place. The anti-development policies of this government are increasingly raising the ire of indigenous people and indigenous proponents of resource development projects, such as those seeking the construction of the Eagle Spirit pipeline, blocked by Bill C-48, or those indigenous people in the Arctic who were not consulted at all when the Prime Minister brought in a ban on drilling.

For reasons described earlier, these anti-development voices still frame their positions in terms of indigenous rights, believing that the right to say “no” to development is so much more important than the right of those same people to say “yes” to development. I think we all know and understand that this gets dicey in situations when the rights of some indigenous peoples come into conflict with the desires and rights of other indigenous peoples, when different peoples and different communities disagree about whether a particular project should proceed, or when indigenous proponents find themselves in conflict with members of their own or other communities over how to proceed on a development path.

Bill C-15 would establish a principle in law that there must be free, prior and informed consent for resource development to take place within an indigenous community, but it lacks significant clarity about who consents on behalf of indigenous communities or what happens when different communities, perhaps with competing legitimate claims to traditional presence in an area, disagree. The lack of clarity about who gets to decide will make it nearly impossible for indigenous communities that wish to develop their own resources to proceed.

We got a sense of the risk associated with this uncertainty last year, when the country faced widespread rail blockades in solidarity with some Wet'suwet'en protesters who opposed the Coastal GasLink project. Members of the House, at the time, seemed to believe that the opposition of a minority of hereditary chiefs required that the project be stopped on the grounds of indigenous rights.

These arguments came from an Avatar-inspired world view and a failure to take into consideration the legitimate competing rights claims of the majority of indigenous peoples affected by this project who supported it, the fact that all of the elected indigenous bodies responsible for this project had approved it, and the fact that those who, from a democratic perspective at least, were the representatives of those indigenous people wanted to say yes. It was enough for members of the House that people from a different hereditary leadership who claimed to speak on behalf of those nations wanted to say no. This is the problem that arises when we have competing rights claims. When we lack a procedure, and when there is ambiguity inserted in the law about how to resolve the desires of those people, it ends up always being a path of no development instead of a situation where those communities get to decide.

I am suspicious that members of the House who are promoting the bill in the name of indigenous rights are actually happy with that outcome. They are actually happy with an outcome in which development has a hard time proceeding, when investments do not get made even if indigenous people in a particular area, in association with a particular project, overwhelmingly want to see it happen.

As a member who cares deeply about human rights, and well-structured procedures and mechanisms for affirming those rights democratically, I think we need to recognize the existing rights frameworks we have in this country and build on them, but I do not think this particular legislation would do that. It would introduce more confusion and more challenges to development that would, in effect, deny the rights of indigenous peoples in cases where they want to make the choice to develop their resources.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech. It was top-notch as usual.

He mentioned that it is important to define certain concepts to avoid legal challenges in the courts. He spoke mainly about free, prior and informed consent. However, Bill C-15 sets out criteria that, if necessary, will guide the courts in assessing what should constitute consent. All of the witnesses who appeared before the committee said that it will take time to come to a consensus or establish a clear definition.

Since we need to establish those definitions anyway, should we not just pass Bill C-15 now, rather than delaying the entire process? We should work on those definitions, bill or no bill. The current bill provides direction on how to do that, but it also includes a long-awaited recognition of indigenous rights that should be quickly implemented.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for his work on other files, protecting rights of people. He always speaks from the heart, which is I really appreciate.

I do, however, want to bring up a couple of things. First, I just want to remind everybody in the House that the use of possessive nouns when referring to indigenous people should be avoided at all costs. Indigenous people do not belong to Canada and they do not belong to us, so we should never say “our indigenous people”.

The assertion that Bill C-15, one of the most important pieces of legislation that I think we as a generation will ever see in the House, would take steps back on reconciliation or people's rights is really troubling to me. I want to refer to the response of Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond to my question two days ago in committee. She said that the most important thing it would do would be to put an obligation on Canada to conduct its policies and conduct its interactions with indigenous peoples on the basis of recognizing indigenous people have rights.

I think we can all agree that more rights is never a bad thing. How in the world would more rights have a negative impact on people who have title to land?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House today to speak to Bill C-15. I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

This is important legislation and is an opportunity to have a debate in the House about our relationship in Canada with the first nations community. I always try to start off my speeches by providing a local context or ensure at some point I cover the local context of my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I am fortunate to represent not only the city of Cornwall, the united counties of most of SDG, but also the residents and people of Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, 14,000 people strong. This is probably, from a federal issue, one of the more difficult geographic first nations communities we have in the country. It is located right along the Canada-U.S. border, there is a port of entry there. The geographic set-up that goes back a long time certainly makes it difficult to navigate through and work with them on many issues.

I am grateful for a good and respectful working relationship with Grand Chief Abram Benedict. I also want to acknowledge some of the meetings I have had to date with members of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. We had two, I think, pre-COVID, and unfortunately everything else needed to be put on the back burner. I made a commitment in our community, as a new member of Parliament, to ensure I would reach out just as much to members in Akwesasne as I would to every other part of the riding. There certainly are a lot of federal issues, federal files, on which we need to work with them.

The debate today is not about whether Canada needs better reconciliation with first nations communities. That is a given. I know there is not a party nor a member in the House and very few Canadians who do not know we need to do better and build a better relationship.

What I want to speak about in my comments today is a theme I built on in several of my speeches since I have had the honour of being in the House, which is the difference between an announcement and an intention, a theme, respectfully, in the actual delivery and follow-through in getting things done.

With Bill C-15, the details do matter. There is no issue with anybody with an overwhelming part of the declaration. In Canada, we are proud to say that we have already implemented many of those measures for which the declaration calls. That is progress. It is a positive and a strength of our country to show the progress we have made.

I listened to my colleague before me. I have respect for all colleagues in the House as well as the questions and comments even going back with my friend from the NDP from Vancouver Island. I do not think the concerns being raised, including from first nations communities, representatives and allies, are racist, stereotypical or laughable. They are very valid concerns.

I speak about my concerns on certain parts of Bill C-15 not because I do not believe in reconciliation, not because I do not believe we need a better relationship with first nations but actually the opposite. By not better defining and laying these things out, making them more clear, more and black and white, I worry we take steps back when it comes to reconciliation.

I will use the example in the Maritimes of the fisheries disputes in the province of Nova Scotia and some of the vague definitions, such as moderate livelihood, that are subject to court interpretations and DFO interpretations. We are seeing serious tensions between first nations people in Nova Scotia, residents of the province, lobster fishermen, fishermen, the government, provincial government and local law enforcement. We have even seen violence happen. Nobody wants that to happen. The reason, I believe, is the definitions. It takes time. It is not easy. I am not pretending it is simple to do. However, we need to have more clear timelines and more clear wording when it comes to certain aspects, not the overall intent of UNDRIP but rather certain parts.

I can say quite a few things, but I want to listen, as I mentioned, to some of the stakeholders who have spoken at committee and who have the interests of first nations communities across the country at heart, first and foremost, as we do in the House.

I want to quote Stephen Buffalo, president of the Indian Resource Council. Just a couple weeks ago in committee, he said, “It would be much better if this committee could define 'free, prior and informed consent' in the legislation and determine who can represent and make decisions on behalf of indigenous peoples for the purpose of project approvals. Better yet, this committee can engage indigenous people across Canada to come to a consensus on what 'consent' means before passing this legislation, because you know as well as I do that some people think it's a veto, and if the committee doesn't think it's a veto, then they should make that clear.”

We have heard numerous other stakeholders. I know of a comment from Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs, who said “However well intentioned Bill C-15 is, my discussions with legal experts, industry representatives and investment bankers have persuaded me that it is introducing another layer of uncertainty and risk to development in indigenous territories.”

People, like myself, our caucus and all Parliament want to get this right. We want to move forward on reconciliation and do better. However, what I worry about, and this is from a passion of mine, is that words, actions and themes and good intent are important, but so are the details in legislation like this. The frank reality is that we will need to take the time, whether it is before the legislation or after, through courts and legal battles that will go on for years over certain projects, certain wording and what it is or what it is not.

If we pretend that we will just pass this, that there will be no problems and that it will be all tickety-boo, that will not the case. If we can take the time and get those clarifications through consultations, close, passionate deliberations with first nations communities, we can make the legislation and the process more clear for everybody. That does not hurt reconciliation; that makes it smoother.

We have seen in Nova Scotia what has happened. We are seeing some of the concerns of potential investment. This is not big corporations versus first nations communities; these are people with a vested first-person connection to the well-being of our indigenous people and with a better, smoother future that involves economic development that does all these things.

This debate is not about whether we are racist, or whether it is laughable and stereotypical or how awful anybody is. These are valid concerns. I know members who support this know that if we pass the bill in this form, there will be serious legal challenges. We will be in courts and litigated, and there will be gray areas for years to come. That will challenge our path to reconciliation. That will challenge better economic development opportunities for communities like Akwesasne in my riding.

I thankful for the time to give my voice and my perspective. I am always trying to be positive and constructive, if I can. We can do better and we must do better. As a country and as a Parliament, we will be better off with much clearer black-and-white definitions on some of these things to move our reconciliation process forward in the country.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-15.

I am trying to understand. Many bills have been introduced in the past on this matter. My colleague applauded the work of Romeo Saganash, who advocated for the recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Liberal government has been in power since 2015. Has waiting so long to pass the bill not caused more misery in indigenous communities?

Clean drinking water is still a problem. Women and girls have disappeared or been murdered. We know that passing this bill could help solve these types of problems. That is why it is so important to do it, especially for a self-proclaimed feminist government. Has the failure to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples not harmed the cause of indigenous women?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for a very moving speech on Bill C-15. The concept of consent was first raised with me nearly 40 years ago, when I lived in Yellowknife, by leaders of the Dene Nation in their initial opposition to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Ever since then, we have heard this rhetoric that recognizing indigenous rights will somehow block progress.

I wonder if the member shares my concern that these expressions of concern about delay and about blocking are fundamentally based on what can best be called stereotypical views of first nations, if not racist views of first nations.

[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.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 sets out a framework for dialogue, collaboration and working together, and frankly, if we do not have that we will have a far more cumbersome way of accomplishing anything. If this document creates a framework for dialogue and a framework for free, prior and informed decisions for all parties, we will come to better decisions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation.

Some people will argue that implementing UNDRIP would effectively give first nations a veto over every natural resource development project.

I would like to hear my colleague explain why that is not the case and how Bill C-15 would still allow for proper negotiation.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sydney—Victoria.

I am speaking today from the traditional territories of the Wendat, Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe peoples and the treaty land of the Williams Treaties First Nations. I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Our government has been clear. We are committed to renewing the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, partnership and advancing reconciliation. Earlier this week, I rose in the House to speak about how our government is fighting systemic racism in our judicial system with Bill C-22, and I am proud to rise again today to speak to how the implementation of Bill C-15 is a step forward in protecting the human rights of indigenous peoples and fighting systemic racism.

In Canada and across the globe, citizens are debating the nature and promise of equality in our time. They are rightfully and urgently demanding change to fight systemic racism in our society. Human rights are universal and inherent to all human beings, and this bill is another sign of the progress we are making in affirming human rights and addressing the systemic racism present in the country.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples. Article 1 of the UN declaration recognizes that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”, and that includes the right to self-government and self-determination. In addition, the UN declaration sets out rights and standards that draw on universal human rights norms, but speak more specifically to the circumstances of the world’s 370 million indigenous people.

The recognition of indigenous rights is at the core of our government’s commitment to build the relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis people. That is why our government has introduced Bill C-15. The wait for equal respect and the human rights of indigenous people has been far too long and has taken far too many generations.

As part of our commitment to engage and collaborate with indigenous peoples, this legislation is the culmination of work with indigenous rights holders and organizations over many months past. We understand the importance of building on the work that has already been done to advance the implementation of the declaration in Canada. This is explicitly acknowledged in the preamble, which recognizes that provincial, territorial and municipal governments have the ability to establish their own approaches to implement the declaration. Indeed, several have already taken steps, in their own areas of authority, to do so.

We are ready to work with all levels of government, indigenous peoples and other sectors of society to achieve the goals outlined in the declaration and supported by this bill. We have also included a provision that specifically notes that the bill does not delay the application of the declaration in Canadian law. Achieving the objectives of the declaration and further aligning federal laws with the declaration will take time. However, we are not starting from scratch and we continue to advance recent and ongoing priorities and initiatives, which contribute to the implementation of the declaration in parallel to the process and measures required by the bill.

We have also responded to calls for clearer and more robust provisions for the process of developing and tabling an action plan and annual reports. These updates are incredibly important, and the action plan is a central pillar of this legislation. Developing and implementing the action plan means working together to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples; to promote respect, mutual understanding, as well as good relations, including through human rights education; to include measures that relate to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy, or other accountability with respect to the implementation of the declaration; and to include measures to review and amend the action plan.

With this legislation, we will fulfill the Government of Canada’s 2016 endorsement of the declaration without qualification, while also responding to the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the continuing progress on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action. There is no doubt that passing this legislation will help us move in a direction we all want.

Over the past few years, this government has taken a number of steps and measures consistent with the human rights framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian charter. We are beginning to see positive changes happening, including steps to strengthen restorative justice, access to justice and diversion programs, and reform to our criminal justice system.

The Government of Canada, alongside the provinces and territories, is developing a pan-Canadian strategy to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. Work on this strategy also includes close collaboration with indigenous communities and organizations.

We are also implementing impact of race and culture assessments, which allow sentencing judges to consider the disadvantages of systemic racism that contributed to indigenous people's and racialized Canadians’ interactions with the criminal justice system. We are putting in place community justice centre pilot projects in British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario, as well as consultations to help expand the community justice centre concept to other provinces and territories.

Among other initiatives, we are also developing administration of justice agreements with indigenous communities to strengthen community-based justice systems and support self-determination. I believe this initiative to be especially important. It recognizes that indigenous peoples have to be part of the solution and that the capacity is there to improve justice within indigenous communities.

Bill C-15 is a significant step forward, but alone it will not achieve our collective goal of transformative change for indigenous people. There will be much work to do together after royal assent to develop an inclusive and effective approach to realize the full potential of the declaration. As a result, additional efforts and measures to implement the UN declaration will be needed, and as I just listed, the Government of Canada has begun work on additional efforts and measures. Certainly, there is much more work to do to support indigenous communities to a better state of health and security, but these are important steps forward. While the important national work is taking place, Canada will continue ongoing discussions with indigenous peoples to make progress together on our shared priorities of upholding human rights, advancing reconciliation, exercising self-determination, closing socio-economic gaps and eliminating the systemic barriers facing first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

Change is happening. Our government and our society are evolving as we learn the importance of doing things differently in a way that is better and fairer for all of us. Implementing the UN declaration is something the indigenous people in Canada have long called for, and it is a change we want to see come to fruition.

[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?