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

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it was not because of the government that the bill did not pass the last time. In fact, we voted for it. I was in the last Parliament when we supported Mr. Saganash's private member's bill. Sadly, Conservative senators held up that bill so it could not get passed.

This is certainly not the end; it is indeed the beginning of a journey. We are committed to ensuring that UNDRIP is implemented, and I do not think the government can be blamed for Conservative senators holding up a piece of legislation. We certainly supported the bill, and we did everything we could to get it passed, but it was unfortunately held up in the Senate.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech on this important bill, Bill C-15. This is 2021. It is about time that we recognized and complied with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I hope to see meaningful action, such as the implementation of the recommendations from the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

How does my colleague envision the federal government working with Quebec and the provinces to implement this act?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I share the same hopes of ensuring that not only is this legislation implemented, but that we are also taking action on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague and good friend about the amendments, especially with respect to the addition of the word “racism”. How important was that to complete Bill C-15?

I know the parliamentary secretary has done a lot of work on systemic racism, so I would appreciate her comments on that, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for his work in ensuring that this bill is here before the House today.

We must end systemic racism in Canada, and this legislation is an important piece of that work. The added amendment is incredibly important to moving toward ending systemic racism across Canada.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on this important debate today. I begin with a quote from the great indigenous leader, Manny Jules:

Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself....

We forget often that these freedoms were enjoyed by first nations people before the arrival of Europeans. Of course, when Europeans came, they adopted a colonial, paternalistic and coercive relationship with the first peoples who had long before been here and who had been the owners of what we now call Canadian property. They imposed a system that allowed governments and other authorities to dictate the destinies of first nations that had prior been self-sufficient and had very well-developed systems of trade, governance and commerce that allowed them to provide for themselves.

Chief Jules, who is now in Kamloops and is one of the great intellectual leaders of first nations across the country, would like to have those same freedoms restored. He points out that archeological evidence of objects that predate the arrival of Europeans demonstrate that very sophisticated systems of free trade and free commerce existed between first nations across the Americas, well before Europeans came and formalized in law the European, and in particular the Scottish, understanding of markets. We see, for example, objects in one part of the Americas that could only have originated in other parts, meaning they must have been traded.

Chief Jules believes that the future for prosperity and opportunity for his people lies in restoring those freedoms that were taken away by so many ill-conceived, paternalistic and colonial policies of the past. Unfortunately, this bill does not achieve that goal. To the contrary, it fails to extend and return those freedoms back to the first nations people who rightly had them before. Chief Jules points that out about the achievements that are now well documented, that predate Europeans. He says:

Do you think this was all achieved through divine intervention from the gods? Or was it because we somehow evolved into a "natural" socialist system that lasted thousands of years? Both of these ideas are nonsense.

What he seeks today is a solution that would allow his people to be masters of their own destiny by controlling the economic decisions that affect their lives. For example, right now the federal government takes $700 million of revenue from first nations communities that is the result of the work and resource development that happens there. Then those same communities have to come to Ottawa and ask for some of that money back.

What Chief Jules has proposed is to allow first nations communities the autonomy to keep more of the revenues that they generate. That would allow more economic opportunities for jobs to fund local, clean water, health care and education initiatives in first nations communities. Instead, the government has attempted to maintain the colonial system which takes that money away from those to whom it naturally belongs and then requires that they come to talk to politicians in Ottawa to give back what is rightfully theirs.

This paternalistic system is not limited to taxation. The regulatory obstacles the federal government imposes on resource and commercial development in first nations communities is more obstructive than those imposed in neighbouring non-first nations communities.

I am splitting my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Madam Speaker.

That means it is more difficult for communities that want to develop commerce and industry to provide for their people to do so. Therefore, he proposes to allow more autonomy in first nations communities and less interference from the governments in Ottawa and the provincial capitals. Naturally, if we want to allow first nations to regain the freedoms they lost with the arrival of the Europeans, this proposal is entirely justified.

Furthermore, leaders like Chief Bear in Saskatchewan have said that the federal government should work with willing first nations that want to change land use policies to allow their residents to buy a home and collateralize it to get a mortgage. That would allow more first nations to develop net equity, the collateral and the credit rating that would them to allow to build into the future. We cannot start a business if we do not have collateral to get a small business loan, but because of the colonial and paternalistic nature of the Ottawa-knows-best system we now have, it is very difficult for many first nations to achieve that basic right that every other Canadian off-reserve can aspire to achieve.

Furthermore, we see a double standard from the government and from all the political parties, except the one in which I am a member, and that is on the issue of resource development. None of the other parties are interested in the views of first nations on resource development, unless it is to use them to block those projects.

For example, we look at the northern gateway pipeline, a project that was supported by 75% of the first nations communities along the pipeline route. It would have generated $2 billion in wages and other benefits for first nations people, and it would have had a first nations president and CEO overseeing it. It would have allowed young first nations to get positions as apprentices, so they could become welders or pipe fitters and obtain their Red Seal certification in many other high-paying, in-demand trades positions.

What did the Prime Minister do? Without honouring the duty to consult first nations that is embedded in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he killed the project and vetoed it, even after extensive environmental approvals had been granted by independent, non-partisan authorities and even though 32 of 40 first nations communities supported it.

Dale Swampy is the national president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, which has as its singular mandate to defeat on-reserve poverty by allowing more development. He said that Bill C-15, “adds to the confusion about who has the authority to provide or deny consent on behalf of Indigenous peoples, be it chief and council, hereditary chiefs, or small groups of activists. It also implies that a single nation can deny consent — a veto in practice if not in name — on projects that cross dozens of territories, be they pipelines, railroads or electric transmission lines.”

Is that not exactly the kind of colonialism we should be against, where 19 communities support a program and one does not, that the 19 are overpowered by one having the veto power? That is not the kind of opportunity and freedom that first nations should enjoy. Everyday first nations people want the opportunity that we all have: to work, to gain employment and to supply benefits to their own communities. We should allow those communities the freedom to extend those opportunities.

This bill would not do so, but let us work together with all first nations in the spirit of allowing them to fulfill their dreams and their ambitions.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member hardly spoke about Bill C-15 and UNDRIP.

I do want to ask him a question. He was very much involved with the previous government. UNDRIP was accepted by the General Assembly 13 years ago. The previous Conservative government was in power for many of those years.

At what point would the Conservative Party accept UNDRIP and develop a plan to implement it or at least have a road map to success? The Conservative Party has consistently opposed it every step of the way, including with the blocking of Bill C-262 and Bill C-15.

At what point would the Conservative Party accept the principles of UNDRIP so it could be implemented into Canadian law?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to say that I oppose this bill. The member asks when we will accept the principles in it, but he cannot even explain what the principles are. He cannot explain what free, prior and informed consent mean.

If we believe the words according to their dictionary definition, they would mean a veto. If 19 first nations communities supported a project and one opposed the project, the one would be able to overpower the 19. To me, that is not how we should function in a country that is a democracy. We should allow the first nations people to fulfill their destinies by making their own decisions rather than having the federal government obstruct those opportunities.

Frankly, that member should not be lecturing anyone. The Liberals still have not been able to fulfill their promise to provide clean drinking water on reserve to all communities. They have a shameful record as it relates to first nations and they should be lecturing no one on it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking from the traditional, unceded territory of the Qayqayt First Nation and of the Coast Salish peoples. I certainly want to thank Romeo Saganash, former NDP MP, whose leadership has inspired this legislation.

I have enjoyed working with my colleague from Carleton on the finance committee. He talked about the hypocrisy of the Liberals, the fact that they bring forward this legislation, but, at the same time, have a shocking record of not providing indigenous peoples with access to clean, safe drinking water or indigenous-led initiatives on the housing crisis we see in indigenous communities, and continue to take indigenous kids to court.

Could the member comment on the Liberal hypocrisy?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for that member, who is extremely knowledgeable and with whom I have enjoyed working on the finance committee over the years.

He is quite right that the government talks a wonderful game about how much it cares and all it will do. The reality is that first nations have suffered a lack of clean drinking water, chronic under housing and systematic poverty. That is fundamentally why we need to change the system to empower first nations to be masters of their own destinies. They should have the freedom to keep the money they earn in their communities. They should be able to decide whether or not projects are approved on their lands that would generate opportunity for their young people.

First nations should be in the driver's seat. If they were and if we, as politicians and governmental authorities, were to get out of their way, they would have more opportunity than they have now.

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

Madam Speaker, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, protects the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations peoples, and here we are with another piece of legislation.

How do we know they will really be protected? How do we know this is not just for show, like the Constitution Act, 1982?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. The answer is that it does not mean anything. This too is just for show. It is a flashy statement that does nothing but give federal politicians an excuse to congratulate themselves. Federal politicians do not deserve congratulations. Federal politicians have failed.

What we do need is to give indigenous communities the freedom and independence to make their own decisions and move forward without federal government interference.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.

The purpose of this legislation is to align Canadian laws with UNDRIP. The road to reconciliation has been a long and difficult one, with many ups and downs. Underlying it all is an understandable level of distrust on the part of indigenous peoples. Seen in that context, it could be said that at best, this is a well-intentioned piece of legislation, but even if that were so, it does not make it a good piece of legislation.

This legislation will likely move the process of reconciliation backward, rather than forward, and have grave impacts upon first nations communities to develop and prosper and achieve true self-determination. This legislation would undermine reconciliation, and nowhere is that clearer than in the complete failure on the part of the government in this bill to define what constitutes “free, prior and informed consent”.

What is free, prior and informed consent? If we were to look at the remarks of the Minister of Justice, we would be led to believe that it really means not much of anything, that the status quo ante would not be upended. In that regard, when the minister spoke in the House on this bill and the question of free, prior and informed consent, he said, “Free, prior and informed consent does not constitute veto power over the government's decision-making process.” The minister went on to say it “will not change Canada's existing duty to consult with indigenous peoples”. Clearly, that cannot be so.

Free, prior and informed consent is not the same as the duty to consult and accommodate, which is embedded in section 35 of our Constitution. There is a wide body of jurisprudence on that doctrine that makes clear that the right to be consulted and the right to be accommodated do not constitute a right of an absolute veto. When one looks at the words “free, prior and informed consent” on their face, they would seem to mean precisely the opposite of what the minister purports, namely that there would be a veto by someone.

Consistent with that, many persons who are authoritative on this matter have said as much. Let us take Senator Murray Sinclair, for example. Senator Sinclair championed Bill C-262 in the Senate in the last Parliament, which was the predecessor to this piece of legislation. Senator Sinclair is an esteemed retired justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.

On the question of what constitutes free, prior and informed consent, Senator Sinclair said this: “Free, prior and informed consent is a very simple concept.... And that is, before you affect my land, you need to talk to me, and you need to have my permission.” If “you need to have my permission” is not a veto, I do not know what is.

Assembly of First Nations chief Perry Bellegarde said that free, prior and informed consent, “very simply, is the right to say yes, and the right to say no”. He said it is “the right to say no”, full stop. If that does not constitute a veto, then I say I do not know what does.

It did not have to be this way. The one thing the government could have done was incorporate language expressly into the bill that made it clear that free, prior and informed consent does not constitute a veto. The Liberals could have provided a clearer definition of its meaning and its effect, thereby removing the considerable questions that currently exist about the implications of its meaning and effect, and what that will do to the development of major resource and other projects if this bill is passed.

One thing that is certain is that this lack of a definition would create considerable uncertainty and a torrent of new litigation around major development projects. It would undermine regulatory certainty, undermine investor confidence, and undermine the ability of individual first nations communities to determine their own destinies by seeking opportunities to engage and participate in projects that could help their people develop and prosper.

This is hardly a hypothetical. One need only look at Bill 41, passed by the B.C. NDP government in December 2019. That bill is quite similar to Bill C-15. It does not expressly enshrine UNDRIP into law in the Province of British Columbia, but it uses aspirational language about aligning B.C.'s laws with UNDRIP, similar to Bill C-15.

Within two months of the passage of Bill 41, three major projects were challenged by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: the Kitimat LNG project, the Site C dam and Coastal GasLink. The UN committee said that UNDRIP did apply, and that there had not been free, prior and informed consent. Many indigenous communities and leaders also took that position. That was despite the fact that, in the case of Coastal GasLink, 20 indigenous communities had supported the project but one faction of unelected hereditary chiefs opposed it. It underscores the uncertainty that would result from the passage of this bill, and it is why I cannot support this bill.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague not think we should strive for collaboration? From his speech, it sounds as though he thinks the United Nations is an adversary.

Personally, I believe in a model that enables us to work closely together. If my colleague does not support this bill, what are his thoughts on how we can make progress?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I reject in part the premise of the member's question, which is to suggest that this has widespread support among indigenous communities. It is opposed by the National Coalition of Chiefs, the Indigenous Resource Network, the Indian Resource Council, Chief Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, and the Mohawks of Montreal. I could go on.