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

[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.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party has been calling for the implementation of UNDRIP for a long time. It is unfortunate that we have time allocation on the bill, because I think it is part of our democratic process to have a fulsome debate in the House of Commons on important bills like it.

The British Columbia government implemented legislation on UNDRIP, and shortly after, we saw the conflict with the Wet'suwet'en explode. We have seen it ignore the complaints of West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation with Site C. We have seen revenue-sharing agreements with silencers on them so that members cannot speak out in their communities, and we have seen those agreements leaked. We know this is happening with old-growth logging in British Columbia too, and we see division in the Pacheedaht community. It seems like the colonial project of resource extraction continues on, whether we have UNDRIP legislation in British Columbia or not.

I would like to ask the hon. member how he sees UNDRIP unfolding in Canada. Will we see a more fulsome process for free, prior and informed consent on these projects to ensure that people in these communities are not silenced by revenue-sharing agreements that are set up by the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, as we are in a democracy, we are not always going to agree on everything. I think what is important here is that we are building a framework for dialogue, for discussion and for free, prior and informed discussions. I think that will improve our relationship. It will also strengthen our country and strengthen the fabric of the values that we hold across it. I think it is becoming a basis for better dialogue and a basis for developing collaboration.

[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.

[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, indeed, I agree with my colleague's assessment.

The notion that indigenous people are anti-development is wrong. Indigenous people want to see development. They want to see Canada grow. However, what we are in favour of is sustainable development, smart development, development that does not jeopardize our future and that of the next seven generations that we are obligated to protect.

It is an important step moving forward that we realize that when indigenous people succeed in Canada, Canada succeeds.

[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?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I started off my speech on the premise that it has been 400 years. We can look at the past, and we should look at the past. However, the best time to implement these rights is right now. That is what we have in front of us, the ability to take those strides that no government has taken before.

I ask my learned colleague from the Bloc to join with us in not delaying, for any more time, when indigenous people could have the same human rights as every other Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by thanking Professor Sákéj Henderson, and my friend from Sydney—Victoria for his enormous leadership within the indigenous caucus and within our government as well.

As the member just mentioned, this is the moment for us to capture, this is the moment in which we could reset the relationship. For parties that are not supporting this bill, what does this member have to say to them? What is it that they are missing that others have been able to capture? What is the message that he has for the Conservatives and the Bloc?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, It is a difficult question, because I want Conservatives to be on board with this. I want Conservatives to want to give indigenous people human rights.

The delays, tactics and talking about vetoes; it is baseless. It has been pointed out by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond that it is fearmongering to suggest that we somehow would slow down the economy by getting the most basic human rights.

The question that I have to ask all of my other colleagues in this House is, what expectations would they have for their communities. Why should the expectations of indigenous people be any different?

[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.

[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, I certainly agree with my colleague, and I apologize for my wording and my adlibbing. First nations people are not my constituents. They are my friends, they are my neighbours and they are my colleagues, not only locally but across the country. I thank the member for that part of his intervention.

We talk about adding rights. Some of the vague definitions and wording in certain parts of the bill, which could be strengthened, could lead to confusion. The rights and the battles could end up in court. We have seen that with different issues when we did not originally take the time to get the definitions right and specific, to come to that balance, to have that cohesion and that reconciliation in certain communities.

I am all in favour of enshrining rights. The overwhelming majority of this document is attainable, because we are doing many parts of it and there are many parts on which we can all agree. However, where we could have stronger definitions, that would help a reconciliation process in building rights, strengthening rights, not having them end up in courts for years to come.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my colleague from Saint-Jean, albeit virtually. I do miss sitting with her at committee in my former committee role on PROC.

I hear what she says about the details needing to be worked out, but I go back to the same thing. We are better off as a country, as a Parliament with respect to reconciliation if these things are ironed out and if the consultations and resolutions happen sooner rather than later.

The member alludes to courts and different interpretations. That leads to my argument that we will have many of these consents end up in court for years and years to come. They could create divisions, not unity, when it comes to reconciliation, when it comes to economic development opportunities.

I come from a space of not wanting to stop progress but making progress smoother. The member is right that we will have to tackle these definitions. We need to do it sooner rather than later. The sooner and the better the clarity is, the better our path to reconciliation and stronger future for first nations communities in every part of the country.