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.

Second reading

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, resource development and extraction have offered some opportunities for first nation communities: training, jobs, accommodation agreements and perhaps economic prosperity in certain cases. The trouble with highlighting only the positive is that it lacks integrity; it comes off as disingenuous. We know many of the ways that resource development and extraction have actually used and abused indigenous territories and peoples.

Could the member comment on some of the ways that missing and murdered indigenous women are impacted by, say, man camps that accompany this development?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously more work needs to be done. The House of Commons and all political parties need to support indigenous communities across the country. We need to ensure that we look at housing and clean water, and at the many issues facing first nations. We have many issues to deal with, and we will be taking action. We are making great strides. We need to promote the good that is happening in indigenous communities and we need to do better.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, good day and áma sqit. I am speaking to members today from the traditional unceded territory of the Coast Salish peoples, including the territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam nations. My riding also includes the traditional unceded territories of the Líl'wat, the Shishalh and the N’Quat’qua nations. I am very grateful to also call this place my home.

Tanúyap. It is particularly important to start with this language acknowledgement as we are debating Bill C-15, which seeks to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian federal law.

It is important because we need to remember that indigenous peoples have lived on these lands and waters since time immemorial. Their laws, their practices and their ways of life did not end when settlers reached Canada’s shores. However, our nation has stubbornly not been able to reconcile this reality and has instead sought to carve out a box, figuratively, to isolate first nations in society. It has sought to marginalize indigenous people in Canada or to assimilate them into society more widely.

The actions of settlers and Canadian governments over time have been to dispossess indigenous peoples of the land they enjoyed communally, to separate families, to suppress indigenous culture and to deny the same basic rights to indigenous peoples that the rest of Canadians enjoy freely.

The advances on indigenous rights we have seen in our country were not simply given to first nations. They were the result of long, arduous litigation that led to the development of aboriginal law. This was by no means easy: It started from a point of first nations not having the right to legal counsel to having rights protected under section 35 of the charter. The common law has evolved to recognize aboriginal rights to traditional practices such as fishing under indigenous leaders and visionaries like Ron Sparrow.

Recognition of aboriginal practices and title in seminal cases such as Delgamuukw had to be built from an evidentiary base that was recorded through oral history, when the law did not recognize it. These cases had to be heard in front of leading jurists who, only 30 years ago, dismissed indigenous ways of life as nasty, brutish and short before they finally worked their way up to the highest courts in our land where our laws continue to evolve.

The adoption of Bill C-15 would help flip this script with the government finally taking a proactive approach to recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, including the inherent right to self-determination. Nothing less is required to move forward in reconciliation.

Since 2016, progress has been made by introducing new approaches to negotiations and establishing mechanisms for co-operation and collaboration, as well as through ongoing steps to implement and respond to the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called upon the Government of Canada to fully adopt and implement the declaration as a framework for reconciliation, and Bill C-15 responds to calls to action 43 and 44.

Bill C-15 would take this step by further requiring that our laws be consistent with UNDRIP, or else modifying them so that they are. It is a simple and short bill, but its implications are wide-ranging. For that reason, an up to three-year timeframe is established to develop an action plan to implement this legislation. I know that seems like a long time, but when we consider that this implicates all federal ministers, the whole of government, and 634 first nations in this country speaking 50 different languages, as well as the amount of federal legislation that will have to be looked at, we can understand the scale of the task.

This is not the first time we are debating this bill in this chamber. This bill was first introduced by Cree former Liberal MP Tina Keeper in a 2008 private members' bill, which failed to be enacted. Former NDP MP Romeo Saganash’s private member's bill passed in the House, but unfortunately languished in the Senate for over a year before the last election.

I have to emphasize that we are not the first movers in this space of adopting this bill into domestic legislation, given that the provincial government in British Columbia did so in 2019. We can learn from its experience. The sky has not fallen since. Instead, the province has had one of the most robust economies in our country since then. I mention this to dispel a common misconception about the likely impact of this bill.

When it stalled the previous iteration of this bill, the official opposition in this chamber and the Senate voiced fears that the article recognizing free, prior and informed consent from indigenous people for projects on traditional indigenous land would paralyze resource development. However, these fears disregard the fact that the Government of Canada already aims to secure free, prior and informed consent when actions are proposed that impact the rights of indigenous peoples on their lands, resources and territories. Case law has grown to recognize that significant impacts to closely held rights require a meaningful process that seeks consent, in practice anyway, to uphold the honour of the Crown and to meet constitutional obligations under section 35.

These fears also disregard that industries already work from within this frame because their shareholders expect it, because it is necessary for social licence and business certainty, and because they know that the projects will become fixtures in the communities. Partnership with indigenous peoples is the way forward.

Giving first nations a say in projects that affect them does not mean that projects do not get built. It means that bad projects do not get built, and that the issues that impact first nations are addressed in the process. The Squamish Nation in my riding pioneered an indigenous-led environmental assessment process that a major project proponent agreed to be bound by. Rather than reject the project, the EA approved it with important conditions that would mitigate the impacts of the project. From that, an impact benefit agreement was then ratified by the nation through a referendum.

Similar progressive processes have been developed by nations such as the Tahltan Nation in northern B.C., where mining is a hotbed of activity, and the Secwepemc in the interior of B.C. Processes like these are now allowed, and indeed encouraged, by the Impact Assessment Act that became law in 2019. It is a great departure from the assessment regime that the official opposition brought in, in 2012. When the Conservatives were in power, they treated fist nations as stakeholders rather than as the rights holders that they are, and treated consultation with indigenous peoples just the same as with other individuals: as a box-checking exercise. This was not only dishonourable, it was also unlawful, and it is one of the reasons that inspired me to be where I am today.

The Impact Assessment Act is one of nine federal laws that references, and was created within, the spirit of the declaration. We need not fear these developments, because when first nations have clear power over decisions that affect them trust is built, confidence increases and opportunities become available for indigenous peoples. Decolonizing our relationship with indigenous peoples presents perhaps the greatest opportunity for economic growth in this country. If first nations can get out of the absurdly titled Indian Act, they can gain access to basic abilities, such as getting a mortgage from a bank, among many other benefits.

I wish to recognize Shishalh Nation hiwus Warren Paull, who was a councillor in 1986 when the Squamish Nation became the first self-governing nation in our country through visionary leadership, blazing a trail for many other nations. The nation has since developed advanced land-use plans to guide development and is assuming new areas of responsibility from other orders of government. It participates as a full partner in the Sunshine Coast Regional District, has reformed its constitution and voting laws, negotiated detailed provincial agreements on reconciliation and inspired the next generation of leaders, all while continuing complex negotiations on rights with the federal government. This is also happening against the backdrop of a community where survivors of residential schools still painfully recount their experiences.

Chief Paull was one of many dignitaries at the B.C. legislature for the announcement that the province would be the first in Canada to introduce and pass legislation to implement UNDRIP. There he noted that:

It's been 52 years since Frank Calder and the Nisga'a Nation did the first court case on land claims. Since those 52 years and counting, we finally get back to the place where recognition is there.

It is high time, 14 years after UNDRIP was introduced to the globe, that we recognize the same rights here. It is time that we work with first nations proactively to advance reconciliation rather than respond remedially to court decisions. It is time that we co-develop the future that we want to see in this country.

As my time is running out, I will conclude with that.

?ul nu msh chalap.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member emphasize the importance of this being dealt with now, but I had the honour of supporting Romeo Saganash's bill in the 41st Parliament, which ended in 2015. In that election, the Prime Minister promised to pass and implement UNDRIP. We have not seen that happen. We are now a year and a half into the second Parliament with the prospect of this not getting through, as it did not the last time.

Could the member tell us why it is taking so long? How can indigenous people, or any Canadians, take seriously the Liberal commitment to having this actually put in legislation with an action plan for implementation?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it is high time that we pass this. It is high time that we implement this in Canada. It has been over 14 years since the declaration was passed. There have been many strong efforts to finally move ahead with this in Canada.

While this process takes place, important progress has been made on implementing some of the principles, but we need to have this as a framework and an action plan so that we reform all types of legislation across the country.

I would certainly agree with the member that it is high time that we pass this. I certainly hope that my colleagues across the House will agree with me as well.

[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, could the member provide further comment on the issue of reconciliation and how important that has been for the government over the last number of years? As the member pointed out, Bill C-15 is another piece of legislation that responds to the calls for action, and to a deep desire that I and many MPs have to see UNDRIP take effect. How important is it toward reconciliation from his perspective?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, moving forward with reconciliation is incredibly important for our country.

The Prime Minister has said that our relationship with indigenous peoples is the most important relationship we have. There are significant challenges we have in moving forward with this. This is a long process: It is one that is going to require trust-building to make sure we are able to make the progress that we need to. It is also one of the biggest opportunities that we have in this country with respect to economic development.

We see lots of great progress already. There have been major changes in the way that the Government of Canada approaches negotiations to treaties in British Columbia, which I think is really important progress. We certainly have a long way to go. We have a lot we can learn from the province of B.C., for instance, on how it has been able to move forward in the same respect.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, we have heard about how quickly we need to pass this piece of legislation, and I understand that perfection in a perfect world is not necessarily what we can aim for.

Significant amendments must be made to this bill. I would like to hear the member's comments on that, specifically about the lack of true intent around including the word “racism.” It is not there. We see instead “systemic discrimination”, and a measure to address injustices. Why does a hesitancy to address racism exist? Could the member comment on that?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, systemic racism exists in our country. I mentioned a few examples, going back over 100 years, of how that has been present.

We just have to look at the lack of access to clean drinking water in way too many areas across our country, and the third world conditions that many first nations live in at this point.

I certainly agree that this is here and we need to make sure we are addressing that through any means possible.

[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.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, let us just be clear in the question the member is asking. This legislation is already at committee; it has been at committee for weeks already, as we were required to do a prestudy of this legislation at the INAN committee. Maybe we should actually let some facts do the talking.

As I said in my comments, I have had the opportunity to speak to many indigenous stakeholders, and what I have heard and what I understand is that many of them have not had the opportunity to have their input into this legislation. They have asked to come to committee; they have sent letters asking to be at committee, but the member's government limited the amount of time and the number of meetings where we could listen to the evidence at committee, so for him to talk about the Conservatives obstructing the process is literally quite a folly. It is actually the Liberals who have obstructed the process for us to hear from the voices at committee.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I represent a very large natural resources region, and we know that no projects get off the ground without indigenous consent. It is now a fundamental principle.

The issue of consent is important, because it is not just about saying “yes”; it is also about the ability to say “no” when a project has fundamental problems that threaten the environment of traditional territory. I know, from the days when I was working with the Algonquin nation in Quebec, that we actually had to have blockades to get anyone to come to the table. We are talking about a fundamental principle, a principle that has been defined in court case after court case, a principle that the issue of consent is fundamental when we are talking about resource development in Canada.

I would encourage the Conservatives to recognize that if they are willing to work with first nations communities, we are going to move a lot further ahead, but we have seen obstructions against UNDRIP year in, year out. UNDRIP needs to pass before we can move together as a nation.

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

Madam Speaker, in all fairness, I could not agree more with the member. As I said in my comments, not allowing time and space for the indigenous communities to find an answer to the question of who has the authority to provide or withhold consent undermines the process.

What I have heard from the stakeholders, many of them indigenous organizations representing opportunity for indigenous people whose mandate is to end poverty in first nations, is their concern about the uncertainty and the lack of clarity on this particular piece of legislation and how it may hinder their opportunity to fulfill their mandate of serving their people in first nations across this country.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask quickly about some of the words we use. Language is so important, and “reconciliation” has been said time and time again in the House. I have heard from many people who feel that this word is actually losing some of its meaning. In fact, if we think of reconciliation, it means to reconcile, to improve what was perhaps once a good relationship, which we know was not the case.

Could the member speak about reparations and what we could actually be doing in Canada to ensure that we repair a broken relationship?