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

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply point out to the member opposite that the slogan of my campaign and in my riding has been “Building Authentic Relationships” with the people I serve, in a riding that is 70% indigenous people. I believe that authenticity, being real, having good conversation and listening to the concerns of the people is the answer to repairing the relationship. We have to get out there. We have to be part of their lives. We have to listen to their concerns. We have to consider them valid. It is about building relationships that are real and authentic.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I represent a riding that is in Treaty 7 territory, the traditional territories of the Blackfoot Nation, including Siksika, Piikani and Kainai, theTsuut’ina nations; and Stoney Nakoda First Nation. We acknowledge all the many first nations, Métis and Inuit, whose footsteps have marked these lands for centuries.

Let me start today's debate on Bill C-15, introduced to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with the questions I am often asked about its clarifications.

How is United Nations involved? How do its edicts fit in Canadian law, which of course is much more robust? How do the United Nations edicts affect jurisdictions that have an established rule of law? How does UNDRIP consider and affect unique institutional rights, like section 35 of the Canadian Constitution? How do the two go hand in hand? As this is legislation, will it remain subservient to the constitutional law of Canada that supersedes it? What happens to existing Canadian laws? How are decades of legal precedent affected by this declaration?

Who will be the decision-makers? That is, the arbiters to balance the various interests and outcomes of these very pertinent questions. Will it be the same stagnant bureaucrats and interest groups that have ensconced the Indian Act as the status quo, in spite of decades of compulsion from all affected corners of Canada to move beyond this paternalistic legislation? Will it be a star chamber of legalists who have never set foot on the ground or experienced the problems that generations of first nations have been striving to overcome?

One thing is clear: Based on outcomes that have not arrived, the status quo is broken. How do we know it is broken? Let me count the ways. The words that describe the rights of Canada's indigenous people are a meaningful gesture, but gestures themselves are empty. There is no reconciliation that does not include economic reconciliation. Any legislation that we consider must not contribute to any negative impacts on the many indigenous communities that rely on resource development for jobs, revenues and a means to better outcomes. The decision-makers, bureaucrats, legalists, self-serving interest groups, those with a stake in maintaining the miserable status quo, should not be ensconced as roadblocks to the change that Canada requires.

It is also worth noting that those with a large stake in the benefits of the status quo have no stake in the misery associated with the status quo, which is borne by those who have been actually seeking to escape that misery for decades. Wholesale change is long overdue, and bringing forth legislation to secure the interests of these regressive middlemen is the opposite of what Canada and its indigenous population require.

Let me caution the Minister of Justice about placing his faith in the same interest groups and intervenors who have been part of the problem on this matter for decades. If the minister wants to get on the ground and hear about the frustrations with those voices by indigenous Canadians throughout Canada who will be affected by this legislation and the uncertainty it brings forth, please take the time to meet with those groups and have fulsome consultation, which has not happened, including in this House where we have had one hour of debate on it prior to today.

Weeks ago, I asked questions in this House about the effects of the government's actions on the flight of capital for project development in Canada. Oddly, it was after one of the government's appointees blamed risk and uncertainty as the underlying reasons that projects were no longer being viewed as viable investments by foreign capital in Canada. Of course, rather than addressing the causes of the risk and uncertainty and changing the destructive course on which the current government has ventured for six years, the solution seems to be for the government to allocate capital to replace private investment: the magic of social finance to the rescue.

We know what this means. It means more risk and uncertainty for Canada's taxpayers. What are others are recognizing as a problem is going to be a problem for Canadian taxpayers, and the government is doubling down on the risk Canadians will bear. In regard to UNDRIP, this legislation, as written, adds another level of risk and uncertainty to development in indigenous territories.

Prior to this country's battle to get ahead of a pandemic 13 months ago, the biggest issue we were facing, as a country and as a cohesive society, were the blockades that were initiated by certain indigenous organizations in support of some parties opposed to the Coastal GasLink pipeline, traversing Wet’suwet’en territory in northern British Columbia. Do we know who these initiators were? Do we know what standing they had: traditional, authoritative, representative, legal, responsible?

Do we know if these parties had other interests in the outcome? We know the democratic process for the band matters was completely usurped and endorsed by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, thus by the current government. Therefore, a well-understood process, which had changed substantially, was quickly usurped. Do I need to define “risk” and “uncertainty” for the current government? What does the government see as having legitimacy in the eyes of project proponents? It is definitely not the process as represented. As proponents have attested, if they do not have process, they do not have a path forward.

This bill, Bill C-15, proposes to increase that risk and uncertainty for indigenous organizations and adds another barrier to the participation in economic reconciliation. Even as project proponents themselves attracted real capital for the development of their own economic opportunities, they will be thwarted again by the government. I thank them for the words, but how about some real action? Let me illustrate the costs of that uncertainty.

Kitimat LNG is a project on Canada's west coast. The project has been progressing for a decade, along with its partner development the Pacific Trails pipeline. The project proponents have spent over $3 billion to get to this point, which represents a raft of documentation for the regulators, a gravel pad, full agreement from all 16 indigenous organizations traversed by the pipeline and full partnership with the Haisla First Nation at the project site. Thousands of indigenous jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars of benefits to people in indigenous communities, advanced trade training for a generation of people in those communities and the creation of capacity for advancing economic interests do not arrive out of thin air. In addition, more than 40 million tonnes per annum of greenhouse gas reductions will not be met. Sadly, at the end of the day, this project is on hold because there is no path forward at this point in time. Putting aside the ancillary environmental benefits, another file on which the current government is all talk with little tangible results, economic reconciliation delayed is reconciliation denied. Members should tell their children after 10 years that the reason they could not get a better education and advance their own, their society's and the world's interests is because the process was obscure and caused a decade of delays. Then members will understand the frustration.

The interests advancing this confusion have no stake in the outcome. Let us acknowledge that some of those interests, such as the NGOs that are short-term participants, often funded by foreign actors, have their own interests at heart and are often funded as well by the federal government.

Words and actions: we hear much of the former from the government and receive little of the latter. How many indigenous organizations have to stand up and say to the Minister of Justice they do not think the law will work and are worried that it adds further to the difficulties they have already experienced before he pays attention, before he gathers consensus, before he shuts down debate in the House of Commons on a fundamental piece of legislation that will change our country's governance going forward, including with those groups we are constitutionally bound to consider under section 35 of the Constitution of Canada?

We have seen this minister in action with Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying. Let me remind members that we moved this bill through this House and, on this side of the House, many of my colleagues supported the government's legislation before it went to the Senate. The minister manipulated that legislation in the other place and brought it back here in an entirely different form that ignored the at-risk groups that were left behind in the legislation. As a result, as that represented manipulation, we voted against the process. It was not democratic.

Does the minister believe that first nations organizations have not recognized his actions? Does he think they are unnecessarily wary of his non-democratic tendencies and partiality to other interested parties? I will repeat that there are many who are moving this legislation forward who have no stake in the outcome. That spells moral hazard and we must divert it.

Real outcomes, accountability and trust are in short supply with the current government. We must do better.

[Derek Sloan, Independent, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member across and I appreciated him talking about uncertainty with respect to these protests and blockades. I want to ask him about a blockade that occurred in my riding. It was a famous blockade that occurred in Ontario in central Canada that lasted for three weeks and it impacted many billions of dollars worth of commerce.

I spoke to the local chief of that nation in my riding and we were trying to think of a way to end this blockade. He told me that many protesting would not heed his calls to remove the blockade because they did not respect his title of “chief” under the Indian Act. These individuals claimed that they themselves held hereditary rights to the chief role.

Does the member believe that Bill C-15 would make this type of scenario more likely to occur in the future?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question because I have met with indigenous organizations in my riding and across Canada. One of the exact issues that they brought forward is who has standing to say that “you need my consent in order to move this forward”. Does that consent now come at the high school level when every person has to step forward or does it come with an actual legitimacy? We have experienced that across the country. It has been brought to our attention that this is a fundamental that has to change. We have to recognize who actually has the authority to give that consent or withhold that consent at the end of the day. That is not clear at all in the bill.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, self-determination means being in a position to accept or reject a project. It also means knowing who has the authority to do so.

Unfortunately, the Indian Act is fundamentally racist, given its concepts and archaic nature. Bill C-15 is about reconciliation.

Does my colleague believe that to achieve total and clear reconciliation, the Indian Act must also be changed?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague.

I am certainly proud to talk about the existing constraints of the Indian Act. That has to change now. Maybe they should cease to exist. I hope we will see that in the next Parliament.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is somebody from my neck of the woods and someone I consider a friend. I miss being able to talk with him in the lobby and share our different perspectives.

I want to talk about a specific Alberta issue. In Alberta at the moment he will know there is a lot of debate around coal mining and about mountain top coal mining. I have worked quite closely with indigenous groups in southern Alberta to help them protect their rights, to work with them to ensure their rights are protected. They brought forward a petition that had 18,000 signatures calling on the government to protect treaty aboriginal rights, water rights, species at risk rights and the environment.

I am wondering why the member feels that implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would not provide more clarity, more certainty for investment decisions, not less. By involving indigenous people in the beginning of the project, it seems that would make it an even stronger proposition.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the coal development they are looking at that has been petitioned in southern Alberta has been in the process for over eight years. I think it started in 2013, so it has transcended different provincial governments and indeed different federal governments and has a multi-party, multi-level of government environmental assessment review going on at this point in time.

It is important to make sure that we bring everybody in at the front of the line, but have a process involved that actually says, here is where we get input from all of the different actors or interests that are involved in any type of natural resource project development, especially coal mines.

I understand the provincial government is looking at that very clearly and potentially reverting to a policy that has been in the works that existed back in the time of Premier Lougheed. It is a very good piece of legislation that made sure we protected those interests and the nature that we need to uphold, especially in the Rocky Mountain eastern slopes.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-15.

I am pleased to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples bill that is before the House of Commons today. I am speaking today from my riding of Labrador on the traditional territory of the Inuit and Ainu people of our great land. We have one of the most beautiful, prosperous areas in the subarctic of Canada. We are very proud Canadians.

I think we can all agree that today's discussion on Bill C-15 is part of a broader discussion. It is one that stems from generations of discussions that have been led by indigenous people, by many tremendous, strong indigenous leaders who have lent their voices, expertise, skills and knowledge to build to the point we are at today, seeing this bill before the House of Commons.

While our discussion is a broader one, it is important to highlight that it is also about national reconciliation. One of the broader perspectives that we have been dealing with as a country in recent years is one that we should have, could have but did not deal with in many generations past. It is about the recognition and the rights of implementation of first nations, Inuit and Métis people. It is the rebuilding of strong and healthy relationships based on respect, co-operation and partnership.

We all know that Canada as a country has a constitutional and legal framework that embodies many of the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In particular, section 35 of the Canadian Constitution recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights. Section 35 is the core pillar of the Canadian legal and constitutional framework for the renewal of that relationship between the Crown, which is Canada, and indigenous people.

Implementing the declaration in the context of the Constitution and of the legal framework will contribute to enhancing indigenous participation in the Canadian economy and advancing reconciliation toward renewed relationships.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the member, but I believe she forgot to indicate that she is splitting her time with the member for Beaches—East York.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank the my colleague for being so diligent in his responsibilities. I am sharing my time with my colleague from Beaches—East York.

I want to emphasize that we are enshrining this in legislation. It is an opportunity for renewed relationships in our country. The declaration itself, despite the naysayers out there, will help all of us chart a clear and more predictable path forward for the future.

Some people have questions, and we are hearing a lot of them today. There are some fears associated with clauses of the bill that speak to free, prior and informed consent and how this would be interpreted in the Canadian context, including the relationship to land, natural resources development, other developments and how it affects indigenous people.

Free, prior and informed consent is one of the key elements, one that we have probably heard more about than any other within the declaration. As one of my colleagues said a short time ago, it is grounded in self-determination. That is the piece we cannot forget. It is really about respectful two-way dialogue and the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them, their communities, their territories and the future generations of their people.

Implementation of the declaration can really help contribute to sustainable development and resource development and it affirms the range of indigenous rights and related protections that are relevant when it comes to natural resources, lands, territories and resources.

As I said earlier, I grew up in Labrador, where I speak from today, where we still have unsettled land claims with the federal government. I am part of the southern Labrador Inuit and the NunatuKavut Community Council, whose rights have, to date, not been affirmed by the Government of Canada in land claims and settlements. That is not good enough, in my mind. The colonial system under which we and many indigenous peoples have operated has prejudiced them in access to their own lands and having the opportunity to have a final say, a real say, in what happens.

In my riding today, Nunatsiavut is a territory with settled land claims. It got to settle those land claims because nickel was discovered in Voisey's Bay and because a large corporation had a resource deposit. That became the catalyst to settle land claims with the northern Inuit people of Labrador. If that had not materialized, they would probably still be at the table today fighting for what is their inherent right: to have full declaration in what happens within their lands and territory.

The land claims agreement with Nunatsiavut Inuit in northern Labrador is one of the most historic claims in Canada next to the one with the Cree. It is a landmark agreement. It is really what UNDRIP is speaking to today with the inclusion of the Inuit people in ensuring they have free, prior and informed consent. That mining operation went forward. It employs nearly 90% indigenous people. It is contributing to a community, but it was done through co-operation, through dialogue, through a two-way agreement on how to move forward.

When I attended my first United Nations permanent forum on indigenous rights with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations back in 2016, she stood at the United Nations that day and affirmed Canada's support for UNDRIP for the first time in our history. It was a very proud moment for me to know that Canada could see this through the eyes of indigenous people and the rest of the world with respect to its importance and what needed to happen with regard to UNDRIP. Bringing it to where it is today has been, in my opinion, an absolute win for Canada and indigenous people. A lot of work still needs to be done, but as an indigenous person, there is nothing to fear here.

Our great country was built on consensus and co-operation. We are reaffirming and including indigenous people in the opportunity to have real say and opportunity within their own lands. Who would ever want to deny that or deny the indigenous rights and reconciliation within Canada?

I really believe getting to where we are today has not only involved indigenous participation and engagement, but also the natural resource sectors, corporations and people who have a vested interest in lands and indigenous lands across Canada. They know sustainable development comes with co-operation. It comes with working together and having a partnership with indigenous communities.

It means we build capacity, look at real benefit agreements, joint management and profit-sharing operations. That is where we are with companies like Vale today, which has been successful in Inuit lands and many others. There are models out there that have worked, but they worked because they were forced to the table, not because there was willing participation, in many cases. That is what is going to change here.

While industry leaders have invested time and energy into fostering many long-term relationships and building trust with indigenous groups, building an agreement that speaks to free, prior and informed consent, this bill asks for that and it would do that. There are many examples of that have already happened in Canada.

We have done outreach to many sectors, including the natural resources sector, of which I am a proud champion, including the mining industry. It is an industry that fits well for indigenous people, and we are the living proof of how that can work.

When I look at what is happening today, we might hear of the tremendous experiences and relationships that have been built between industry and indigenous people across many of these natural resource sectors and how they worked together in good faith and made every—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. She will be able to continue during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Labrador, in her role as a parliamentary secretary, has been involved in the indigenous affairs file for quite some time. When we look at Bill C-15, it would make the government commit to an action plan.

When I speak to indigenous people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the thing that comes up in conversation all the time is the Indian Act. We cannot talk about discrimination in our country without talking about the Indian Act.

With her experience on this file, could the member give the House some thoughts, and this is in the context of the Liberals having been in power now for five years, on what steps we take to get rid of the Indian Act? What are some of her thoughts on the process we need to start to fundamentally reform that colonial era legislation?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, in all honesty, I would like to see us get rid of the Indian Act overnight, but I also know, in my role and in the knowledge I gained in this department, that it is not that simple. It is an evolving process. It is a process that will require many legislative changes going forward, but it also has to be replaced. It has to be replaced with something that is not racist, is not discriminatory and that really speaks to opportunity for indigenous people.

That is where we are today, and it is not the government's decision to do this arbitrarily. It has to be done in partnership with indigenous people and with Canadians. That is the stage we are at right now.

[Derek Sloan, Independent, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question with respect to free, prior and informed consent and also resource development. We know that in some cases on these large projects there may be the majority of indigenous communities, maybe even a super-majority of indigenous communities, that approve of a project but there may be a small group that does not.

In the creation of the bill, an amendment was put forward that explicitly clarified that free, prior and informed consent would not be considered an absolute veto. I wonder if the member thinks that free, prior and informed consent would give an absolute veto to any group even if a majority of other groups, for example, approved of a project.