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.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm going to change my line of questioning.

Bill C-15 was on the implementation of UNDRIP. Whose main responsibility is it to ensure that UNDRIP is implemented in Canada.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to go back to my point that the member did not allow me to finish. Then, the member for Winnipeg North, instead of learning from an expert, a descendant of the Red River Métis, heckled him during his response when he could have taken the time of reconciliation and truth to learn; it is shameful. At a time when the Liberal Party members should be standing in solidarity, if they are really serious about reconciliation to protect indigenous people from the stealing of our identities, it is unfortunate that they double down and heckle. They are not going to take away my voice.

What has occurred is disgusting for a number of reasons. This member has used indigenous identity potentially for financial gain. The sad part about people like him, like Buffy Sainte-Marie, like the many academics who have received scholarships, grants and bursaries using our identity to get millions of dollars in research grants, is that they financially benefit, but they do not have to deal with the kinds of things that we do as indigenous people. We have to deal with the intergenerational impacts of residential school. We have an ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls so severe in the Winnipeg that I fear for the safety of my nieces taking taxi cabs there. In the midst of this debate, when the Liberals have an opportunity to give space to indigenous voices, they disrespect that.

However, it is not not just the Liberals. For weeks and weeks, I have had to listen to the Conservatives also usurp indigenous identities for political gain. It is disgusting, and I will tell members why this is so grotesque.

In a Conservative government, Prime Minister Harper said that murdered and missing indigenous women and girls was not on his “radar”. It was the current member for Carleton who said to residential school survivors when settlement agreements were being reached that they did not need the money, they needed to learn the “values of hard work”, like being a slave in the residential schools doing tasks every day was not hard work and being taken away from their families. However, he then fundraised with residential school denialist think tanks and lifted up his friend, Jordan Peterson, a misogynist, a transphobic and a residential school denialist, as protecting, in public, time and time again, freedom of speech. Well, we have laws in this country; we have the Criminal Code. Inciting hate is inciting hate, which has nothing to do with free speech.

Time and time again, the leader of the Conservative Party has fraternized and even fundraised with folks like Frontier Centre, a residential school denial think tank, for the Conservative Party of Canada. He was fundraising with Frontier Centre when he came to Winnipeg when we had just discovered the tragic news that potentially there were women in the Prairie Green Road landfill; women who we are currently looking for. However, he did not go to see the families. No, he decided instead to fundraise with residential denial think tanks.

The member for Saskatoon West likened indigenous people to criminality, saying that the person in question was more likely to offend because of his racial background, and then doctored Hansard to suit his political benefit. I get kind of sick and tired as a representative from a place that has been likened to ground zero for MMIWG, and when I come from a family that has had to deal with the intergenerational effects of child welfare systems and institutionalization, to hear Conservatives, people who have voted unanimously time and again against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, showing deep concern for the latest identity fraud by the Liberals.

There was a point of order when I had not even started talking. It reeks here of appropriating indigenous identities for personal benefit and gain, whether it is the Liberals and members trying to get loans, or the Conservatives' utilizing our trauma and our historical experiences so they can hold up the House forever on our backs. I wish they had fought so hard for residential school survivors. I wish they had fought so hard to get supports for the families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. I wish they had fought so hard for our land, territories and resources, not when it suited their economic and political interests but to uphold our human rights, which they have voted against time and again in the House. They voted against Bill C-15.

If we are going to get to the bottom of the matter, if we are going to reconcile in this country, then people need to do some inner reflection, like the members who felt it necessary to heckle me and like the Conservatives and members of the Liberal Party whom I have had to listen to time and again call us “our indigenous people”, as if somehow we are pets in this place.

Let us do some reconciling here. Let us tell some truth bombs about the level of baloney and racism on the backs of indigenous people that I, my other indigenous colleagues, and our family members and communities have to endure. It is political drivel. If we want to reconcile, we need some answers today and we need the behaviour to stop.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I know we're all talking about a definition of FPIC. I have one from Justice, so I'm going to read it. It comes directly from the federal government's justice department.

It says the following:

References to “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC) are found throughout the Declaration. They emphasize the importance of recognizing and upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples and ensuring that there is effective and meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them, their communities and territories.

I want to say this is coming directly from the justice department:

More specifically, FPIC describes processes that are free from manipulation or coercion, informed by adequate and timely information, and occur sufficiently prior to a decision so that Indigenous rights and interests can be incorporated or addressed effectively as part of the decision making process—all as part of meaningfully aiming to secure the consent of affected Indigenous peoples.

We actually have a definition, currently. I'm reading it right off the Justice page. It continues:

FPIC is about working together in partnership and respect. In many ways, it reflects the ideals behind the relationship with Indigenous peoples, by striving to achieve consensus as parties work together in good faith on decisions that impact Indigenous rights and interests. Despite what some have suggested, it is not about having a veto over government decision-making.

FPIC is not a veto. It's all laid out by the justice department. It has a very clear definition of FPIC.

I want to add that we passed Bill C-15 in the last Parliament. Section 5 stipulates that all legislation, going forward, has to be compatible and consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The reason this legislation is taking so long is that the Liberal government has failed to do that. Now we are in a situation where only 30% of first nations have been consulted, meaning you have not met the FPIC standards outlined by your justice department, which the federal government must adhere to. Now we're here. We have the definition. I'm not sure what the issue is in terms of incorporating FPIC, when the justice department has defined it.

The other thing I'd like to point to is the UN expert instrument that clearly outlines UNDRIP. We are obliged to uphold international law.

I can read it:

Free, prior and informed consent is a manifestation of indigenous peoples' right to self-determine their political, social, economic and cultural priorities. It constitutes three interrelated and cumulative rights of indigenous peoples....

It goes on. It has a very clear definition, and it's consistent with the definition outlined by the federal justice department.

I'm sharing this because, even with the child care legislation, the Liberals pushed very hard not to include free, prior and informed consent on matters impacting our children. There seems to be a pattern of behaviour when it comes to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the very core of which is free, prior and informed consent and self-determination. The Liberals continually disrespect this. Now, I managed to work with the Conservatives on the child care legislation, and we got FPIC passed in that.

Using the excuse that we don't know what FPIC is is not accurate or honest. We have a definition at the federal justice department. It goes on. We can read it.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a quick question and a quick comment.

I guess my comment back to Mr. Battiste, and maybe to the officials, would be, obviously, that the concept of free, prior and informed consent is very much an integral part of Bill C-15, our UNDRIP legislation. One of the witnesses here at this committee in September, Dr. Littlechild, referenced UNDRIP in his testimony.

My question for Mr. Fairbairn is in response to Mr. Battiste's question. In the context of the UNDRIP legislation, how do we acknowledge free, prior and informed consent? There has to be a definition there. It's legislation that has been passed. It's legislation we've adopted. How do we determine free, prior and informed consent, as it relates to UNDRIP, from a first nation, then? If the challenge is how we prescriptively define that, how do we do it for the UNDRIP legislation?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

When we're debating bills such as these, I think it's important to remember the intent of our debate and the intent of this bill. As we've discussed, in this bill we've been trying to ensure that, as introduced, Bill C-61 hands over jurisdiction over decision-making regarding water. Then, having had Bill C-15 become law in Canada, this would help strengthen the ability of first nations to ensure they are exercising their inherent rights, as well as what we've passed in Parliament under Bill C-15 for UNDRIP: “free, prior and informed consent”.

The way that I could see it implemented is that there would be consultation. There is a right to participate, especially because it includes the right to their lands, territories and resources. Ensuring this declaration for free, prior and informed consent would make sure that first nations are engaged fully, as has been discussed. Up to this time, we've heard, for example, that only 31% of first nations were consulted in this so-called co-developed bill.

I mentioned earlier that I met a chief of a first nation this afternoon who has never even heard of Bill C-61, so these concepts of ensuring consent—concepts of ensuring free, prior and informed consent—will help to make sure that first nations can be engaged in the way that they need to be, especially with Canada's colonial and genocidal policies continuing to impact the work that first nations try to do. This would be a real recognition and a real form of reconciliation: ensuring that first nations can give the free, prior and informed consent even at regulation stage.

Qujannamiik.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, welcome to the committee, and thank you for being here to discuss Bill S-13.

A large part of my riding's population is indigenous. In fact, two out of three names in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are anglicized names of first nations. Any time I'm here as a member of Parliament discussing anything to do with indigenous rights, it's not merely a national issue for me; it's also very local. I have a lot of constituents who are very interested any time we're discussing this, either in the House of Commons or at committee.

You and I have both been here since 2015. In the previous Parliament, the 43rd Parliament, we passed Bill C-15, which is the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. As you know, my province of B.C. has similar legislation as well.

The Province of British Columbia, however, also has an Interpretation Act. Its Interpretation Act makes specific reference to its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We don't see that in the current federal version of the Interpretation Act, nor do we see an amendment being made in Bill S-13.

The Senate report on this bill did make reference to the fact that this could be a pathway in the future. If you read Bill C-15, which is now part of the statutes of Canada, section 5 does state that “The Government of Canada must...take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.”

I can appreciate what this bill does. It, of course, has our support. I think it's an important bit of federal housecleaning to make sure that we have consistency.

Perhaps I could ask you this, Minister. Why not follow the example of the Province of British Columbia? Why not have, in our federal Interpretation Act, maybe through Bill S-13 or through another measure in the future, a specific reference to that very important federal UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

This has been in the works for 50 years. The Haida people have been asserting their inherent right to self-determination essentially since contact. In a legal sense, as the president outlined, there was a point at which they couldn't even obtain legal counsel because it was barred by law. I believe that in the last several years, we have moved an incredible amount to ascertain the first element of this, which is governance.

Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, is a foundational document for Canada. It's a foundational document towards self-determination and recognition of indigenous rights. I believe that it has enabled us and, in many ways, has pushed us along in ensuring that we can move faster and more coherently on these issues.

The fact that we have a willing partner in the Province of British Columbia is a remarkable alignment that I acknowledge. I acknowledge the work of former minister Rankin, who was a former colleague of ours in Parliament. Together, we've been working in tandem towards moving the dial on this issue, with the Province of British Columbia leading the way and with us following, using our own internal mechanisms and accountability processes.

I am very confident about the work that has been done so far. I'm also very confident that we will be able to progress on the work ahead.

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

Regional Chief, I share with you your concerns about the Indian Act and the cut-off. I know we've had conversations about this, and I've had conversations with the national chief.

We passed Bill C-15 on UNDRIP, which has article 33. It says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.

Bill C-15 has now received royal assent, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the law. We believe that this is the law in Canada.

Has the AFN tabled any kind of resolution to assist the government in determining a better system to determine status, moving forward?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We were asked a question about whether we support your right to clean drinking water. I can't speak for the government or for the committee, but I am a member of one of the first nations here that live on a first nations reserve. The intent of this legislation is to make sure that not only Ermineskin has safe, clean drinking water, but it's for all indigenous people in Canada, especially first nations on reserve. That's the intent.

In terms of saying how we got here, the amendment process and whether we're listening, we haven't gotten to the amendment process. We will get there after we hear all of the feedback. I think it's important that you know this legislation was passed by unanimous consent of all parties to get it here so that we could hear from communities.

I want to go to Dr. Wilton Littlechild first.

Willie, could you talk to us a little bit about what UNDRIP and Bill C-15 say about water in relation to this legislation? How can we improve this bill by what's in UNDRIP? What are some of the things we can do to make sure the amendments move forward?

[Chief Ghislain Picard, Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador]

Good afternoon, everyone.

[Witness spoke in Innu.]

[Translation]

Let me begin by acknowledging that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe Nation. I'd like to thank the Anishinabe Nation, because we're meeting today for an important discussion that has implications for them and others.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of this committee, let me introduce myself. My name is Ghislain Picard of the Innu Nation and the community of Pessamit. I am the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador.

Our organization is made up of the 43 first nations communities of Quebec and Labrador. Its mission is to ensure that their rights on a wide range of important issues are upheld.

I'd like to start by thanking you for inviting me to testify today about the age-old cultural and spiritual relationship that first nations have with the caribou, which we call atik^u in the Innu language. I will also speak to our support for Minister Guilbeault's move to issue an emergency order under the Species at Risk Act.

Caribou are at the heart of first nations identity, culture and way of life. We are not only stakeholders in the management of the territory and its resources, we are also rights holders, and we demand to be consulted in decision-making processes related to our territories.

As I said, first nations are rights holders. They have both treaty rights and aboriginal rights. As you know, these rights were formalized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was endorsed by the Government of Canada through the adoption of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Quebec has so far refused to adopt provincial legislation that would endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and oblige Quebec to adapt its legislative framework to the declaration's fundamental principles.

We are sensitive to the socio-economic issues connected to caribou protection, particularly with regard to forestry jobs and the survival of the municipalities that depend on them. Despite these concerns, we and many others agree that taking action for the caribou, an umbrella species essential to biodiversity and the health of our ecosystems, is urgent. That's why we affirm our support for Minister Guilbeault's actions, which stem directly from his legal obligation to recommend an emergency decree when he believes the species is facing imminent threats to its survival or recovery.

In our humble opinion, there's no justification for placing the blame on Minister Guilbeault and playing the interference card by asserting that the preservation of the species falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. Indeed, we're in this precarious situation today because of the Quebec government's failure to act on this matter.

Since 2019, the Quebec government has been postponing, for no good reason, the publication of a comprehensive strategy that would contribute to the survival of all caribou herds in Quebec. Last June, the Quebec Superior Court even ruled that the Quebec government had failed in its constitutional obligation to the Essipit Innu and Pekuakamiulnuatsh First Nations by failing to consult them before developing this strategy. The same judgment also calls out Quebec's inaction and stresses the urgent need to act, calling the status of the caribou in Quebec and its habitat on Nitassinan deplorable.

Quebec's first nations care deeply about the caribou's survival. They have been working for many years to preserve it via political action, participation in various policy committees and consensus-building groups, and community-led initiatives in the field.

The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador even went so far as to submit a brief outlining our concerns and recommendations to the independent commission set up by Quebec in 2022.

Even so, the Quebec government is bent on excluding first nations from any caribou-related decisions. In light of its refusal to co-operate, first nations have asked the federal government to intervene, which it is legally obligated to do. Minister Guilbeault was the only one to take our concerns and proposed solutions seriously, and that's why we support his recommendation to the Governor in Council to issue an emergency order to protect the caribou.

In conclusion, we believe that significant measures must be taken to ensure the caribou's survival, and we urge you all to endorse measures related to the emergency order, a process that stems from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's legal obligation to act. Measures and discussions relating to the fate of the caribou must transcend political partisanship. In fact, the same principle should apply when it comes to indigenous issues in general.

It's also important to set the record straight about the disinformation campaign going on in Quebec. Our actions must be based on reliable data for which there is scientific consensus. We must act quickly not only for the caribou, but to ensure that our children, future generations, can also understand the importance of this iconic species and benefit from the priceless ecosystem services provided by forests and their biodiversity.

I would of course like to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Alain Bédard, general director of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Sustainable Development Institute, who is attending the meeting with me today.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Whenever I hear that part of the legislation is to be defined in the preamble, it makes me nervous. I think we've learned from Bill C-15 that putting in the preamble aspects that we want to see in the body of the legislation does not give them the weight that is required.

With lessons learned from Bill C-15, it's absolutely clear that to engage and force the government, those provisions should be encompassed within the body of the bill, not in the preamble, which is used more for interpretive purposes and does not necessarily constitute a part of the law.

[Grand Chief Joel Abram]

Sure. As we know that it has been recognized by the Supreme Court as now being federal law, now that UNDA has passed, [Technical difficulty—Editor] that has to be quantified by individual first nations. What that means is that they're going to have their own guidelines as to what would constitute free, prior and informed consent for them.

That's something I cannot do. Each individual first nation is going to say, “Here are the kinds of discussions that we have to have on a particular subject.” Once we have those discussions, then maybe we can have our free, prior and informed consent for whatever it is to go forward.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

To be very clear, 81 remaining unfulfilled means that many of them are in progress.

I'll give you the example of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. We called for an inquiry in 2017. The report of the inquiry was delivered to us five years ago on June 3. There are 231 calls to justice that we're in the process of implementing. If you suggest we do that in eight years, I don't think we would do it properly.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act came into force in 2021. Again, we tried to bring it in during 2019. Unfortunately, it was stalled in the Senate because some of your colleagues in the Senate didn't support it.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

We can go through the number of things we completed this year, including the work around the national council for reconciliation and the work around UNDA. These are advances we're doing.

From a leadership perspective, I want to say that Valerie Gideon is our new deputy minister. She brings with it a vision.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you once again.

With respect to decisions that are made by independent government agencies, one of the things that I'm trying to do as minister is to have greater clarity on what engagement, consultation and codevelopment actually mean in real life. I think there are different interpretations, and there are also different expectations from first nations communities who, in this particular case, are impacted.

I think the work is on much more of a broader scale in terms of looking at the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UNDA implementation action plan that was released last year, and then working with the different agencies that have a duty to consult. There is absolutely no question that there is a duty to consult in these situations, but I think that the depth of the consultation and the actual weight that its given, those, I think, are oftentimes.... People are in a different state or organizations are in a different state on this type of...and there's no consensus.

I think what I'm trying to do, with the department, is to be able to have a broader conversation, where there is some alignment and also an alignment with the expectations of first nations, Inuit and Métis, to have a codeveloped strategy that can be applied everywhere. That's not going to happen overnight.

To your immediate question, what I believe we should be working towards, not just in this particular case but across the board, is that we do have the direct cleanup of contaminated sites that both our department as well as Northern Affairs are working on. We have, for example, the Giant Mine in Northwest Territories, which is probably our largest cleanup project, but there are many other smaller ones across Canada that speak to past projects where there's contamination and a need for cleanup. We have a robust program that does look at individual sites to see how the cleanup can take place, and we're, in fact, in the process of cleaning up.

After the fact, it's not ideal. We don't want to do that. We want to be able to do it proactively, and that's the work that I think we still need to do.