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.

[Professor Dwight Newman, Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Good morning, honourable members. I'm Dwight Newman and I work as a professor of law and Canada research chair in indigenous rights in constitutional and international law at the University of Saskatchewan. I appear today as an individual.

Proposals to add indigenous languages to election ballots in Canada have circulated in recent years. There's a new imperative to thinking on these matters insofar as Canada adopted last year the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or UNDRIPA, which received royal assent on June 21, 2021.

Amongst its provisions, section 5 of that act establishes a statutory requirement for the government taking “all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” That's a far-reaching statutory obligation, and it bears on many topic matters that are seldom discussed.

Article 13.2 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has a clause requiring that states “take effective measures to ensure...that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means”.

That clause of that article has received very little attention in the UNDRIP scholarship, but it represents an important commitment concerning participatory rights of indigenous peoples. Partly because article 13.2 establishes rights for indigenous peoples as collective entities, though, rather than pertaining to individuals, article 13.2 probably does not mandate any specific requirement of ballots being available to individual indigenous voters in indigenous languages.

However, the adoption of such a practice would certainly be in accord with the underlying objectives of the UNDRIP. The enhancement of indigenous participation in democratic decision-making accords with the declaration and represents good policy in a democratic state meant to have full involvement of all voters.

Sections 3 and 5 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protecting the right to vote and rights against discrimination, may well offer stronger legal arguments against impediments to voting. As with other barriers that Elections Canada has worked to overcome, there are arguments for it to overcome linguistic barriers, particularly in the case of individuals who use other languages and have limited proficiency in English and French.

In some ways, Canada is behind on these issues, notably as compared with the United States. I draw the committee's attention to the 1975 amendments to the U.S. Voting Rights Act that added section 203, which established various forms of language assistance in districts where that was needed for minority language communities. That's decades back that the U.S. has done this, and there have been challenges at times on implementation, which has not always been smooth, but there has been a statutory commitment there in U.S. legislation.

In the context of indigenous peoples, though, the U.S. has had some ongoing challenges. Here, I would draw the committee's attention to the March 2022 “Report of the Interagency Steering Group on Native American Voting Rights”, which was just reported to the White House and has examined a range of factors affecting indigenous participation in elections. There is discussion of language factors, but there is a wide range of other factors that need to be taken into account, which raises questions about what are going to be the most effective means of enhancing indigenous participation in elections.

With regard to the language issues at hand, there are a number of key questions to consider, which I know this committee has already been discussing in some ways: whether Nunavut is a special case and where there's a particularly strong argument; what population cut-offs might bear on whether it works to provide translation of ballots in a particular riding; issues concerning what particular form of indigenous languages might be used on ballots, whether in the form of syllabics or in transliterated forms in the context of languages that have both versions; and other issues concerning the costs generally and whether those costs might be more optimally invested in other ways of supporting indigenous electoral participation.

There are many things that we could talk about. I'll just say that there are also many options the committee could consider in terms of the most effective ways of advancing indigenous electoral participation in cautious ways. The use of sample or facsimile ballots is an option, rather than changing the main ballot. Other forms of language assistance are possible. The committee could also think about something like a pilot program in the context of Nunavut that would test things out in one riding before making Elections Canada try things out across the country all at once.

I'll stop there and just say that there are big questions about bridging principle, the aims of legislation and what legislation can and will achieve in practical ways.

It's wonderful to see the committee working to live up to commitments of supporting indigenous electoral participation. It's important to do that right.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask another question regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Bill C-15 was passed last year, and I'm glad for first nations and all indigenous peoples.

In supplementary estimates (C), an additional $11 million is allocated to support the implementation of the Declaration. These are not operating expenditures. I'd like to know what this $11 million in additional funding is exactly and how it moves us closer to actually implementing Bill C-15 at this time.

[Regional Chief Terry Teegee]

Yes, I got part of it. I'll do my best.

I'm a regional chief, not a grand chief.

As part of section 35 of the Indian Act, and also with the new act—the declaration of rights of indigenous peoples, Bill C-15, which was passed federally—I think it's important to share some of the issues we have here in British Columbia.

We're going on two years since the Declaration on the RIghts of Indigenous Peoples was passed as law provincially in British Columbia. As I stated in the legislature at the time when we passed the act two years ago, DRIPA is really, as my colleagues have stated, a human rights recognition. It's much more than just an act. It really recognizes our human rights, our sovereignty and our self-determination.

I've stated there how it's related to such initiatives or laws, environmental assessments and major projects, and is a big economic driver in this country. Much of Canada and British Columbia is driven by natural resources, whether we like it or not. There needs to be space. This is related to free, prior and informed consent.

I believe what you alluded to is the uncertainty of perhaps how decisions are made. The free, prior and informed consent in our determination, in first nations' perspective, allows for more certainty. If major companies are proposing these major infrastructure projects or anything of that nature, we need the space for all levels of government, including provincial, federal and indigenous governments together, so that the decisions can be made together.

If there is a blessing of going ahead, there's nothing that gives more certainty than if all levels of government say yes or no to a project. That's really important in terms of the new law, which is the declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples.

[Regional Chief Terry Teegee, Regional Chief, British Columbia Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you.

[Witness spoke in Dakelh]

[English]

I just wanted to acknowledge the territory I'm calling from, the unceded, unsurrendered and continually occupied territory of the Lheidli T'enneh, the Dakelh people.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations. I hold the economic development portfolio on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations and continue to work on behalf of many first nations across this country. Seeing that we're so diverse and have numerous communities, well over 630, there certainly are different points of view in terms of economic development.

Many first nations communities rely not only on our traditional economies but also on market-based economies, which we have been accustomed to since colonization began. Certainly, there are many environmental issues that we deal with as first nations in upholding our rights, treaty rights, and different ways of knowing and being.

Yet, the common theme that serves as a barrier to first nations' economic development is the ongoing systemic impacts of colonialism, in particular the persistent failure to recognize and implement first nations' rights and treaty rights, and the ongoing denial of first nations' self-determination and jurisdiction. It's really important to understand that UNDRIP is law as of June 21, and certainly the declaration identifies and sees sovereignty and self-determination as a cornerstone for implementing first nations' rights, title and interests. Most important to the Assembly of First Nations is ensuring that we address these barriers as first nations.

What we need are solutions that address barriers to help first nations. In some cases, those barriers relate to the failure to implement the treaty relationship, or specific treaty obligations and historical treaties. In other cases, those barriers are related to specific impediments found in the Indian Act itself, to federal or provincial policies, or even to corporate Canada.

Barriers include lack of respect for first nations' inherent rights and jurisdictions, as they relate to treaties, and lack of involvement in economic development planning, decisions and financing. Certainly we've seen the lack of respect for first nations' rights and jurisdictions in many historical fights, whether it's on the territory, in the public or in the courts. Our first nations continue to be in the court systems to fight for what is rightfully ours. A perfect case is the Ahousaht case here in British Columbia—fighting for the ability to commercially fish some of the commercially viable species.

There is a lack of involvement in planning. First nations must be included in strategic planning and decision-making processes for economic recovery. In the long term, certainly, those are some of the discussions that we've been having, not only nationally, but also provincially, as we come out of this pandemic—building back better, if you will. We need to be part of those discussions.

One of the core standards recognized by UNDRIP—which is law here in British Columbia and now federal law elsewhere in this country, through Bill C-15—is the need to uphold and live up to many of the articles within UNDRIP, including free, prior and informed consent. The way we see it, it would provide more certainty in terms of how decisions are made.

Finance, as well, is always an issue in regard to funding certain projects led by first nations, or which are in partnership with first nations. It's very difficult to access the necessary financing on many projects out there, whether it's infrastructure or the development of projects that are important not only to our first nations communities but to the economy in general.

Going forward, we'd like to see more working together in terms of joint actions and measures to progress in these areas. I know this is a very short time. Five minutes doesn't allow me to say a hell of a lot, but certainly we're seeing major issues in Ottawa. The political discourse that we're seeing [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Many racialized peoples, including indigenous peoples, are concerned about the state of this country, so we need to do this in partnership.

Marsi cho.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Just before I turn it over to Ms. Campbell, I'd like to thank you for the compliments on Bill C-15. Thank you. I certainly have saluted the leadership of Romeo Saganash throughout this whole process. He deserves a great deal of credit for the passage of Bill C-15. He did a lot of advocacy for it in the meantime, as well as for his own private member's bill.

We, as a government, recognize—and I, as the Minister of Justice, recognize—that we need to work hard at improving the justice system in all of its forms. That means, as per the UN declaration, helping the reflourishing, if you will, of indigenous normative systems. I have just recently announced, in response to call to action number 50, $10 million for funding across Canada for 21 projects aimed at reviving specific indigenous justice systems.

That's part of it. Part of it is encouraging better access to justice. Part of it is encouraging a better and more participatory justice system. Part of it is having more indigenous justices—and I've done that too, by appointing indigenous justices to the Superior Court and elevating currently sitting Superior Court justices in the Courts of Appeal. It's a priority for us, as well, to make sure that representation, at the earliest possible point, also extends to the Supreme Court of Canada.

With that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Campbell.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome Minister Lametti and Ms. Campbell to the committee.

We really appreciate having you both here to discuss this nomination process.

Minister Lametti, maybe I'll start with you. I'll just offer congratulations on Bill C-15 having received royal assent yesterday. I had the honour of serving with Romeo Saganash in the previous Parliament, so this has deep, personal meaning to me, as well as to many indigenous people across this country.

The preamble of Bill C-15 talks about how the declaration emphasizes the urgent need to respect the legal systems that indigenous peoples have. Clause 5 of that bill requires that the government take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration.

Within the qualifications and assessment criteria, number one, under “Demonstrated superior knowledge of the law”, says that “knowledge of indigenous legal traditions may also be considered”.

Ms. Campbell, you might want to chime in on this. With respect to qualifications and assessment criteria, under number one, “knowledge of indigenous legal traditions”, can you expand on that a little? I want to know how much that figured into your consideration of applicants given the context we're now operating under in Canada, in which indigenous rights and title are becoming much more prevalent in Canadian society and will certainly be a big part of legal decisions going forward, especially with the passage of Bill C-15.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 21, 2021

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Administrator of the Government of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 21st day of June, 2021, at 6:35 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-210, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ and tissue donors); Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94); Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; Bill C-33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022; and Bill C-34, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, if I understand Ms. Pauzé correctly, she is asking whether, because C-15 references all other Canadian statutes, it is really necessary to go both directions and have new statutes reference the framework on C-15.

My sense is that, given where C-15 is, and because the co-formation of that framework hasn't taken place yet, it's important in this new legislation that we have a reference to that so that it doesn't get missed.

While it may seem duplicative, I think indigenous rights are important enough that we should make sure that when we're passing legislation we include reference to them, especially a piece of legislation aimed specifically at environmental racism, which affects so many indigenous people.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a question.

It seems to me that Bill C‑15 states that the laws will automatically be consistent with the United Nations Declaration. So is there any point in adopting Mr. Bachrach's amendment, and will we have to bring his amendment back to the table on a regular basis, since it seems to me that Bill C‑15 covers all of that?

I wonder whether this amendment is necessary.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Conservative government chose to vote against the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In the year since, indigenous parliamentarians, including Romeo Saganash and I, among others, have worked diligently to rectify this mistake, resulting in our government's tabling and passing of Bill C-15.

On National Indigenous Peoples Day, could the Minister of Justice please update the House on Bill C-15 and the work ahead to implement UNDRIP?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to use my time to speak to Bill C‑15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is before the Senate.

I'm not necessarily speaking to the witnesses, but to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who is serving as Governor General right now. I would ask him to please give royal assent to this bill as quickly as possible. We would appreciate it very much, because we don't want to have to go through this process again, which was started by my colleague Romeo Saganash.

At the same time, I would like to reiterate that the Liberal government should end court challenges related to compensation for residential school victims and children who are not receiving their fair share of health and social services.

My question is more directly addressed to our witnesses.

There is talk of implementing a program to commemorate the victims of residential schools and to talk about the reality of residential schools. How do you plan to distribute the investments in the communities to fulfill this duty to remember? The reality has been different in many parts of the country.

There were 130 residential schools in Canada, only 11 of them were in Quebec. Of course, that doesn't take any responsibility away from Quebec. Still, I wonder if the investments will be made in proportion to the number of residential schools, victims and children who attended these institutions or if 10% of the funding will be provided by province.

What are you considering? What is the plan?

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

I want to thank the heritage committee for giving me some time today to talk about this really important issue.

I've heard some of the members and some of the discussion regarding the need to raise awareness in commemorating Indian residential schools.

I'd like to begin by looking at some of the work we've done as a government. Yesterday, we were lucky enough to vote on Bill C-15 on UNDRIP, which was mentioned seven times in the TRC's calls to action. We've also done important work in terms of establishing a language commissioner last week, as well as the TRC calls to action regarding the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

We've taken a lot of big steps in government in terms of fulfilling the calls to action, but across the country there were 130 different residential schools. In a lot of these places, there is no commemoration. There is no plaque. There's nothing. As for the only residential school we had in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, there is a farm there now. There's nothing there to commemorate all of the children whose lives were lost, and all of the communities that had to go there.

Could you talk to me a bit about the $27 million our government has put towards ensuring that we move forward on the calls to action? Why is it important that these processes be indigenous-led and not government-led, community-based and based on the survivors of the residential schools, which were very different all across Canada.

I want you to speak to that a bit.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, I want to note that the one thing I did not mention is that Bill C-15 passed through the Senate this week, which is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It has clearly outlined many of the issues that my friend opposite talked about. The declaration offers us guidance regarding how we engage on a nation-to-nation basis with indigenous people. I know that, with respect to his particular concern, we will continue to work with all of the parties to come to a solution on the dispute that he referenced.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, we were talking about the very notion of the freedom of speech Canadians enjoy, one of the rights Canadians have enjoyed since being introduced by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in 1960 and embedded in Canada's Constitution in 1982. Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a fundamental freedom by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter also permits the government to enforce reasonable limits.

I would say from experience that a large amount of Canadian communication between parties, individuals, businesses and organizations of all types, even governments and their agencies, happens via the Internet. Where does the problem arise in this legislation? Bill C-10 creates a new category of web media called “online undertakings” and gives the CRTC the same power to regulate them that it has for TV and radio stations. What is an online undertaking? Whatever one uploads onto the web is an online undertaking, such as videos, podcasts, music and websites. It is a huge regulatory stretch. However, Canadians should not fret as the CRTC will not act in the way the legislation is written, or so it has said.

Let us look back at that notion of freedom of expression and how we as legislators are supposed to ensure the legislation we consider abides by this fundamental piece of protection embodied in our constitutional bill of rights and freedoms. The Department of Justice Act requires the justice minister to provide a charter statement for every government bill that explains whether it respects the charter. The charter statement for Bill C-10 directly cites the social media exemption in its assessment that the bill respects this part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then, poof, at committee the Liberals removed the cited exemption from the legislation. When my Conservative colleagues rightly asked for a new assessment based on the new wording of the legislation, the Liberals decided to shut down debate at the committee.

At this point, I think Canadians would ask where the Minister of Justice is on this issue and why he will not seek and provide the legislative charter statement from his department. I have watched the Minister of Justice and let me illustrate how he operates in my opinion.

Regarding Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), admittedly no bill is perfect, yet this bill passed through committee here in the House of Commons and members from all parties voted in a free vote to pass the legislation. The legislation passed with the input of witnesses who wanted to respect the rights of disadvantaged Canadians and it worked through this House. The minister, despite that democratic process, manipulated the legislation with an amendment at the Senate and forced an amended bill back to this House, a bill that disrespects the input he received through witnesses and parliamentarians in the process. It was pure manipulation.

Regarding Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, after one hour of debate on a bill that my indigenous constituents are asking for clarity with respect to the defined terms in Canadian law and how it affects them, the Minister of Justice shut down debate, saying it had been debated enough.

Perhaps it is unparliamentary to state openly here that the minister's remarks are completely disingenuous. I have watched him during question period while he brazenly denies that his judicial appointments have nothing to do with Liberal Party lists. That is disingenuous. I know why Canadians are losing faith in governments.

Now we have this, the refusal to provide an updated charter statement. Shame on the minister.

Coming back to the bill, if passed, Canadian content uploaders will be subject to CRTC oversight. Yes, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will be looking at uploads all day long. That is in fact who is writing the bill and in fact the government organization trying to gain some relevance with it, but Canadians do not have to worry because it will not enforce the law as it is written.

Let me quote Timothy Denton, a former national commissioner of the CRTC, who now serves as the chairman of the Internet Society of Canada, who stated:

...their fundamental [principle here] is...that freedom of speech through video or audio should be in the hands of the CRTC — including Canadians’ freedom to use the internet to reach audiences and markets as they see fit.... The freedom to communicate across the internet is to be determined by political appointees, on the basis of no other criterion than what is conducive to broadcasting policy — and, presumably, the good of our domestic industry. As always, the interests of the beneficiaries of regulation are heard first, best, and last. Consumers and individual freedoms count for little when the regulated sector beats its drums.

Finally, let me congratulate the government on this one step. We have been through 15 months of an unprecedented time in our modern history, with lockdowns, economic dislocation and devastation, and literally a pandemic. The press does not cover what happens in the House and the myriad mistakes the government has made because governments make mistakes in unforeseen, unprecedented times. Canadians have given the government some benefit of the doubt about these mistakes and so do all people of goodwill, but it is our job in opposition to do our utmost for the country in oversight and to provide solutions to make our outcomes better.

I thank all my colleagues for the work in helping Canadians during these unprecedented times. I should thank the Liberal government for providing a coalescing issue that has Canadians from all backgrounds and political beliefs in my riding united in reaching out to make sure the bill does not pass. The bill and the government's responses to reasonable amendments to protect Canadians' rights show its ambivalence to Canadians and their rights.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get directly involved in the debate on Government Business Motion No. 8, I just want to take a minute to offer my sincere and personal congratulations to three first nations on the southwest coast of Vancouver Island for having come together to directly take ownership of their traditional territories when it comes to managing the resources. This has been a long journey in my riding, and there have certainly been some high emotions present on the subject of old-growth forestry. It is nice to see the first nations come together and really take ownership of this issue. I just want to offer my congratulations to them for taking this important step on this journey.

I will now turn my attention to the business at hand. As my colleagues in the House know, we are here today debating Government Business Motion No. 8. This motion comes before us under the authority granted under Standing Order 27(1).

The main government motion aims to make sure that the House can extend its sitting hours. The government side would like to see us continue to sit on Mondays and Wednesdays until midnight and have the Friday sitting extended until 4:30 in the afternoon. I believe my Conservative colleagues want to see the motion changed so that on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays we would only sit until 8:30 p.m.

I cannot continue to speak about Government Business Motion No. 8 without talking a little about the circumstances in which we find ourselves, which gives me sympathy for Shakespeare’s character Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet when he cried, “A plague o' both your houses!” However, in this case, I think we can substitute the Capulets and the Montagues for the Conservatives and the Liberals. Both of these parties are demonstrating no room for co-operation and no finding of a middle ground in order to move forward important pieces of legislation, which I think many Canadians would like to see us pass.

I will start with my Conservative friends, and because of what happened yesterday and what has already happened this morning in the House, we are not actually going to see a vote on the motion before us until Monday, and so we have lost a lot of very valuable time.

Yesterday, the Conservatives were successful at prolonging the Routine Proceedings of the House by forcing a vote to move to Orders of the Day, which, of course, we as a House rejected, and that then finally allowed the government to actually introduce the motion that is before us. However, this morning, they moved a motion to adjourn the House, then there was a debate on a random committee report, which was then followed by an extended debate on a question of privilege. These parliamentary shenanigans, members can see, are very naked attempts to try to delay, and quite successfully, a vote on the motion before us.

I have been a member of the House since 2015, and experienced members should know that this is a time of year when we usually find the time to come together and usually agree in some straightforward fashion that the House does need some extended sitting hours so that we, as members of Parliament, have the time to represent our constituents and to give voice to important polices and pieces of legislation that concern them. I will never not be in favour of allowing my colleagues to have extra time to do work, which is why I took strong umbrage against the motion to adjourn the House today. It is a Thursday, and unlike a Friday, it is a full sitting day. I think our voters would be shocked to see one party wanting to so blatantly quit the business of the House while there is so much important work to do.

I will leave aside the Conservatives and now turn my eye to the Liberals, because I think it is the height of irony and hypocrisy for the Liberals to stand before us and talk about the dysfunction of the House. When we look at what has been happening in several of the most prominent committees, the Liberals have actively filibustered to prevent those committees from arriving at a point where members can collectively make a decision on a motion that is before them.

I am very lucky to sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I invite my colleagues to substitute on that committee to see what a well-run committee of the House is able to do. We have differing opinion on the agriculture committee, but the one thing that unites us all is the fact that every single one of our parties represents ridings with farmers and has strong agricultural basis. We usually find a way to work together by consensus to arrive at decisions in a respectful way. It does not mean to say that we do not have our debates and our points of disagreement, but it is probably the most ideal demonstration of how committees can work.

The actions of the Liberals at various committee by filibustering are adding to the situation in which we find ourselves. I would have preferred for us to have arrived at a place where we could get a vote on Government Business No. 8, but unfortunately we will have to delay that until Monday because of the special orders we are operating under in this current hybrid system.

Standing Order 27, I believe, dates back to 1982, but even predating that year, it does reflect a long-standing practice that has existed since Confederation for Parliament, and I am sure in the provincial legislatures, to seek the time necessary to advance important legislative agendas.

When we look at why we are where we are today, we also have to identify the fact that the government needs to bear a lot of responsibility for the mismanagement of its own legislative agenda. It has left a lot of very important bills in limbo. We are not very sure if the Liberals will have the runway left for them to arrive at the Governor General's doorstep for the all-important royal assent.

We seem to be operating right now under this sort of manufactured emergency. I use that term because if my colleagues look at the parliamentary calendar, we as a House are scheduled to return on Monday, September 20. Therefore, there really is no reason for this panicked rush to try to get these bills passed or sent to the Senate. We should, under normal circumstances, be planning to have a pleasant summer in our constituencies where we get to engage with our constituents and, hopefully, as the lockdowns lift, attend limited participation in community events. Then as the summer draws to an end, we should look forward to our return to Ottawa, to the House of Commons, on September 20, when we can resume this important business.

The reason we are operating under these circumstances right now, which is quite clear to anyone who has the slightest sense of political know-how and what is quite apparent to many skilled observers, is that the Liberals are very much putting everything into place to call an election. There is no matter of confidence coming up except, of course, the votes on the estimates. There is no motion before the House, no budget, except for Bill C-30, which I believe will pass because we do not want to have an election during this third wave, from which we are recovering. The only plausible reason we would be entering into an election is because the Prime Minister will take it upon himself to visit the Governor General unilaterally and recommend the dissolution of Parliament, as the Liberals seek a new mandate. All signs are pointing toward this.

We should have the time when we return on September 20 to effectively deal with a lot of this. We scheduled a take-note debate next week to give MPs who are not running again the opportunity to give their farewell speeches. The Liberal Party has implemented an emergency order so it can hand-pick preferred candidates instead of letting local riding associations democratically go through the process of selecting their own people. The signs are all there.

When I look at the House schedule for March and April, and the government's completely scattergun approach to how Government Orders were being scheduled at the time, there was really no rhyme, reason or logical pattern to the government bills that came before the House. The Liberals are paying the price for that right now. At the time, they should have identified maybe two or three key priority pieces of legislation and put all their efforts into seeing those across the finish line. Instead, they wasted a lot of time on bills that really were not going anywhere. This is why we see this rush right now.

The Liberals have to realize that this is a minority Parliament. Yes, they are the government, but they were elected to that position with only 33% of the vote in the 2019 election. By virtue of the quirks of our first past the post system, even though the Conservatives got more Canadians to vote for them, the Liberals still ended up with more seats. Therefore, they have to realize that if we are in fact going to have government legislation passed, they have to do so with the consent of another opposition party, and that is a good thing. As an opposition member who sat across the benches from a Liberal majority government, it is good policy and gets more Canadians involved when we have more voices at the table and we try to reach that kind of consensus.

I am proud of how the parties have worked during the worst of the pandemic. If we look back at the history of how we were able to work together in the 2020, I am really proud of the accomplishments that New Democrats were able to provide for Canadians. The major amendments we made to pandemic response programs, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, increasing the Canadian emergency wage subsidy from the initial 10% to 75%, getting those improvements to programs for students and persons with disabilities, putting pressure on the government to fix the much-maligned commercial rental assistance program and ensuring that it was turned into a subsidy that went directly to the tenants instead of having this complex process that involved landlords, are good accomplishments and really demonstrate how minority parliaments are able to work. Again, we are not scheduled to have an election until the year 2023, so theoretically we could have two more years of this, where more voices are at the table for important legislation.

I would like to turn my attention to some of those important bills that will be well served by the extra time we get as a Parliament to debate. I am very proud of the fact that Bill C-15 has made its way to the other place. I want to take the time to recognize Romeo Saganash who brought in Bill C-262, which served as the precursor to Bill C-15. I am glad to see that important legislation seems to be on its way to becoming one of the statutes of Canada and that we will finally have in place an important legislative framework to ensure that federal laws are brought into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

However, there are two bills in particular that have not yet crossed the House of Commons' finish line, and those are Bill C-6 and Bill C-12.

I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6 earlier this week. It is incredibly important legislation. It is a very important use of federal criminal law power. It is high time the House of Commons, indeed the wider Parliament of Canada, made this very significant and important amendment to the Criminal Code to ban this practice. It has been rightly criticized by many professional organizations around the world and we know it has done incredible harm to people who have been forced through it.

It is sad to see members of the Conservative Party trying to hold up this legislation. They are clinging to the belief that the definition of conversion therapy in that bill is not specific enough. Those arguments have been discounted. They have been refuted effectively through debate in the House. I look forward to us having the required number of hours to get Bill C-6 passed so we can get it on its way to the Senate. It is incredibly important for us to get the bill passed into law.

The other bill that we hope will be affected in a positive way by the passage of government Motion No. 8 is Bill C-12. I would agree with some people that Bill C-12 still leaves a lot to be desired, but the important thing to remember is that this is a Liberal government bill and improvements have been made. The amendments made at committee have made it a stronger bill from what was initially on offer at the second reading stage. We need to see that bill brought back to the House. We need to see it passed at third reading and passed on to the Senate.

We are in a critical decade for properly addressing climate change and we need to have those legislative targets put in place. I think of all the years that we have lost since Jack Layton first attempted to pass a bill to put in place those legislative targets. I think about the damage that has been done by climate change since then, about how much further Canada would be ahead if we had taken the steps necessary all those years ago.

We see Bill C-12 as an absolute priority and we want to see it positively impacted by the extension of sitting hours. I want to take the time to acknowledge the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Victoria for their incredible work on the bill, helping to shepherd its way through the committee process and for their sustained engagement with the Minister of Environment in laying out our priorities. I want to take the time to acknowledge that.

With Bill C-6, I would be remiss if I did not mention my hon. colleague and neighbour, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his incredible advocacy on this issue over the years. He has done yeoman's work on the bill during debate, standing and refuting some of the Conservative arguments against it. He deserves special recognition in attaching importance to that bill and in trying to get it through to the finish line.

I want to reiterate that I was elected to come to this place to work. We all knew when we signed up to be members of Parliament, when we were privileged enough to be elected, that this job would sometimes require us to sit extended hours, to work those long hours, to do the work on behalf of our constituents. We certainly have a lot of stuff pulling at our attention these days. It is a careful balancing act between our critic role, our constituency work and what goes on in the House. However, we all know that this is the time of year when we have to roll up our sleeves, get to work, find a way forward to identify the pieces of legislation that are important to us all and work together to get it done.

I appreciate this opportunity to weigh in on Government Business No. 8. I look forward to us having those extended hours next week so we can attach the priority to those bills I spoke about.