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

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my hon. colleague's remarks. I have a lot of questions, and I know I only have a short time to ask them.

The member spent a lot of time speaking about this conflation between the concept of consent and the concept of a veto, which has been spoken to at length by legal experts and dozens of witnesses at committee. It is clear that there is a distinction between these two concepts, so it is unfortunate that he continue to conflate them.

Part way through his speech, he said something along the lines of supporting the goals and aspirations of UNDRIP. However, I listened carefully, and 90% of his speech was speaking negatively about the risks he feels it poses. I am curious what parts of it he supports and feels are worthy of his support.

In his question to the minister, he indicated that he supports treaty rights. Does he support section 35 rights of indigenous people in the Constitution of Canada?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there, and I will try to get through it as quickly as possible.

On his first point regarding free, prior and informed consent, if what he is saying is true, then why is it not included in the bill? If it is that simple and clear, why not put it in the bill and get unanimous support for this bill? The problem is that it is not there, which is causing issues.

We are in this chamber to discuss issues such as this, which could have profound impacts on the way forward. It does not have to be natural resources projects. I keep saying it is a larger impact than that. We should be debating this in the chamber. We should be debating it instead of pushing it through. If it is clear, let us make sure it is clear.

In terms of his negative comment, yes, there are lots of positive things in there addressing issues of discrimination and racism. However, what we are trying to do is reach a consensus on the part we disagree with so we can get to what we do agree with and get this passed. Let us address the issues that we have on this side of the House, which are with the definition of clear, free, prior and informed consent. If it is clear, put it in the bill and we will be a lot happier with that. I am sure industry will be as well.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague rightly pointed out some of the issues and questions on free, prior and informed consent with the Wet'suwet'en, where even within the band there were people who did not agree.

I have had conversations in my own riding with the leaders of various aboriginal groups. They had no expectation of having the right of veto. They agreed that no individual Canadian should be able to stand against something that is in the national interest. They asked why we could not just put a clarification in the bill to make that clear. They then asked if there was anything else we would not support.

Is there anything else, other than that free, prior and informed consent, that would keep the member from supporting the bill?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a big part of it, but, as I said, we are not opposing UNDRIP per se. We are opposing the government's lack of due diligence. When it comes to free, prior and informed consent, that is a big piece of it. We saw, as the member rightly mentioned, this with the Wet'suwet'en community.

The elected chiefs and the band councils, which had just gone through an election process in which many of the candidates were victorious on pro-energy platforms, wanted to move ahead with the energy project that was pre-approved. Then the hereditary chiefs expressed concern. When we talked to the members of the elected bands and councils, they felt that their voices were not even heard in this debate.

This is why we need that clarity. This is why we need the certainty for industry and we need to ensure that consultations are done properly and in a meaningful way, so we have certainty and also the conversations to address any problems.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 7 p.m., the House will proceed with the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who may wish to ask questions to rise in their places or to activate the “raised hand” function so the Chair has some idea of how many wish to participate in the question period.

The hon. member for La Prairie.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is imposing time allocation, better known as a gag order.

This is an exceptional measure that should only be proposed on rare occasions and agreed to even more rarely. It is an exceptional measure that applies to exceptional circumstances.

However, the current government has made a habit of using this measure. It almost always imposes gag orders and time allocation motions. That has become the government's modus operandi.

Why is that the case? I think that the answer lies with the current government's management of its legislative calendar, which has lacked rigour and effectiveness. Even though the opposition parties often co-operate, the government is still not managing its calendar properly and always ends up imposing time allocation motions.

Bill C-15 is an extremely important bill. Today is the second day of debate. The first day, we debated this bill for only an hour and now the government is already moving a time allocation motion.

Of course, Bill C-15 is very important for first nations, but it is important to understand that the debates in the House are also very important, and the government needs to respect that.

My question is simple. Why does the government want to stop debate at this particular point in time?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Obviously, I agree with him about the importance of Bill C-15.

First, there are no surprises in the bill. It is based on a previous bill introduced by our former colleague Roméo Saganash, so members are familiar with it and it has already been debated in the House of Commons and studied in committee. We therefore need to move forward.

With regard to the work of the House, the Conservative Party's strategy is to filibuster all of our legislation. That is what it did to the bill on medical assistance in dying, the 2020 fall economic statement and the net-zero legislation. The Conservative Party always tries to stop bills from being examined and passed by filibustering.

That is why I want to thank the NDP and the Bloc Québécois for their co-operation on the bill on medical assistance in dying. As a result of that co-operation, we are able to move forward and pass very important bills that represent progressive measures in the history of our Parliament and our country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we move on to questions, I would ask members to keep their interventions to no more than one minute.

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it kind of ironic that the government continues to use time allocation on a bill that purports to provide indigenous Canadians with free, prior and informed consent and that the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore the multitude of indigenous leaders who have yet to have their voices heard.

We support the aspirations of UNDRIP, we have been perfectly clear about this, but there are significant issues that need to be addressed with this legislation. We need to get this right, we need to define “free, prior and informed consent” before it moves through the legislative process. For example, it has taken over 10 years to gain clarity from Canadian courts on section 35 rights enshrined in Canada's Constitution.

The lack of clarity, that lack of understanding of key concepts of Bill C-15, threatens to turn the clock back on economic reconciliation and dismantle the hard work of indigenous leaders. How does the government actually justify ignoring the legitimate concerns indigenous leaders and communities have on Bill C-15?

[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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me because we had the first half of debate for second reading a couple of months ago yet the government continues to stall debate, and now once again we are forced into time allocation.

I am wondering why the government has put off this bill knowing that in the last session of Parliament this bill ended up not being passed through the Senate because it did not have enough time. Why are we now at the 11th hour again, forcing the government to put in place time allocation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for her work on this issue and her leadership on this issue, as well as the leadership of her party in hopefully supporting this time allocation motion.

We are here because of the dilatory tactics of the Conservative Party on other measures, such as the fall economic statement which was debated. Those debates were repeated ad nauseam even though the content of that bill was meant to help Canadians in facing the worst pandemic we have faced in 100 years.

We are here because this bill is known to the House of Commons. As the hon. member points out, it went through the previous Parliament in its previous form when it was brought forward as a private member's bill by Romeo Saganash. It only died in the Senate because of, again, the blocking and dilatory tactics of Conservative senators to let it die on the Order Paper.

We are moving because this is a bill that needs to be passed. We need to get to the next stage, which is the action plan co-developed with indigenous peoples across Canada, in order to get us all to a better place. It is a bill about indigenous human rights. We are very much supportive of that and we very much wish to move this forward.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard an earful from the Minister of Justice about why we have to do this here today. I do not know how much of that is actually verifiable, because I have been in this House many times. Today is the first day that I will get to speak on this bill. I have spoken to many indigenous organizations in my riding and in my province in developing resources across Canada. They all want a say in this matter. They all want to make sure that what we are doing here is the right way to move forward.

I know there are many voices across this House, in all parties, that want to make sure that we do this correctly as we move forward here and this requires actual reading. I hear the Minister of Justice say that Conservatives have been dilatory in this, but this has just arrived here. If we need to choose this to move forward here, let Parliament sit, let us get these things heard and let us move good legislation forward in this House.

There are so many issues presented in this legislation that need to be addressed by this House openly by all members of this House, discussed so we know exactly what is on the table here and what will change going forward. To rush this bill through, as opposed to anything else the Liberals have put on the table to use as delay tactics in this House, is insincere.