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.

Employment Insurance Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I rise to speak to Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents. Qujannamiik to my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for this important piece of legislation, which would help bring equity to adoptive and intended parents.

I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for all of her hard work on the file. I highlight that at committee the NDP proposed several amendments that would have improved the bill significantly. Regrettably, the amendments were rejected. I am especially disappointed that the amendments to uphold Canadian law were rejected. Those amendments would have ensured that Bill C-318 would be consistent with Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Unfortunately we have seen the pattern with the current Liberal government, when it comes to indigenous people's rights, that it is going to go below what the expected standards are, including what it has tabled in the first nations clean water act as well as in the amendments to the Indian Act. By failing to uphold Bill C-15, the current government is willfully disrespecting articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is part of a disturbing pattern for the current Liberal government, which consistently fails to follow its own laws, including obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. If the government is serious about reconciliation, which is a word it loves to use, it must do better and commit to upholding UNDRIP.

Overall, Bill C-318 has merits, and New Democrats support the bill. It would create a 15-week attachment leave benefit for adoptive and intended parents through the employment insurance system. During my speech, I will describe the bill's benefits for children, parents and overall Canadian society. I will also describe the troubling realities substantiating the need for Bill C-318 to be passed.

It is unfortunate that the issue has reached the House through a private member's bill and not as a government bill, given that in 2019 and again in the last election the Liberals promised to introduce legislation in this area. I note that since the proposed bill's introduction, the Liberals have announced changes to the employment insurance program as part of the fall economic statement. These changes would create a new 15-week El benefit that adoptive and intended parents would finally be eligible for. This is a step in the right direction.

New Democrats will continue to hold the Liberal government accountable to its promises by passing Bill C-318. The NDP is committed to ensuring that all parents and caregivers, whether biological, adoptive, intended, customary or kinship, can spend time at home with their children in the critical first years. Research shows that the quality of a child's attachment impacts the overall health and development of the child. The benefits of passing the bill would be most prominent for children. Children with strong attachments are more likely to form strong relationships, be better able to regulate their emotions and be less dependant on their caregivers.

Parents who are adopting, and those intending to be parents, need to receive the same benefits as biological parents. Adopted children must have the same sense of coping for their future. I have seen the benefits of ensuring those strong bonds early in life, through watching my grandchildren bond with their parents in the time spent together early in their lives. Adoption is an important practice in Nunavut, and providing this benefit would help many of my constituents.

Unfortunately Bill C-318 does not reflect our customary adoption practices. While the bill is an important step in the right direction, it does not include kinship and customary caregivers, who are particularly important for Métis, first nations and Inuit. Kinship and customary care reflect indigenous culture and traditions. Respecting indigenous peoples' practices could result in many more children not being forced into foster care or group home placements. We must ensure that an attachment leave benefit is extended to kinship and customary caregivers in a similar manner as to adoptive and intended parents. I hope this will be added sometime later.

Providing parents or caregivers with an additional attachment leave benefit so that they can develop these strong attachments is crucial for the well-being of children. This benefit would provide adoptive and intended parents with much-needed financial security and would improve outcomes for children, many of whom are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and have a history of trauma and loss.

Providing a 15-week paid attachment leave would ease the burden being placed on women who are adoptive or intended parents, or who are kinship and customary caregivers. Providing them with the financial supports they need would help to ensure stronger attachments with their adoptive or intended children.

The societal benefits would be a healthier Canada, and children who would be able to enter the school system, who would be prepared and ready to adjust to a world where they could learn to have friendships and who could realize the importance of becoming contributing members of society.

The need to pass Bill C-318 is evident in the disproportionate amount of unpaid caregiving work that takes place in this country, mostly on the part of women. Indeed, more than half of the women in Canada give care to children and dependent adults, and almost one-third give unpaid care to children.

I conclude by sharing what we, as New Democrats, have heard from important agencies across Canada. The Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada and Adopt4Life are calling for the passage of this bill. I very much appreciate their Time to Attach campaign, which has been effective in building public support for this change. I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who had a petition on the 15-week attachment leave benefit, which garnered so much support by many.

New Democrats support this bill. We will continue to hold the Liberals accountable to deliver on their promises. Bill C-318 would help many adoptive and intended parents across Canada. These are positive and necessary changes; although, it is not comprehensive and does not recognize the important work of customary and kinship caregivers in indigenous peoples. I hope that this is not the end of these discussions and that more work will follow to provide financial attachments to more forms of caregiving. We owe it to our children and to our grandchildren to ensure they have the care they need.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'll move on to Ms. Gideon.

I spoke to the minister about the time to get this right. In another committee, it was around amending EI to include kinship and adoptive care. You spoke about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We know that in Bill C-15, one of the stipulations was that all legislation going forward has to be consistent with articles in UNDRIP. On several occasions, I have had to try to amend legislation in committee. On this occasion, I did the same thing. It passed in our HUMA committee, and the government overturned my amendments, which would have allowed it to be compatible.

What is your department doing to ensure that it's following the rule of law with Bill C-15, which now informs part of our rule of law?

Bill C-29—Time Allocation Motion

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague just mentioned Bill C-15. I know that one of the first steps in Bill C-15 was actually to put in place an action plan. We are now very far out from the deadline of that, and I am wondering where the action plan is. I ask because every time I try to apply Bill C-15 to current legislation, the government keeps talking about an action plan, yet that should have been out already to make sure that all legislation going forward is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I am wondering whether the hon. minister can update the House about where the action plan is at.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I do think that we require a written answer, but I also think that it's very timely, because if you're not willing to change legislation when you're talking about child welfare systems that will essentially exclude 90% of the kids in care, it's probably not a very effective piece of legislation.

I know that the government currently has a bill in place—I believe it's Bill C-59—around adoptive care. I'm wondering if the government has any plans to ensure that they uphold the rule of law and make sure it's consistent with Bill C-15 and articles 19, 20 and 21 in terms of adoption care. Are there any plans for that?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

We're talking about children and reconciliation. I asked you a number of questions about Bill C-92 and monies attached.

Recently, the Conservatives put forward a bill, Bill C-318. I offered up amendments that were supported by the sponsor of the bill to include kinship and customary care in the new EI funding regime for adoption, to ensure that this government is upholding the rule of law, which now includes clause 5 of Bill C-15, which states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”. Bill C-318 passed in committee, making the bill now consistent with articles 19, 20 and 21 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was thrown out by the Liberal government, even though they have the ability to provide royal consent. I wrote a letter, in fact, to the government on February 27, 2024. The government still has an opportunity to uphold the rule of law.

If we're talking about reunifying kids, and we know that 90% of kids in care, certainly in Manitoba, are first nations kids, often in kinship and customary arrangements, does this government have any plan to uphold the rule of law and amend that legislation?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Whetung-MacInnes.

In the last Parliament, we passed Bill C-15 to make sure that all legislation going forward is compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Since its passing in the last Parliament, at every angle the current government has tried to fight against it. The first example was with the child care legislation, to include free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples on all decisions or matters impacting indigenous children. We managed to get that through committee in spite of the Liberals.

The most recent example actually happened this week. It was with a private member's bill, Bill C-318, which I attempted to amend so that it would be consistent with Bill C-15. It was to change the adoption framework to include kinship and customary care. In Manitoba, for example, 90% of kids who are currently in the child welfare system are indigenous. Many of them are cared for in kinship and customary care arrangements, such as by grandmothers or aunties.

How is supporting kinship and customary care through EI regimes, and including that as part of shifts in EI regimes, important to supporting indigenous women in the workplace?

Employment Insurance Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my thanks for your guidance today as I start my speech on Bill C-318.

This is a very important bill. I want to congratulate the member of Parliament who put forward this bill, as well as all the family members and advocates who pushed to make this a reality today.

This was a very good bill in its original form. However, I was deeply disappointed that the amendments to the bill, which I pushed forward at committee, to uphold Canadian law were thrown out. Those amendments would have ensured that this new piece of legislation, which hopefully will go forward, would be consistent with Bill C-15. That was adopted in the last Parliament, and it ensures that all legislation going forward is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Rather than upholding that law and upholding our constitutional obligations to ensure they are reflected in this current legislation, the Liberals at committee, first of all, voted against it, and then the member for Winnipeg North brought forward a point of order to throw out my amendments.

This is a pattern of behaviour I have witnessed from the government, a failure for this current government, to uphold the very law that it put forward in the last Parliament, a government bill. I want to point specifically to Bill C-15, section 5, which states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” By failing to uphold Bill C-15, the current government is wilfully not respecting Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I want to read into the record Articles 19, 20 and 21 so that we can have a permanent record of the specific human rights that the government is flippantly violating in refusing to amend this bill, even though the sponsor of the bill supported the amendments I put forward at committee and indicated that they were in the scope of the bill.

Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reads:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

I would like to remind the government that when we are talking about adoption and when we are talking about child welfare systems, in Manitoba alone, 90% of kids currently in child welfare are indigenous. Many families choose customary and kinship care arrangements. We have so many grandmothers in our communities who look after their loved ones without financial assistance, without the option of leaving work, doing double duty with no financial resources.

The Liberal government has been held in non-compliance over 14 times with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and it was to immediately stop racism against first nations kids on reserves. Once again, the government is showing a commitment to having a two-tiered system in this country: one for indigenous children and one for everybody else. The current government is demonstrating, through throwing out these amendments, that the human rights of indigenous kids are still not being respected.

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

Traditional means parenting. They need to be given the resources to be able to parent kids the way they choose. Let us not forget that there are more kids in care now than at the height of residential schools. It was well reported in the TRC report that we need systems reform in our child welfare system. The residential school system has left a legacy of intergenerational trauma and healing within our nation.

Not only did they throw out my amendments, but they are also throwing out the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. If the government is not ready to respond to the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is mainly giving our kids back, the government is far from reconciling with indigenous peoples in this country.

Article 20(2) states, “Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.” That includes financial resources so we are able to raise our kids in the way that we choose, not in poverty, so that we do not have to go to the Human Rights Tribunal and go after the government for years for it to finally settle $17 billion, more than what was asked. It is abhorrent what has happened in this House.

Article 21(2) states:

States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

I would like to remind the government, which threw out amendments to ensure that human rights of indigenous peoples would be upheld, to ensure we would be upholding Canadian law and to ensure that it is consistent with section 5 of Bill C-15, that the child welfare system has been named the pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls in this country.

We have a legacy of sixties scoop survivors who were separated from family and community, who have nowhere to return home to. However, on the very subject of our children, the government, once again, fails to take the opportunity to reconcile with indigenous peoples in Canada by giving us the resources we need to uphold our human rights to be able to raise our children in kinship and customary care arrangements.

Although the Speaker ruled my amendments as being out of scope, I would like to remind the House that they, in fact, were in scope because the government has the legal obligation to make sure all legislation going forward is consistent with Bill C-15 . I am going to urge the government because it still has the power to make a royal recommendation, with the amendments I put forward, to make sure it is consistent with human rights law. If it is serious about reconciliation, it will give our kids back.

Motions in amendment

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of this bill, Bill S-205, which was first introduced by Senator Boisvenu in 2021. First, I want to acknowledge his hard work and effort in putting this bill forward, as well as his courage in sharing his story about how gender-based violence impacted his own family. With that in mind, I think it was critical for him to ensure this bill passed through the House.

In general, this bill sets out to protect survivors of intimate partner violence through various amendments to the Criminal Code. These include ensuring judges consult the accused's intimate partner about their safety and security needs; allowing judges to consider the use of an electronic monitor for interim release; and establishing a new type of recognizance order, or peace bond, for survivors of intimate partner violence. If granted, the peace bond would allow the judge to impose conditions that could include electronic monitoring and a treatment or domestic violence counselling program.

Given that this bill is of great importance, especially because we know that rates of gender-based violence have increased since the pandemic, I can affirm the committee worked very hard to ensure that this bill was reviewed promptly so it could be passed into law. I am very excited to be here for the debate today and to keep this bill moving along. The committee also worked to make necessary amendments to address concerns expressed by the study's witnesses.

While discussing the bill, it is important to emphasize that intimate partner violence is a national crisis. We certainly know, as I indicated, that rates of violence within the home have increased since the pandemic. We also see a connection between intimate partner violence and the mental health crisis we are currently witnessing in Canada.

In fact, every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. Given the severity of intimate partner violence, some Canadian cities, including Ottawa, Toronto and Kitchener, have gone so far as to declare it an epidemic. Therefore, we know that we need to address this crisis of violence. It is critical to put in place laws to ensure the safety of those who are experiencing violence.

Rates of intimate partner violence have been on the rise in recent years, especially, as I said, since the COVID-19 pandemic. Between 2014 and 2022, intimate partner violence rates increased by an alarming 20%. Intimate partner violence overwhelmingly impacts women, particularly young women. Forty-four per cent of women, or 6.2 million women aged 15 and older, have reported some kind of abuse in their intimate partner relationship. We often think about intimate partner violence in terms of those who are cohabiting, but even when we look at the impact on youth, the rates of intimate partner violence are alarming.

Women are similarly overrepresented in intimate partner homicides, which make up nearly one-fifth of all solved homicides in Canada. We also know that intimate partner violence disproportionately impacts low-income and indigenous women, as well as women who are visible minorities, disabled or 2SLGBTQ+. Particularly, there has been a rise of anti-trans hate happening in the country. We saw the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, fuelling the fires of anti-trans rhetoric last week when talking about safe places that will now exclude trans women.

We need to be vigilant in all areas of society to protect women. We know that the consequences of intimate partner violence are also very costly. The Department of Justice, for example, estimated the cost of intimate partner violence to be roughly $7.4 billion. It not only costs dignity and safety, it also costs us financially by turning a blind eye to the crisis of intimate partner violence.

One of the biggest concerns I had with this bill was the impact it might have on indigenous peoples. We know that the Liberal government throwing out the amendments to Bill C-318, as we heard this morning, is certainly not committed, but in the last Parliament, we did pass Bill C-15, which includes clause 5. It states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.”

Today, for example, it could have taken all the measures necessary to pass Bill C-13 and provide royal assent with the amendments to make sure it was consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It did not, but we know the Liberal government is not a champion of indigenous rights in this country as it continues to willfully violate our rights.

When we were amending Bill S-205, one of the concerns I had was related to indigenous peoples due to the ongoing legacy of colonial-state policies and laws. Indigenous people, as a result, are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system. We must make sure that our criminal justice system is consistent with Bill C-15, which affirms all legislation going forward. I know that this is a Senate bill, but, just as a matter of principle, it should be consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In 2018, indigenous adults made up 30% of admissions to provincial and territorial custody and 29% of admissions to federal custody, while representing 4% of the population. Indigenous women made up an even greater share of those admitted into custody, at 42%. I moved an amendment in committee to add cases involving indigenous people to enable judges to consider alternative, culturally appropriate indigenous support services rather than imprisonment. This type of amendment is not only morally necessary, it is legally necessary as well. Again, Bill C-15 requires all Canadian government legislation to be consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes requirements to prevent discrimination against indigenous people and respect the integrity of indigenous cultures and traditions.

The Gladue principles in Canadian law compel judges to recognize the unique experiences of indigenous peoples, including prevent discrimination against indigenous people and respect the integrity of indigenous cultures and traditions. Given these considerations, judges must consider alternatives to prisons while sentencing, such as, for example, alternative restorative justice.

I would like to thank everybody and congratulate Senator Boisvenu. I am looking forward to seeing this bill move quickly through the House. I would also like to thank the committee for the hard discussions we had getting this bill through committee.

Amendments to Bill C-318 at Committee Stage—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised February 8, 2024, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning the admissibility of amendments made to Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents, by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary stated that the four amendments adopted by the committee during its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill not only exceeded the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading, but also required a royal recommendation, since they seek to authorize new and distinct spending not authorized by the Employment Insurance Act or any other statute or appropriation.

In response, the member for Winnipeg Centre noted that since the adoption in the previous session of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, all federal legislation must be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a goal her amendments sought to achieve. She also indicated that the government had the power to provide the royal recommendation required for these amendments.

The House will recall that on May 4, 2023, the Chair ruled that Bill C‑318 required a royal recommendation when it stated at page 14043 of Debates, and I quote:

...clause 5 adds new section 22.1 to the Employment Insurance Act to create a new type of special benefit, namely, a 15-week attachment benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The bill also provides for the duration of this new benefit to be extended for various reasons. Implementing Bill C‑318 would create a new type of benefit, and therefore, lead to increasing public expenditures for purposes not currently authorized by the act. As a result, a new royal recommendation is required for the bill to receive a final vote in the House at third reading.

During the clause-by-clause study of the bill by the committee, four amendments moved by the member for Winnipeg Centre were adopted. The amendments to clause 1 and clause 8 apply to the Employment Insurance Act and the amendments to clause 14 and clause 17 apply to the Canada Labour Code.

The amendments to clauses 1 and 8 modify the bill to include, for the purposes of the new benefit created by the bill, a situation where one or more indigenous children could be placed with a claimant, other than the child’s parents, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the indigenous group, community or people to which they belong. With the new provisions, the claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury, a notion which is not currently provided for in the bill as adopted at second reading.

Both amendments had been ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee since they would create a new and distinct charge on the public treasury and as such would require a royal recommendation. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

Bill C-318 also proposes amendments to the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave in the case of the transfer of a child through adoption or a child born through surrogacy. The amendments to clauses 14 and 17 create a new corresponding extended leave of absence to match the benefit established by the first two amendments to clauses 1 and 8. Here, the committee chair deemed both amendments to be beyond the scope of the bill and thus also ruled them inadmissible.

In the case of all four amendments, the committee chair’s rulings were challenged and overturned, and the amendments ultimately adopted.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, the admissibility of any amendments adopted by a committee may be challenged on procedural grounds in the House after a bill is reported back. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 779:

The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on the Speaker’s own initiative.

When called upon to deal with such matters, the Chair is guided by Speaker Fraser’s explanation of April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates, and I quote:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

In light of the arguments presented by both the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for Winnipeg Centre, the Chair has examined the four amendments at issue. The amendments to clause 1 and clause 8 do indeed propose a charge upon the public revenue and therefore infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.

While the Chair recognizes that challenges may arise when a committee must examine a bill where the Speaker has previously determined that a royal recommendation will be required before putting the question at third reading, a committee must still carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. As explained by Speaker Milliken in his ruling from November 19, 2009, at page 6939 of the Debates:

In my view, by adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, even when it is directed at a clause itself needing a royal recommendation, a committee ventures beyond its mandate.

As previously stated, the bill aims to create a new benefit and corresponding extended leave for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The amendments to clauses 8 and 14 provide that one or more indigenous children could be placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a person other than the child’s parents. This person could be entitled to an extended leave, which introduces a new concept not found in the bill as adopted at second reading. Thus, these amendments do go beyond the scope of Bill C-318.

Consequently, I must order that all four amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

In addition, I am ordering that the reprint of Bill C-318, as ordered by the committee, be cancelled. The text of the bill as adopted at second reading will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.

Given that the bill is now reported back from committee without amendment, the requirement for a royal recommendation, as explained in the Chair's ruling from May 4, 2023, stands. Consequently, I will decline to put the question on third reading unless a royal recommendation is received.

I thank all members for their attention.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not about getting past it. History is important, but I would say that this history continues with the child welfare system, and it is about justice. We cannot get past things when things are still in our way that impact our ability to receive justice. For example, the fact is that we still have a crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. Where is the justice?

We need to implement those 81 calls to action specifically, and I would call for all of them, but specifically the 81 still tasked to the federal government to complete. We need to not just read and talk about reconciliation, but implement and lift up the 92 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We need to ensure that all legislation is compatible with Bill C-15, especially on matters impacting our kids. Ninety per cent of kids in care are indigenous. Do members know why? It is because of the “inter-generational impact of colonization”, most specifically residential schools.

This government has to allow this amendment to go through. It has to if it is serious about reconciliation.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we passed legislation in the last Parliament. In fact, I worked with the current Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, amending it, putting this bill forward. We have something, in fact. It is not a lack of legislation. It is now a fact of pushing for a change of colonial behaviour.

We have the TRC's 94 calls to action. We have the 231 calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which provide a framework and a path forward.

We have legislation, Bill C-15, to make sure any legislation going forward respects the human rights of indigenous peoples, because we know, globally, that we needed a declaration because there has been a universal, global violation of the human rights of indigenous peoples throughout the globe.

I am just heeding the government's call to act on the very legislation that it supported.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing out that the member did mention Winnipeg Centre. I assumed the comments were made toward me when he said my riding, but let us leave that.

Going back to what I was saying, the fact that he felt a need to defend himself in the middle of my speech is another example of what I had requested in my point of order, which was for him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to leave his white male privilege at the door and not to tell indigenous women what to talk about when they are talking about indigenous kids.

We are here today because of the violent kidnapping of our kids, which has had lasting impacts on our families. It goes back to the dark cloud our parents and families felt when they robbed our kids, leaving our communities silent. Can members imagine being in a community without laughter and without play? I cannot imagine that and not to have the privilege of being able to raise my son. For no reason other than who I am and where I was born, the government is able to steal my child and to have that legislated. That is why these amendments are so critical to legislation if we are going to reconcile and to honour this new bill, Bill C-29. That is why amending legislation so it is compatible, especially on matters impacting our children, is so critical. I would argue, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the government violating its own law and its own constitution by not ensuring legislation is compatible with Bill C-15, as we saw with the child care legislation in the last session that we managed to get through committee.

Now the government is going against amendments to make the legislation compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is trying to overturn it in the House. If the Liberal government is not willing to give our kids back when we have more kids in child welfare than we did at the height of residential schools and when we know that 90% of kids in care are indigenous and that all this new adoptive care legislation will probably not apply to 90% of parents, which once again will leave the financial burden on families to care for their children, then the government is not ready to reconcile.

The government took over 13 non-compliance orders in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling to let them know that it was intentionally racially discriminating against indigenous and first nations kids on reserve on matters impacting child welfare. It finally came up with a settlement that was $17 billion less than what was ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling. Then, I have to listen to the government talk all the time about how it wants reconciliation, when we constantly have to fight for the fact that our kids deserve the same as other kids in the country, and I have to go to committee and fight for the EI legislation.

I would like to, once again, read to the House the amendment that would allow us to uphold Canadian law and that was passed at committee, even though the Liberal members abstained from the vote and outright voted against it during the national child care legislation. They are now trying to overturn it in the House because it was passed at committee.

I will read the amendment, which states:

For greater certainty, in this Part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a claimant for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a claimant, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the claimant primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.

I will refer to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the NDP's attempt to make this legislation compatible. It says:

Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Article 20

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.

That would include equal benefits under EI.

It goes on to state:

Article 21

1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.

2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

Once again, like The Twilight Zone, I am here fighting to bring our kids home. I am here having to plead with the government as to whether it is really ready to reconcile or not. I have been told there is a bill, Bill C-54, that the government will put forward and that it wants to consult with indigenous people. My reply is for the government to find me one indigenous person who would argue against the right for them to raise their children in their own traditions and customs. The kinds of things we have to consult on, basic human rights, being used as a stalling mechanism is another form of institutional racism. I will provide a couple of examples.

How do indigenous people feel about clean drinking water? Let us consult on that for four years. How do indigenous people feel about toilets and how fire trucks are going to get to their communities so their houses do not burn down? The government asks them to say how they feel about that. Find me one indigenous person who feels they need to consult about human rights and life and death matters at every turn. I can provide a whole list. I can give an encyclopedia of them, in fact. I can point out the Indian Act that the government developed without the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

I can name a million resource extraction projects where militarized police are smashing in the doors of indigenous women, being called out by the United Nations where there was no consultation, yet when we ask to bring our kids home, when we say we want to uphold Canadian law so this new legislation is aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, something the government is obliged to do, what does it say? It thanks me for my work and says it needs to consult on it.

What do I call that? I call it systemic racism. What do I call child welfare? I call it a pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. What do I call that? A pipeline to the justice system. What do I call the sixties scoop? I call it a loss of identity, the disruption of our families that we will never get back and the ongoing genocide of our families.

This is shameful, and I am going to call out this shame unapologetically, because it is time for all governments, without excuse, to bring our kids home, period. It is time for our kids and our families to get the same resources that are afforded to other families in this country.

Do you know what I think the problem is, Mr. Speaker? I am going to be fully transparent here. It is money. Because 90% of kids in care are indigenous, the government is going to fight it every step of the way, like it did the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Do you know what that tells me? It tells me that we are less than, still, in this country. Our kids are not as valuable. Our women and our 2SLGBTQIA+ people will continue to go missing and be murdered. Why? It is because the government has completed zero calls for justice in 2023.

They finished 13 altogether out of the 81 that they are responsible for as the federal government, yet I had to hear a speech about the dark cloud that I place over their heads. I will tell you something. I will tell you a dark cloud.

I have a friend whose loved one was just murdered in an incident involving grotesque police brutality. That is a dark cloud. That is called systemic racism.

If that is dark, if people say, “Oh, you want your clip, Leah. There, you got your clip, I heard,” and if that is what they think it is about, I do not care. We are going to bring our kids home, and I am going to fight this government or any other government that comes in its place to give us the resources we need to bring our kids home.

I will not be questioned by a member whose riding has the highest number of kids in care in the whole country, justifying and celebrating how well his government is doing, when I am now, once again, fighting his government so that our families do not have to live in poverty. That is disgusting, and it is racist.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise today to talk about Bill C-29. I want to let the House know that the NDP wants the bill to pass. I am always very honoured to work with my good colleague, the member for Nunavut. She has put a lot of effort in to amend the legislation to make it much stronger.

If we want to reconcile in this country, we must focus on children and families. I say that because I want to go back to why we have to have these discussions in the House to begin with; it is for the country to try to reconcile, as was affirmed in the Haida Nation case, the sovereignty of indigenous people with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown. I share that because it was an assumed sovereignty that began a violent genocide of indigenous people in Canada, which began with the dispossession of lands and led to the dispossession and kidnapping of our children and taking them off to resident schools, where they experienced all kinds of abuses.

It is important to note that, as we sit here in the House debating the bill before us, there are more kids now in the child welfare system than there were at the height of residential schools. We will not reconcile in this country until all governments make a concerted effort to bring our kids home. However, I worked on the legislation in committee making amendments, and that does not happen in real time, even though in the last session the Liberal government passed Bill C-15.

I would like to read article 5 of Bill C-15, under the title “Consistency”. It says, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” I share that because at every turn on matters impacting children, the Liberal government continues to not support the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people to make decisions about our own children. I will give an example: The national child care strategy, until the NDP amendment, did not support the inclusion of honouring the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples to make decisions on matters impacting our children.

Why is this significant? First, it is because the government is now obliged to ensure that all legislation is compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Second, it is because one of the most serious violations that has reverberated in our communities and has had lasting impacts is when they robbed us of our children and shipped them off to residential schools. I have said in speeches before that, as a mother, I cannot even imagine the pain that reverberated in our communities when those communities fell silent each September when they stole our children, many of whom never returned home.

I share that because every day, even now, there is a growing movement of residential school denialism, where survivors and descendants have to confirm the fact that genocide did occur in residential schools and that many of our children did not in fact return home but are buried around schools around the country. What school needs a graveyard? What school is built with a graveyard attached?

There was nothing about the residential schools that was about education. I say that because although the government talks a good game of reconciliation, and although it passed Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, it is one thing to pass a bill but another thing to change colonial behaviour, a tradition of colonial violence in this place. That includes something I had to experience today, having the member for Winnipeg North lecture me about the dark cloud I place on this place when I talk about the ongoing genocide of indigenous women and girls, and when I complain about the fact that the government has not moved fast enough around the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji , I always appreciate my colleague's fierceness in the House. I always learn from her.

It has definitely been very disappointing to sit here since 2021 and to see the Liberal government not respect UNDRIP after passing Bill C-15. A very important aspect of UNDRIP, as she mentioned, is the importance of free, prior and informed consent. If the Liberal government, for example, had used free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, in developing the Métis bill, I think first nations in Ontario would have been a lot more supportive in helping to ensure that the bill is supported by all.

I think that ensuring free, prior and informed consent is something that helps to unite all indigenous peoples. It has been quite unfortunate to see the Liberal government dividing first nations, Métis and Inuit against each other. We need to see the examples set by the Supreme Court of upholding the constitutionality of Bill C-92.

In order for us to do better for first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families, free, prior and informed consent must be at the core of our work. That is how we will make sure that our relationships are respectful, that we are working toward an overall sense of well-being for now and for the future of all of Canada. With Canada being founded on indigenous peoples' lands, if we work together, we can make sure that legislation is meeting the needs of first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nunavut blows me away every day in this place.

She mentioned the SCC ruling on Bill C-92. In terms of self-determination, there are concerns I have had lately about child welfare matters impacting our kids. At committee, I pushed an amendment forward to an adoptive care bill, an EI bill, to include kinship and customary care to ensure that the bill was consistent with Bill C-15, meaning that all future legislation has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Winnipeg North member said the other day that they are in the process of trying to throw out those amendments, which, once again, with the SCC ruling, affirm the need for amendments to the current EI bill.

I was wondering what my colleague's thoughts were about the government's continual fight to not allow us to bring our kids home.

Amendments to Bill C-318 at Committee Stage

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to intervene on a point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg North this morning respecting Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents.

My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, mentioned the committee process, where I tabled crucial amendments to this legislation that would bring the bill into compliance with Canadian law, specifically with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Let me remind the government that it is the government that passed Bill C-15, which affirms that all legislation going forward has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Not including these important amendments means that the legislation now is not compliant with articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member of Parliament for Winnipeg North talked about the amendments being out of scope, but even the sponsor of the bill said that the amendments were absolutely within the scope of what Bill C-318 was trying to do.

My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, also pointed out the need for a royal recommendation for these amendments. I would like to encourage him to reconsider this, considering he has the highest number of kids in care in an urban area in the whole country, 90% who are indigenous.

What my colleague failed to mention is that the Liberal government has the power to allow the amendments to proceed by giving notice of a royal recommendation for Bill C-318. In fact, Bosc and Gagnon, at page 839, states the following:

...since Standing Order 79 was changed in 1994, private Members’ bills involving the spending of public money have been allowed to proceed through the legislative process on the assumption that a royal recommendation will be submitted by a Minister of the Crown before the bill is to be read a third time and passed

The only ones who can act right now are the Liberals. On their watch, they are not upholding Canadian law, which includes Bill C-15. We are meeting about the red dress right now, about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. The child welfare system is called the pipeline for becoming murdered and missing. The government's failure is not addressing the 90% of kids in care.

It is only the Liberals who can save the lives of indigenous children who are being dropped off at shelters, separated from their families and communities. I am asking them to table a royal recommendation to do the right thing to ensure that Bill C-318 can go to a vote at third reading with the amendments adopted by committee. Although they have mentioned they are putting forth Bill C-59, a similar bill, once again it is not consistent with upholding Canadian law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is in the hands of the Liberals. Lives are in their hands. They need to put forward a royal recommendation. This is a life and death matter. They have to stop playing with indigenous lives and do what is needed now.

Indigenous Affairs

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legacy of Canadian policies designed to kill the Indian in the child still impacts our families. There are more indigenous kids in child welfare today than there were at the height of residential schools. In Manitoba, over 90% are indigenous. That is why I was proud, along with my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam and the NDP, to amend Bill C-318 to provide EI benefits for kinship and customary care. I was concerned that the Liberal members abstained from voting but not surprised, considering they voted against our amendment to affirm the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous parents in the national child care legislation.

If the current government is not ready to give our kids back, then its words of reconciliation are empty. The government must uphold Bill C-15, which mandates the government to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you. We want to amend for exactly the same reason. It's to be consistent with Bill C-15. This is the amendment:

For greater certainty, in this Part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a self-employed person for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a self-employed person, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the self-employed person primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.

It's for the same reasons I put forward before: to be consistent with Bill C-15 and the articles in UNDRIP that I outlined.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much for your feedback. I have a couple of things.

This is not a choice: When Bill C-15 became law, there was a legal obligation for MPs to make sure that things were consistent with Bill C-15, so I don't think we're doing anybody any favours by not upholding the rule of law today, full stop.

On the matter of customary and kinship care, the government is saying it still needs to consult when there is ample evidence. The Liberal government has said they support the national inquiry on issues around the child welfare system, and indigenous leadership across the country has been very clear that we need control over our own child welfare systems, which includes having customary and kinship care as a main form of keeping our kids within our communities. We know, certainly in my community, that kids are aging out of care and being dropped off at the Salvation Army. One has only to look at the impacts of the sixties scoop, when kids were taken out of their families and communities and shipped off to other places, to see what that looks like in our communities today, and I'll tell you what it looks like: It looks like a whole lot of people—thousands of people—living with complex mental health issues and trauma after being adopted out and having to live in families where they suffered the most outrageous abuse, something that this government hasn't even looked at yet.

This is an opportunity for the Liberal government and all parties to unanimously support the human rights of indigenous kids in this country, and once again I'm in a committee where that is not happening.

Child welfare is a pipeline to the justice system. Child welfare is a pipeline to become murdered or missing—murdered or missing men and boys and murdered or missing indigenous women and girls.

We have an opportunity to uphold our legislative duties, to uphold the Constitution, which now includes Bill C-15, and the fact that we are using consultation as an excuse shows the normalization of violence against indigenous people in this country that has been perpetrated through systems and, I would say, at the very worst, through child welfare systems. This is why lead advocates for this bill called for the inclusion of customary and kinship care.

Abstaining is silence. It's saying, “I'm going to stay silent to violence against indigenous kids in this country.” It's time we get our kids back. Given the kind of violence that kids undergo in the child welfare system and the stories that you hear about the way the system has failed our kids—including for my own family and in the case of my mother, who grew up in child welfare—we have an obligation today to do what's right.

I am asking everyone at the table for the votes to show a true act of reconciliation. That's what I'm asking for in honour of the kids who have been lost in systems. I'm asking for your courage today to not abstain.

I'm going to leave it at that, but I wanted to share that, because that is how critical this amendment is. I'm glad that the Conservative folks around the table and the Bloc along with the NDP understand the critical nature of these amendments when we're talking about anything related to child welfare.

Thank you.

[Anamika Mona Nandy, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Yes, we did hear the brief description of Bill C-15 with regard to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That said, we are not here to speak to the content of that particular bill, so we would not be able to make a direct comparison.

I will say, though, that in terms of kinship and customary care, the issue is with regard to the temporary nature of those placements, and that's the focus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

As chair I must rule on admissibility of amendments. My responsibility is to ensure that the procedure of the House of Commons that has been adopted by all parties is followed.

Before I give a ruling on the amendment moved by Ms. Gazan, I'm going to ask whichever official feels it is appropriate to speak briefly to the issue.

Does Bill C-318 infringe on Bill C-15? You heard the concern outlined by Ms. Gazan. Could you briefly address that before...?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

I feel it's like The Twilight Zone. I'm back here again having to justify why these amendments are relevant in terms of being able to amend the bill.

We'd like to change it to “For greater certainty, in this part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a claimant for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions...to which they belong, with a claimant, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the claimant primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.”

In the last Parliament we passed Bill C-15, which means that all legislation going forward has to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I'd like to read into the record the eighth paragraph the preambular paragraphs in Bill C-15 specifically, which states the following:

Whereas the implementation of the Declaration must include concrete measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence, racism and discrimination, including systemic racism and discrimination, against Indigenous peoples and Indigenous elders, youth, children, women, men, persons with disabilities and gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons;

I'd also like to refer to preambular paragraph 18 of Bill C-15, which states:

Whereas the Declaration is affirmed as a source for the interpretation of Canadian law;

We knew that well before Bill C-15, so moving on, we see that section 5 of Bill C-15 speaks specifically to consistency. It reads:

The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.

I want to start out by first commending MP Falk for putting forward this bill and for working with stakeholders who pushed to get this bill forward. One of the areas stakeholders were concerned about was that kinship and customary care were not included, which is something that MP Falk and I had an opportunity to speak about before and which is something that is critical.

Before I refer to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I'll give you a couple of reasons that this bill is not only not consistent with Bill C-15 but that it also does not uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly articles 19, 21 and 22, which I'll read into the record.

Ninety per cent of all kids in care in Manitoba are indigenous. There are more kids in child welfare now than at the height of the residential schools. There is no secret about it. The fact that we're even debating whether this falls out of scope is disturbing to me, quite frankly, when we passed Bill C-15 in the last Parliament and when we know that almost all kids in care in this country—over 90%, certainly, in my province—are indigenous.

If you look at article 19 of the UN declaration—I'm going to read it into the record—you'll see that it states that “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions”—which includes child welfare institutions—“in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

Article 21 states that:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.

2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

We know the child welfare system is a direct pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women.

Article 22 reads:

Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.

It's something that this bill, in its current iteration, does not do.

I want to commend other parties in the House that understood the importance of ensuring that Bill C-15 was compatible with the child care legislation.

Once again I'm here to talk about the very essence of reconciliation, which is giving our kids back. We need to have the decision-making power and the financial resources to be able to care for our kids in the way we choose to care for our kids, which is primarily through customary and kinship care arrangements.

In terms of child care, which is outside of the scope of the bill, the last time I was at this committee all members, including one Liberal, voted in favour because they understood that the government has a legal obligation to ensure that all legislation going forward is consistent with the United Nations declaration. This bill needs to be amended so that it does just that, so I'd like to keep this amendment on the floor.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I asked because we passed legislation in the last parliament, Bill C-15, and all legislation going forward has to be consistent with the articles contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Does this bill do that? It's a legal obligation for us now. Does it do that?

[Solomon Sanderson, Consultant, Former Chief, As an Individual]

Okay.

What I did was I reviewed the Métis nation's self-government agreement with the feds and also the Métis nation's self-government act that recognizes self-government for Métis under federal jurisdiction and law, and the Métis capacity to make treaties and ratify treaties, and their citizenship status.

The first term for Métis, as we already heard, was half-breed. That's something that is not addressed, and they call that the code of silence. The Métis had to inherit their Indian status. When they inherited those inherent rights, they inherited the inherent sovereignty of the Indian nations, the inherent rights by sector, the inherent rights to education, health, economics, justice and so on, and the inherent right to the title of lands and resources. The inherent rights we have as Indian nations were granted to our nations by the Creator, and they're granted to our people by the Creator.

That's what the Métis have inherited from the Indian heritage they have, and they're guaranteed. Their reserves are recognized and confirmed and guaranteed with the national powers of treaty-making and the international treaties that we made. The Métis inherited Treaty No. 3 in Ontario, as you know. We are born with those rights and that status, and we inherit them from generation to generation.

Now, on the non-Indian side, they inherited the colonial benefits that the non-Indians have: the criteria for title to land and resources, for example, and, in Manitoba, the homesteads that the non-Indians occupied and improved. They met the criteria for having title to the land and resources, the Métis settlements and the Métis-occupied and -approved lands prior to treaty. That provided them the title to their lands and resources as you have under your colonial systems. This is one example of taking the best of what they inherited from both sides—the Indian and non-Indian sides. The act goes on to recognize their jurisdiction and laws. It also deals with the recognition that they have to have their own laws. That means there has to be a process in place to deal with the interface between jurisdiction and law within the Métis governments of the Métis nation and jurisdiction and law within the Métis laws, the first nation laws and the provincial and federal laws.

It also deals with the capacity to recognize citizenship. Subsection 35(2) now recognizes that the Métis are constitutionally distinct, and the portability of their rights has to be included in the Métis act. I'm talking about the portability of their inherent sovereignty, their inherent rights and treaties, treaty rights whether in community, regionally, nationally or internationally.

When you do that, keep in mind that nations make treaties; treaties do not make nations. Modern-day treaty-making creates governments. If you don't have a government in the first place, what are you doing signing a treaty? The treaties that are going to be made or that have been made by both parties need ratification and implementation under new specific and unique laws to give them legal effect.

There's a bigger picture that you need to be aware of, which most people are not aware of. The court decision in Manitoba said that the Crown is in a fiduciary relationship with the Métis as a distinct form of aboriginal peoples who cannot be ignored. It went on to say that the unfinished business of reconciliation of the Métis people in Canadian society is a matter of national and constitutional importance.

Ask yourself this: What is that all about? Here's what it's about, and most people don't know there's a bigger picture.

When we talk about the comprehensive legal and political framework governing Crown-Métis relationships, that framework is governed by what? It's the inherent sovereignty of the Métis nation, the assumed sovereignty of the Crown, the inherent rights and title by the Métis nation, the Crown treaty nations, the Métis treaty relations and the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Former Supreme Court judge Dickson called it their bill of rights that recognizes everything we're talking about.

Then we have the Constitution Act of 1982, with section 35 being a full box, and section 25 now applying the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Of course, when we look at that, there is UNDRIP, with Bill C-15 now having to implement United Nations declaration.

When we talk about the recognition of that framework, that broader-based framework, what does it recognize? It's that framework that governs by those instruments that I just highlighted, and it recognizes sovereign treaty relations, Crown-to-Métis relations, nation-to-nation government relations, government-to-government relations and inherent rights to treaty rights relations.

The format for implementation, then, or what that judgment is calling for, requires the implementation of that framework respecting political relations: the equality of government jurisdiction and law in courts. Métis—

Indian Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before the Indian Act, first nations, Métis and Inuit thrived and passed on intergenerational love from generation to generation. The Indian Act is an attempt to erase indigenous peoples from the lands we now call Canada.

Bill C-38 is about status. It could have been about addressing discrimination to the fullest extent. I struggle to support Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act. I am conflicted and disappointed to witness yet another form of incremental change proposed by the Liberal government.

As the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group have clearly stated, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”. This bill does not meet this minimum standard. For decades, first nations have fought for their rights to be upheld. If Bill C-38 is passed as it is, discrimination against first nations women and their families will continue.

There are two reasons I support getting this bill to committee. Number one, while experts say it does not go far enough, this bill is needed, and number two, the failings of this bill to respect the rights of indigenous peoples will show, through public discourse at committee stage, that amendments are necessary.

Bill C-38 was tabled because of a court case, Nicholas v. Canada. It is not because the government is taking a proactive, co-operative approach to reconciliation. Introducing this bill is the minimum requirement set out in that case. After years of discrimination caused by enfranchisement in the Indian Act, 16 courageous plaintiffs sued the Canadian government in June 2021. They agreed to pause proceedings on the condition that legislation be introduced to address this inequity.

The Liberals' commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples is abysmal. If their commitment was real, Bill C-38 would be fulsome. It would have addressed all discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act. Incremental changes are not sufficient to ensure the advancement of indigenous peoples' rights.

I acknowledge that the Indian Act must be abolished. It is a complicated assimilative tool going back generations. The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to abolish the act. Bill C-38, like previous court cases, makes amendments that are narrow in scope. Future court cases will be imminent if amendments are not made to this bill. Discrimination will be allowed to continue without the ability to seek reparations.

The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to undertake the full-scale reconciliation needed to adhere to international law as the governing party. The following background will be the tip of an iceberg. All parliamentarians must commit to learning more about the Indian Act and how it continues to implement the genocide of indigenous peoples.

The Indian Act was established in 1867. John A. Macdonald understood the strength of first nations, Inuit and Métis as a threat to his causes. He had to find a way to weaken them. The Indian Act was the tool to continue the process of genocide against the first peoples who thrived on the lands we now call Canada. The Indian Act is a long-ago piece of legislation that was introduced in 1867. The act remains today.

Since its inception, the Indian Act has continued to deny equality for first nations. The Indian Act allows discrimination without justification. The Indian Act denies women status and therefore rights by gaining status. The Indian Act introduced residential schools, created reserves and imposed a band council system. The Indian Act also tells first nations who can have status and who cannot.

Before the creation of bands by this act, indigenous peoples had their own forms of governance. I am thankful for the strength of those who maintained their governance. I am thankful to Inuit elders. I am thankful to hereditary chiefs. I am thankful to the Wet'suwet'en. I am thankful to the Tseeweyhum family and the many others who keep indigenous legal orders alive.

The Canadian government has known about sex-based inequities in the Indian Act for decades. Bill C-31 in 1985, Bill C-3 in 2011 and Bill S-3 in 2017 have attempted to eliminate sex-based inequities. None of these bills worked to the fullest extent; what they did was complicate indigenous identity for some and not for others.

The Indian Act continues to divide indigenous peoples against each other. With each amendment, the Indian Act becomes more complex and confusing to navigate for indigenous peoples. Indeed, I am told by many how confusing it is to know if they have status, how to get status and if their children will be able to get it. They ask, “What are the implications of being removed?”

It is a shame that in 2020, the Minister of Indigenous Services tabled one of three reports after Bill S-3 to amend the Indian Act was passed. The final report made recommendations that are not being addressed in Bill C-38 by the Minister of Indigenous Services today.

As of 2020, there were over 12,000 applications for status still needing review. The special Bill S-3 processing units created in 2016, as of February 2023, have 1,770 files in progress and 3,990 files in the queue. The bill before us would do nothing to address this backlog. First nations are waiting up to 18 months for a decision by Indigenous Services Canada. This is unacceptable.

Bill C-38 would address enfranchisement, deregistration, loss of natal band membership and certain offensive language. These are long-awaited amendments that indigenous peoples have demanded for decades.

Enfranchisement is a particular genocidal policy and a clear example of Canada's attempts to assimilate indigenous peoples. Enfranchisement was either voluntary or involuntary. Women were enfranchised when they married a non-indigenous man between the years of 1869 and 1985. Other examples of enfranchisement included going to university, becoming a doctor or lawyer, working as a minister, seeking to vote and if one sought freedom from residential schools. Amendments introduced in 1985 attempted to remove enfranchisement. Obviously this did not work.

Bill C-38 would still discriminate against women and children who were involuntarily enfranchised. Descendants are unable to transmit entitlement to registration to the same extent as families that were never enfranchised. Those who were enfranchised as a band or collective have no entitlement to register under the Indian Act today.

I will now turn to deregistration, which provides for removing status from membership. There can be any number of reasons to deregister. These provisions would keep the safety of not impacting the children of those who may have deregistered.

The third component of Bill C-38 is on natal band membership. Bill C-38 would provide a legal mechanism to re-affiliate women to their natal bands. This amendment would serve to allow for membership to be reinstated on a band list based on specific conditions. It would address reinstatement of membership for a group of individuals who were originally prevented from being reinstated based on oversight.

Finally, the bill would amend outdated language, which is a small but important step. The offensive language regarding first nations peoples who require dependency on others would be amended. The offending definition of “mentally incompetent Indian” would be replaced with “dependent person”.

Bill C-38 would address these cases, and it is estimated it would impact around 4,000 people. Many more would remain discriminated against.

The Liberals had a chance to remove discrimination from the Indian Act once and for all. Bill C-15, on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, became law in Canada. The Liberals had a chance to introduce that bill so that it would be in alignment with international law. Instead, they are introducing more piecemeal legislation. The past court challenges, Descheneaux v. Canada, McIvor v. Canada, and Matson v. Canada, make it clear. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples makes it clear. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group makes it clear. So many more make it clear. The Liberal government's pattern of reluctant piecemeal changes in response to litigation is unjust.

There is no justification for Canada to ignore, and indeed infringe on, indigenous people's rights. Parliaments would debate again after the passage of Bill C-38 why it is not okay to keep disrespecting indigenous peoples and infringing on their rights.

Two other major issues not addressed are the second-generation cut-off and the ability to seek reparations. The second-generation cut-off in section 6(2) is not addressed in Bill C-38. This is shocking, given how much attention has been paid to this section in past works. In its Bill S-3 review, the ministry of Indigenous Services Canada reported on it. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group in its works reported on it. The Senate committee on indigenous peoples reported on it. They all recommended to remove provisions related to the second-generation cut-off.

If bands reject second-generation cut-off, it is because they are not being properly resourced by Indigenous Services Canada to meet the needs of their increasing membership.

Section 6(2) is sexist, and it is problematic. Who a child's mother is, is usually readily apparent. Who the father is, is not always apparent. Whether the father acknowledges his paternity, and this can be counted as the second-status parent for purposes of eligibility for status, is essentially his decision. The two-parent rule continues Canada's program of forced assimilation. Maintenance of the two-parent rule would fulfill the genocidal intention of the Indian Act, getting rid of “the Indian problem”.

Until this rule is amended, hundreds of thousands of indigenous people, mostly women and their descendants, will be discriminated against.

First nations children were robbed of their mothers. First nations children continue to be robbed of their mothers. The current child welfare system continues to separate indigenous peoples from each other. The Liberals say they will consult on second-generation cut-off. Consultation should not be necessary. Discrimination is discrimination. No amount of consultation will result in the justification of it. The government must interpret the rule of law as adhering to international human rights laws and the charter.

We are told by the Liberals that the public portion of this consultation will not begin until 2024. It will be much longer before legislation is drafted and presented before the House again. This tactic to delay is a denial of the rights of indigenous peoples. We should not have to wait for discriminatory provisions to be removed. There is no justification for discrimination to be allowed to continue.

Another form of oppression is preventing indigenous peoples from seeking reparations. Bill C-38 includes specific clauses that will not allow victims of these policies to seek reparation for the discrimination they have experienced. First nations women and children will continue to be harmed, yet they will not be able to seek reparations, even if discrimination is found.

In past bills, there were related provisions legislating that governments are not liable for harms done under the act. Persons are prevented from seeking claims against the government for discrimination caused by the implementation of the Indian Act.

These injustices remain in Bill C-38. According to human rights laws, Canadians are allowed to seek reparations. Why can first nations not do so?

Bill C-38 is a flawed proposal. While it addresses some injustices in the Indian Act, discrimination against first nations would continue. Bill C-38 continues the Liberal incremental approach to reconciliation.

The Liberals' interpretation of Nicholas v. Canada is about status. Bill C-38 must not just be about status; it must be about addressing discrimination and violations of basic human rights. It must be about reconciliation.

I ask this again: Why is it that when Canadians experience human rights violations, they are allowed to seek reparations, when first nations are not?

I hope that Bill C-38 can be salvaged. I hope that, at committee, we hear from experts explaining why improvements must be sought to ensure that first nations' rights are on par with Canadian human rights.

Employment Insurance Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out by congratulating Adopt4Life, the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada and the time to attach campaign for their tireless advocacy, which has led to Bill C-318 today.

I also congratulate my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for putting this bill forward. It is an important first step in providing adoptive parents with the parental time they need to attach to adoptive children.

This is a critical first step in improving the outcomes for children being adopted, many of whom are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and have a history of trauma and loss. I, along with my NDP colleagues, support this change as we recognize that building relationships between children and adoptive families is vital for the success, not only of the child, but also for the adoptive family.

The first year that children are with their adoptive parents or caregivers is crucial for bonding and creating a foundation for strong relationships. The extension of this parental leave is crucial.

Unfortunately, one of the areas where this bill falls short is the recognition of kinship and customary care arrangements. This is strongly supported by Adopt4Life and Time to Attach campaign, which are also fighting for an additional 15-week leave for children who are receiving customary and kinship care.

The province of Manitoba defines “kinship care” as an arrangement in which the child is placed with extended family, such as a grandparent or someone with whom they have a significant relationship. Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions defines “customary care” as care through an individual's lifespan in which the community takes care of its own members according to its customs, traditions and norms.

Both kinship and customary care arrangements are common within indigenous nations as we struggle to reclaim our families and children. This is a serious omission in the bill that needs to be addressed, especially because, in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 90% of all children in care are indigenous. There are more children in the child welfare system today than at the height of the residential school system.

We know the harmful implications of separating children from their families and communities. One only has to look at the impacts of residential schools, where children were forcibly removed from their families and shipped off to residential schools, and at the sixties scoop, where indigenous children were removed from customary care structures and placed in non-indigenous foster homes, disconnecting them from their familial and community structures, to see the lasting damage that has caused.

In both instances, physical, sexual, emotional, psychological and spiritual abuse were rampant. This has resulted in lasting trauma and loss for individuals, families and communities. This was acknowledged in the 2015 report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Moreover, the omission of customary and kinship care is contrary to our international obligations, including UNDRIP and Bill C-15, which is now a law in Canada. It is also in violation of article II of the UN convention on genocide.

I want to share a story about my mother. My mother, Marjorie Gazan, was a street kid and a child welfare survivor who ended up in the system after my grandmother abandoned her and her younger brother in a hotel room in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, when she was five years old.

My grandmother had to leave them to earn money. There were no supports for indigenous women in the 1930s. There were no human rights. There was no one to turn to, especially for indigenous single mothers, and my grandmother was not an exception.

Since my mother was the eldest child, my grandmother left her in charge of her younger brother with specific instructions. She said, “Here is a loaf of bread, peanut butter and jam. It needs to last five days.” I remember my mother telling me how she, along with my uncle, gleefully ate the loaf of bread and ran out of their food ration in only one day. Hungry, scared and alone, my mother decided to call the Children's Aid Society.

It is beyond most people's imagination, especially those who have been privileged with human rights, what a five-year-old girl would have to have endured to understand who to call and how to work with the bureaucratic child welfare system to relieve her and her brother's hunger. It was not that my grandmother did not love her, but she had grown up as a street kid, who later in life became a serious alcoholic to deal with the violent genocide she had experienced throughout her life. Dislocated from her family for reasons directly correlated to the Indian Act and other institutional and colonial disruptions, including residential schools, she did not have anyone or anywhere to turn to. In fact, under the former Indian Act, a “person” is defined as “any individual other than an Indian”. This made it impossible for my grandmother.

When my mother and uncle were apprehended into care, my late great auntie Stella Goodwill offered to take them into her house on Standing Buffalo reservation. However, this did not occur. As a result, my mother ended up being switched between 15 different placements between the ages of five and 18. It was not until I was 13 years old that my mother reconnected with her family and her community of Wood Mountain Lakota first nation. My mother had to endure a life alone in the world, and as a result, I was brought up almost completely devoid of extended family. I often envied my friends having big family dinners with their relatives. This was robbed from our family by the child welfare system and residential schools, as well as the intergenerational impacts of institutionalization, colonialism and systemic racism.

I sometimes wonder why I was brought to the House of Commons, an often racist, misogynistic, classist and neocolonial environment, where talk of reconciliation is cheap and the discomfort demonstrated when the residue of trauma caused by colonial violence rears its head is received with assumptions and judgments. Maybe that is why I am here, to tell these stories, to speak these truths so that they will forever be recorded in the Hansard, to fight for justice for families and communities, and to bring our children and women home.

Customary and kinship care is one way to achieve this. Although the NDP will be supporting this bill, it is my hope that extending the benefits to customary and kinship caregivers will be addressed at committee to truly reflect reconciliation.

Motion in Amendment

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-35, the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act.

Let me take this opportunity to first of all thank all of the advocates, experts, parents, child care providers, workers, unions and others who took the time to make presentations or write submissions to the committee. Their passion and their knowledge about quality, affordable and accessible child care shone through and helped us make the bill better. There are too many people and organizations to name, but I am so grateful for their advocacy and guidance.

I am proud that we have emerged from the committee process with an improved piece of legislation. As a result of amendments put forward by the NDP, the bill includes stronger reporting requirements for greater accountability and transparency; more inclusive language that reflects the needs of children with disabilities and those from official language minority communities; recognition that the conditions of work affect the conditions of care; and an amendment to uphold the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent on matters pertaining to their children. This acknowledgement is historic, and it is the first time since the passage of Bill C-15 that it has been enshrined in federal legislation.

This builds on other important provisions included in the original bill, including an explicit prioritization of non-profit and public child care for federal funding, something the NDP fought for and won. Witness after witness made it clear that the research overwhelmingly agrees that non-profit and public child care delivers the best outcomes and the highest quality of care for children.

I hope that after Bill C-35 becomes law, we no longer see federal money being used to expand for-profit child care in Canada, as we saw several months ago in Alberta with the federal government announcing support for 22,500 new for-profit spaces. Public money should be used to expand public and non-profit child care. Public monies need to be invested in public institutions. It is better for workers and it is better for children.

The NDP supports this bill, and I urge my colleagues from all parties to pass it unanimously to show our commitment to supporting children, families, workers and child care providers. This is an important step towards building a permanent national system of $10-a-day child care.

I want to focus my remarks today on a theme that emerged time and time again in committee: We have a child care workforce crisis in this country. Child care workers receive wages that are not livable and benefits that are not adequate. They often endure difficult working conditions. Unless we address these issues, we are putting the success of a national child care system at risk.

Who are these workers? Well, more than 98% of them are women; one-third are immigrants or non-permanent residents; and child care workers are more likely than workers in all other occupations to be racialized. They perform some of the most critical work in our society, providing education during the years most crucial to a child’s development, and yet they are treated as disposable.

The wage floor for early childhood educators in Ontario, for example, is just $19 an hour. It is just $19 an hour for providing essential work. Do members know the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto? It is $2,500 a month. This is outrageous. We are asking people to take on the work of looking after and educating our kids, and then we are not paying them enough to provide for their own kids. It is no wonder that people who trained as early childhood educators are leaving the profession to take better-paying jobs in other fields, or that many people are discouraged from entering the profession in the first place. More than any other factor, this is why we have a shortage of child care spaces across the country.

I know that the fee reductions we have been seeing as a result of the bilateral agreements with the provinces are having a huge and positive impact for thousands of families. I want to acknowledge that; I want to acknowledge that it is making their lives more affordable, but far too many others are stuck on wait-lists and cannot access the benefits of more affordable child care.

We can build all of the new spaces we want, but that means little unless well-trained, well-paid workers are put in place to staff these new centres.

I have often heard the situation in the child care sector described as a worker shortage, but let us be clear: This is not, in fact, a worker shortage; it is a wage shortage. It is a respect shortage. It is a dignity shortage. This shortage of dignity and respect is contributing to the shortage of affordable spaces.

Last week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report showing that almost half of younger children, which means those not yet attending kindergarten, live in “child care deserts”, where there are more than three children for every licensed child care space. In Saskatchewan, the number is 92%, and in my own province of Manitoba, it is 76%.

One of the key recommendations the report offers to address this situation is to guarantee decent wages and benefits for child care workers. We need immediate federal investments to provinces and territories to improve the wage grids of their child care staff. We also need this government to put in place a workforce strategy that ensures livable wages, better benefits, retirement security, adequate working conditions, and education and training opportunities.

I want to address the argument I often hear from my colleagues, which is that this is provincial jurisdiction.

We are building a national child care system. Without federal leadership to address this workforce crisis and improve pay, benefits and working conditions, this system will not be sustainable. It is not just workers who suffer from poor compensation; their working conditions are kids’ learning conditions. They are directly tied to the quality of care

The federal government can and must use its spending powers to raise the bar for workers. The Liberals know that they can do this. In fact, in 2021, during the 2021 election, they promised a wage floor of $25 an hour for personal support workers, an area that is also within provincial jurisdiction. Why can they not make the same promise of livable wages for child care staff, who perform different but equally essential roles in society?

We do not have to choose between $10-a-day child care and raising wages for child care workers. We can and must have both if we are going to have a successful national child care strategy. We can and must have both to ensure that kids get the best quality of care and that we are recruiting and retaining the workers we need to create more spaces so that parents can access affordable child care in the communities where they live.

I do not want this generation and the future generations of early childhood educators to have to make the same choice that I made: leaving a profession that I loved because I wanted to pay my bills. I want to live in a country where the work of early childhood educators is valued just as highly as the work of doctors, lawyers, engineers and all other professions.

The government cannot wash its hands of this responsibility. It has a leadership role to play in ensuring that every child care worker in Canada is treated with respect and dignity.

I ask this today of all of us in the House: Let us pass this bill. Let us ensure that the people who are at the heart of the national child care system that we are trying to build, without whose labour there would not be any system at all, are no longer an afterthought.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

On Monday, we heard from several of the leaders about how important optionality is for this bill and how, when moving forward with first nations.... A lot of the time, government had a “we know best” attitude in many decades past, and that has harmed the trust between first nations and the federal government. They spoke to why optionality is a very important part of this piece of legislation and the work that they're doing.

First, I wonder if you could speak to why optionality, or opting in, for band councils is an important part of advancing reconciliation.

The other part is this: How does this help us implement some of the principles surrounding UNDRIP in terms of what we promised in Bill C-15? What does this mean in relation to what we are trying to accomplish with UNDRIP and moving forward with this legislation?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much for that question.

Just so you know, there is an instrument that is used to determine FPIC. It's the UN expert mechanism, in fact.

What free, prior and informed consent means is free of coercion, prior to any decision being made and knowing what you're making a decision about. Unless you have those three things, you don't have consent. I know that we're talking about consultation processes with indigenous people. I don't know any parent in this country who would oppose having free, prior and informed consent about matters impacting their children. In fact, I would like you to find me one indigenous person, let alone political organization or political leadership, who would say, “No, we don't want to have rights. We don't want to have our self-determination respected over matters impacting our children.” I don't think any parent, in fact, would fight against their self-determination to make decisions about their own children. That is simply what my amendment is proposing.

As a country, we have also signed on to international law. Part of that international law is the UN expert mechanism. As well as free, prior and informed consent, this already informs part of our law. I'm not proposing something that's outside of Canadian law. It's affirmed, once again, through Bill C-15.

In the spirit of reconciliation, in the spirit of healing in this country, we need to see this in a bill and a legal framework. I'm talking as an indigenous person. We need to know that Canada understands, in 2023, that indigenous people, even though we have Canadian Human Rights Tribunal battles going on still in the courts, forced sterilization and birth alerts, and no access to school, have, at the very least, in the spirit of reconciliation, in spite of all the constant human rights violations, free, prior and informed consent—free of coercion, prior to any decisions being made about our kids and informed, knowing what the decision is—before any decision is made. That's precisely what this amendment is for.

Thank you.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to amend clause 6 by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 4 with the following:

programs and services that are culturally appropriate, that are led by Indigenous peoples and that respect the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent in matters relating to children.

In the last session, we passed Bill C-15. Section 5 of that act states:

The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.

This is the first occasion on which we can actually uphold the intent of that act and the legal obligations of that act.

It's my understanding that all members of Parliament have committed to reconciliation in this country, and at the very core of reconciliation is to give us back our rights of our children. That means that, in all matters respecting our children, indigenous people should have their free, prior and informed consent upheld.

Unfortunately, as we meet here today to discuss this bill, in real time that is not happening. I'll give you a couple of examples. At this moment in time, 2023, indigenous women continue to experience forced sterilization. That's an attack on our rights as mothers of our children. A second example is regarding reports of birth alerts, which still occur in this country—in real time.

I don't know where I would ever argue that any parent has the free, prior and informed consent over matters impacting their children. Unfortunately, for indigenous peoples in Canada, particularly mothers, that continues not to happen. I urge members of this committee, in an act of reconciliation, if we are to move forward in this country, we must first recognize the need to give indigenous people our children back.

I've had many good discussions with many of you around the room about the value of this bill, of this amendment, in terms of a real act of reconciliation in this country. I feel that we're ready for that. I certainly wouldn't debate any parental right to free, prior and informed consent, but unfortunately that's still not the case for indigenous people in this country.

I am looking forward to this moment, to working together to reconcile in this country in a real way.

I'll leave it there. Thank you.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. Thank you so much.

I was happy to hear all the witnesses talk about how they were happy to see the inclusion of UNDRIP in the bill and the mention of the TRC. We know that one of the most violent colonial acts in the country was forceably apprehending children, taking away parental autonomy and shipping kids off to residential schools. I'm glad that we're moving forward in a way where people recognize that injustice.

We know, with the passing of Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, that the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was affirmed in Canadian law. That includes article 3, which relates to the right to self-determination. We know that central to the right to self-determine is the respect of the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

This is a yes or no question for all of the people on the panel today. Would you support, in addition to the current article in the bill, that first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families are best supported by early learning and child care programs and services that are culturally appropriate, that are led by indigenous peoples—this is the amendment that I think is critical if we're going to move forward in reconciliation—and that uphold the right of indigenous people to free, prior and informed consent on matters relating to children?

Is it yes or no?

Mr. Smith.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Lainé.

With the passing of Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was affirmed in Canadian law. That includes article 3, relating to the right of self-determination. We know that central to the right of self-determination is the respect for the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

Would you support an amendment to Bill C-35 to ensure the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples on matters pertaining to indigenous peoples, yes or no?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I appreciate that, and I was actually one of those people myself.

Madam Bruske, it's good to see you again, and thank you for your comments on the rights of indigenous peoples. Certainly that's something, you know, that is near and dear to my heart.

That's one of the reasons the NDP is pushing the Liberal government right now to make amendments so that the bill will align with Bill C-15, which affirms that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has application in Canadian law, by including this commitment in the bill to ensure that the government upholds the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent for legislation pertaining to indigenous children. So, thank you for that.

I want to build on the comments by Madam Ballantyne.

We have a workforce crisis. Do you think that Bill C-35 should be amended to include an explicit commitment to decent work for child care staff?

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

I only have a couple of minutes left.

You detailed at length what these amendments would have done in terms of not only the safety of hunters living in your community but also food security. You mentioned that 22% of residents in your territory are living below the poverty line, and many have to supplement their diets from the land.

What does consultation mean to you? In order for the government to satisfy the legal requirements of Bill C-15, what does that mean? What, at a bare minimum, does the Government of Canada need to do with indigenous communities before introducing laws that can have this kind of profound impact on their way of life?

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

Thank you for clarifying that and confirming that.

In our previous federal Parliament we passed into law Bill C-15. One of the primary aims of that legislation was to ensure that the Government of Canada, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, takes all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration.

We saw in December of last year that the Assembly of First Nations took a very unusual step in passing an emergency resolution that identified article 5, article 18, article 34 and article 39 as the reasoning that they were opposed to these amendments of Bill C-21.

In your mind, Mr. Savikataaq, do these amendments in the proposed legislation from the Government of Canada satisfy the principles of the government's previous Bill C-15 when it is attempting to harmonize Canada's laws with the declaration?

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

Thank you. That leads to my next question.

In the previous Parliament we passed Bill C-15, which essentially is requiring the Government of Canada, through consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada, the laws passed in our federal Parliament, are consistent with the declaration.

I believe it was in December that the Assembly of First Nations passed an emergency resolution by consensus. They specifically identified article 5, article 18, article 34 and article 39, where they felt Bill C-21 was contravening those parts of the declaration. I've spoken to the indigenous members of my caucus who have said that to have an emergency resolution at the AFN pass by consensus is virtually unheard of.

Obviously, that consultation had not taken place before the amendments to Bill C-21 were introduced. I don't think we get enough indigenous voices heard here in Ottawa. That is a disservice. It goes against the principle of a nation-to-nation relationship. It goes against the principle of Bill C-15, which was passed into law.

I want to hear from you, Dr. Bryant, because the indigenous members of my caucus and indigenous communities across Canada have repeatedly said that these amendments affect firearms that are tools. Particularly in the north, my colleague Lori Idlout—she's the member for Nunavut—said that when you're face to face with a polar bear, you can't be equipped with a bolt-action rifle. There is an absolute need for a rifle that can discharge in a semi-automatic manner.

Are you hearing the same thing from indigenous communities? Can you report back to this committee on what some of their concerns have been over this process? I think that's an important voice that needs to be added to this conversation to provide that important context.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think that's all positive, going back to Bill C-15, but all future legislation is supposed to be in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, so I would push back on that.

I will move on to wages and working conditions.

I think everybody knows I was formerly an early childhood educator. I'm very proud. We know the average wage for an early childhood educator is $19.50 an hour. That's not a liveable wage in most places.

Unions representing child care workers support adding an explicit, clear commitment to decent work to Bill C-35. We know that in order to make this work, we need a robust workforce. We also know that research, in study after study, indicates that poor pay and working conditions are deterrents to joining the sector. That's exactly why I left my job as an ECE. I didn't want to live on the no-salary we were provided for the important work we do.

Is your government resistant to adding language that establishes liveable wages and fairer working conditions as guiding principles for federal funding? I say this because your party, in a platform in 2021, came out and vowed to push for a $25 minimum wage for personal support workers. I support that. Care work is critical work.

Are you willing to support the same sort of liveable wage for early childhood educators?

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

I think that once UNDRIP passed, it was part of the law immediately. Once we passed Bill C-15, there was an article in there that should have been respected. The fact that it's a new law doesn't change the fact that it is law, and the commissioner should have known that there was a part of this that needed to have indigenous participation.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Bill C-15 in the last session, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is mentioned 15 times in the bill, and the TRC calls for UNDRIP to be used as the framework for reconciliation.

We have a framework. We just have to follow that framework. That was a declaration that was produced after decades. It was over 23 years of work. We have the tools. We have the frameworks. We just need the political will to do the right thing.

Motions in amendment

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have such a tremendous amount of respect for my hon. colleague across the way. We did some pretty critical work together in committee to pass Bill C-15.

In saying that, I know that my colleague is very committed to human rights, but one of the frustrations that I have had, particularly as we are talking about this council, is the focus being shifted away from survivors and toward organizations. My second frustration is with this whole history of incremental justice.

With the current Liberal government, according to reports, only 13 out of the 94 calls to action, knowing that not all of them pertain to the federal government, have been responded to. The government still fails to respond adequately to the calls for justice from the national inquiry. I wonder if my colleague agrees with me that true reconciliation is demonstrated through action and not rhetoric.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for truth and reconciliation. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the incredible work of many of my colleagues from different parties, including the member for Sydney—Victoria, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the member for Northwest Territories, the member for Nunavut, the member for Winnipeg Centre, the member for Edmonton Griesbach and others, who, over the many years we have been here, have been inspirational in their work and advocacy as we make sure that as a government, we move forward on reconciliation.

Reconciliation is multi-layered, is often complex and is an issue that will take generations to achieve in Canada. Canada has gone through 154 years of colonialism and deeply rooted legislation that often disempowered and displaced first nations, Inuit and Métis across Canada. We have gone from having over 90 indigenous languages to only a handful being spoken today. We have seen the horrific results of residential schools and the intergenerational trauma they have created, and the lasting effects of the hurt and loss. We saw this with the unmarked graves, starting last year, and I suspect we will see it again and again as we unpack this deeply hurtful issue over the next few years. Parliament recently acknowledged what happened with residential schools as genocide, and that, too, is a very important aspect of moving forward and speaking truth to power.

As we look at establishing the national council for reconciliation, it is important to look at history. In 2015, when we took office, the commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission presented their findings, with 94 calls to action. That was in December 2015. They outlined the bare minimum that needs to be done in order for our path to reconciliation to move forward.

Since then, we have seen a number of different initiatives, including the report of the MMIWG, the missing and murdered women and girls report, and the calls to justice, as well as several other very important findings, including the unmarked graves. These things put additional responsibilities on the government and on all Canadians to address.

The 94 calls to action are an all-encompassing set of guidelines for the federal government, provincial governments and in some cases municipal governments, as well as organizations, particularly national indigenous organizations, and all Canadians. It is important to recognize that reconciliation is not a journey that can just be undertaken by Canada as a government. It needs to be an all-of-Canada effort that includes all stakeholders.

When we talk about reconciliation, oftentimes we talk about what Canada is prepared to do, but it really comes down to how much trust and confidence indigenous people can have in this process. What we have seen in the last seven years is that while we have moved ahead on a number of very important initiatives, we have often seen this relationship be two steps forward and one step back because there is a lot of unpacking to do. As we approach and encounter these issues, it is important that as a government we double down and recommit to working harder to ensure we move forward on this process.

It is an imperfect process. It is an imperfect set of ideas that often may need reflection, and in that I am pleased to share with the House some of my experiences over the past seven years working across party lines with the members opposite.

I do want to start off with our work on Bill C-262, which was a private member's bill brought forward by my friend Romeo Saganash. It essentially called for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and I was fortunate to work with Mr. Saganash over the couple of years he was actively advocating for Bill C-262. We travelled a fair bit in our committee work and spoke to many individuals: young people, elders, band councils and indigenous organization members. The enormous support the bill had across Canada with indigenous people was remarkable. However, we saw that the same level of commitment was not here in Parliament.

Over time, sadly, Bill C-262 did not pass, but we were able to get Bill C-15 through Parliament in 2021, and basically it is calls to action 43 and 44, and it was able to pass. The second part of UNDRIP is the implementation of a national action plan, and our department is working very hard with indigenous partners and national indigenous organizations, as well as rights holders and many others, to make sure we have an action plan that can really address a review of laws and move us forward on this path.

One of the things that has really humbled me is the work we have done on indigenous languages. There is an act, Bill C-91, which was passed in 2019, and it was a critical moment in Canada because, when we talk about language, it is so fundamental to all of us. Often, I look at the passion with which my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois address the issue of bilingualism and language, and the passion with which many of my colleagues on this side speak to the need to protect the French language.

I think it is so critical to ensure that linguistic minorities are protected across Canada, but often missing in that conversation is the need to protect and save the many indigenous languages that existed prior to Confederation. In many ways, those languages are in their last stages. Medically speaking, they are on life support because we have so many languages that are at a point of being lost permanently.

I know the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London spoke about Oneida Nation on the Thames, and that is one of the groups we met during the development of Bill C-91. It was devastating to see that only a handful of people were able to speak that language, which shows how important it is that Bill C-91 is there. As well, we, along with the support of the New Democratic Party, repealed mandatory minimum penalties just last week, and we implemented the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

These are some measures that speak to the work that has been done, but there is a lot more to do, and I believe the national council would be a very important tool for us to measure objectively what work we need to do. It would measure and report back to the House, as well as to Canadians, on the need to fill in the gaps and to make sure we fulfill all the commitments in the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I look forward to questions and comments from my friends, and I thank them for this opportunity to speak.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that is one of the reasons we saw such unanimous support in regard to Bill C-15, which passed not that long ago, dealing with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That is something all of us could take a great of credit for, sharing, promoting and encouraging what UNDRIP is all about.

I represent an area in Winnipeg North that has one of the higher per capita populations of indigenous people. I have a very good understanding of many different related issues. Like many others in this House, I want to make a positive difference on reconciliation. That is why I often comment on the issue of reconciliation and just how important it is for us as a nation.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is another example of how indigenous people's rights in this country are consistently trampled on daily, including their mobility rights. Absolutely, we need to have independent oversight. That is certainly something we have called for.

It also speaks to the need to have indigenous representation and indigenous oversight to look at matters of human rights, which the government agreed to uphold with the adoption of Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, to see the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Brandy Stanovich, President, Indigenous Women of the Wabanaki Territories]

Good afternoon, honourable committee members. Thank you for inviting the Indigenous Women of the Wabanaki Territories to speak on this important bill.

First I would like to graciously acknowledge that we are gathering on unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, is an important bill. However, we were devastated to read that indigenous women have not been included in the bill.

This bill establishes a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization whose purpose is to advance the efforts for reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Clause 10 indicates that the national council for reconciliation includes three national indigenous organizations, as opposed to five. IWWT is disappointed that the Native Women's Association of Canada has been excluded. NWAC is a unique, inclusive, representative voice that ensures a MMIWG lens is applied, especially as it relates to human safety and security.

NWAC is made up of provincial and territorial member associations, PTMAs, from each province or territory. These are grassroots, not-for-profit organizations. IWWT is one of these organizations. It is our duty to listen and elevate the voice of grassroots women to the national level. Through NWAC, we do just that. By not including NWAC, you are excluding the voice of the women. An indigenous woman is the centre wheel of life. She's the heartbeat of the people. She's not just in the home; she's in the community. She is the nation.

The bill responds to truth and reconciliation calls to action numbers 53 to 55. This call to action is essential, since it will legislate implementation of all 94 calls to action.

As you know, implementation is the most important part of any measure intended to redress harms. Call to action 53 requires that all levels of government provide annual reports or any current data requested by the national council for reconciliation, so that it can report the progress towards reconciliation.

The reports or data would include, but not be limited to, the number of aboriginal children in care, comparative funding for the education of first nations children on and off reserve, progress on closing gaps, progress on eliminating an overrepresentation of aboriginal children in custody, progress on reducing the rate of criminal victimization of aboriginal people and progress on reducing the overrepresentation of incarcerated aboriginal people. The key areas for reporting under calls to action 53 to 55 are in areas where residential school abuses and colonialism are reflected in intergenerational trauma.

On December 21, 2021, Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, received royal assent. As a reminder, article 7(2) of the declaration states the following:

Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.

Though Canada recognizes five national indigenous organizations, including the Native Women's Association of Canada, only three NIOs will be mandated to the board of directors for the national council for reconciliation. Excluding NWAC from the national discussions on implementation of truth and reconciliation is a significant rejection to the organization that is a recognized expert on matters related to indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people. The people represented by NWAC face high rates of institutional betrayal, incarceration, violence and abuse, all issues that should be central to any discussions to reconciliation.

Having an NWAC representative on the board of directors of the national council for reconciliation will ensure that the process is inclusive and that the voices of indigenous women and gender-diverse people are considered.

We are valued leaders, decision-makers and knowledge-keepers in our families, communities and governments. Without our perspectives, discussions are unlikely to consider gender-based solutions to undoing systematic discrimination caused by colonialism and patriarchy. This is about equity and about reclaiming matriarchal leadership.

I signed the NWAC-Canada accord under the impression that Canada committed to considering the distinct perspectives of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people. Not including NWAC in this very important bill is not upholding Canada's commitment to indigenous women. Not doing so in this instance will set a—

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

Thank you very much.

Minister, thank you for joining us.

I really appreciate some of the comments I've heard about how we need to move forward on indigenous rights and on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. I can't help but think about how much further or more quickly we would have gotten to this legislation if Romeo Saganash's private member's bill on UNDRIP hadn't been blocked by Conservative senators in 2018 and 2019, and then dragging their feet on Bill C-15. I think we could have gotten to this legislation a lot quicker.

Since we're talking about reconciliation, within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was mentioned seven times.

Minister, can you talk a little about what you've heard from the leadership on the priority of moving forward on UNDRIP during the years that you were a minister in Indigenous Services and now as Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'd like to start out by thanking the committee for its grace in letting us go a little bit over. I really appreciate your respect.

I want to start by first asking questions of Madam Kabloona.

Before I do that, I do want to offer my condolences about the death of Savanna Pikuyak. It's a tragedy that is, unfortunately, a common one. It needs to end. My condolences go to the family and, of course, to the community.

You spoke a lot about violence against indigenous women. One thing that you pointed to was a failure of the government to allocate, even in the 2021 budget. In fact, I called for an emergency debate in the last session in response to the fact that in this current 2022 budget, there was zero allocated to address the ongoing genocide against murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. Like Madam Smith has indicated, I was very heartened to see Bill C-15 pass, but human rights are as only as good as our ability to respect and uphold those rights through action.

When you're negotiating impact and benefit agreements, is a part of the negotiations dedicated to ensuring that, in any project in communities, money is allocated to ensure the safety of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit...?

[Lisa J. Smith]

Thank you. I did a lot of work on advocating for UNDRIP implementation, so I'm thrilled that Bill C-15 received royal assent. I'm going to focus on a key component of the bill, the alignment with policies and legislation. Ergo, everything that Canada does will have to align with the declaration. So often people forget that's minimal: That's the floor of human rights for indigenous peoples. This hasn't been done yet. Yes, the bill was passed, but once all our policies and our laws are truly aligned with Bill C-15, then our basic human rights as indigenous peoples will be upheld—“will be”. There's still work to be done.

It's encouraging that the government passed this bill, and that's the way we're going. I also think that a lot of this advocacy and getting on the same page is about communication. You may have touched on this earlier. I think there needs to be a focus on that, on awareness and educating. The people around this table are plugged in, but to truly educate and make Canadians aware, perhaps sometimes in plain language, will help this cause. We'll come together as a country, hopefully, and with the guidance of UNDRIP I think we're going to get somewhere. We're not there yet, but I'm encouraged that we will get there.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We are still looking for solutions. It is unacceptable that in 2022, resource exploitation has such an impact on indigenous women and girls.

Ms. Smith, as you mentioned, the fact that Bill C‑15 recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples is the least we can do. Moreover, Canada's unwillingness to ratify this agreement has long tainted its international reputation. The way Canada treated its first nations tarnished its image abroad and was a dark cloud over us. Do you have anything concrete to add on this subject? You really emphasized that Bill C‑15 could help.

I'll invite you, Mr. Brownlie, Ms. Neckoway, and Ms. Kabloona to speak later on on something else. Before that, though, I'm going to let you talk about the importance of Canada's image internationally in relation to how it treats its first nations, as well as Bill C‑15, which we think is important.

[Lisa J. Smith]

Thank you for that question. It is something that's very important when we talk about this issue. It's intrinsically linked into this issue by virtue of the calls for justice of the MMIWG, in number 13.2, I believe. I don't have the calls in front of me.

So often we say, “Oh, funding, funding”, but funding equals capacity when the funding is I guess streamed correctly. As we heard today, that's probably not always the case, unfortunately. I think we need indigenous leadership. Indigenous women need the capacity to advise and ensure that their specialized knowledge by virtue of being indigenous women really is a part of the entire process.

Now, it's harder when the players are industry and the province, to be quite frank. How do we ensure that all players around the table are providing capacity for indigenous leadership to be a part of the entire process? Is it political will? I'm not sure. I think funding is part of that process, and I think upholding our inherent rights, and I guess getting everyone on board. Again, with regard to Bill C-15 and UNDRIP, I don't want to be naive about its reach, but I'm thinking that is part of how we get there.

[Lisa J. Smith]

I honestly don't see much action on the municipal side of things because, as you know, the calls for justice and the calls to action really focus on provincial and federal policy-makers. Also, law societies and civil society in that regard are not seeing as many obligations put on industry or municipalities. I think you identified something really good there, and I think maybe you're answering your own question. Maybe that's how we need to all come together.

I think when we tried with Bill C-15, which has been brought up with UNDRIP being a part.... Canada is leading the way in UNDRIP implementation. When we align all policies and legislation with UNDRIP, that's the answer. It's part of the answer. It's more complicated than that, but I think we're going in the right direction in that regard.

You're right. More attention and awareness and education need to be focused on the community level.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

My first question is for Dr. Jarvis Brownlie. It's so good to see my friend here.

In the last Parliament we passed Bill C-15 to see the adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which includes article 22:

1. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration. 2. States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, to ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.

We also accepted the calls for justice that came out of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. I want to point specifically to call for justice 13.1:

We call upon all resource-extraction and development industries to consider the safety and security of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, as well as their equitable benefit from development, at all stages of project planning, assessment, implementation, management, and monitoring.

Where are we at? I'd say we're failing, particularly because I put in an Order Paper question on June 20, asking specifically about what progress the government has made towards a benefit agreement that ensures the security and safety of indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+. What activities have been co-developed to mitigate this current crisis of violence? How much attention has been placed on supporting an analysis of gender-disaggregated data? How much money has been spent through the aboriginal community safety plan?

You know, to my disappointment actually, most of the money has been spent on training in resource extraction, which is great, but we can't talk about economic benefit without talking about social costs. Certainly, it's costing the safety of indigenous women and girls and diverse-gender folks.

In fact, currently in this area, for the whole country, under $13 million a year is being spent to address this crisis.

One of the things you mentioned was the impact, the burden that is on women, particularly in hydro-affected communities in Manitoba. You've also come up with policies and solutions. I'm wondering what recommendations you have for solutions to end this kind of violence. What do you think needs to be done to really critically address this ongoing genocide?

[Lisa J. Smith, Senior Director, Governance, International and Parliamentary Relations, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, everyone. I am truly honoured to be here amongst you. I'm told that I'm the first in person since COVID, so I truly am honoured to be here on unceded territory.

My name is Lisa Smith, as the honourable chair mentioned. I'm senior director of governance, international and parliamentary relations. That title is a lot taller than I am, but here we are.

As you know, the Native Women's Association of Canada, NWAC, is highly committed to ending the ongoing genocide of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, MMIWG, and advocating for the implementation of the calls for justice of the national inquiry's final report.

Honourable members and Chair, there is a link between resource extraction and violence against indigenous women, girls, transgender and gender-diverse people, as this honourable committee has identified. Therefore, it is essential to consider women's safety during all stages of resource extraction projects.

Resource extraction projects usually create environments described as “boom towns” and “man camps”, where transient non-indigenous men, who are paid high salaries, come to work on these sites. These sites are reported to have increased rates of sexual violence and human trafficking. Oftentimes, honourable members, when we think of human trafficking, we think that it doesn't take place in this beautiful country we call Canada, but of course it does. These sites are certainly an area where that does occur.

James Anaya, the former United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, investigated Canada in October 2013. I encourage everyone here to read his report. He reported to the Human Rights Council that extractive industries disproportionately impact indigenous peoples, especially indigenous women and girls living near oil, gas and mining operations. It is important to remember that indigenous women's physical, spiritual and cultural relationship with the environment and its resources creates an intimacy. Let's sit there: It creates an intimacy and an invaluable knowledge base for program and policy development.

How did we get here? Colonial expansion is intrinsically linked with resource extraction. However, when Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, received royal assent, advocates breathed a sigh of relief, since this will ensure the minimum human rights of indigenous women, transgender and gender-diverse people will be upheld when Canada's policies and legislation are aligned with that act.

Article 3 of UNDRIP states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination.” This guarantees the right to “freely determine” their political condition and their right to “freely pursue” their form of “economic, social and cultural development”. That is very much engaged in this discussion, so I thank you for having the discussion.

According to James Anaya, one of the most dramatic contradictions that indigenous peoples in Canada face is that so many live in abysmal conditions on traditional territories that are full of valuable and plentiful natural resources. These resources are in many cases targeted for extraction and development by non-indigenous interests.

Truth and Reconciliation Day is coming up on September 30. We must think about that, too, in this discussion. Indigenous languages that it was attempted to have lost or that were lost during residential school abuses are more descriptive than Latin when they describe fauna and flora, so there are nuances there.

NWAC understands that gender-based analysis must be culturally relevant. I do have resources in both official languages that I can provide to the committee. We call it a “CRGBA”, a culturally relevant gender-based analysis.

I will also say that NWAC has a report that I can provide, the “Indigenous Women and Impact Assessment Final Report”, and a quick guide.

I'll reiterate that NWAC takes guidance from the MMIWG final report. We want to recommend that a CRGBA lens is provided in a meaningful part of the planning, assessment, implementation, management and monitoring of resource development—so throughout the entire process.

I'll stop there, Chair. Again, it's such an honour to be here.

Thank you.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, kwe. Hello. Bonjour.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words today as we gather to debate this important bill. Part of the shameful and racist colonial policy of residential schools was to forcibly remove indigenous children, first nations, Inuit and Métis, from their communities and deny them their families' languages and culture, all while they endured widespread abuse. Many of the children, we know now, did not come home.

The root of many of the inequalities we see today can still be traced back to the loss of culture, identity and family connections, and the abuse perpetrated by the residential school system. The harmful legacy of this system continues to affect survivors, family and indigenous communities to this day. We see it in the high rates of violence, incarceration and suicide, and in the high demand for mental health and addiction services across Canada for indigenous people. We must take action to reverse this legacy.

The creation of the national council of reconciliation, through Bill C-29, would be an important step toward enhancing reconciliation and strengthening the relationship between indigenous people and the Government of Canada, a relationship based on respect and recognition of rights.

As we begin to debate this bill, I would like to step back and look at the bill from a broader historical perspective. Canada had a system of residential schools starting in the 1830s and lasting until the final school closed in 1998. The aim of these residential schools was to kill the Indian in the child.

In the 2000s, survivors of the system organized a class action, bringing light to the abuses suffered in the residential schools. I recall during my time at the Assembly of First Nations, as part of the Assembly of First Nations National Youth Council, witnessing first-hand the leadership of survivors, such as former national chief Phil Fontaine, who was one of the first leaders to courageously share publicly his experience at residential school.

I am also reminded of the late Mi'kmaq advocate Nora Bernard, whose tireless pursuit of justice led to a class action lawsuit on behalf of the survivors in Nova Scotia. It was direct action and courage from indigenous survivors that led to a legal settlement with residential school survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives, the federal government and church representatives.

In 2008, the resilience of survivors led to Canada making a formal apology to survivors for Canada's role in the residential school system. A very important part of that settlement agreement was the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which had a crucial mandate to inform all Canadians about the truth of what happened in Indian residential schools.

The commission's great work from 2007 to 2015 helped bring the truth of residential schools to light and begin the work of reconciliation among former residential school survivors, their families, their communities and, indeed, all of Canada. During this time, the commissioners conducted interviews and hearings with survivors and their families to document what had happened at these residential schools. Their work was extensive. They hosted seven national events, countless regional and community events across Canada and conducted more than 6,500 interviews, which resulted in the 94 calls to action we now discuss today.

These 94 calls to action laid the groundwork to the further reconciliation between Canadians and indigenous people. It is clear reconciliation might mean different things to different people, but the commission gave us a point to start from. It gave us a way of solidifying a complex set of ideas, bringing them together in a blueprint for addressing systemic racism in this country.

It describes reconciliation as an ongoing individual collective process that “will require commitment from all those affected including First Nations, Inuit and Métis former Indian residential school students, their families, communities, religious entities, former school employees, government and the people of Canada.” This involves all of us, and this journey of reconciliation is one we must take together.

In relation to the bill before us today, calls to action 53 to 56 directly call upon the government to do what the government plans to do with Bill C-29 today, which is to establish a national council for reconciliation.

Among the 94 calls to action, our government has already taken steps along this journey. We have created the first Indigenous Languages Act. We have for the first time an indigenous languages commissioner, and we have passed legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Bill C-15. Next week, we will be celebrating the first anniversary of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. While I am proud of these accomplishments, there is more work that needs to be done. It needs to be done at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Bill C-29 would ensure that we stay committed to this important work.

Some of the functions of an independent national council for reconciliation would be to develop and implement a multi-year national action plan to advance efforts in reconciliation, conduct research on promising practices that advance efforts for reconciliation, educate the public about indigenous peoples' realities and histories, stimulate dialogue and address all other matters that the independent council determines are necessary to advance reconciliation.

Education is an important part of the work we need to do moving forward. In my previous role as a treaty education lead in Nova Scotia, I presented many times on reconciliation, and it was only then did I realize that most Canadians were not getting the entire history of Canada. Truth and Reconciliation commissioner Murray Sinclair, who is also a former senator, said it best when he pointed out, “While Indigenous children were being mistreated in residential schools being told they were heathens, savages and pagans and inferior people — that same message was being delivered in the public schools of this country.”

All levels of government and the Canadian public have a responsibility to educate and create awareness of our shared history, not only the things we are proud of as Canadians, but also the dark chapters in our history. We must do so by taking steps to decolonize our structures and education system and putting an emphasis on indigenous knowledge and indigenous voices. When we listen to indigenous voices and knowledge to work hand in hand with our indigenous partners, we create better, more inclusive legislation. That is why this proposed legislation has been led, at every step of the way, by indigenous voices.

From the interim board to the transitional committee, legislation has been led by indigenous leaders, such as former commissioner Dr. Wilton Littlechild, who was an integral part of the interim board, and the work he is currently doing gives continuity to the valuable work that had been done already. I will emphasize that this bill responds to the voices of indigenous leaders who worked closely with survivors, families and communities affected by residential schools. They led a process to build the resources and the space to try to heal, as well as build understanding between indigenous people and other Canadians.

The Government of Canada has respected that process and looks forward to advancing this bill with members' support. In doing so, we are directly responding to TRC calls to action 53 to 56 and the recommendations of the interim board and transitional committee.

In this important historical context, I call on all members of Parliament to join me in supporting this important bill and continuing to advance reconciliation.

National Indigenous Peoples Day

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

Mr. Speaker, today is National Indigenous Peoples Day in Canada. On top of celebrating indigenous history, culture and resilience, today also marks the one-year anniversary of the royal assent of Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

UNDRIPA breathes life into aboriginal and treaty rights, and concretely advances reconciliation. For over 30 years, indigenous groups advocated at the United Nations and in Canada to be self-determining nations. UNDRIPA turns the page on the colonial legacies of the past and moves us to a new chapter based on the recognition of indigenous people's inalienable rights. As we collaboratively work to implement UNDRIPA, it will be the foundation for a renewed relationship based on fair, just and consensual relations between nations.

Our government is committed to not just celebrating National Indigenous Peoples Day, but continuing to co-develop legislation that will improve the quality of life for indigenous people across Canada.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual progress report on the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

My first question is for Madam Zinck from the Department of Natural Resources.

You spoke about how your department is trying to integrate indigenous perspectives in revamping your department, but here's the thing. In the last Parliament, this government put into law Bill C-15 to see the full implementation and adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so we need to go beyond perspectives to actually getting free, prior and informed consent. I want to define that for you: “free” means free of coercion and intimidation; “prior” means prior to development; and “informed” means knowing what the development is about and all of the impacts of that development. It's only when you have those three things that you actually have consent.

I'm going to give you an example. In Wet'suwet'en territory, the RCMP came in and took down the door of two unarmed women on their unceded territory with an axe, a chainsaw and an attack dog. Do you think that kind of behaviour is consistent with FPIC, going back to free of coercion and intimidation, yes or no?

[Leah Gazan, Winnipeg Centre, NDP]

Thank you so much, and it's nice to be a visitor on this committee today. I have big shoes to fill.

Madam Lisson, you spoke about the participation of Canadian companies in violation of the rights of indigenous peoples in the area in the Philippines. You indicated that the Philippines is an “El Dorado of human rights abuses”, including the failure to obtain proper free, prior and informed consent, a direct violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I find that troubling because the UN committee came out this week condemning Canada over failing to uphold human rights, particularly in relation to the construction of the Trans Mountain and Coastal GasLink pipelines.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said that it “profoundly regrets and is concerned” that Canada is continuing to forcibly remove Indigenous land defenders from their unceded territory. They went on to say that, in British Columbia specifically, they “have escalated their use of force, surveillance, and criminalization of land offenders and peaceful protesters to intimidate, remove and forcibly evict Secwepemc and Wet'suwet'en Nations from their traditional lands, in particular by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Community-Industry Response Group, and private security firms.”

There seems to be a pattern of behaviour, whether it's in Canada or with the participation of Canadian mining companies with terrible reputations, as we know, internationally.

We adopted a bill in the last Parliament, Bill C-15, to see the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

How is Canada violating Canadian law by not ensuring that mining activities uphold these basic human rights?

Indigenous Affairs

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, one of the 231 calls for justice calls for the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government committed to doing so in passing Bill C-15, but in courts this week, federal lawyers now say UNDRIP is only an important interpretative aid in the process for discussions. Which is it? Will the Minister of Justice stand to confirm that the rights of indigenous people in Canada are indeed substantive, as stated in UNDRIP?

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

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

Madam Chair, the member's question gives me the chance to talk about Bill C-15, UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which will turn the page on the colonial legacies within the Indian Act by giving indigenous people the ability to implement that which they fought for at the United Nations for 30 years, that which the Conservative Party voted against.

Our plan and our way of moving forward is to make sure we implement what indigenous nations all across the world have been calling for over the past 30 years. Our government did that historically last year, on June 21, 2021, when it received royal assent, and I am proud to stand with this government, which made sure that was a priority.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today for this very important study.

My first questions are for Dr. Palmater.

In the last Parliament, we passed Bill C-15 and now the government is required to ensure that all the laws are aligned with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As you mentioned, these are minimum human rights that any human being needs, indigenous or not, to have. These aren't special rights. These are just rights that haven't been afforded to indigenous peoples specifically.

How is the government's failure to uphold this new legislation by ensuring its implementation—including turning a blind eye to the violence being perpetrated against women, girls and two-spirit people around resource extraction—further exacerbating this crisis and normalization of violence?

[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.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

My next question is for Ms. Bennett.

Bill C-15 is currently being considered in the Senate. Time is running out, and I have two questions on that subject.

First, are you hopeful that this bill will receive royal assent by the end of the parliamentary session?

Second, will there be a commitment that royal assent will be granted for Bill C-15 by a governor general who would be the first indigenous person to hold that office?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Absolutely, Jamie. We have a plan for every one of the calls to action that is a federal responsibility or shared responsibility and, as you know, we're either completed or are well under way with 80% of them.

Obviously, with what's happened just now, with Bill C-5 and Bill C-8, as well as Bill C-15, we are making tremendous progress on the calls to action, and we really do believe that calls to action 72 to 76 are well under way.

Indigenous Affairs

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the report card the member has given. The TRC road map for reconciliation is so important to our government, and in objective reviews, 80% of the 76 calls to action under the sole or shared responsibility of the federal government are completed or well under way. The recent passage of Bill C-5 is an example of concrete progress, as are Bill C-8 and Bill C-15, which are coming soon. This work will require sustained and consistent action to advance Canada's shared journey of healing and reconciliation.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to remind the member that over 80% of the 76 calls to action under the sole or shared responsibility of the federal government are completed or well under way; the recent passage of Bill C-5, as an example, Bill C-8, Bill C-15. This will result in sustained and consistent action to advance Canada's shared journey of healing and reconciliation.

Citizenship Act

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my fellow eastern Ontarian for that question from the government side. It provides an opportunity for me to again state the principles of UNDRIP. The overwhelming majority of the declaration is not an issue. However, for far too long and in far too many examples in our history, we have not seen the proper parliamentary work and consultation to get some of the details in that legislation resolved early.

We heard that at committee. First nations communities and legal experts say it is important to take the time to make sure that the legislation and the interpretations do not end up in court. What we are going to have through this process is much more litigation, many more legal fees and many more difficulties in court when those dollars could be spent on tangible improvements in the lives of indigenous people.

It takes time to get it right. The government has had six years to get it right. It did not do that, which is why we are here. More work could have been done in that six years to provide more solidity on Bill C-15 and UNDRIP.

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

Madam Speaker, 13 years ago next week, the chamber of the House of Commons was filled with tears and a lot of raw emotion. Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the apology for the treatment that residential school survivors experienced at federally funded schools across the country. It marked a milestone in the healing and reconciliation process for former students.

One of those former students is Bill Sunday, a member of Akwesasne, which is in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. At that time, the grand chief of the council, Chief Tim Thompson, brought seven survivors from the community of Akwesasne to hear the words of the Government of Canada that day. I am thinking of Bill tonight and the number of residents of Akwesasne who, over the course of numerous generations, have faced hardship and discrimination.

What came of the apology at that time was the idea of establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. As alluded to in other speeches, its report came out with tangible calls to action back in 2015. To give context, that is six years ago, or 2,100 days that our federal government has had to respond to and enact the change that has been called for.

We are here today with nowhere near the pace and volume of completion and tangible progress that Canadians want us to have. A few more than a handful of calls to action have been marked as completed; others are under way. However, if we were to speak to indigenous Canadians, first nations leadership and any Canadian, they would agree that the pace of change and of enacting reconciliation has not moved in the past six years as fast as it needs to.

On Monday, our leader, the leader of the official opposition, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, and over the course of the last couple of days, after the advancement of Bill C-5 regarding a day for truth and reconciliation, which is positive, all parties have worked together to advance that legislation. It was one of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Our leader also wrote in that letter that the legislation we are debating here tonight should come back up, be moved forward, as it will be tonight, and eventually be passed. It will pass with support from our caucus and I believe from all of Parliament.

This is an important measure; do not get me wrong. However, and I say this respectfully, when we look at all the measures we need to do, the tangible, real, meaningful reconciliation is yet to come. There are a lot of big items that we as a Parliament and we as a country need to confront and address in a timely manner.

I want to acknowledge the discussions of another piece of legislation, Bill C-15, which has had many hours of debate here and in committee and is now over in the Senate. I had the honour and privilege of speaking to it, and with my perspective as a young Canadian; as somebody who has a first nations community, Akwesasne, in his riding; and as part of our Conservative caucus, I took a look at the details of the legislation. I want to speak about the opposition to Bill C-15, not because of a lack of support for reconciliation, but to illustrate to Canadians that our work as parliamentarians is far from done and we know that. What I took note of today, as we talked about the motion, is that the work we do here needs to be better.

Let us consider Bill C-15, and a lot of the words and descriptions in it, such as the description of free, prior and informed consent and its definition, or lack thereof. The NDP's opposition day motion today is an important one that I am proud to support. The first few parts of the motion speak to ending litigation in courts, where the government, first nations communities and residential school survivors are spending years and years and millions and millions of dollars, with more and more emotion going from there. That has been exacerbated because we are not taking the time for consultation and the details.

I completely support the idea of UNDRIP and the principles behind it. The details matter on that. I think it is important for Canadians, as the NDP motion said today, as Parliament will be calling on when that vote comes up in the coming days, that we see real, meaningful changes in this country, not more lawsuits, more delays, motions and millions of dollars being spent on lawyers, but rather on frontline differences to first nations communities and indigenous Canadians in every part of this country.

I want to focus some of my time tonight on the fact that we are expediting this legislation with all-party co-operation to move forward, because there are other parts of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that need to move forward now, urgently, and Canadians are saying that.

Thinking of the news that every single Canadian has had to take in over the course of the last week, of the discovery of 215 children in unmarked graves at the former Kamloops residential school, I look, from a personal perspective, at my life and my lived experience. I am 33 years old. I have an amazing, loving family that helped raise me. I am so grateful for the opportunity that I received in public education: the teachers, staff and students at Inkerman Public School, Nationview Public School and North Dundas District High School. My family and my experience in public education helped make me who I am today.

I could not imagine being a child torn away from my parents never to see them again, going to a school hundreds of kilometres away and receiving horrific treatment. We have an example that was laid bare before us last week. Children ended up buried in unmarked graves, only recognized recently. These children did not have the opportunities that so many of us were fortunate to have, surrounded by loving and caring parents in an education system and experience that were second to none. To have them deprived of that, to have that ending, is completely unacceptable.

In the letter I referenced, we talk about the work we need to do as a Parliament. We need to address this specific, dark part of our history. I was rightfully corrected after one of my social media posts where I was struggling to come up with the proper thing to say about this news. Somebody said that it is not all history, that there are still residential school survivors here today living the experience each and every day. It is not history to them. It is lived experience that they have to deal with and struggle with each and every day.

I think parliamentarians from all parties in every part of this country will hear that, yes, we need to move forward on Bill C-5. We need to move forward on this piece of legislation and on Bill C-8. We need to fund the investigation of all former residential schools in Canada where unmarked graves may exist, including where the 215 children were already discovered in Kamloops. We need to ensure that proper resources are allocated for reinterment, commemoration and the honour of any individuals discovered at any of those sites, according to the wishes of their family. We also need to develop a detailed, urgent and meaningful way of educating Canadians on the real and lived experiences of those there.

I am going to wrap up my comments tonight by bringing them back to my community in eastern Ontario. As I wrap up, I think of Leona Cook, an elder from Akwesasne. She actually lives on the American side of Akwesasne, but her story goes a long way. She was sent from Massena to western New York in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls area to a residential school. This tragedy goes even beyond borders. They took her shoes away when she went to school. Her brothers also went there, but they were placed on a different side of the campus, and she rarely, if ever, saw them.

I watched a video earlier today as I was preparing my remarks, and Leona was in it. She said, “I don't want their apology. I don't want anything from them. I would hope that they learn to treat people better than they treated us. You can't make people be somebody they don't want to be.”

We can take the lessons and the words of Leona Cook, embody them in our work and move forward on major sections of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that will matter to Canadians.

I look forward to the questions and comments and supporting the legislation before us.

Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member pointed out that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not issue recommendations but calls to action, which require action. As he knows, in the last Parliament, we passed a private member's bill to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is one of those calls to action in the TRC report. It was held up by Conservative senators and never passed.

Therefore, our government, in this Parliament, introduced Bill C-15, which would implement UNDRIP as it is called. It passed in the House of Commons without Conservative support at all. Now it has gone to the Senate.

I wonder how the hon. member can reconcile the fact that the Conservative Party seems to support some of the calls to action, but not all of them. Will he commit to helping, with those Conservative senators, to get this bill passed in the Senate and finally implement this call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

[Daniel Quan-Watson]

We estimate that approximately 80% of those for which the federal government is solely or in partnership responsible have been either completed or substantially completed. An example of substantially complete or at least well under way—I think that's the terminology used—would be C-15, where the consultations have been done; it has been presented to Parliament, and it's being considered. Of course, we can't say it's completed until the final step is there, but that would be something we would consider to be well under way.

Bills of Exchange Act

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. There is no justification for inaction on the missing and murdered indigenous women file. If anything, the pandemic has exacerbated issues specifically for women already from vulnerable communities. To see we are potentially using that as an excuse is beyond upsetting.

We also failed to follow through with the recommendations from the royal commission. We failed to follow through with the recommendations from the TRC. We have ticked off a couple boxes, but we are nowhere near what we need to achieve, so I am so frustrated.

Again, I have to mention Bill C-15, and I hope people can understand what I was trying to do with that, which was to educate. We are not there yet. We have to continue these really difficult conversations.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely the legacy of paternalism continues. I very boldly voted against Bill C-15. I know it came as a shock for a lot of people, but it was a protest. It was because we still have the Indian Act in Canada.

The parents of those children were unable to seek legal counsel because it was illegal in our country to do so. We have not done the work of reconciliation, and to pass a bill to say that it may happen with the stroke of a pen is irresponsible and it continues that paternalistic approach.

Indigenous communities have the capacity and the leadership to determine their own fate. They must be given the resources they need to do that, and that is the way forward.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am a bit shaken today as I rise to speak to Bill C-5. It obviously has to do with the events of the past week, when the remains of 215 indigenous children were uncovered behind a residential school.

Earlier, when I was thinking about this, I realized that as gruesome as this image is, it shows us that the gesture we are debating today, humble as it may be, is necessary for commemoration and remembrance in a spirit of reconciliation, but also in a spirit of truth as we deal with the bombshell of these appalling new revelations.

The thought of this image is definitely making me emotional as I speak to Bill C-5. This bill is something tangible that proves that we have started a process that is not finished, so we have to keep moving forward.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with this bill and will support it for all of the reasons it has previously mentioned, which I would like to reiterate. I think that the idea of painting a picture and telling stories would be good for everyone. As I said before, the purpose of this day is to actively remember. Memories are not a passing thing that we let slip by. They are something that we hold close and reflect on so that we can heal and act.

This is a human issue, and there are certainly many other human beings in the House. We sometimes try to keep a level head when giving certain speeches and in certain situations, but the issue of residential schools is something that strikes to the very core of who we are.

I am going to share a story I was told by one of my constituents, a story that is all too common. I listened to this story from every possible perspective, as a human being, a mother, a woman, a daughter, a sister and an elected official. This constituent is a man who was born in the Innu community of Nutashkuan, which has no road access. He told me that when he was two years old, some people showed up, took him away from his family and brought him to a residential school.

I have a three-year-old son, and I cannot even imagine my little guy being taken hundreds of kilometres away from home, far from everything he knows and loves.

This man went to a residential school for one year and was sent home the following summer. He found that first summer difficult, since he was starting to lose touch with the community. It was starting to feel foreign to him. A second summer passed, then a third. Eventually, he ended up losing the language he had learned at home. He forgot the smells, tastes and people from back home and ended up feeling like a different person from the little Innu boy he used to be. He started asking not to go home anymore, since he had lost any connection to that home.

The man ended up returning home. He did great things for his nation, but the person, the human being, the Innu man who returned home was not the same. He had been stripped of his language, his culture, his family, his people and love.

What does one do upon returning home when one is no longer oneself, when one has lost all sense of connection to the people one loved, to one's culture, to one's nation?

The man recovered his language and culture over the years, but there was always a divide. He himself became a father and even a grandfather. He now has several grandchildren, so he thinks a lot about passing on his knowledge because he himself nearly lost everything. He was taken far away and even lost contact with his parents.

Earlier, I used the word “process”, but I wanted to focus on the concept of continuity, of our living connections to both the past and the future because the ability to convey one's culture and language, to be oneself, is all one and the same.

His story is the story of so many other people, but his story shows us that we need a day like September 30 to focus on truth and reconciliation for both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples with a colonial past. I said “colonial past”, but I would add that we still have a colonial present. We need vigorous, rapid action on many fronts, and this day is one of those actions.

I talked about one particular case, but considering all the goodwill we are witnessing in the House today by virtue of symbolic gestures including ideas, values and principles, I hope this will translate into quicker action on several issues.

We are talking about first nations today, but we all know that the Indian Act still exists. It is the clearest example of systemic racism. If we had to pick one, that would be it. Someone talked about the issue of water earlier. Human beings have basic needs, and not all indigenous children have access to water at this time. Education also comes to mind. We talk about the acculturation that resulted from the assimilation process at residential schools. Meanwhile, when we know that indigenous children have less money for their education than non-indigenous children, we have to look carefully at whether indigenous languages and cultures are being protected.

There is of course just such a day, and the Bloc Québécois would like to see September 30 officially designated. Meanwhile, there are many things we can do right now. As we did with Bill C-15, I hope we can pass this legislation quickly, so that it can be implemented as soon as possible. Symbolism is essential, but we also need concrete actions on the ground, and means and resources must be given to theses communities.

This bill talks about truth and reconciliation, but I would like it to go even further and talk about the vitality of first nations and first nations children, because children are really at the heart of this.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the courage of my constituents. I am thinking about the parents who lost their children some sixty years ago, parents whose children were flown out one day and never came back or were found again, like the children in Kamloops.

My wish for them, and for all indigenous peoples, is that, one day, as they see their children leave, they can be confident, and that they will no longer think about what happened in the past. I want them to know that their children are safe and can live their lives with dignity, respect and love, as all children in this world deserve.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you for your work and research.

We know that, historically, the House of Commons is a very colonial institution. At a time when we're passing bills like Bill C-15, I encourage everybody on this committee, but also all members of the House, to really reflect on how sometimes we have to change and shift systems, so that they're truly inclusive and culturally relevant. Particularly, we have to remember that the very places where all of us sit are on indigenous lands in this country. The fact is, those are very small gifts considering the benefit of everybody in the circle.

I'll leave it at that. I won't have a grand debate, but I think this is something that really needs to be changed.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-15.

The House resumed from May 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, be read the third time and passed.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

As I said, it's a process, and a process I've certainly seen unfolding for many years. We're hearing the different targets, the commitments that are made, but with the minister being able to change targets, I guess I'm not sure that what we've done here is create anything that's really going to move us on the path to the commitment.

I'm going to shift tracks now.

This current government has committed to the UN declaration in Bill C-15. Can you tell me what consultation process you had with the indigenous community throughout Canada before you tabled this bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's comments, but I have to express a bit of disappointment in the position she is taking.

There has been extensive consultation. With respect to Bill C-262, I was with Romeo Saganash in many communities and on many travels with the INAN committee, where many people came out and talked about his direct engagement. The foundation of Bill C-15 is from Bill C-262, and our ministers, as well as other colleagues and I, were part of extensive consultations across Canada, even during the pandemic. In fact, during the INAN study itself we had many more people who came forward and spoke.

I do believe we have had a wide range of consultations, not perfect but extensive. We cannot say that we support UNDRIP in principle but are not ready to implement it. I would urge my colleague to reconsider her position, because this is a historic moment—

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging the unceded Wolastoqiyik territory from which I speak today. I have commented in this House before about the importance of this recognition and, most importantly, the actions that must accompany it.

There has never been a more important time to highlight this than with our discussion of Bill C-15, an act to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples here in Canada, in a colonial country, where land was extorted. In addition to threats and force, there were efforts to exterminate and bury the original peoples of this land. These efforts failed. Instead, they planted seeds, and what we are seeing is a reclamation, the ushering in of a new age. The time has come for reparations.

Many of my colleagues in this House know that my children are indigenous. I have also worked closely with hundreds of indigenous youth as a teacher. They have informed my work every step of the way. When I think of voting on this bill, I ask myself what their world will look like in five years, in 10 years and for the generations after them, with or without passing Bill C-15.

Bill C-15 introduces the notion of a national action plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law, with annual reporting mechanisms. It is important to note that the specifics of these measures are not articulated. This has brought with it uncertainty and a manifestation of a well-placed mistrust in government.

What Bill C-15 does well is lay out a robust preamble with ambitious, frankly incredible language. It includes value statements that acknowledge systemic discrimination, and now racism, thanks to an important amendment. It recognizes self-determination of indigenous peoples, including an acknowledgement of their legal systems. It actually says, “the Government of Canada rejects all forms of colonialism and is committed to advancing relations...that are based on good faith and on the principles of justice, democracy, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and respect for human rights”.

Can we take these words at face value, or in good faith, as the bill proclaims? The criticisms of Bill C-15 are nuanced. The most obvious issue is that the notion of good faith itself is on shaky ground. For a bill that enshrines the notion of free, prior and informed consent, consultation is severely lacking. I know that is a contested point, but I must say I believe it was lacking.

It is not enough to have closed-door meetings with national bodies or organizations. The individual rights holders have a right to be heard and to weigh in on legislation with such significant implications. All Canadians, Québécois and indigenous peoples of this land require an understanding of the declaration and what it truly means to affirm it as a universal international human rights instrument.

A more complex problem some are having with this bill is that indigenous people are tired of the gaslighting. Indigenous rights are inherent. People are born with them and no one can take them away. These rights have existed since time immemorial, and yet Canadian history presents things as though indigenous peoples were handed those rights with the coming into force of the 1982 Constitution Act. It is a nice idea, but it misses hundreds of years of colonialism and abuse rooted in the doctrine of discovery. The notions that the Crown holds sovereignty over indigenous peoples, that indigenous laws and legal traditions have no place and that the Crown has ultimate title to the land held in trust underpin all of Canadian law. They are embedded in the Canadian charter, and they have placed the burden of labour on indigenous peoples and nations to establish their rights in Canadian courts.

Bill C-15 also fails to enshrine a distinctions-based approach to implementing UNDRIP in Canada and stands more as pan-indigenous legislation, disregarding the incredible diversity within indigenous nations. It is possible that Bill C-15 may be a tool in the tool kit for future court cases, but I have to question what the future holds for Canada and indigenous nationhood with this implication. Are we preparing for years of expensive legal battles? Are we asking once again for indigenous people to bear the burden of proof in the protection of their collective inherent rights?

What will happen with the Mi'kmaq fishery dispute, with a new season set to start in June? Fishers and leadership have had to call on the United Nations for protection from violence and racist intimidation. Will the passing of Bill C-15 prevent this from happening? Will it remind the non-indigenous fishers of their treaty obligations, of their history of settlement in Unama'ki? If B.C.'s UNDRIP law is any indication, sadly, I do not think it will.

I want to take a moment to talk about the journey I have been on when it comes to the study of this bill. My first step was with the Wolastoqiyik Grand Council, under Grand Chief Spasaqsit Possesom and Wolastoqiyik grandmothers. My next step was to meet with the Wabanaki Peace & Friendship Alliance.

I reviewed numerous analyses and interpretations. I met with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre to learn more about the work of Romeo Saganash with Bill C-262. I met with local community leadership. I met with our local friendship centre. I met with the association of Iroquois and allied nations, with my hon. colleague from Vancouver Granville. I met with the Assembly of First Nations and staff from Chief Bellegarde's office. I listened and I learned.

My last stop was again with the Wolastoqiyik grandmothers, scholars and leaders in my riding. I would encourage all members of the House to also seek out that guidance.

The assertion of these critical voices from Fredericton, from my mentors and most trusted allies, is to reject Bill C-15 at third reading. This is not easy for me. The Green Party of Canada stands by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we campaigned on passing it into law. However, that is not what Bill C-15 would accomplish.

I am told to celebrate Bill C-15 as it sets out the basic minimum standards for dignity and human rights for indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples already have these rights: charter rights. They already have title to their land and to hunt and fish for their livelihoods. They already have the right to self-determination. Canadians are the ones who have a problem upholding these rights, and Canada fails to enforce them.

We have a moral, legal and fiduciary responsibility as a nation to uphold our laws. However, we have broken these laws in pursuit of domination over indigenous nations, and there is significant work ahead in dismantling these systems and structures of oppression that got us here. There are no easy fixes, such as passing Bill C-15 to check the box of reconciliation.

Clarity on the implementation of UNDRIP would have been a golden opportunity to demonstrate what a new relationship could be, to demonstrate true respect and co-operation. Canada and sovereign indigenous nations could continue on a path in their own canoes, the lesson that the Two Row Wampum teaches us.

It is 2021, and it is time for us to face the truth. We cannot reconcile if we were never conciliatory; we can only work to repair the damage done. An essential part of these reparations is respecting the first treaty we all have as humans: the treaty with the land and with our planet. We forget far too often the interconnectedness of all life and our role and responsibility in preserving this place for future generations. What we have now is a race to consume resources.

There is a component of the bill that reflects sustainable development, but what this conversation must include is a re-evaluation of what that means. What is the value of protecting old-growth forests, food security and cultural safety? How are we to measure the success of Bill C-15? There are too many questions left unanswered.

The study of Bill C-15 has been a roller-coaster ride for me, and I wish to recognize the immense privilege I have as a non-indigenous person in pursuing this study. It has been difficult to see the infighting and division among people I look up to, among some of my personal heroes. I want to say for the record that it is okay to support the bill, and it is okay to reject it. What is not okay is ignoring our role and responsibilities as treaty people and treating each other with disrespect, which is a legacy that remains, with or without this bill.

Finally, whether Bill C-15 receives royal assent or not will not determine the future for my children. They are Wolastoqiyik. They are people of the beautiful and bountiful river. They are rooted to this land. They know who they are, and they know their rights.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I have a great amount of respect for Romeo Saganash. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity to serve with him in the last Parliament.

That being said, Bill C-262 was a flawed piece of legislation for many of the same reasons that Bill C-15 is a flawed piece of legislation. I was unable to support Bill C-262 and I am unable to support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite spoke extensively about resource extraction. Throughout the debate, a number of his colleagues have stood and said the UNDRIP represents a veto and FPIC essentially means a veto.

Could the member highlight where in the text of Bill C-15 he finds the term “veto”, and if he could maybe give us more insight into why that misconception is being reiterated by his party and his colleagues throughout this debate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, kwe, kwe. Ulaakut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour.

I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit first nation from my home in Oakville and my riding of Oakville North—Burlington.

I am happy to speak today on this proposed legislation as it represents a critical step forward on the path to reconciliation. This legislation has been strengthened through extensive engagement and consultation with indigenous peoples at every step in its development. I believe the greatest strength of Bill C-15's development was the input of indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast, which positively shaped the bill. Collaborating with indigenous partners through the engagement process has been pivotal in ensuring that we get it right.

As members know, the legislation is based on Romeo Saganash's private members' bill, Bill C-262. Mr. Saganash was the first parliamentary champion to endorse The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, often referred to as UNDRIP, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

A consultation draft of this bill was shared during engagement sessions to seek feedback from indigenous organizations in order to improve and amend the draft. During engagement, the government received contributions from many groups. In total, over 700 virtual sessions took place. They included sessions with national and regional indigenous organizations, indigenous rights holders, modern treaty and self-governing nations, as well as with women, youth, two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual plus persons.

This included regional engagement sessions where more than 450 people participated providing feedback and advice on potential enhancements to the consultation draft. Provincial and territorial governments, experts and industry stakeholders also informed the development of the bill.

We heard consistent calls to include strong language in the preamble on the need to consider the diversity of indigenous peoples; recognize inherent rights and respect treaties; include a reference to the historic and ongoing injustices and discrimination suffered by indigenous peoples and marginalized groups; acknowledge the role of the declaration as a framework for reconciliation, justice, healing and peace; and address systemic racism and discrimination.

We also heard consistent calls to consider the importance of educating Canadians to ensure that indigenous rights are understood and valued; recognize the right of self-determination and self-government as vital, and that the need for a strong distinctions-based approach throughout the legislation is essential; emphasize the importance of respecting article 37, which outlines respect of treaty rights, self-government agreements and other constructive agreements, and is important for modern treaty partners; not interfere with work under way at regional and provincial levels; and include references to climate change and sustainable development.

Because of this valuable feedback, the bill includes strong language in the preamble on the need to consider the diversity of indigenous peoples, recognize inherent rights and respect treaties. I should point out that all Canadians have access to this wealth of ideas and input. We have produced the “What We Learned” report, which is publicly available on the Canada website.

Engagement with partners did not stop when the bill was introduced. Ministers, their offices and the departments have been meeting extensively with indigenous partners and other stakeholders since introduction, and they will continue to do so throughout the parliamentary process. We learned from indigenous partners that there was much consensus around further suggested changes to the bill, including legislation that has been further improved by amendments as it was making its way through Parliament.

As an example, Bill C-15 required the development of the initial action plan as soon as possible and set a maximum three-year timeline. Based on feedback from indigenous partners during engagement sessions, the bill has now been amended to shorten the maximum timeline to a period of two years instead of three years for the development of the action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples.

We recognize that collaboration with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners takes time, but it should proceed with purpose. Bill C-15 now includes language from the declaration emphasizing that all doctrines, policies and practices based on racist or discriminatory notions are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust. An important amendment will modernize our laws by making specific reference to the fact that Canadian courts have stated that aboriginal and treaty rights are not frozen in time. Instead, they are capable of growth and evolution.

Most recently, we heard from the national indigenous organizations and indigenous women's organization at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. They stressed the urgency of passing this legislation, and I would like to share some of their testimony today in the House.

The president of the Women of the Métis Nation, Melanie Omeniho, said:

Elders and representatives from across the Métis motherland have noted that this historic piece of legislation, if implemented according to its spirit and intent, could have the transformative power of an indigenous bill of rights. Bill C-15, the proposed UNDRIP act, represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reset both the scales of justice and the balance of power so that indigenous women, children and two-spirit and gender-diverse people are protected, safe and free.

The Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada vice-president Gerri Sharpe said:

Bill C-15 is a step forward for Inuit women and all Canadians on the journey towards reconciliation. It is important because it states that Inuit women will have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that affect them; the right to improvement of economic and social conditions including education, housing, health, employment and social security; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and the same rights and freedoms guaranteed to Inuit men.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami president Natan Obed said:

Bill C-15...is very focused on two particular concepts: one, the alignment of laws and policies within this country with the UN declaration; and two, the creation of an action plan.... Indigenous peoples' rights are human rights. This is a class of human rights that needs this particular legislation, and we do hope that Canadians accept the rights of indigenous peoples as human rights in this country.

Native Women's Association of Canada president Lorraine Whitman said:

UNDRIP is about us, our families, our communities, the thousands of pages of the national inquiry testimony and its calls for justice. Specifically, call to action 1.3 demands that government end the political marginalization of indigenous women.

David Chartrand of the Métis Nation Council said:

...change is coming and UNDRIP is another pathway that's going to really let us play catch-up so that indigenous and non-indigenous people can compare economically, educationally and so forth. It's about catching up. We're slowly catching up, which is something we should have done 50 years ago or 80 years ago.

If approved by Parliament, the bill will also require the Government of Canada, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, to take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration, prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the declaration's objectives and table an annual report. Co-development of the action plan will also be a further opportunity to work in close partnership on implementation.

We are ushering in a new era in which we build stronger and lasting relationships, close socio-economic gaps and promote greater prosperity for indigenous peoples and all Canadians. Together we are building a brighter future and a better Canada for today, tomorrow and into our shared future. That is why this legislation is so crucial. Built by extensive indigenous input and strengthened by committee amendments, Bill C-15 must now become the law of the land.

To conclude, I would like to affirm the words of AFN Chief Perry Bellegarde, who said, “We need to seize this moment and not miss the opportunity to get Bill C-15 passed. It is a road map to reconciliation.”

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about how Bill C-15 could potentially affect Quebec and its ability to make sovereign decisions. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on how Bill C-15 is connected to Quebec sovereignty.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Oakville North—Burlington.

Today, I am speaking to members from the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, Attawandaron, Anishinabe, Huron-Wendat, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation.

I would also like to acknowledge that I arrived here as an athlete. An Inuit invention, the kayak, was originally built and invented for transportation and hunting. I got to use it for sport, and I am very grateful for that.

Just over 10 years ago, Canada endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Then, in 2019, the Prime Minister made a commitment to introduce legislation on its implementation before the end of 2020, and here we are today at its third reading in the House.

I wish to begin by acknowledging all of the hard work, especially the significant role that indigenous leaders from Canada, like Willie Littlechild, have played in the development of the declaration itself over the last 25 years. It is a lifetime of indigenous advocacy and tireless efforts championing indigenous and human rights that have brought us to this important milestone today.

Bill C-15 is a turning point. For far too long, and despite robust constitutional and legal protections, indigenous rights have not been fully respected. While progress continues to be made, it has been slow and grave harms have continued to occur, including to indigenous women and girls.

We have a responsibility, as a country, to recognize and respect the rights of indigenous peoples, to uphold the protections that are part of the fabric of our nation, and that as a government we take steps to ensure that those rights are reflected and considered when we make new laws or introduce new policies. We must work together with indigenous peoples to build our relationship and seek to avoid lengthy court cases whenever we can. No less important is for all of us, as Canadians, to understand why this is relevant for us, to our lives, and to debunk myths and misconceptions so that we can move forward inclusively with values that ensure dignity and respect for all.

Indigenous rights are not new rights. However, the declaration acknowledges and affirms the rights of indigenous peoples. Implementing the declaration is about respecting human rights. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called upon the Government of Canada to fully adopt and implement the declaration as the framework for reconciliation. Bill C-15 responds to call to action 43 to do just that.

The action plan that is required under Bill C-15 to be developed in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples will also respond to the call to action 44. This call to action requires the Government of Canada to develop a national action plan, strategies and other concrete measures to achieve the goals of the declaration.

Development of an action plan will require broad and in-depth engagement with indigenous partners across the country to discuss their various priorities. Bill C-15 sets out minimum requirements for what the action plan must address. These elements of the legislation were included in direct response to what was heard consistently throughout the fall 2020 engagement process with indigenous partners. These measures are focused on three areas.

First are measures to address injustices, combatting prejudice and eliminating all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples, indigenous elders, youth, children, women, men, persons with disabilities, gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons. I would note that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, of which I am a proud member and contributor, has unanimously adopted an important amendment to this provision, which is the addition of a specific reference to racism and systemic racism. The addition acknowledges that while there are linkages between discrimination and racism, there are specific harms and legacies in relation to racism that need to be identified and addressed. The Government of Canada wants to make its position clear that it will stand against racism and work toward eradicating it wherever it exists.

Second, the plan must also contain measures promoting mutual respect and understanding as well as good relations, including through human rights education.

Third are measures relating to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy, or other accountability measures that will be need to be developed with respect to the implementation of the declaration. During one of our committee studies, a second amendment to clause 6 was adopted relating to the time frame associated with the development of the action plan.

Throughout engagement, and again through the committee process, we heard from indigenous peoples on the need to reduce the three-year maximum time frame to a shorter one. As a result, we did just that, bringing it down to a maximum of two years to reinforce the Government of Canada's commitment to work with indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast to elaborate how to turn commitments into action and to achieve the objectives of the declaration.

These are minimum requirements of the action plan. We recognize while we need to include measures for reviewing and amending the plan, this initial phase is the beginning of a process, one that will continue to evolve over time in partnership with indigenous peoples.

In terms of implementation of the declaration, this is a whole-of-government responsibility. Bill C-15 implicates all federal ministers in the development and implementation of an action plan, as it should. Reconciliation is not the responsibility of a single minister or government department. Bringing about meaningful change requires action from all areas of government.

This government's Speech from the Throne and ministerial mandate letters have made it clear the path to reconciliation requires everyone's participation. Achieving the objectives of the declaration and further aligning federal laws with the declaration will take time. However, we are not starting from scratch and we are not sitting idle while we wait for the development of an action plan.

The Government of Canada has taken concrete measures to advance its relationship with indigenous peoples in a way that aligns with the principles set out in the declaration. This includes areas such as enabling self-determination and self-government through the recognition and implementation of rights, the establishment of permanent bilateral mechanisms to jointly identify priorities with indigenous leaders and an increased indigenous participation in decision-making on socio-economic and land matters, to name a few.

As of May 2020, there were nine federal laws that refer to and were created within the spirit of the declaration. They include laws regarding indigenous languages, indigenous child and family services, and indigenous participation in environmental impact assessments and other regulatory processes. We know much more work is required with indigenous peoples to ensure federal laws more fully protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the ongoing health, food security, housing, economic, governance, policing and other vulnerabilities and gaps that continue to impact indigenous peoples and communities. We are working hard to create new opportunities to turn the page on a colonial structure and build stronger and lasting relationships, close socio-economic gaps and promote greater prosperity for indigenous peoples and all Canadians.

Over the past months, we engaged closely with national indigenous organizations and heard from modern treaty and self-governing nations, rights holders, indigenous youth, and national and regional indigenous organizations, including those representing indigenous women and two-spirit and LGBTQ2+ peoples on the proposed legislation. The feedback we received has shaped the development of the legislative proposal.

Bill C-15 now includes an acknowledgement of the ongoing need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples, a respect for gender diversity, the importance of respecting treaties and agreements and the need to take distinctions into account while implementing the legislation, including with elders, youth, children, persons with disabilities, women, men, gender-diverse and two-spirit persons.

What is needed is a fundamental and foundational change. It is about respecting indigenous rights and respecting diversity. It is about righting historical wrongs. It is about shedding our colonial past. It is about writing the next chapter together, as partners, and building meaningful relationships and trust in that process.

This will not happen overnight, but we must take the necessary steps along that path, starting with implementing Bill C-15. I look forward to the journey we take to get there. It has been a sincere honour and privilege to serve on this committee with my colleagues.

The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, be read the third time and passed.

Indigenous Affairs

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, we take very seriously the issues that relate to indigenous reconciliation and UNDRIP.

We thank the member opposite for her contributions to this matter in her previous role as minister of justice. The government stood behind Romeo Saganash's private member's bill in the last Parliament. It is unfortunate that it did not secure passage at that time due to Conservative opposition in the Senate.

That is why we have tabled Bill C-15, why we are working with opposition parties to secure the passage of Bill C-15, and why we are very keen to have UNDRIP see the light of day and achieve royal assent.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Independent, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, speaking to the UNDRIP legislation today, the justice minister said that if Bill C-262 had not been delayed in the last Parliament, the government would be working on an action plan for its implementation.

Let us not kid ourselves. The fact is the government delayed the important work of true reconciliation due to political expediency. There have been over five years of promises, and very little action on rights recognition.

Bill C-15 is a small first step. Will the government stop making excuses, do its work, get its own house in order and change its laws, policies and operational practices to ensure indigenous peoples can be self-determining?

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, it is high time that we passed Bill C-15.

First nations peoples are human beings, and that is precisely what Bill C-15 says. As human beings, they must enjoy the same rights as all other human beings. This is 2021, and it is about time that was acknowledged and implemented.

However, it is not right for parliamentarians, who represent the people, to be denied the right to speak to and discuss these issues.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his hard work on Bill C-15 and for getting it to this point. I want to ask him about the amendments made by committee and his comments with respect to going forward. Does he believe they strengthened the bill and is he satisfied with the amendments made at the committee stage?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to comment on the fact that the government cannot even manage its own legislative agenda properly. That is why we are in this situation today.

The government introduced Bill C-19 rather than prioritizing Bill C-15, and yet the Liberals claim they do not want an election. This government prorogued Parliament last summer, when we could have used that time to work faster and more responsibly.

I would just like to point out to the minister that there seems to be a real leadership problem when it comes to the government's legislative agenda.

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

Madam Speaker, the reason why we are here is because of the general dilatory tactics of the member's party on every single matter that comes up in front of the House. We can recall the fall economic statement, which got more debate time than a budget. The Conservatives keep throwing up tactic after tactic to delay debate, which has forced our hand.

I would imagine the hon. member was here in the last session and would remember the high-fiving of certain Conservative members who voted against Romeo Saganash's bill. That is not reconciliation; Bill C-15 is reconciliation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am torn on this matter and I am going to be very candid with the minister. I am rarely less than decisive. I fully support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but the process by which we come to this place has left indigenous communities, first nations, Métis and Inuit, divided on the matter. The right path, the right way to vote, is not at all clear to me, and it certainly is the case that we cannot wait any longer to take the steps we need to take for reconciliation.

There are a number of very significant first nations policy analysts and a number of legal analysts who are on both sides, and of first nations themselves that say they were not consulted in the development of Bill C-15. It is therefore really important that we hear the different perspectives and we ask the hon. minister if he does not regret that there was—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this morning's debate, which will be very short.

As the critic for the status of women, I would have liked to see the government have the same sense of urgency when it came to applying the recommendations of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls as it did this morning for Bill C-15.

How much time has been spent so far debating a document as important as Bill C-15? I will give the House just one guess: barely an hour and 43 minutes and the minister is already imposing time allocation.

Does the minister think that one hour and 43 minutes is enough time to debate this important issue? What about the time allocation on Bill C-19, prorogation of Parliament and obstruction in committee? This government behaves like a majority government when voters gave it a minority mandate.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

The answer is no. This is a priority for the government, for indigenous peoples, and for indigenous leaders across the country.

The fact is, we have already covered this. We have already debated the substance of Bill C-15 because we debated its previous iteration, Bill C-262, which was introduced by our former colleague, Romeo Saganash. The previous Parliament passed that bill after a debate to which the Bloc Québécois contributed its opinion.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples itself has been around for 15 years, so it is not new.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-15—Notice of time allocation motion

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his good question, which gives me the opportunity to inform members of the House about what to expect over the next few days.

This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Bloc Québécois opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate at third reading stage of Bill C-15 on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Wednesday, May 26 for consideration in a committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Finance.

Monday, May 31 will be for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

As my dear colleague mentioned, next week we will be in our constituencies so I wish everyone an excellent week. I look forward to seeing everyone for the last period of five consecutive weeks.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is almost like a hamster wheel. I hear this debate go on and on. This bill does not in any way imply that there is a veto. A veto is an absolute concept in law, whereas free, prior and informed consent requires one to consider all the facts and the law in any given circumstance and situation.

I would agree with the testimony we heard at committee from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond when she said that hysteria has been created around FPIC that is not based on legal fact, has no legal merit and certainly does not form any part of Bill C-15. I hope, moving forward, we can accept this.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my friend's comments. I know she has been working diligently over the last several years, not only on Bill C-262, but also on Bill C-15.

Much discussion has taken place with respect to FPIC. I would like to get a sense from my friend opposite of her views on it, and whether it constitutes a veto, or whether that is a strategy being used to deflect the real aspects of Bill C-15. I would ask her to comment with respect to her experience in engaging with other indigenous leaders and communities on the perspective of FPIC.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I cannot reiterate strongly enough that this bill is long overdue.

Canada was built on the violent dispossession of the lands and resources of indigenous peoples. It is the kind of violence and genocide that we see perpetrated against indigenous women and girls, 2SLGBTQQIA individuals and sacred life-givers, including our mother earth and waters. We see a continuation of environmental destruction, supported by governments that violate human rights and continue to marginalize and oppress indigenous peoples on our own lands.

While big oil, big corporations and Canada benefit from resources, we continue to not even have our minimum human rights respected. The most minimum human right that anyone, indigenous or not, needs to have is joy. Our rights are constantly up for debate while corporations benefit.

I will be honest here today: There is no political party in this country that has not participated, or that does not continue to participate, in the violation of indigenous rights. Indigenous peoples on our very own lands are consistently and constantly a second thought, and our rights are often totally disregarded. This normalization of violating the rights of indigenous peoples needs to end. It is time that our very own Constitution is upheld, which includes aboriginal rights and title, along with the international legal obligations that Canada has signed onto.

We need to change this. We need to change the foundation of our relationship, which was built on human rights violations of indigenous peoples that were legislated through the Indian Act, and create a legal foundation that is grounded in a respect for human rights of all peoples, including indigenous peoples. We need the minimum human rights that are articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Although imperfect, I, along with our NDP team, believe that Bill C-15 is a step forward in upholding and protecting the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples in Canada. As I mentioned, it is long overdue.

I will remind the House of what the General Assembly highlighted last December. It indicated that the declaration has “positively influenced the drafting of several constitutions and statutes at the national and local levels and contributed to the progressive development of international and national legal frameworks and policies.” In addition, it is also important to remember that the UN General Assembly has reaffirmed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the 10th time since its adoption by consensus. This means there is no country in the world that formally opposes the declaration.

After the second reading of Bill C-15, we undertook a study at committee, and we are reporting the bill today with amendments. I would like to take this opportunity to address some of these amendments.

First, as a legislator it is my legal obligation to be clear about the purpose or purposes of any legislation. As such, our party supported an amendment at committee to clarify that Bill C-15 had two purposes, which include to affirm the declaration as having application in Canadian law; and, second, to provide a framework for the implementation of the declaration.

This bill would not “Canadianize” the declaration, but confirms that United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has application in Canadian law as affirmed in preambular paragraph 18, which reads, “Whereas the Declaration is affirmed as a source for the interpretation of Canadian law”, in addition to other legal frameworks which include indigenous law, the Constitution, international law and treaties with indigenous peoples.

This legal reality has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as early as 1987. Even the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has heavily relied on provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in their rulings about the racial discrimination that first nations children face living on reserve.

The declaration, in fact, has provided a source for legal interpretation for courts and tribunals, and protection of children, families and communities. Our children need this legislative protection to ensure that they are able to thrive, not just survive, to ensure that children and families are afforded the legal protection to ensure they can live with dignity and human rights, especially with the current government who willfully violates their rights.

As former Chief Justice Dickson confirmed in 1987, “The various sources of international human rights law—declarations, covenants, conventions, judicial and quasi-judicial decisions of international tribunals, customary norms—must, in my opinion, be relevant and persuasive sources for interpretation of the Charter’s provisions.”

Another significant amendment to Bill C-15 I would like to highlight is the inclusion of the living tree doctrine in preambular paragraph 19. This is a critical amendment. The living tree doctrine recognizes that rights are not frozen in time and that rights and treaties need to evolve overtime as our nations evolve and circumstances change.

The living tree doctrine is an important constitutional principle, which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. An example I would like to highlight is that in the 2004 Same-sex Marriage Reference Case, the court emphasized that the Constitution was a “living tree” subject to “progressive interpretation”.

The Supreme Court in this case ruled as follows, “The 'frozen concepts' reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.”

In the Hunter v. Southam Inc. case of 1984, the Supreme Court described the doctrine in the following way, “A constitution....is drafted with an eye to the future....It must, therefore, be capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political and historical realities often unimagined by its framers.”

For example, the $5 given to treaty people during treaty days every year should have gone up with inflation. I would argue that it is not a symbolic act but an act of bad faith. Let us not forget Canada was built on the violent and ongoing genocide of indigenous peoples. This is why this amendment is so critical. We need legal tools to hold the government to account when it acts in bad faith.

Five dollars fails to take into consideration inflation or compensation owed for destroying lands, impairing our ability to participate in traditional forms of sustenance, perpetuating violence in our communities and leaving many unsheltered on our very own lands, while the masses and corporations continue to privilege off the human rights violations of indigenous peoples. This is gross privilege.

Since the time of invasion, our nations have gone through change, whether by choice or as a result of aggressive assimilation policies. This transformed our families and nations. However, although our colonizers set out to eradicate us, we are still here standing strong in the protection of our rights, the very rights that our ancestors put their lives on the line to protect.

We are still in this battle, whether it is in the courtroom or at the end of an RCMP sniper gun, as witnessed in Wet'suwet'en territory or at the military siege of Kanehsatake. We continue to stand strong. Now we see the very little land that has not been exploited is still under threat, and it makes us stand even stronger.

We will never concede our rights, and our rights evolve and change over time. These are indigenous lands, yet we still have to fight for crumbs against the disregard of our treaties and a lack of good faith by governments to respectfully interpret the meaning, intent, and letter of them. I have not forgotten, we have not forgotten and we will never ever forget.

This is also an important constitutional principle. It is why the new preambular paragraph 19 is so important. It states:

Whereas the protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights—recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—is an underlying principle and value of the Constitution of Canada, and Canadian courts have stated that such rights are not frozen and are capable of evolution and growth

I would suggest, in this particular instance, that UNDRIP is a new political, historical and certainly legal reality that Bill C-15 is acknowledging. I must admit, however, that I would have preferred this addition to be in the operative articles of the bill. In fact, I believe that it belongs in the operative articles, as some have proposed. However, I also recognize that the preambular paragraphs have legal effect, as confirmed in article 13 of the federal Interpretation Act.

The last amendment I wish to speak to is the addition of systemic racism as one of the measures to combat injustice and human rights violations against indigenous peoples.

We have serious issues with systemic racism in this country, and we have witnessed examples that have cost lives. The many indigenous lives that have been lost at the hands of the police include Eishia Hudson, Jason Collins and Colten Boushie. There is also the late Joyce Echaquan, who lost her life trying to get assistance in a health care system that intimidated her, mocked her, disrespected her life and let her die under its care, as though her life was of no value, leaving her children without a mother and her partner widowed. In addition, there is a continued lack of action to address the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls, and we see a rapidly rising movement of white nationalism and a growing number of white supremacists around the world and right here in Canada. This is a critical amendment to Bill C-15.

We need to move forward in a manner that ensures that all indigenous people can live with dignity and human rights in Canada. We need to begin living up to our identity as a country that values and respects human rights. We need to model behaviours and decisions that actually reflect that. That is still not happening in Canada, as we are witnessing with the continued violation of indigenous rights because, although the rhetoric that we are all equal in Canada continues, there is still a very clear division between the oppressed and the oppressor. The Canadian government continues to perpetuate a relationship of violent settler neo-colonialism in real time.

There is still no action plan to address the ongoing violence against indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA individuals, and it is two years late. There are 10 non-compliance orders to immediately end racial discrimination against first nations children on reserve. People have unequal access to health care and education. There is continued inaction and a mould crisis. There has been a failure to end all boil-water advisories on reserve, in spite of the Liberal promise to end this by 2021.

The number of children in care is more than at the height of the residential school system. We have the highest level of unsheltered individuals in this country as a result of the violent dispossession of lands that left many of us homeless on our own lands.

There continues to be violation of land rights, privileging corporations over upholding the human rights of indigenous peoples. These include, but are not limited to, Kanesatake, Site C, TMX, Keystone XL, Muskrat Falls, Wet'suwet'en territory, Baffinland Mary River Mine and 1492 Land Back Lane. There is a continuation of the violation of the Supreme Court ruling in the Mi’kmaq fishing dispute, more than two decades after that decision was made. We continue to see a violation of our constitutional and international legal obligations in this House, and we are obliged to uphold these as members of Parliament. The list goes on.

The violation of indigenous rights by the current Liberal government is not even limited to Canada, but is perpetuated globally. In fact, Toronto-based Justice and Corporate Accountability Project, a legal advocacy group, noted, “28 Canadian mining companies and their subsidiaries were linked to 44 deaths, 403 injuries, and 709 cases of criminalization, including arrests, detentions, and charges in Latin America between 2000 and 2015.”

A working group states, “The financial and political backing that the government of Canada has provided to its mining companies has been strengthened by the de facto conversion of its cooperation agencies into mining investment promotion bodies.”

This working group reported human rights violations by Canada against indigenous peoples related to mining in, but not limited to, Venezuela, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Guatemala.

We are watching on the news and social media events unfolding right now in Sheikh Jarrah, and Canada is turning a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing. It is failing to uphold international legal obligations, and children and loved ones continue to die. That is another gross example of Canada and the privileged picking and choosing when to uphold human rights, which is when it suits economic interests and does not threaten power and privilege. This must change.

I share this because, although we are working toward passing a bill to affirm the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law, in addition to other legal frameworks including indigenous law, international law, our Constitution and treaties, we consistently fail to uphold rights.

We must move forward in a manner that upholds these human rights in Canada and around the world. Lives depend on this. We have moved beyond a time when rhetoric cuts it, and we know what the violation of rights looks like in real time. It is denying individuals of their right to live in dignity, sometimes resulting in death.

We need to change this. Lives are on the line. Although Bill C-15 is not perfect, it is a start, and it must be followed with action. It is only then that we will achieve justice. There is no reconciliation without justice.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak again on Bill C-15, which seeks to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

At this point, we are cautiously confident that it will finally pass. I say “finally” because we have been waiting for this bill for a very long time. We hope it will pass quickly, although it is still not a done deal.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted on September 13, 2007. It is now May 2021, almost 15 years later, and it still has not been enshrined in Canadian law. It has been 15 years. Fifteen years is a long time. Fifteen years is the length of four Parliaments. Fifteen years is also slightly less than the difference in life expectancy between Inuit people and the rest of the Canadian population. Among men, the gap was 15 years in 2017. Fifteen years is half a generation, one-sixth of a century. That is a long time within a human lifetime.

Time passes, the world changes, but not for indigenous rights. Nothing moves, nothing changes, because Canada is the land of stalling. It is time for things to change. Despite a few flaws, we believe, as does the Assembly of First Nations, that we must move forward and pass Bill C-15 as quickly as possible, even if that means amending it later.

Today I would like to first talk about the history of our party as it relates to the Declaration and then dispel some persistent myths that are often associated with this bill.

Today I would like to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill even though the amendments we wanted to make to clarify the scope of the bill were not incorporated. We have long been convinced that implementing the UNDRIP is essential for reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and we still believe that.

The Bloc was there well before the declaration was signed. When the working group on the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples met in Geneva in September 2004, the Bloc was there to advocate for their right to self-determination. The Bloc was there again in 2006 during the final sprint to adoption, when we had to redouble our efforts alongside indigenous peoples and the international community. The Bloc was there in 2007, condemning Canada for voting against the declaration at the United Nations general assembly. The Bloc was there in the years that followed to put pressure on Harper's Conservative government to sign the declaration.

The Bloc was there, the Bloc is there, and the Bloc will always be there to promote the declaration. Parliament's ratification will not only recognize the inherent rights, emphasis on “inherent”, of indigenous peoples, but also clarify them for everyone because, let me remind the House, indigenous peoples' rights are not a privilege. Indigenous rights are legitimate and, as I said, inherent.

The Bloc Québécois believes that implementing the UN declaration will not only improve social and economic conditions for indigenous communities, but also guarantee greater predictability for companies operating in the primary sector, while ensuring sustainable and responsible resource development.

In that sense, if only in that sense, it will be a win for everyone, including the economy and first nations.

I stated earlier that time is standing absolutely still for indigenous rights. I am therefore appealing to my colleagues from the other parties and those in the upper chamber. It is now up to them to get the clock going again.

I have to admit that I have never understood the Conservative Party's visceral opposition to the declaration. Last August, in an interview with Perry Bellegarde, the Leader of the Opposition justified his objections to the declaration by saying that, in his view, case law already creates a duty to consult, so there is no value added in the declaration. If it changes nothing, why be afraid of adopting it?

At the same time, the Conservatives are trying to scare us. We saw this during the debates and in the last few minutes. They say that adopting the declaration will block projects because it creates new duties to consult.

They cannot, on the one hand, say that it will not change anything and, on the other, fear that it might change something. The Leader of the Opposition should clarify his thoughts. Is he against the change because it will change something, or is he against it because it will not change anything? He will have to explain this to us because his argument is self-contradictory and sounds to me more like an excuse.

Now is the time to dispel myths like this one. I cannot remain silent about the notion of free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, which is much more controversial than it should be. It has been at the centre of these debates, and it haunts the nightmares of my colleagues in the official opposition.

Opponents to the declaration have said over and over that free, prior and informed consent is tantamount to a veto. Nothing could be further from the truth. This time, the legislator's intention is evident, as it was in Bill C-262 introduced by my predecessor Roméo Saganash, to whom we owe a lot in this fight and whom I salute with respect and friendship. The legislator in no way sees FPIC as a veto. The Minister of Justice has said so many times. The courts cannot ignore that fact.

The declaration is absolutely clear on this issue. It states, and I quote:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent....

That is a requirement to consult in good faith. There is no mention at all of a veto in the declaration. It cannot be repeated often enough, or perhaps it bears repeating until it is understood, that this argument falls in on itself.

For me, the legislator's intent also seems very clear with regard to the scope of the bill. It applies only to areas under this Parliament's jurisdiction. Even though that is something that stands to reason and that just seems to make sense, the sponsor of the bill still went to the effort of reiterating that Bill C-15 will not impose any obligations on any other levels of government. That could not be more clear. In fact, it is crystal clear. We need to keep in mind that, if the members of the Bloc Québécois support this bill, as I am sure the government members do, it is because they understand and believe that the incorporation of the declaration into our laws should be done in partnership with the provinces and with complete respect for their areas of jurisdiction.

I must insist on this point.

In an article in the most recent issue of Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, lawyer Camille Fréchette wrote, “In light of the sharing of jurisdictions within the Canadian federal government system, the implementation of the right to [free, prior and informed consent] directly concerns the provinces, which have exclusive jurisdiction over public lands and natural resource development”.

We believe that the different levels of government must work together if the act is to be properly implemented. The provinces will have to be consulted and participate in the implementation process to ensure consistency. In our humble opinion, this bill will only help with reconciliation, provided that everyone acts in good faith and strives to maintain a dialogue.

On that note, I want to make a little aside to clarify something, because we must be thorough and there is a lot of disinformation about Bill C-15. Some people have tried to claim that the Bloc Québécois was jeopardizing Quebec's sovereignty. That is an absurd idea, but I can refute that claim with the example of territory.

The Constitution Act, 1867, makes it clear that the provinces own and are the guardians of their territory. To paraphrase constitutional expert André Binette, if that were not the case, then Hydro-Québec would not exist. Quebec's inalienable sovereignty over its territory just reinforces the need for a collaborative approach to ensure that the declaration is implemented consistently and seamlessly.

In 1985, led by René Lévesque's government, the Quebec National Assembly recognized 10 and later 11 indigenous nations on Quebec territory. In 2006, the House of Commons recognized Quebec as a nation. The Bloc Québécois has said and will say again that nation-to-nation dialogue is the only way to achieve peace and harmony, among other things.

That said, at this point, I think we have debated the implementation of the declaration long enough and should move on to the next step. Let me point out that indigenous nations have been waiting almost 15 years — 163 months or 4,990 days, to be exact — for us as legislators to take decisive action. Indigenous peoples have waited long enough. I would venture to say that they have waited too long. Their eyes are fixed on us, and the clock is ticking. It is up to us to take action now, because their inherent rights are at stake.

Tshi nashkumitin. Thank you.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all the work he does at committee as well. The really frustrating piece around this bill for me is that the Liberals are taking a victory lap, because they say they are fulfilling one of the truth and reconciliation requirements by implementing UNDRIP. In reality they are not implementing UNDRIP: They are putting into legislation a plan to make a plan to attempt to bring in UNDRIP. That is extremely frustrating to me.

Again, to go back to the beginning of all of this, it is the “say what you mean and mean what you say” principle. Bill C-15 does not implement UNDRIP. It provides a plan to develop a plan to start implementing UNDRIP. It is not bringing any clarity to the situation. It is not enabling us to move forward. It just leaves us in the limbo we were in prior to Bill C-15.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Chair, the Canadian Constitution applies clear across the country. I do not think the member is disputing that. Whatever she is talking about in terms of our trade disputes, I do not think that Bill C-15 would clarify any of that. If anything, we would end up in an area of less clarity than before.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Romeo Saganash for introducing Bill C-262, which unfortunately died on the Order Paper, but is being resurrected as Bill C-15 in spite of what the member said in his speech.

Experience shows that lack of consent to project development is often the cause of indigenous crises. That is what happened with the Oka crisis and again this winter with the Wet'suwet'en.

Can the member tell us what is problematic about ensuring that natural resource development projects are carried out properly and in accordance with the principle of free, prior and informed consent?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Chair, I am happy to add my voice to this debate around Bill C-15.

I recognize that it has been a long and arduous battle to get the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples passed through the UN, and I also recognize the work of Romeo Saganash, with whom I had the privilege of sitting on committee in the past. I developed a friendship with him, and it was a pleasure working with him on committee.

Bill C-15 is an interesting bill. It is a severe case, in my opinion, of a lack of doing what one says and saying what one is doing. This seems to be typical of the Liberals. They say they are doing something when in fact they are not, or they are doing something when they say they are not doing something. Again, Bill C-15 is one of those and, in my opinion, does just that. Conservatives typically say what they mean and mean what they say, and if we do not mean it, we do not say it.

One thing that is frustrating for me about this particular bill is that this is new, uncharted territory in terms of clause 4 of the bill. I think the crux of the bill is in clause 4, which says:

The purpose of this Act is to

(a) affirm the Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law; and

(b) provide a framework for the Government of Canada’s implementation of the Declaration.

What is frustrating about it is that I think that the declaration is a universal international human rights instrument, and I also think that it has application in Canadian law, with or without the bill stating it.

I use the Palermo Protocol extensively, which is a UN protocol used to identify victims of human trafficking. The Canadian government, being part of the UN, can use these protocols or declarations to validate whether or not our laws fall inside these frameworks. We use them as an instrument to assess Canadian law, which would be no different for UNDRIP.

The same goes for the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Again, we use that declaration to assess Canadian law. We take the Canadian laws on the rights of children and the protection of children and we stack them up against the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child to see if we are abiding by and meeting the thresholds that are laid out in the declaration. If we are not, then we attempt to bring Canadian law into alignment.

I have been working on that around the Palermo Protocol here in Canada, putting forward bills and trying to get Canada's laws to totally align with the Palermo Protocol. We are in significant alignment, but we are not 100% there, and that is also the case with UNDRIP. It is an instrument against which we can assess Canadian law to see if we are living up to the expectations that are laid out in UNDRIP. Are we living up to the ideals that reconciliation would bring? Nobody has a problem with that.

What Bill C-15 proposes is unique, because no other UN declaration has a legislative declaration with application in Canadian law. When I asked the Department of Justice officials about this at committee, they said that I was correct, that it is a unique thing. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child does not have a legislative declaration that we are recognizing as an instrument in Canadian law. However, when arguing a case in court, one can bring a UN document, a UN declaration, to the court and say, “Hey, the UN says this and therefore this is a piece of evidence for my particular case.” What I am frustrated about with Bill C-15 is that it would not change the application of UNDRIP in Canada.

Some witnesses came to committee and said this was like a bill of rights for indigenous people. We were assured again by the justice department this was not the case. This is not granting a bill of rights for indigenous people. This is a framework to develop a plan, and that is what this bill is all about.

If that universal human rights instrument, UNDRIP, had application in Canadian law, would it be actionable? One of the things I asked repeatedly was whether one could take the government to court if it failed to meet one of the objects of the declaration, and I was once again assured that this was not the case. Therefore, what changes with this bill? If this is such a monumental change to the way Canadian law is happening, as the Liberals would like us to think, then what would actually change? That is extremely frustrating.

The Liberals continue to say we are fearmongering, which is also untrue. We just want to know if the things the Liberals are saying are in fact true. If this is going to change the way Canadian law operates, then what are those changes? The bill does not explicitly say that, to me. It says that we are going to develop a framework.

The big crux of a lot of the issues we deal with is around FPIC, or free, prior and informed consent, and what it means. One of the things we continually asked was about the Canadian government, the years and years of jurisprudence, the court cases that have been fought and won in this country around consultation, and the term “duty to consult”, how all this is laid out and how it would fit into UNDRIP.

I would say we are well on our way to developing systems in Canada that fit in with UNDRIP and come into free, prior and informed consent. As our laws develop, with requirements to consult, we see companies going out and consulting. I would say we are well on our way. When I hold up the instrument of UNDRIP against our free, prior and informed consent laws and court rulings, those are all things we can consider.

All this bill would do is create uncertainty. It would bring in a new element. It says that perhaps these articles of UNDRIP are now Canadian law, so does duty to consult equal free, prior and informed consent, or does it not? We could have that debate and argument, but at this point we just do not know. There is a lack of clarity around that. That is what is being introduced with this bill. What is free, prior and informed consent, and how does it relate to duty to consult?

We have seen in this country that this has caused uncertainty in the marketplace. The Government of British Columbia has adopted UNDRIP in a similar fashion, again without clearly defining the terms, and there is now a 1% premium placed on investment in B.C. There is a risk premium to doing business in B.C. because of that, and the markets have deemed it to be about 1%, a lack of 1% return on it, which is a challenge. If one is going to the marketplace to raise capital for a project, one will have to pay 1% more to bring capital into British Columbia compared to the rest of the country. When people say there is no risk to this, no uncertainty, there obviously is, and that is the frustration about this.

I go back to the point that one should mean what one says and say what one means. Where does FPIC come up in this bill? It does not really come up in this bill. It comes up in the document and this declaration having a universal application in Canadian law, but again, what does that mean? We know that all it is doing is driving uncertainty. It is not allowing us to hold up UNDRIP as a document for criteria by which we should judge Canadian law. That is continually frustrating as we go forward.

We heard extensively from Canadians from across the country around this bill at committee, and it is also interesting that the Liberals seem to have a distinct side that they come on when it comes to consultation. We would hear them today talk about how they had extensive consultation even in the development of this bill, but I would say that initially, when we first started reaching out to folks around this, they had not been consulted on this bill. It was not until the bill had been introduced that they began doing the consultations, so by the time it reached committee, yes, some consultations had been done and folks were giving their nod toward the bill, but up until that point there had not been extensive consultation in the development of the particular bill.

That was seen in that every organization that came before us had an amendment for the bill, and that was increasingly obvious. All of them came forward and had amendments, despite the fact that they all acknowledged that UNDRIP is a useful tool and that UNDRIP is something that they hope Canadian law aspires to. I am not convinced this was something they were all expecting when we had the implementation of UNDRIP in Canada. A plan for a plan is not the implementation, so it is going to be more and more interesting to watch how this unfolds.

We have also seen at committee that the government amended its own legislation. That also seems to me to be a point where the consultations were not done appropriately on the front end. If the government had indeed consulted broadly, as it said it had, we would have seen that this bill would not have had amendments by every organization that came before us, and also that the government would not have had to amend the bill itself. It seems to me that there was a complete lack of consultation.

The other thing that I would like to point out around the government and its consultation record is that it only seems to consult in the direction in which it wants the answer. We see this over and over again with first nations communities in northern Alberta. Many of them had a stake in the northern gateway pipeline. We have seen how their communities were thriving off the construction and the capital stake that many of them had in the construction of that pipeline, and yet we saw that pipeline cancelled after the shipping ban off the west coast in Bill C-48, and there seems to have been no consultation with them whatsoever as to the impacts of that decision on their communities. We see that today unemployment in northern Alberta is among the highest in Canada. Why is that? Is it because the government failed to consult with first nations and did not adequately recognize the impacts on these communities?

Again, this is an area where the government says one thing and seems to do another. The idea of consultation is only important in a particular direction, or when trying to stall a pipeline project rather than get one built. That was and continues to be extremely frustrating for first nations communities across northern Alberta.

There are still many questions left unanswered as we go forward. As the government continues to pursue its implementation of the declaration, we will continue to have a discussion on what FPIC means, because there is no clarity. Nobody has said that our duty to consult and FPIC are equal. We are even lacking a bit as to who the final arbiter of this decision-making is. I would say that the Government of Canada is the final arbiter when it comes to major projects. It is the final arbiter when it comes to many of these things that get brought forward, and that is important.

We do not necessarily have clarity from the government. We would like to see that for sure. When pipelines get built, when the federal laws of Canada are designed and when Parliament makes decisions, those decisions are supreme in Canada. We would like to see FPIC clarified as we go forward. Those are some of the things folks brought to committee and said they were concerned about.

The other interesting thing is how this applies between federal and provincial jurisdictions. The bill sometimes says “Canadian law”. Does that mean provincial law as well as federal law, or does it just mean federal law? We need to ensure that is clarified as we go forward, and I hope the government is able to answer some of these questions.

As we hear from more folks on this, it is interesting that there is not even unanimity within first nations communities. The O'Chiese First Nation in Alberta, Treaty No. 6, rejects Bill C-15 outright. It said it would undermine its position in Canada and is opposed to it entirely. The government did not seem to acknowledge that individual first nation communities were not in favour of Bill C-15.

The government consults with the three major national indigenous organizations, but does not necessarily consult with individual first nations across the country. Something I hear over and over from individual first nations is that the government needs to listen to individual first nations across the country in addition to the national organizations, because national organizations do not always speak for individual bands. That is another major concern we heard as well.

We are looking for clarity on a number of things, and this bill would not do anything to clarify any of these issues. This bill would put us on a path forward to align Canadian law with UNDRIP, which I am in favour of, but it would not necessarily do what the government is saying it will. It does not say this will be the next step in bringing us in line with that. The bill just says it is going to develop a plan to do it, and that is frustrating.

I was hoping the government was going to move in the direction of aligning Canadian law with UNDRIP and that it would give us some clarification, such as indicating where Canadian law aligns with UNDRIP on point 43, for example, or giving its opinion on the duty to consult on FPIC, whether it is an adequate or less-than-adequate measure. It might give indications of some of the improvements it is going to make on duty to consult to bring it in line with FPIC. FPIC means something. If the government is insistent that it does not mean a veto, what does it mean? What does that consultation piece look like? Does the jurisprudence on duty to consult still stand?

Those are some of the things I would have expected to see in a bill that would have ushered in UNDRIP. Nonetheless, we do not see these in this bill. There are some less-than-clarifying statements in this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, who is also a member of the committee, for his work and contribution to Bill C-15.

All I can say is that what is important is that there were extensive consultations in developing Bill C-15. Regarding all the organizations that are mentioned, input was taken, whether at the committee stage or prior to that, and their input reflects what we have. It is a consensus document that the three national indigenous organizations have supported and many other indigenous partners and nations have endorsed. Therefore, we are very comfortable in saying that this is a consensus document that does have wide support of indigenous peoples.

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

Madam Speaker, my question for the parliamentary secretary is quite simple. Dale Swampy from the National Coalition of Chiefs, whose mandate it is to reduce on-reserve poverty, said:

I think UNDRIP is important and significant in many ways, and I obviously support indigenous rights. However, I am skeptical about Bill C-15 itself. I think it needs to be written much more carefully, because as it is drafted today, it is obvious to me that it will deter investment in Canadian resource development, and that hurts the indigenous communities that rely on resources.

The Indigenous Resource Network, the Indian Resource Council, and First Nations LNG Alliance all expressed similar concerns.

Would you accuse these people of fearmongering when they expressed reasonable concerns?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question, because this is a call to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. This is one of the key elements that is in there in call to action 43, which says that Canada has to implement UNDRIP.

It is important for indigenous people, but it is also vitally important for all Canadians because it is a statement to the world that Canada respects and adheres to indigenous rights. It is a very important international human rights document that we are reaffirming today through Bill C-15. It is very important for all people in Canada to be able to move forward from our colonial past, where many indigenous peoples have been significantly affected, to a future that is positive and based on trust and a positive relationship.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure working with my friend from Winnipeg Centre on Bill C-15 and to get it to this point. What I am looking for and I think what the government is looking for and what I think all of us are looking for is passage of Bill C-15 in this Parliament.

It is imperative that we move forward on reconciliation as indicated by the call to action 43 of the TRC. In many references, the need to ensure that Canada adopts UNDRIP is essential. Therefore, we could always reflect and say we could have done better here and here, but what is important is that we get the bill done, as the bill would ensure the principles that my friend opposite mentioned are incorporated. I believe that would be a very significant move in passing the bill. What is important for us now as Parliament, is to pass Bill C-15, as amended by the House, which has taken a great deal of effort by all members of the committee—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague across the way for his tireless work in the previous Parliament to see this almost realized.

I was really pleased to see Bill C-15 amended to include paragraph 18, to include the constitutional principle of the living tree doctrine, which confirms that aboriginal and treaty rights evolve and grow over time. As I mentioned at committee, I would have preferred that this amendment be included in the operative articles of the bill as proposed by, for example, the Assembly of First Nations and the original drafter of Bill C-262.

Would my hon. friend have preferred the same, that this amendment be included in the operative articles of Bill C-15?

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

Madam Speaker, on the first question of veto, the bill would ensure certainty. What is different going forward is that there is a bill, there is a framework and legislation that would ensure that consultation takes place. It is already in Canadian law in many court decisions over the years. The bill would give certainty to those principles.

Second, in the sense of resource development with indigenous communities, this would also allow for greater certainty. There is a need to ensure that consultation takes place. The notion of self-determination of the future of indigenous peoples and their resources are inbuilt here and therefore, there are many important elements that would ensure certainty going forward. That is why Bill C-15 is so important to the future relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been more than 13 years since the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It is five years this week since the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations attended the United Nations to announce that Canada was a full supporter, without qualification, of the declaration. She also affirmed Canada's commitment to adopt and implement this international human rights document in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.

The introduction of Bill C-15 last December fulfilled our government's commitment to introduce legislation by the end of 2020 to implement the declaration, and it established the former private member's bill, Bill C-262, as the floor, rather than the ceiling.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the leadership of a former member of Parliament, my dear friend Romeo Saganash. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his work in Parliament and across the country with indigenous peoples and communities to advance his private member's bill, Bill C-262, to implement the declaration here in Canada. It was very disappointing that Bill C-262 died on the Order Paper, unable to make it through the Senate process before the last federal election. I therefore urge all parliamentarians today to ensure that this does not happen to Bill C-15.

The declaration is a result of decades of tireless efforts, negotiations and sustained advocacy at the United Nations by inspiring indigenous leaders from around the world, including many from Canada. From Dr. Willie Littlechild to former NDP MP Romeo Saganash to Sákéj Henderson and so many others, Canadian indigenous leaders played an instrumental role in the development of this historic international human rights document.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission stated that the declaration charts a path for reconciliation to flourish in 21st century Canada, and the TRC call to action 43 calls on all levels of government to fully adopt and implement this declaration. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called on governments to immediately implement and fully comply with the declaration.

The declaration is of critical importance to indigenous peoples across Canada, and its implementation is essential to a shared journey toward reconciliation. It is long past time for the Parliament of Canada to pass legislation to implement the principles set out in the declaration. Once passed, Bill C-15 would affirm the declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. It would also provide a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the declaration.

This framework would establish new accountability for the Government of Canada to work with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples to find new ways to protect, promote and uphold the human rights of indigenous peoples across Canada. This legislative framework would further demonstrate Canada's continued commitment to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples now and in the future. It would also bring further clarity to the path forward for indigenous peoples, communities, industry and all Canadians.

Once passed by Parliament, the legislation would create new requirements for the Government of Canada, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, to take all necessary measures to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration and prepare, and to implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration.

Moving forward, the laws of Canada would be required to reflect the standards set out in the declaration, while also respecting aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in the Constitution. The legislation would require the Government of Canada to report annually to Parliament on progress made to align the laws of Canada with the declaration and on the development and implementation of the action plan. This approach is consistent with the declaration itself, which in article 38 calls on states to collaborate with indigenous peoples on appropriate measures, including legislative measures to achieve the goals set out in the declaration.

We acknowledge that some have expressed concern with the length of time for consultation on Bill C-15. It is important to recognize that private member's bill, Bill C-262, the foundation of this legislation, was also the subject of extensive parliamentary debate and study in the previous Parliament. Despite an accelerated engagement process for Bill C-15, even during the pandemic, the bill's additions to the foundation of Bill C-262 reflect the content requested by a wide cross-section of first nation, Inuit and Métis partners from coast to coast to coast.

In total, over 70 virtual sessions took place, which allowed us to hear the views of over 462 participants about potential enhancements to a consultation draft of legislative text, based on former private member's bill, Bill C-262. Before June and November 2020, the government held 33 bilateral sessions with the AFN, ITK and MNC, involving extensive technical discussions on the content of Bill C-15.

Natan Obed, President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, a national indigenous representative organization for Inuit in Canada, spoke at the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples last Friday. I am quoting from the blues, but while there he said, “We have worked positively and constructively with the federal government on the development of Bill C-15 within a relatively short timeframe. I want to thank the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice for ensuring the co-development happened within this particular piece of legislation and also the government's willingness to be flexible and consider amendments throughout the process.”

Last fall, through a series of virtual sessions, the government also undertook an extensive six-week session of broader engagement with a wide cross-section of indigenous partners on the development of the draft legislation. This engagement included modern treaty and self-governing first nations, Inuit regions, other rights holders, national and regional women's organizations, youth, LGBTQ representatives, as well as some non-indigenous stakeholders.

More specifically, 28 engagement sessions were held with rights holders, modern treaty partners and other national and regional organizations, including women's organizations. Four industry-specific round tables were held with the key sectors of minerals and metals, clean energy, forestry, and petroleum sectors. These also including indigenous participation.

Five sessions were held with provinces and territories, including two ministerial meetings, and some of these meetings also included indigenous experts and leaders. There was also a round table with indigenous youth from the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Métis National Council and Canadian Roots Exchange, and with university law students.

In addition, we received over 50 written submissions that provided feedback and proposed text changes, including views and recommendations on the development of an action plan. An extensive “What We Learned” report is available on the Department of Justice website, which outlines the extensive framework feedback the government received throughout the engagement process.

The extensive engagement with indigenous partners and others led to key enhancements from former private member's bill, Bill C-262, to be included in Bill C-15. Bill C-15 has new language in the preamble, including the highlighting the positive contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, and healing and peace, as well as harmonious and co-operative relations in Canada.

It recognizes the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. It reflects on the importance of respecting treaties and agreements. It highlights the connection between the declaration and sustainable development. Finally, it emphasizes the need to take diversity of indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation.

A purpose clause has been included to address the application of the declaration in Canadian law, and to affirm the legislation as a framework for new federal implementation of the declaration.

Bill C-15 has clear and more robust provisions on the process of developing and tabling the action plan and annual reports. It has a provision to allow the Governor in Council to designate a minister to carry out elements of the bill. These changes and additions enhance and build upon the elements set out in Bill C-262.

Engagement also did not stop when the bill was introduced. Since the introduction of the bill in December, extensive meetings have been held with indigenous partners and other stakeholders. These ongoing discussions, along with an extensive study at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, have informed a number of further amendments to Bill C-15, which passed at the House committee. I want to take a moment to thank the members of the standing committee for their hard work and co-operation in getting this bill through.

The amended bill now includes the specific rejection of the racist and colonial doctrines of discovery and terra nullius in the preamble. The preamble now also clarifies that Canadian courts have stated that aboriginal and treaty rights, recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, are not frozen and are capable of evolution and growth. Bill C-15 also now expressly includes the term “racism” in both the preamble and the body of the legislation.

Based on consensus advice from indigenous partners, the government also agreed to amend the timeline to co-develop the action plan from three years to two, a timeline we are confident is sufficient for a meaningful process and co-development of an effective action plan.

Our government is committed to the meaningful co-development of Bill C-15's action plan with indigenous partners and experts to ensure that the implementation of the legislation is effective and accountable. The bill itself sets out that the action plan must include measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence, racism and discrimination, including systemic racism and discrimination against indigenous peoples: elders, youth, children, women, men, persons with disabilities, and gender diverse and two-spirit persons. It must promote mutual respect and understanding, as well as good relations, including through human rights education.

The action plan must also include measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy, or other accountability measures with respect to the implementation of the declaration. We have already begun preliminary discussions with indigenous partners on the design of the future process. Budget 2021 provides $31.5 million over two years to support the action plan's co-development.

My Conservative colleagues have framed the concept of free, prior and informed consent, FPIC, as an undefined statement and have suggested it could be interpreted as a de facto veto for individual indigenous communities or groups over resource development. I note the term “veto” is nowhere to be found in the draft of the text. They have tried to raise concerns that this would jeopardize the economy and bring uncertainty to the resource sector. In fact, FPIC focuses on the inclusion of voices, concerns and opinions of all indigenous peoples who would be affected by a proposed activity or project, ensuring these concerns are addressed and that there are mitigation plans in place.

I think Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond addressed this best when she spoke to the House committee on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations on April 13:

...there is an element of what I would call “fearmongering” about the concept of free, prior and informed consent, that somehow that will cause economic damage and so forth. In fact, free, prior and informed consent, and operationalizing that by having industry, government and first nations work together appropriately early, in the context of recognizing the rights, provides more economic stability, certainty and security

In conclusion, just last week, National Chief Perry Bellegarde, representing the Assembly of First Nations, spoke in favour of passing Bill C-15 at the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples, where he stated:

I urge you all to seize this historic opportunity and to play a key role in upholding and advancing the human rights of Indigenous peoples.

At the same Senate committee meeting, Natan Obed, the president of ITK, said, “We see this piece of federal legislation as a positive contribution to the approach of human rights being applied equally to all Canadian citizens. ”

David Chartrand, speaking for the Métis National Council, told the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on April 15:

We believe that passing this bill into law is critical to a future that respects our rights as a nation. We urge members to expedite the process to ensure that Bill C-15 is passed in this session of Parliament.

While no piece of legislation will get unanimous support from all indigenous peoples in Canada, Bill C-15 has broad support from first nations, Inuit and Métis from coast to coast to coast. Bill C-15 is about shredding our colonial past and writing the next chapter together as partners with indigenous peoples.

I therefore urge all members of the House to support this fundamental piece of legislation and to support Bill C-15.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I am speaking to members currently from my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park, the traditional lands of many indigenous nations, most recently of the Mississaugas of the Credit.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations in getting us to this point. I note that the Minister of Justice has spoken on Bill C-15 extensively over the last several months in Parliament, in committee and the Senate, so I do want to acknowledge—

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend.

This gives me an opportunity to share with the House what we have planned for the coming days.

This afternoon, we will continue debate on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.

On Friday morning, we will begin by debating Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response, and then resume debate on the budget bill.

On Monday of next week, we will continue second reading debate of Bill C‑19. In the evening, we will resume the concurrence debate on the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

On Tuesday, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-30, the budget legislation.

On Wednesday, we will deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Finally, next Thursday shall be an opposition day.

I thank my colleague for his question.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

Absolutely. I think sometimes the federal government has a tendency to put up more barriers and to see indigenous peoples as people to be protected, rather than removing barriers so that they can interact with industry more directly. Bill C-69, and even Bill C-15, I think, are examples of that.

As for ways you can improve it, groups like the First Nations Major Project Coalition do an excellent job. If there's a bottleneck, it's because indigenous nations need to do their own due diligence. They want to get their own environmental monitoring. Supporting them to get through those due diligence processes will reap so many benefits, I think, in shortening timelines and approvals.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in relation to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that I am speaking from the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

I wish the member and everyone a happy Earth Day, as it is a historic day in many ways in the issues she highlighted. First and foremost, the Government of Canada is renewing Canada's relationship with indigenous people based on the affirmation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. Since 2016, we have taken a range of important measures that contribute to a renewed, respectful Crown-indigenous relationship and that align both section 35 of our Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

As my friend knows, as she was part of the Bill C-15 deliberations today, we were able to pass this milestone legislation to committee and off to the other place. As of today, nine federal laws that refer to the declaration have been implemented with regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is a very important document. As I indicated, this historical document will now become Canadian law within weeks.

This legislation represents a fundamental shift in the relationship with indigenous peoples by recognizing rights articulated through the declaration. We are committed to ongoing discussions to make progress together, advancing reconciliation, improving community well-being and renewing Crown-indigenous relationships. In a nutshell, Bill C-15 is about protecting and promoting indigenous rights, including the rights to self-determination and self-government, equality and non-discrimination on the basis of forging stronger relationships with first nations, Inuit and Métis.

The Government of Canada has developed or updated policies and guidance to be consistent with both the declaration and Canada's constitutional framework. These policies assist federal officials in their work when it involves indigenous peoples and helps contribute to the implementation of the declaration. We are at over 150 active negotiation tables with more than 500 communities representing over one million indigenous people to support their visions of self-determination. Our government has also co-developed a new, innovative recognition of rights policy framework with the B.C. government and the First Nations Summit to improve the treaty process and better advance self-determination in British Columbia.

Our government remains committed to a renewed and respectful relationship with indigenous people.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm new to this, but I would like to know exactly what I'm voting on. I do have the proposed amendments, the documents sent to me on this computer. On my other computer, I actually have Bill C-15, but the proposed amendment is saying line 3 on page 5. In my Bill C-15, I don't have any page number or line number. I'm not sure where the amendment is going. It would be nice to know exactly what the proposed change is.

Is there a document that I'm missing here that would make this easier for me?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move to amend Bill C-15 in clause 4 by deleting lines 2 to 4 on page 5.

We heard repeatedly from testimony that this piece of the bill does not really do anything. It is merely a notional statement. It doesn't change the way the laws in Canada operate. I recommend that we just strike that from the bill and that this bill be only to provide a framework for the government to implement the declaration.

We heard from Adam Bond, the legal counsel for NWAC, that this was merely window dressing. I would say that it would be better not to have this piece in the bill so that it would not signal in any way that the declaration becomes Canadian law. I think it's important that we strike this from the bill so that we are saying what we mean and meaning what we say when we're legislating in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This is that Bill C-15, in clause 4, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 5 in the English version with “The purposes of the Act are to”.

It then continues forward.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This is our proposed amendment that Bill C-15, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 4 the following:

For greater certainty, the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights, are capable of growth and evolution, and a frozen rights theory is incompatible with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The importance of a clear definition of the living tree doctrine has been brought up by elected and unelected leadership throughout the country, and my amendment reflects that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks very much, Ms. Atwin. I appreciate your intervention.

I'll go back once again to the review of the matter, which was that Bill C-15 is providing 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 People and must “prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.”

The amendment seeks to give the term “Government of Canada” the meaning of “government institution” as it is defined in section 3 of the Access to Information Act. Thus, the term “Government of Canada” would have a broader meaning.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, that giant book I referred to, third edition, states the following on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, based on consultation with the legislative group, this new definition of “Government of Canada” is beyond the scope of the bill, and so I would rule that this amendment is inadmissible.

On that matter, unless there's further discussion, Ms. Atwin, I will leave the ruling as such, that your proposed amendment is inadmissible.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Sure. This is PV-0.1. I'm just making sure.... Okay, great.

Thanks you very much, everyone, for letting me join today. I'm really appreciative. Happy Earth Day as well.

I'm coming from the unceded territory of the Wolastoqiyik, the beautiful and bountiful river here in Fredericton, New Brunswick, where I am privileged to work, learn and live.

The amendment I would like to propose is in clause 2, by adding after line 11 on page 4 the following: “Government of Canada has the meaning assigned by the definition government institution in section 3 of the Access to Information Act.”

What this expands upon is:

(a) any department or ministry of state of the Government of Canada, or any body or office, listed in Schedule 1, and

(b) any parent Crown corporation, and any wholly-owned subsidiary of such a corporation, within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act;

By means of explaining and defending this amendment, it actually came forward through proposed amendments from the Assembly of First Nations. The objective of this amendment is to enshrine a clear and positive statement that the legislation binds the Crown and all institutions of the government. Bill C-15 does not expressly affirm that it binds Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada and all of its institutions. It may be implied, but I'm certainly here just to strengthen the legislation as much as possible.

While arguments can be made that Bill C-15 would implicitly or necessarily bind the Crown, because its purpose would be frustrated and contrary to the spirit of the act if the Crown or all Government of Canada institutions were not bound, the courts on this point are by no means clear or consistent in their interpretation. Federal legislation is likewise inconsistent. In light of this inconsistency and ambiguity, clear and unequivocal expression of legislation intent is required.

Again, I'm taking the lead here from some of the discussion that the Assembly of First Nations has put forward, and I ask for your consideration.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Members of the committee, as we have quorum, I call this meeting to order, acknowledging first of all that in Ottawa we meet on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people, and all of us in our own territories will have other acknowledgements. In my case it would be Akwesasne, Haudenosaunee and Chonnonton first nations' traditional territories.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108 (2) and the motion adopted by the committee on October 27, 2020, the committee is resuming its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-15.

It's going to be an interesting day. I just want to thank everyone, first of all, for the way that these meetings have been conducted with regard to Bill C-15. There's some controversy, there are some differences of opinion, but I think all of our remarks, our debates and our considerations were in the best interests of the people for whom we are working, the first nations of Canada. I appreciate that. I would anticipate that today's meeting will be conducted in the same manner.

Having looked over all of the matters that are coming before us in conjunction and in consultation with the legislative clerks, I may be making some rulings as the chair. I want to assure everybody that none of the rulings will be on a partisan basis. They all have to do with the legislative functions, protocols and precedents and so on that are found in that giant green book that only the clerks seem to have a good handle on.

I'm working my way through it. I know that our clerk has reached page 250; I'm still somewhere in the preface. We'll do our best with regard to the rules of Parliament as we move forward.

With us today we have the witnesses from the Department of Justice: Laurie Sargent, assistant deputy minister, aboriginal affairs portfolio; Sandra Leduc, director and general counsel, Aboriginal Law Centre, aboriginal affairs portfolio; and Koren Marriott, senior counsel, Aboriginal Law Centre, aboriginal affairs portfolio.

In clause-by-clause consideration, the one thing I will ask us not to do is rush things through. We want to make sure that when we're done our work today, it is in a form presentable to Parliament. We'll therefore begin slowly.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (1), consideration of the preamble and of clause 1, the short title, was postponed, as per the precedents and order of work that we do. I will now call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Clause 2 of Bill C-15 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.”

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Recently I received a letter from the Royal Society of Canada. This is a senior colloquium of public intellectuals, academics and scholars who support Bill C-15. I believe their input is valuable and should be incorporated into the study of Bill C-15, and I would like to put forward a motion to do so.

Earlier today I sent out the English version of the letter to committee members for reference and provided a copy to the committee clerk. Unfortunately, the Royal Society of Canada did not provide a French-language version. However, if adopted it would of course be translated and made available in both official languages.

Therefore, I move that, in relation to its study of Bill C-15, the committee accept the brief provided by the Royal Society of Canada.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'm going to take a totally different angle here, so I will back off the legal stuff.

There has been a lot of talk with people at committee, over the time we have been hearing from witnesses, about the action plan and how the action plan.... Even the minister, I believe, talked about how the heavy lifting isn't going to be done in the action plan. There has, however, been a lot of talk about maybe doing that action plan prior to the introduction of the legislation, rather than letting the legislation invoke the action plan.

I will open this up to everybody. Was there any discussion in any of the departments about working on the action plan during the time between Bill C-262 and Bill C-15? Was any thought ever given to doing some of that heavy lifting prior to introducing the new Bill C-15?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank our witnesses for joining us for this discussion.

I'm not going to address my question to anyone specifically. Whoever wants to jump in, please do so.

One thing that has interested me is that we've heard a lot from indigenous people and organizations who don't feel there has been adequate consultation on Bill C-15. We've even heard testimony in this committee from some indigenous organizations.... The Native Women's Association comes to mind. This is a group that had expressed concerns about the consultation process. I find it quite ironic that when we talk about Bill C-15, obviously the government has been emphasizing that it is brought forward in the spirit of reconciliation. However, there seem to be some gaps and some failures of adequate consultation with indigenous peoples.

To me, this runs contrary to what the government is trying to do. I do not doubt for a second the intentions of this bill; however, it seems that the government has missed the mark.

Again, whoever wants to jump in may. I'm wondering whether anyone can share some insights into the consultation process that has happened for Bill C-15 and say whether you believe there could have been a greater diversity of indigenous organizations represented in this consultation.

[Laurie Sargent]

It is certainly something we are mindful of and reflecting on in light of the experience leading up to the introduction of Bill C-15. We recognized that the legislation had undergone a great deal of engagement already and that there was some urgency to bringing it forward. Therefore, the engagement process was shorter than many would have liked.

That said, moving forward, with respect to the action plan, we are absolutely wanting to engage more broadly. On that, I'd be pleased to turn it over to my colleague, Ross Pattee, who's also thinking about this through the lens of the work that Crown-Indigenous Relations does in engaging with indigenous peoples. We see it as a joint project going forward.

With the permission of the chair, I'd like to pass the question over to Ross for some further response.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you Ms. Sargent.

The Minister did not have the time to talk about section 35 and section 15. As I pointed out, those who are not in favour of Bill C-15 will tell us that it adds nothing to section 35 and they want none of it.

What would you say to those people?

[Laurie Sargent]

Yes, a number of discussions have taken place with the provinces and territories, including two with provincial and territorial deputy ministers and the federal government in attendance. There were also two ministerial meetings, during which provincial and territorial officials were able to ask questions and make known any concerns about Bill C-15.

I will complete Minister Bennett's response by drawing your attention to a passage from the preamble of Bill C-15, which mentions the role of the provinces and territories, and in which the Government of Canada acknowledges:

that provincial, territorial and municipal governments each have the ability to establish their own approaches to contributing to the implementation of the Declaration by taking various measures that fall within their authority.

That passage reflects really well the bill's recognition of shared jurisdictions in Canada.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go deeper into the issue of possible federal government interference in areas of jurisdiction that belong to Quebec and to the provinces.

Of course, Minister Bennett clearly dismissed that possibility out of hand. However, communication with the public is often necessary in order to clarify matters and make sure that people are not living in anxiety. I would therefore like to know how and when, or actually whether, the government has collaborated to properly communicate the points in Bill C-15, including their effect in Quebec and in the provinces?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Minister, I think we need to move on here, but I have to say, I'm not very proud of this current government and the fact that on their watch women and girls—and children—continue to die because of this incremental approach to justice that your government has shown.

I want to move on specifically to the bill. There have been several recommendations that have been brought forth to the committee in testimony and written submissions.

For example, the first is deleting paragraph 6 from the preamble.

The second is adding a subclause 2(4): “For greater certainty, the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights, must be interpreted flexibly so as to permit their evolution over time and any approach constituting frozen rights must be rejected.”

The third is another amendment, adding a subclause 2(5): “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to diminish or extinguish the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights.”

Is your government open to amending Bill C-15 to honour what has been called for by nations across this country, to include the living tree doctrine?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Minister, with all due respect, I think the survivors of St. Anne's residential school would say otherwise, or all the kids who continue to be racially discriminated against, with your government indicating that you will not pay what's been ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling. I say this, Minister Bennett, because you have the power to immediately implement article 22 of UNDRIP in Bill C-15, which states the following:

Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.

Knowing all of this, why do you choose instead to keep fighting first nations children, for example, in court, and why have you failed to implement a national action plan to address the epidemic levels of violence and murder of indigenous women and girls and two-spirit persons across this country? I know you had a budget announcement. However, the report was released on June 3, 2019. There's no action. Where is the action plan?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you very much for your question.

As Mr. Quan-Watson said, Bill C-15applies only to federal legislation. For example, British Columbia establishes its own laws and can adopt the declaration. It's very important for all provinces and territories to fully understand that need.

Section 35 of the Constitution, however, applies to our country in its entirety.

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

Thank you, Minister.

We heard from MNC's president, David Chartrand, who said that Bill C-15 is, as he called it, a “blueprint for clarity”. I know that Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde has talked about the need to see this get to royal assent. I'm wondering if you could elaborate a bit on the bilateral sessions and how our government worked with the constitutional voices in Canada to ensure that we were hearing from them as well.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to start off by thanking Minister Bennett for her work on Bill C-15 and her tremendous work in terms of working with a number of organizations to get their support on Bill C-15.

I was really pleased to hear about the 33 bilateral sessions that were done with the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami to help co-develop this bill. This is on top of the 27 years at the United Nations; the UN working group was the first working group to have non-state actors at the same table during the drafting stages, where thousands of indigenous voices contributed to what we have within UNDRIP.

Also, I'm really pleased to see that within the budget there's $31.5 million allocated over two years to ensuring co-development of an action plan on UNDRIP. To me, it really seems that the work on reconciliation with Bill C-15 is just getting started.

I wanted to speak a bit about some of the fears that are out there that some people addressed through section 35 about the possible impact of aboriginal and treaty rights. I believe there's a strong derogation clause, but I'm wondering if you could take some time to speak to section 35 rights and how as a government we're ensuring that we protect these aboriginal and treaty rights within our government and within Bill C-15.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Minister, the First Nations LNG Alliance, the Indigenous Resource Network and the Indian Resource Council have stated:

The uncertainty in the legislation makes it likely that it will be used as a legal strategy to delay and stymie resource development projects by groups that oppose extractive and other resource projects under any circumstances, even those where Indigenous nations are overwhelmingly in favour.

They went on to say:

We want to make sure C-15 protects Indigenous rights, as self-determining nations, to make decisions about our own resources.

Right now I don't think it's clear what changes on the day Bill C-15 passes, but we know there is a range of views and expectations on this legislation, including among indigenous groups. Some are saying it lacks clarity and that it will negatively impact the rights and ability of indigenous groups to form business partnerships and pursue economic independence.

Minister, again, concerning the definition of free, prior and informed consent in Bill C-15, are you concerned that by not providing a definition, this could leave it up to interpretation in the courts and ultimately delay the process of reconciliation, including the Bill C-15 legislation or what comes next after it?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Minister. Thank you very much for your words.

Minister, an infrastructure project such as the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline involved consultation with close to 120 indigenous groups. While the majority of these groups wanted to see the project proceed, four first nations opposed the government's approval of the project and challenged it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In the July 2020 Supreme Court decision, it was ruled that the federal government's approval of the project would not be overturned and that the project could proceed. The government had fulfilled its duty to consult, but some of these nations continued to fight it and vowed to do so, not recognizing the decision of the court.

Minister, can you confirm that with the passage of Bill C-15, the federal government and provincial governments will retain their authority to make final decisions in the public interest on major projects, even where not all indigenous rights holders agree?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Okay, thank you.

I am speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. I wish to honour the waters they paddled and their moccasins which walked these lands.

It is my pleasure to appear at this committee to discuss Bill C-15. I am joined today by two officials from the Implementation Sector: Ross Pattee, Assistant Deputy Minister, and Marla Israel, Director General of the Policy, Planning and Coordination Branch.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the leadership of former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash on developing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the “Declaration”) and on legislating a framework to implement it here in Canada and I thank him for Bill C-262, which served as the foundation for Bill C-15.

The declaration is of critical importance to indigenous peoples across Canada, including the indigenous leaders who participated directly in its development.

The declaration is the result of decades of tireless effort, negotiations and sustained advocacy within the United Nations system, including by inspiring indigenous leaders like Dr. Wilton Littlechild, who you heard from last week. As Dr. Littlechild recently told me, all together, C-15 is a reconciliation call for justice and respect through implementation of solutions-based international treaties.

I believe that implementing the declaration here in Canada is essential to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This has been made clear by both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, after six years of hearings, and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, after three years of listening to families and survivors.

The TRC said that the declaration charts a path for reconciliation to flourish in 21st century Canada. The inquiry's calls for justice also call on governments to immediately implement and fully comply with the declaration.

The introduction of C-15 fulfills our government's commitment to introduce legislation to implement the declaration, establishing Bill C-262 as the floor, rather than the ceiling.

Prior to the bill's introduction, 33 bilateral sessions took place with AFN, ITK and MNC. In addition, more than 450 people participated in 28 regional engagement sessions, providing feedback and advice on potential enhancements to the consultation draft. Provincial and territorial governments, experts and industry stakeholders also informed the development of the bill.

While we acknowledge that some would have preferred a longer engagement, it was inclusive and meaningful. The current bill reflects the content requested by many indigenous partners.

Extensive meetings were also held with indigenous partners and other stakeholders after its introduction, to explain the bill's content and work on further enhancements. As Minister Lametti has noted, engagement post introduction informed some further amendments, which the government will be supporting.

Co-development of the action plan will be a further opportunity to work in close partnership on implementation.

We have already begun preliminary discussions with indigenous partners on the design of that process. Yesterday's budget 2021 proposes to provide $31.5 million over two years to support its co-development.

Recognizing and respecting indigenous rights mean that indigenous peoples are at the table for decisions that impact their rights. In many cases, it means that economic development and stronger economic outcomes will be advanced with indigenous peoples as partners.

The declaration is broader than economic development. I'm so grateful for my conversation with Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who you also heard from last week, on her findings about racism in health care and her report, “In Plain Sight”. She was very clear about article 24 of the declaration, which states:

Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right.

This will be very important in guiding the future legislation on indigenous health.

I also remember how important it was, during the summit on child welfare, to underline Article 7 of the declaration, which details the collective and individual rights to live free from violence, including “forcibly removing children”.

The declaration allows us all to develop a clear path so everyone can work together as partners with a shared stake in Canada's future.

As I said before, implementing the declaration is nothing to be frightened of. What is needed is fundamental and foundational change. It's about shedding our colonial past and writing the next chapter together, as partners with indigenous peoples.

It has been more than 13 years since the declaration was adopted by the General Assembly. I urge all members to support this fundamental and necessary change and support this bill.

Thank you. Meegwetch. Nakurmiik. Marsi.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Thanks so much.

I will read Minister Lametti's opening remarks, and then I will move on to mine, Mr. Chair. That will take a bit more time, but it's really important that the committee hears what Minister Lametti had prepared to say to all of you.

Good morning. It is my pleasure to appear at this committee to discuss Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

He was joining you from the Department of Justice, which sits on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

Before I start to discuss the main points in the bill, I would like to acknowledge the untiring work of parliamentarians and Indigenous leaders to have the declaration implemented in Canada.

In particular, I would like to recognize the work of my former colleague Romeo Saganash, who introduced private member's Bill C-262 in a previous Parliament. That bill was examined and studied in detail.

It will take determined work and a sustained commitment by Parliament, by the government, by Indigenous peoples and by all Canadians if we are to give concrete form to the vision of self-determination, of governmental autonomy and of the harmonious relations between peoples that the declaration foresees. That is exactly the work that Bill C-15 commits us to do together.

Bill C-15 has its foundations in former Bill C-262 and was developed in consultation and collaboration with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

The bill recognizes inherent rights and the right to recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. It also recognizes the role of the declaration as having application in Canadian law and as a source for interpreting Canadian law, including the Constitution. This is consistent with Canadian jurisprudence, which recognizes that, constitutionally, protected rights are not frozen in time. They are part of a living tree that grows and adapts to its surrounding context, including the development of new international norms, such as the declaration.

The legislation includes provisions emphasizing that measures to implement the declaration cannot be used to undermine aboriginal and treaty rights that are already constitutionally protected. To be clear, this provision does not seek to reinterpret or amend the rights in the declaration itself. It only confirms that this legislation cannot be used to derogate from the constitutional protection of section 35 rights, including treaty rights.

The legislation creates three specific obligations on the Government of Canada. The first requires the federal government to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples.

The second obligation requires developing an action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples. The action plan would address injustices and combat prejudice while promoting mutual respect and understanding with an underpinning in human rights.

The third obligation contained in Bill C-15 is a requirement to prepare annual reports in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples. This would provide transparency on the measures taken to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration and the action plan.

To follow this path, we must work in collaboration to determine the way in which the standards and rights set out in the declaration will be put into practice. This includes the main aspects of the declaration such as free, prior and informed consent

Free, prior and informed consent is a manifestation of the right to self-determination. It is about providing the opportunity for clear, effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that directly affect them. Achieving consent should be the goal of any good faith consultation or collaboration process. To be clear, the declaration does not confer a veto or require unanimity in these types of decisions. If consent cannot be secured, the facts and law applicable to the specific circumstances will determine the path forward.

Bill C-15 will not change Canada's existing duty to consult indigenous groups or other consultation and participation requirements set out in legislation like the Impact Assessment Act. What it will do is encourage ongoing work to build on these types of arrangements and approaches.

I would like to acknowledge that we have heard several potential proposed amendments and want to assure members that we are taking these suggestions very seriously. We welcome your recommendations.

Bill C-15 demonstrates a genuine commitment to champion reconciliation and to improve relations with Indigenous peoples. In so doing, we will build a better Canada for all current and future generations of Indigenous peoples and Canadians alike.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, do you want me to go on with my own remarks?

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

Mr. Chair, first of all, apologies to the committee. I know Mr. Lametti was scheduled to be here. Regrettably, something has come up that's completely unavoidable and therefore he is not able to join us.

I worry about the timeline. Minister Bennett has had co-carriage of this file from the outset. I think she, as well as a number of officials who have been working on this issue for many years, will be well positioned to go through with this committee and to outline the issues members might have around Bill C-15.

That said, if the minister is available before the scheduled time for the clause-by-clause on Thursday, we can try to get him here, but I don't believe it's prudent for us to wait, because the number of witnesses we have today can ably address any issues the committee might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

As we have quorum and are past the time, I accordingly call this meeting to order.

I start with the acknowledgement that in Ottawa we meet on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. All of us have land acknowledgements in our various places. In my case, it would be Anishinabe, Haudenosaunee and Chonnonton first nations.

Pursuant to the order of reference from the House of April 19, 2021, and the motion adopted on February 25, 2021, the committee is commencing its study—well, it has actually been under way for some time—of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I will clarify to members that the cited motion has the effect of merging our previous subject matter study with this new one under the order of reference.

To ensure an orderly meeting, best practices include just selecting language of choice. At the bottom of your screen is the globe. Touching the globe, you will find English, French or floor audio. Select the language that you prefer. If you're changing language as you speak, there's no need to change that selection. The technology, hopefully, will pick that up.

When speaking, make sure that your video is on, and speak slowly and clearly.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on March 9, 2021, I inform the committee that everyone has completed a technical pretest.

With us today is the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the Honourable Carolyn Bennett.

Minister David Lametti was to join us today. He has been unavoidably detained. His submission will be delivered by Minister Bennett.

Minister Bennett is accompanied by Ross Pattee, assistant deputy minister; Marla Israel, the director general; and Laurie Sargent, assistant deputy minister.

Thank you, all.

Minister Bennett, would you please begin with your statement?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-15.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his frequent participation in debate on all matters in this House.

The bottom line is that when we enact and seek to enact the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples via Bill C-15 into Canadian law, what we are saying is that we must consult with indigenous peoples in all of their heterogeneity, and I think it is an important point that the member raises.

We know that there are indigenous people on the western prairies who believe in resource development, including pipeline development. We know that there are indigenous communities in the north that may believe in drilling in the far north. A requirement to consult and a requirement to do that outreach must apply across the board with all aspects of the community with respect to all projects, whether it is a resource-based project or one that would prevent such a project from moving forward.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today at the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was introduced on December 3 of last year by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Introducing legislation to advance the implementation of the declaration is a key step in renewing the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Huron-Wendat, the Anishinabe and, most recently, the territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit first nation. Toronto is now home to many diverse first nation, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park are strong advocates for the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a privilege to represent such engaged and vocal individuals. My constituents have been clear about the importance of having a government that respects indigenous rights and plays an active role in reconciliation. This legislation would address those concerns by taking measures to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill is a critical step forward in the joint journey toward reconciliation.

I know that members are familiar with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but to provide a bit of context, the declaration was adopted in 2007 after many years of hard work by indigenous leaders and countless Canadians.

We are grateful for the unwavering dedication of indigenous leaders such as Dr. Wilton Littlechild and many other stakeholders who worked tirelessly for many years to develop and negotiate the declaration.

I want to refer specifically to the long-standing work of James Sákéj Youngblood Henderson, who made UNDRIP a key part of his life's work, and who also happens to be the father of my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria. The adoption of this declaration was a very significant moment in human history, with the goal of protecting and promoting indigenous rights around the world.

The declaration contains 46 articles that address a wide variety of individual and collective rights, including cultural and identity rights, and rights relating to education, health, employment and language, among others.

It is the language piece that I want to focus on very briefly because I do feel that this dovetails with the other work that has been accomplished by our government and by this Parliament. In this, I am referring to the Indigenous Languages Act.

In the previous Parliament, I had the ability and the opportunity to work with the minister of heritage on the Indigenous Languages Act legislation. Through that process, I learned not only a tremendous amount about myself as a parliamentarian, but also about the legacy of colonial policies in this country over 400 years of settler contact with indigenous persons.

In restoring languages through the Indigenous Languages Act, which we passed in the last Parliament, restoring funding and now ensuring that we are working toward the passage of UNDRIP, we see a continuity in terms of protecting cultural and linguistic rights, among many other rights, for indigenous persons on this land. These rights are sorely in need of protection as we try to give meaning to concepts of autonomy and autodétermination, as we say in French.

The declaration itself also recognizes that the situation of indigenous people varies from region to region and from country to country. It provides us with flexibility and the opportunity, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous people, to ensure that rights are recognized, protected and implemented in a manner that reflects the circumstances right here in Canada. In May 2016, our government endorsed the UN declaration, without qualification, and we committed to its implementation.

Subsequently, we were very proud to support private member's bill, Bill C-262, in the previous Parliament, which was introduced by former NDP member of Parliament Romeo Saganash. Unfortunately, Bill C-262 died in the Senate in June 2019, due in large part, I will frankly indicate, to stonewalling by Conservative members of the Senate. However, what we did in the 2019 electoral campaign is redouble the commitment of the Liberal Party to reintroducing UNDRIP as a government bill, which is exactly what we have done with Bill C-15. This builds on the foundational work that was presented by the old bill, Bill C-262, in the previous Parliament.

Building on support from indigenous groups for the former Bill C-262 and following discussions with indigenous partners, we as a government used the old Bill C-262 as the floor for the development of this new legislative proposal, which is currently before all of us in this chamber.

The Government of Canada drafted the bill following consultations with representatives of national and regional indigenous organizations, modern treaty partners, self-governing first nations, rights holders, indigenous youth, indigenous women, gender-diverse and two-spirit people, as well as representatives from other indigenous organizations. The comments received throughout the consultation process helped shape the bill.

That was the genesis of Bill C-15, which seeks to affirm the declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law and provide a framework for the Government of Canada’s implementation of the declaration.

Bill C-15 is but one sign of the progress I believe we are making in advancing reconciliation, affirming human rights, addressing systemic racism and combatting discrimination in this country. Members heard some of that in the previous speech from the member for Outremont with respect to other milestones we have reached as a government, but what I think is critical here is when we speak about combatting discrimination, in particular systemic racism.

It should not be lost on any members of Parliament how critical the timing of this bill is, given the moment we are in collectively as a nation and as a continent, with a movement taken on by all Canadians to actively combat systemic discrimination and systemic racism. COVID has shone a light on this, and we have been responding to it. Bill C-15 is part of the continuity of work that includes Bill C-22, which is about ending many mandatory minimum penalties that disproportionately impact Black and indigenous Canadians. Bill C-15 is part of that continuity and body of work.

This bill, Bill C-15, builds on the significant progress we have been making on implementing the declaration on a policy basis by creating a legislated, durable framework requiring the federal government, in consultation and co-operation with first nations, Inuit and Métis people, to take all measures necessary to ensure that federal laws are consistent with the declaration, to prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration, and to report annually to Parliament on progress made in implementing the legislation.

Enhancements we have made to Bill C-15 as a result of the engagement process we undertook with indigenous peoples, which preceded its introduction, include the addition of new language in the preamble, with the following objectives: to highlight the positive contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, healing and peace; to recognize the inherent rights of indigenous peoples; to reflect the importance of respecting treaties, agreements and constructive arrangements; to highlight the connection between the declaration and sustainable development; and to emphasize the need to take the diversity of indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation. Other key enhancements include the addition of a purpose clause to address application of the declaration in Canadian law and to affirm the legislation as a framework for federal implementation of the declaration, and clearer and more robust provisions on the process for developing and tabling the action plan and annual reports.

Moving ahead with Bill C-15 is consistent with our commitment to address the TRC calls to action and respond to the national inquiry into MMIWG and the calls for justice therein. Implementing this declaration is the natural next step in our journey to advance reconciliation, something I mentioned at the outset. This would be a significant step forward in our efforts to build a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be used as an essential tool in developing the Canadian framework for reconciliation, which will reflect our own history and our own legal and constitutional framework.

The bill proposes a legislative framework for the UN declaration, so that over time, as other laws are modified or developed, they would be aligned with the declaration. To this end, the legislation would require the Government of Canada, “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, [to] take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”, “prepare and implement an action plan”, and table an annual report to align the laws of Canada on the action plan.

As written, this bill would require that the action plan include measures to “address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination...against Indigenous peoples” and “promote mutual respect and understanding as well as good relations, including through human rights education”. The action plan would also include “measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy or other accountability measures with respect to the implementation of the Declaration.”

I want to spend my last remaining time on an issue that has come up, which is with respect to free, prior and informed consent. Free, prior and informed consent is about doing just that. It is about the effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them, their communities and their territories. The participation of indigenous peoples as full partners in economic development is a reflection of their inherent right to self-determination. Achieving consent is the goal of any consultation or collaboration processes. This means we need to make every effort to reach agreements that work for all parties. To be clear, the concept does not confer veto or require unanimity in these types of decisions. If consent cannot be secured, the facts of law applicable to the specific circumstances will determine the path forward.

I would refer members of this House to the testimony of David Chartrand of the Métis National Council who said precisely this. I would also refer members of this House to the previous testimony of people like Romeo Saganash in parliamentary committees when we were studying the old bill, Bill C-262, in the last Parliament who also indicated that it is not the interpretation of the law that free, prior and informed consent, FPIC, would constitute a veto. Indeed, in literally the last 36 to 48 hours, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, as counsel for the Assembly of First Nations said at the standing committee looking into this bill that “The idea that free—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will ask a brief question.

In testimony before committee, Mark Podlasly of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition asked for a clear definition of what consent means in the context of Bill C-15. I will not read the quote, as I am conscious of the time.

Will the member commit to ensuring that clarity is added to the bill? Many first nations have expressed to me that it lacks a great deal of needed clarity.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Parkdale—High Park.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

In December 2020, our government introduced Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Since then, I have received many letters, calls and emails from my constituents in Mile End, Outremont and Côte-des-Neiges. They asked me to pass the bill quickly, and they urge the House to do more to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples.

Most of the people who contacted me told me that they were not indigenous. They were proud to say that as Montrealers, Quebeckers and Canadians, the nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples was important to them. It is an issue that speaks to the foundation of our Canadian identity, no matter our background.

We must correct past injustices as much as we can and continue to move forward on the path to reconciliation. Through Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we are taking another step along that path. As its name suggests, Bill C-15 seeks to protect and promote indigenous rights, including the rights to equality and non-discrimination, in order to establish stronger relations with indigenous peoples.

The bill provides the necessary legislative framework for Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Through this bill, the Government of Canada will be required to collaborate with indigenous peoples on developing an action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP. If passed, this bill will represent another major step forward in our shared journey toward reconciliation.

Passing Bill C-15, which would ensure consistency between Canadian laws and the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, is an important step forward on the path to reconciliation. The bill requires the development of an action plan to implement the objectives of UNDRIP and requires the ongoing involvement of indigenous peoples at all stages, while mandating annual reports to Parliament.

Bill C-15 would enshrine the principles of UNDRIP, which include affirming the general application of international human rights laws to indigenous peoples; the right to participate in decision-making, with free, prior and informed consent; the right to culture, religious and linguistic identity; the protection of treaties and agreements with first nations; and of course the protection of the rights of indigenous women, including an obligation for governments to work with indigenous peoples to end violence against indigenous women.

Let us talk for a moment about what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada chose to uphold.

The findings and evidence of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada forced us to confront the discriminatory and oppressive practices that continued unabated for nearly 150 years in Canada's residential schools. In addition to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action 43 and 44, which call on the government to adopt and fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and develop an action plan to achieve its objectives, all of the calls to action cite the UNDRIP. Our commitment to upholding indigenous rights by acknowledging and redressing the damage caused by assimilation policies and practices is unwavering.

Passing Bill C-15 will not only address calls to action 43 and 44, but will also provide the Government of Canada with a framework for broader reconciliation.

I would also like to talk about what our government is doing right now to demonstrate our commitment to our first nations.

Throughout the pandemic, our government has shown its commitment to supporting indigenous communities in very real and tangible ways. Let us look for a moment at our vaccine rollout.

We know that remote indigenous communities are more at risk of getting COVID-19 and that health systems in those communities are more vulnerable to outbreaks. That is why we as a government prioritized indigenous communities in the procurement and delivery of vaccines for COVID-19.

To date, nearly 300,000 doses have been administered in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, with over 50% of people having already received a COVID-19 vaccine. In the Northwest Territories, 55% of the entire population has received a first dose. In the Yukon, 59% of the population has received one dose, and already 43% has received both doses. This accelerated rollout has contributed to a dramatic drop in COVID-19 cases in our indigenous communities, with a decline of 80%. That is something we can all be proud of.

Let us also discuss for a moment where we are with respect to eliminating boil water advisories. Like many in the House, I am sincerely troubled by the fact that any boil water advisory still exists in any corner of our country, but real progress has been made and is sometimes overlooked.

When our government came into power, there were 105 boil water advisories in the country. We have eliminated 106 of them, and as of March 2021, 177 short-term drinking water advisories were also lifted. In fact, access to clean water has been restored to approximately 5,920 homes in first nations communities. I know and understand that much more work still needs to be done on this, but never before have we had a federal government in Canada that is more committed to getting that work done.

We have also made historic investments in education, housing, police services and shelters in indigenous communities.

The 2020 fall economic statement includes an additional investment of $781.5 million over five years starting this year as well as ongoing funding in the amount of $106.3 million to fight systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples and expand efforts to fight violence against indigenous women, girls and LGBTQ2 and two-spirit people.

These proposed investments include the following amounts: $724.1 million to launch a comprehensive violence prevention strategy to expand access to culturally relevant supports for indigenous women, children and LGBTQ2 and two-spirit people facing gender-based violence; $49.3 million to support the implementation of Gladue principles in the justice system in order to help reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice and correctional systems; and $8.1 million to develop administration of justice agreements with indigenous communities to strengthen community-based justice systems and support self-determination.

There is still a lot of work to do, but we are working even harder.

Bill C-15 is an action plan that will confirm that the declaration is a universal human rights instrument that applies to Canadian law and provides a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the declaration. It is an essential step toward reconciliation, and it is long overdue.

I therefore ask all members of the House to pass Bill C-15 as soon as possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today about my opposition to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is evident that much of our contemporary political debate is denominated in terms of human rights, with both sides' various questions using the language and philosophy of rights to justify their conclusions. This is most evident in contentious debates about social issues, where one person's assertion of a right to die is measured against another person's assertion of a right to encounter a health care system that does not make distinctions based on ability, or whether one person's assertion of a right to bodily autonomy conflicts with the potential claims of another person in terms of someone's right to life. In these cases, it clearly is not enough to say one is for or against human rights as such. Rather, one has to develop a procedure for determining which rights claims are valid and which are not, or for determining which rights claims can be justifiably abrogated, or for determining which rights claims take precedence in the case of a conflict.

When we are evaluating these questions of how to compare competing rights claims, it matters very much where we think rights come from. We need to establish where rights come from if we are to determine which rights claims exist and which rights claims take precedence. On this point, let us say there are three general categories of options. Rights either come from positive law, from social consensus or from nature.

Some seem to take the view that rights exist because they are called “rights” by the state or some multilateral body. This would imply that those rights only come into existence when the associated statutes or declarations are promulgated, and that nothing can be called a violation of rights if it is done legally. This view of rights would imply, falsely in my opinion, that no violation of human rights occurred in the context of horrific, violent actions against indigenous peoples in previous centuries, if those actions were legal. That seems to be a monstrous conclusion. I therefore reject the view that rights come from positive law. Arbitrarily depriving some of their lives, freedom, culture and community is a violation of their rights, regardless of whether it is recognized as such by domestic or international law.

The same general issues arise if we see rights as derived from social consensus. There have been many times and places in which a social consensus existed in favour of policies that also arbitrarily deprived people of their lives, freedom, culture and/or community. As such, if we wish to justify the conclusion that these acts of violence have always and would always constitute violations of human rights, then we must start from the premise that human rights emanate from nature as opposed to from law or convention: that is, human rights come from being human.

Deliberations in the House or international bodies about human rights are not fundamentally about creating rights, but rather about discovering rights. Rights are discovered, not invented. If rights exist in nature, as gravity exists in nature, then we should be able to identify a procedure for discovering rights objectively. Whether such a procedure can exist or not, it does not seem to be invoked often in this House. More often, we hear the assertion of the existence of a certain right as being self-evident. We hear a call for more rights, not fewer rights. We hear rights referred to as “hard won”, and perhaps referenced in the context of some domestic or international text deemed sacred by our legal tradition.

If rights come from nature, then members should argue for how we can know that a right exists, not simply point to a text that says it does. If rights come from nature as opposed to from text, then texts that claim to codify human rights may contain gaps, errors or other problems. It is possible to believe that human rights have all been correctly codified by UN documents because of some metaphysical process by which the deliberation of these bodies is protected from error. However, believing in this idea would require a kind of faith in a metaphysical process: a faith that I do not think can be grounded in reason alone.

The particular legislative proposal before us today, with respect to human rights, is to graft UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, onto existing law and practice in this area. Much of the debate today has centred around the importance of indigenous rights. I think we all agree about the importance of indigenous rights, but that is not really the core question we have to evaluate when determining whether to support this legislation.

The question really is about what impacts or changes the implementation of this legislation will have on existing rights frameworks, and whether those changes will advance human rights for indigenous peoples or not. With this question, I think it is also important to challenge some of the Hollywood-ized framing of indigenous communities. Many of us will have seen the 2009 movie Avatar: a movie about a group of human colonizers who seek to exploit and destroy a natural environment guarded by an indigenous community that lives in perfect harmony with it.

Although filmed in colour, the moral message of the film is very black and white. Those who fully absorb the message of this film will perhaps come to the conclusion that indigenous communities never want development, but this is, of course, false. The complex history of European settlement in North America involved a great deal of colonial violence and oppression, as well as mutually beneficial exchange and collaboration. Today, many indigenous communities want development.

As wonderful as being in harmony with nature in this sense is and that some people ideologize, generally development can be associated with higher standards of living and amenities associated with modern life. For me, defending indigenous rights means respecting the rights and choices of indigenous peoples, and indigenous nations acting autonomously to make their own choices about their own development paths. It is about competing balance: how they balance traditions with opportunities to develop in new ways. These are choices that individual communities and nations should be able to make for themselves.

Sadly, we have seen many attacks on indigenous rights by anti-development forces, advancing a kind of green colonialism based on this Avatar-informed view of the world, which seeks to force indigenous people to live in the equivalent of national parks even if they would much rather enjoy the benefits that come from resource development in terms of jobs and convenience.

While my friends on the political left like to assume that their opposition to natural resource development aligns them with the wishes of indigenous people, they are increasingly offside with the wishes of indigenous people in areas where resource development is taking place. The anti-development policies of this government are increasingly raising the ire of indigenous people and indigenous proponents of resource development projects, such as those seeking the construction of the Eagle Spirit pipeline, blocked by Bill C-48, or those indigenous people in the Arctic who were not consulted at all when the Prime Minister brought in a ban on drilling.

For reasons described earlier, these anti-development voices still frame their positions in terms of indigenous rights, believing that the right to say “no” to development is so much more important than the right of those same people to say “yes” to development. I think we all know and understand that this gets dicey in situations when the rights of some indigenous peoples come into conflict with the desires and rights of other indigenous peoples, when different peoples and different communities disagree about whether a particular project should proceed, or when indigenous proponents find themselves in conflict with members of their own or other communities over how to proceed on a development path.

Bill C-15 would establish a principle in law that there must be free, prior and informed consent for resource development to take place within an indigenous community, but it lacks significant clarity about who consents on behalf of indigenous communities or what happens when different communities, perhaps with competing legitimate claims to traditional presence in an area, disagree. The lack of clarity about who gets to decide will make it nearly impossible for indigenous communities that wish to develop their own resources to proceed.

We got a sense of the risk associated with this uncertainty last year, when the country faced widespread rail blockades in solidarity with some Wet'suwet'en protesters who opposed the Coastal GasLink project. Members of the House, at the time, seemed to believe that the opposition of a minority of hereditary chiefs required that the project be stopped on the grounds of indigenous rights.

These arguments came from an Avatar-inspired world view and a failure to take into consideration the legitimate competing rights claims of the majority of indigenous peoples affected by this project who supported it, the fact that all of the elected indigenous bodies responsible for this project had approved it, and the fact that those who, from a democratic perspective at least, were the representatives of those indigenous people wanted to say yes. It was enough for members of the House that people from a different hereditary leadership who claimed to speak on behalf of those nations wanted to say no. This is the problem that arises when we have competing rights claims. When we lack a procedure, and when there is ambiguity inserted in the law about how to resolve the desires of those people, it ends up always being a path of no development instead of a situation where those communities get to decide.

I am suspicious that members of the House who are promoting the bill in the name of indigenous rights are actually happy with that outcome. They are actually happy with an outcome in which development has a hard time proceeding, when investments do not get made even if indigenous people in a particular area, in association with a particular project,overwhelmingly want to see it happen.

As a member who cares deeply about human rights, and well-structured procedures and mechanisms for affirming those rights democratically, I think we need to recognize the existing rights frameworks we have in this country and build on them, but I do not think this particular legislation would do that. It would introduce more confusion and more challenges to development that would, in effect, deny the rights of indigenous peoples in cases where they want to make the choice to develop their resources.

[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.

[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 is 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, 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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation.

Some people will argue that implementing UNDRIP would effectively give first nations a veto over every natural resource development project.

I would like to hear my colleague explain why that is not the case and how Bill C-15 would still allow for proper negotiation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sydney—Victoria.

I am speaking today from the traditional territories of the Wendat, Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe peoples and the treaty land of the Williams Treaties First Nations. I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Our government has been clear. We are committed to renewing the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, partnership and advancing reconciliation. Earlier this week, I rose in the House to speak about how our government is fighting systemic racism in our judicial system with Bill C-22, and I am proud to rise again today to speak to how the implementation of Bill C-15 is a step forward in protecting the human rights of indigenous peoples and fighting systemic racism.

In Canada and across the globe, citizens are debating the nature and promise of equality in our time. They are rightfully and urgently demanding change to fight systemic racism in our society. Human rights are universal and inherent to all human beings, and this bill is another sign of the progress we are making in affirming human rights and addressing the systemic racism present in the country.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples. Article 1 of the UN declaration recognizes that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”, and that includes the right to self-government and self-determination. In addition, the UN declaration sets out rights and standards that draw on universal human rights norms, but speak more specifically to the circumstances of the world’s 370 million indigenous people.

The recognition of indigenous rights is at the core of our government’s commitment to build the relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis people. That is why our government has introduced Bill C-15. The wait for equal respect and the human rights of indigenous people has been far too long and has taken far too many generations.

As part of our commitment to engage and collaborate with indigenous peoples, this legislation is the culmination of work with indigenous rights holders and organizations over many months past. We understand the importance of building on the work that has already been done to advance the implementation of the declaration in Canada. This is explicitly acknowledged in the preamble, which recognizes that provincial, territorial and municipal governments have the ability to establish their own approaches to implement the declaration. Indeed, several have already taken steps, in their own areas of authority, to do so.

We are ready to work with all levels of government, indigenous peoples and other sectors of society to achieve the goals outlined in the declaration and supported by this bill. We have also included a provision that specifically notes that the bill does not delay the application of the declaration in Canadian law. Achieving the objectives of the declaration and further aligning federal laws with the declaration will take time. However, we are not starting from scratch and we continue to advance recent and ongoing priorities and initiatives, which contribute to the implementation of the declaration in parallel to the process and measures required by the bill.

We have also responded to calls for clearer and more robust provisions for the process of developing and tabling an action plan and annual reports. These updates are incredibly important, and the action plan is a central pillar of this legislation. Developing and implementing the action plan means working together to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples; to promote respect, mutual understanding, as well as good relations, including through human rights education; to include measures that relate to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy, or other accountability with respect to the implementation of the declaration; and to include measures to review and amend the action plan.

With this legislation, we will fulfill the Government of Canada’s 2016 endorsement of the declaration without qualification, while also responding to the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the continuing progress on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action. There is no doubt that passing this legislation will help us move in a direction we all want.

Over the past few years, this government has taken a number of steps and measures consistent with the human rights framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian charter. We are beginning to see positive changes happening, including steps to strengthen restorative justice, access to justice and diversion programs, and reform to our criminal justice system.

The Government of Canada, alongside the provinces and territories, is developing a pan-Canadian strategy to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. Work on this strategy also includes close collaboration with indigenous communities and organizations.

We are also implementing impact of race and culture assessments, which allow sentencing judges to consider the disadvantages of systemic racism that contributed to indigenous people's and racialized Canadians’ interactions with the criminal justice system. We are putting in place community justice centre pilot projects in British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario, as well as consultations to help expand the community justice centre concept to other provinces and territories.

Among other initiatives, we are also developing administration of justice agreements with indigenous communities to strengthen community-based justice systems and support self-determination. I believe this initiative to be especially important. It recognizes that indigenous peoples have to be part of the solution and that the capacity is there to improve justice within indigenous communities.

Bill C-15 is a significant step forward, but alone it will not achieve our collective goal of transformative change for indigenous people. There will be much work to do together after royal assent to develop an inclusive and effective approach to realize the full potential of the declaration. As a result, additional efforts and measures to implement the UN declaration will be needed, and as I just listed, the Government of Canada has begun work on additional efforts and measures. Certainly, there is much more work to do to support indigenous communities to a better state of health and security, but these are important steps forward. While the important national work is taking place, Canada will continue ongoing discussions with indigenous peoples to make progress together on our shared priorities of upholding human rights, advancing reconciliation, exercising self-determination, closing socio-economic gaps and eliminating the systemic barriers facing first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

Change is happening. Our government and our society are evolving as we learn the importance of doing things differently in a way that is better and fairer for all of us. Implementing the UN declaration is something the indigenous people in Canada have long called for, and it is a change we want to see come to fruition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a shout-out to your father-in-law, Ian, as well. He should be very proud of all the great work that you have done over the years. I want to thank my friend opposite because I have been able to work with him for the last five years at committee.

One of the things we have seen over the last five years, especially travelling with the former MP Romeo Saganash, is the enormous amount of work that was put in to this legislation in Bill C-262 and then subsequently in Bill C-15.

Regrettably, what we have seen from my friend's party is blockage throughout its term in government up to 2015 and then beyond that we have seen absolutely no effort from the Conservative Party to move forward, whether in legislation or in terms of assessing it in Canadian law.

Could the member give us a sense of what his party intends to do in order to implement UNDRIP in Canada if the bill does not go through?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, hello to your father-in-law as well from northern Alberta: Peace River—Westlock, or as I like to call it, the promised land. We have 7,500 dairy animals and we are the honey capital of Canada, so we are literally flowing with milk and honey.

Peace River—Westlock was settled on a promise called Treaty No. 8. This involved 14 first nations, three Métis settlements and over 100 communities. I overlap with about 500 other elected representatives of band councils, town councils, school trustees and others from a big swath of northern Alberta. Every day, I have the honour and privilege of representing them here in Ottawa.

Bill C-15, the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has been a widely debated piece of legislation over the last number of years. It is my honour to bring my voice to that today, representing the people of northern Alberta.

One of the things that I hope I bring as a member of Parliament is that I typically mean what I say and say what I mean. I wish that were the case with the Liberals on this particular piece of legislation. I find it interesting that even though I will be voting against this particular piece of legislation and the NDP will be voting for it, we actually agree on the substance of it: that it could make a significant change to the way the governance of this country happens. The NDP continually say that it would be a significant change and we say that it would be a significant change. It is always interesting that the Liberals continue to say they are going to bring this in, but there will be fairly minimal impact on the way we do business or the way that governance happens in this country. It is fascinating.

Section 4(a) in this bill declares that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will have application in Canadian law. That is probably the crux of the bill for me, the tripping-over point that I have. No other declaration from the UN necessarily has application in Canadian law. We have not legislated that for any declaration other than UNDRIP.

Mr. Speaker, you may be familiar with the work I do to combat human trafficking in this country. Human trafficking is a scourge of this country. It is a growing crime that is happening, often within 10 blocks of where we live. One of the tools that I use in combatting human trafficking is a Palermo protocol. The Palermo protocols are part of a UN document and declaration that outlines how to identify a victim of human trafficking. The challenge with that is it is not a legislative tool. It is not a piece of law, it is a declaration. It gives principles under which countries should operate. I advocate all the time for us to bring Canada into alignment with that Palermo protocol. We have made several attempts to do that over the last 30 years: essentially, recognizing human trafficking and bringing human trafficking offences into the Criminal Code, and dealing with how to identify somebody who is being trafficked. All of those things come in, and we get a framework and idea of how to combat it from that Palermo protocol.

Another UN instrument that I use regularly is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is, again, something that helps to identify whether the rights of a child are being upheld or being violated by holding a given situation up against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. When there is a default or issue and we are not able to hold a particular case up against the rights of the child or Palermo protocol to ask why a human trafficking victim is not able to get justice, we can look at the Palermo protocol and see that it indicates, in this instance, that in Canada one of the areas of the Criminal Code is that there is a requirement for the element of fear.

If a person is living in fear, that is one of the elements for them to be identified as a victim of human trafficking, yet the Palermo protocol does not have that requirement at all. The Palermo protocol tries to set it up so that, given the criteria laid out, an outside observer can see whether somebody is being trafficked or not. The individual being trafficked does not have to verify that they are being trafficked.

It is similar with UNDRIP. In a given situation, we would stack it up against UNDRIP and ask: Are we meeting the ideals of UNDRIP, or are we not meeting the ideals of UNDRIP? Does Canadian law have a shortfall? Are we not living up to the areas of UNDRIP?

“Free, prior and informed consent” is one of those very definite areas where we have to ensure that we live up to that. The challenge that we have with it is that if “free, prior and informed consent” means the same thing as “duty to consult”, then on all of the court cases that have gone into developing that whole concept of “duty to consult”, would introducing a new term of “free, prior and informed consent” come alongside? If it comes alongside, if “duty to consult” falls right inside “free, prior and informed consent”, which I think it does, would our jurisprudence continue, would our jurisprudence stand, and in introducing the new topic into it, would that just come along and align?

I think that would be great. However, if it comes in and we are now going to have to start re-litigating all of the court cases of the past because we have introduced a new concept into the jurisprudence, I do not think that is going to be helpful, not at all. Now we are going to be confusing the issues.

I have been part of putting together several private members' bills. It is a rewarding exercise. It is something that is a luxury that only members of Parliament have. I am very much appreciative of the efforts that go into developing a private member's bill.

One of the issues that always comes up, every time I have worked on a private member's bill, is the introduction of new terms. Every time I bring an idea to the legislative drafters, I ask, “Why did you use that term, and not the term that I used?” or “Why do you want to talk about this, when I wanted to talk about it like that?” They always say that this term has been clearly defined by the courts. Therefore, if we use that term, we already know what it means, it has a whole list of jurisprudence.

For example, that term of “commercial use” is understood by the courts. There is a lot of jurisprudence behind that. Therefore, we want to use that term when we are talking about supply chain reporting, for example, or the use of images, or whatever it happens to be. We understand that term. The courts have ruled on that term.

When a new term is introduced into the mix, it opens up to a whole new discussion and a whole new debate, and the opportunity for the courts to have to make a judgment on what those rules have to say. That is where the concern is.

I have been sitting at committee listening to testimony on this, as committee work is always a rewarding experience, listening to Canadians bring their perspectives to Ottawa. In one case, we heard from a member of the public who outlined UNDRIP as the indigenous bill of rights. I do not think we are introducing the indigenous bill of rights when we are adopting UNDRIP. Maybe we are, but I do not think that we are doing that. So to then say that we are doing that, I do not think it is helpful to indigenous people, if they think that this is going to be a bill of rights. I am not sure. Maybe the Liberals could clarify that for me, but I do not think that is the case.

I am not 100% sure what the terms, with application in Canadian law, actually mean. Does it mean, as most of the witnesses who show up to committee say, that it would be used in much the same way as the Palermo protocol would be or the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

If that is the case and we can slip free, prior and informed consent in right alongside the court-defined term of duty to consult, that would be great, but I have not seen that from the Liberals. I am hoping that we can hear from the Liberals that they mean what they say and they say what they mean.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

I am really pleased to be working and building relationships with the people of the Cote, Keeseekoose, The Key, Fishing Lake and Yellow Quill First Nations and the Métis Nation Saskatchewan in the riding of Yorkton—Melville on Treaty No. 4 and Treaty No. 5 lands.

I am also very pleased to speak today on Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It goes without saying that the consideration of this legislation today is a significant moment for Canada, not only because members on all sides of the House, and therefore all Canadians, want to achieve meaningful reconciliation with Canada’s indigenous people but because the Liberal government has made a critical misstep toward this goal through the introduction of the bill in its current form. It is my fear that the impact of the bill will result in the opposite of its desired effect.

The bill aims to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. Subclause 4(a), for instance, states that “The purpose of this Act is to (a) affirm the Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law”. Further, clause 5 charges the Government of Canada with working “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.”

The House will remember calls to action 43 and 44 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, urging the federal government to “to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation” and “to develop a national action plan, strategies, and other concrete measures to achieve the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. ”It was in fact the previous Conservative government that adopted UNDRIP in 2010 as an aspirational document.

Then and now, the Conservatives support the goals and aspirations of this declaration. We support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with the indigenous people of Canada. However, we remain concerned about the Liberal government’s unwillingness to put forward legislation that clearly outlines the effect and interpretation of key terms within the declaration, such as “free, prior and informed consent”. When it comes to understanding what exactly this term means in a practical sense, the lack of consensus between the federal and provincial governments, among members of the legal community and within indigenous communities themselves is worthy of concern.

The previous Conservative government, at the time of its inception, opposed UNDRIP, because free, prior and informed consent did not align with Canadian constitutional law. That is why, a few years later, the same government adopted UNDRIP as an aspirational document, not binding law. This was a move in line with three of our Five Eyes partners: the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. It was a decision made with good reason. The wide-ranging provisions within UNDRIP, like FPIC, were found to be inconsistent with Canadian constitutional law.

Over a decade later, the Liberal government is forging ahead with infusing UNDRIP into the law of the land. However, it has failed to do its due diligence in presenting a bill that can be clearly understood by government and stakeholders. There is a lack of consultation on what purports to be a transformative piece of legislation that will have untold ramifications on our country, indigenous communities and, indeed, all Canadians.

NTC president Judith Sayers says that the consultative process for this bill lacked mutual agreement and was rushed. AFN chiefs have expressed their concern that no extensive consultations were held. The government is good at partial consultations, but the word “extensive” is mentioned here.

Late last year, six provincial premiers wrote to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to object to the six-week window provided for input on the draft bill. They stressed the need for “appropriate engagement with provinces, territories, and Indigenous partners on the draft bill” that could “fundamentally change Confederation.” I do not believe that has taken place and any that has is not clearly outlined to the House. The premiers pleaded for time for Canada to fully and meaningfully consider and address the legitimate, significant concerns that we have already raised about the draft bill in its current form.

It is unacceptable for the government to claim that the time for consultation has been satisfied. I have heard that a great deal today. Concerns expressed at the time of the previous UNDRIP bill, Bill C-262, still exist now. How can the government claim credit for a new era of trust and reconciliation with indigenous communities with such a heavy-handed and sloppy approach to this legislation?

As I mentioned earlier, the effect of free, prior and informed consent has been a long-standing concern that has not retreated from the national discourse. It generates more questions than it provides answers.

Take, for instance, the direct input of indigenous communities. The National Coalition of Chiefs and the Indigenous Resource Network have expressed its concern about ramifications, such as who would have the authority to grant it and the impact it would have on future resource projects. If grant expectations under this model are not met, how will it undermine trust between the Crown and indigenous people for generations to come? Will it deter investment, good jobs and secure incomes from reaching our shores? Indeed, the interpretation of this may lead to consequences beyond Canada's resource development.

Professor Dwight Newman of the University of Saskatchewan's Faculty of Law, speaking before the Senate aboriginal affairs committee on a previous iteration of the bill stated, “the Court’s interpretation of FPIC is nonetheless subject to uncertainties that have enormous implications for Canada”. Professor Newman's input has merit.

Again, let us focus on how indigenous communities may be impacted. Clearly, the pursuit of reconciliation and tangible progress for indigenous communities could be stagnated by opaque language like FPIC. Even considering the current constitutional model, one that outlines a duty to consult and accommodate, tangible results can be hard to come by depending on the degree of intrusion proposed. With the implementation of this model, many serious questions are raised, including who might provide their consent in any given circumstance or who speaks for any community.

Members will recall a sensitive period for our country not too long ago when the decisions of 20 band councils concerning the Coastal GasLink pipeline came into direct conflict with opposition from Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs. Opposing groups within the Wet'suwet'en could not come to an agreement about who spoke on their behalf. Speaking before a parliamentary committee, Theresa Tait-Day, a founder of the Wet'suwet'en Matrilineal Coalition, said that the project had been hijacked, despite 80% of the band wanting the project to proceed.

It has been argued that the passage of Bill 41 in British Columbia, in many ways a mirror of the legislation before us, led directly to the disconnect between the elected band council, hereditary chiefs and government. Many indigenous stakeholders interpreted Bill 41 as the vehicle through which UNDRIP was adopted and therefore established a right to veto construction on the line. Indigenous communities deserve better than the ambiguity that B.C.'s Bill 41 and Bill C-15 provide.

Other questions remain, such as, how will this apply in situations where indigenous rights include title or the right to occupy lands and use resources? In situations involving unresolved or overlapping land claim disputes, whose consent is required? What form will this consent take in Canadian law? There is a real concern that the government is taking steps to enshrine UNDRIP into Canadian law without a clear picture of how concepts like FPIC will be interpreted in that law.

As justice minister in 2016, the member for Vancouver Granville said, “simplistic approaches, such as adopting the UNDRIP as being Canadian law are unworkable.” She went on to say, “it's important to appreciate why Canada cannot simply incorporate the declaration "word for word" into law.”

The Conservatives have been clear and consistent. We believe that UNDRIP is an aspirational document whose goals we support. However, to adopt it wholesale without consideration for lasting consequences is irresponsible. We need a made-in-Canada approach to achieve the type of reconciliation UNDRIP outlines. Indigenous communities do not need a further barrier to achieving the best for their communities.

Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, has spent his professional life in first nations administration as well as the oil and gas industry. In a special note to the Financial Post he wrote that he “know[s] first-hand what happens when federal bureaucracy gets in the way of responsible resource development.” It is his belief that symbolic gestures of reconciliation should not come at the expense of food on the table for indigenous people.

Reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people means recognizing and affirming their dreams and aspirations to not just be stakeholders but, as I have been told, shareholders. In this case, it is the private sector that has led the way in spending on indigenous businesses.

One example of nine is Cameco, the uranium company that procured $3.8 billion since 2004 from local suppliers in the riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan, whose member of Parliament is so passionately committed to seeing reconciliation truly succeed. His words I now repeat, “Advocating for jobs, owned-source revenue streams, equity ownership and financial independence is in fact the pathway to self-determination and the solution to many of the social challenges.”

The Liberals have been failing to keep their promises, such as ending long-term boil water advisories, and failing to stand up for the future of the natural resource projects that benefit indigenous communities and that they want to be part of. As it stands, this bill has the potential to sow further seeds of division across our country. If it is the government's intention to enshrine an international—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this comes up too often and I think this is an inference of a previous question I received from Conservatives in relation to uncertainty. Of course, I am confident that free, prior and informed consent, as referenced a number of times throughout UNDRIP, will be a key part of the collaboration and communications with indigenous peoples in setting down the action plan under Bill C-15.

What that will entail in the end, as Kerry Wilkins, the expert in my community, and as Murray Sinclair have said, is that it ought to enhance our current framework unquestionably. Let us also remember that, as Romeo Saganash has himself said and as the UN has said in its expert committee's look at free, prior and informed consent, when we are grounded in human rights, we are also looking at not absolute veto considerations, but we are looking at principles of proportionality as they relate to the interest at issue. Therefore, we will see an enhancement of our existing law through the implementation of UNDRIP, Bill C-15 and the action plan. We will also see it building upon this notion of human rights and considerations around proportionality.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Beaches—East York, I speak today in support of Bill C-15. I want to start by acknowledging the work of former NDP member Romeo Saganash. It really highlights how the importance of this issue cuts across party lines, and the significance of working across party lines to get important things done.

I have had many constituents reach out to me in support of implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Most, of course, email or write letters. Some call. Before the election in the last Parliament, when Bill C-262, Romeo Saganash's bill, was before us, I had a constituent, Murray Lumley, who came and met with me in my office and called on me to support that bill, which I did, and encouraged the government of the day to support it. Murray is a thoughtful, caring constituent. He did not vote for me; he worked against me, if I am being honest, in the last election, and I do not expect he will vote for me whenever the next election might be. However, I do want to highlight his efforts, all the same, just as I have highlighted Romeo's efforts. It is important that we emphasize just how this cuts across party lines and how all of us, regardless of political stripe, need to support this really important legislation.

When we work across party lines, we build trust. Another way we build trust in politics is by keeping our promises. I just want to highlight the platform that we ran on in the last election, which stated:

Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission said that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples charts a path “for reconciliation to flourish in 21st century Canada.”...

We will move forward with introducing co-developed legislation to implement [UNDRIP] as government legislation by the end of 2020. In this work, we will ensure that this legislation fully respects the intent of the Declaration, and establishes Bill C-262 as the floor, rather than the ceiling, when it comes to drafting this new legislation.

That promise has been kept through Bill C-15, which was introduced in Parliament in December of last year.

In substance, Bill C-15 has a lengthy preamble, including that:

[UNDRIP] provides a framework for reconciliation, healing and peace, as well as harmonious and cooperative relations based on the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith.... [They] constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples of the world....

It recognizes “historic injustices” and says that “the implementation of the Declaration must include concrete measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination, against Indigenous peoples.”

In substance, clause 5 states:

The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.

Saganash rightly noted before committee that “the Minister of Justice [already] has an obligation under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act to make sure that any legislation, before it is introduced, is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, and he noted that Bill C-15 provides for an equivalent for indigenous rights and treaty rights in this country.

Clause 6 is the most important section in this legislation:

The Minister must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples and with other federal ministers, prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.

This includes measures to “address injustices” and discrimination and to “promote mutual respect”; “measures related to monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy” and accountability; and “measures related to monitoring the implementation of the plan” and annual reporting mechanisms to Parliament.

Bill C-15 does treat Bill C-262 as a floor, which is incredibly important. It goes beyond, in its preamble, and recognizes the inherent right to self-determination, including a right to self-government.

In the words of the justice minister:

Bill C-15 would create a legislated, durable framework requiring government to work collaboratively with indigenous peoples to make steady progress in implementing the declaration across all areas of federal responsibility.

Is it supported by indigenous communities? Is it supported by experts? Is it supported by the above-noted Mr. Saganash? The answer is yes, an overwhelming yes. There is a letter in support of Bill C-15, with over 200 signatures from first nations, from indigenous communities across the country, organizations, experts and activists, including Saganash, Irwin Cotler, the current NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, and many others. I know that one of the signatories is also a constituent, Kerry Wilkins, who is an expert at the University of Toronto.

They write in this letter:

Parliament has an historic opportunity to advance reconciliation.

[UNDRIP] is a consensus global human rights instrument, elaborating minimum standards for the “survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples.” Implementation of these standards is vital to improving the lives of Indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world, and to upholding Canada's solemn and urgent human rights commitments.

They go on to note that the measures in Bill C-15 are “important, practical and achievable measures that deserve the support of all Canadians.”

Two of those signatories, Alex Neve, formerly of Amnesty International, and Brenda Gunn, wrote recently, and separately:

By any measure, implementing this global declaration domestically will significantly advance reconciliation and strengthen respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples across the country. Not automatically. And not without much hard work ahead, such as the considerable effort—in full collaboration with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples—that must be invested in developing the action plan for implementation that will be required.

They go on to note that it is important as a matter of global leadership and that it “stands to advance Canada's overall commitment to international human rights.”

Speaking recently to a parliamentary committee studying Bill C-15, Romeo Saganash stated:

I fully support Bill C-15 being tabled by the federal government in the House.... Government bills can proceed more efficiently, I believe, before the House and the Senate. Bill C-15 confirms the declaration as the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples.

He goes on to note that there are some amendments he would like to see, but he supports Bill C-15 and acknowledges that it meets his previous bill's commitment in Bill C-262.

Former chair of the TRC and former senator Murray Sinclair said, “Indigenous people now will be able to negotiate with a stronger hand than they ever have in the past”.

The Assembly of First Nations said, “The AFN is urging all Parliamentarians to support adoption of a strong implementation framework before the close of this session of Parliament.”

The ITK calls for the strengthening of Bill C-15, but goes on to say that it strongly encourages all members of Parliament to support Bill C-15 in order to help advance the urgent work of implementing UNDRIP.

The Métis National Council stated:

Canada now has the opportunity to assert its place as a world leader in the recognition of the human rights of Indigenous Peoples through this Bill. The Métis National Council fully supports this effort, and we urge members of all political parties to pass this legislation without delay.

Sheryl Lightfoot, the Canada research chair in global indigenous rights and politics at UBC, stated:

I am strongly in favour of the implementation model that Romeo Saganash created when he first brought...Bill C-262 before Parliament. This model, which is the foundation for Bill C-15, has a number of elements that I think are crucial.

First of all, it requires collaboration with indigenous peoples. It also requires concrete action including legal reform and...the creation of an action plan, and it requires public reporting and accountabilities.

...Bill C-15 is advancing the global conversation and setting a very positive example....

Quite simply, Bill C-15 represents the best approach to human rights implementation that I have seen from around the world, bringing all of these various elements together.

I previously noted my constituent Kerry Wilkins, who states, “Meaningful incorporation of UNDRIP into Canadian law would improve materially the circumstances, and enhance the autonomy, of Indigenous peoples dwelling here.” He goes on to provide a couple of examples. I recognize I am running out of time, so I will not get into them, unless perhaps I get asked questions.

Of course, I expect the government will look for ways of improving the bill at committee. I hope to see further testimony at committee that addresses whether a three-year waiting period for the action plan is appropriate and, if it is, whether interim measures might be useful. I am also interested to understand from testimony why the bill does not include a section on power-sharing agreements in the same way B.C.'s UNDRIP implementation legislation does.

Finally, it is really important to emphasize that so much depends upon implementation, so there are big questions in that regard. This bill is important, but it is important in its potential. Let us pass it at second reading, send it to committee, improve it at committee where possible, and let us get back to the hard work of implementing this important international framework here at home.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my good friend.

This afternoon, we will complete second reading debate of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Tomorrow morning we will start with the debate of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), followed by the debate at second reading of Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 in the afternoon.

On Monday of next week, we hope to complete second reading debate of Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. As all members are aware, at 4:00 p.m. that day, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will present the budget. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday will all be days reserved for budget debate.

Finally, on Friday, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

[Beth Symes]

Thank you for the question.

The UN declaration has the social and safety and security clearly in it, in articles 18, 21, 22 and so on. These now, when C-15 becomes law, are enshrined in Canadian law. It's much easier for judges, for tribunal members, for public servants and for people like you to say, “Well, it's now Canadian law, and we must achieve these. They are not merely aspirational. These are real rights.”

I picked the lifetime just as an example because it shows so graphically the enormous gap between what Canadians enjoy and what indigenous Canadians enjoy. It's a gap that's unacceptable. It's a gap that's caused by lack of housing, by lack of policing, by lack of education, economic.... All of these things, in a Canadian statute, will make them much more effective, much more compelling.

Second reading

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

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

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

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

[Melanie Omeniho]

I have an easy answer to that. There can be no real reconciliation around our indigenous population and the work that we do, including with Bill C-15, unless indigenous women, girls, children and 2SLGBTQ are included in the conversations and the consultation. We make up the majority of the indigenous community, and we have to be a part of all conversations because we see things from another perspective.

One of the things I've been taught is that, when you resource and support women, you resource and support a community. When you resource an infrastructure and those other mechanisms, you only resource a few. I think we need to support having women and the 2SLGBTQ being involved.

Thank you.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Many of you have spoken about the marginalization of women and of diverse-gendered voices. Even in Bill C-15 that's certainly what I have heard. I would agree that there has been a clear lack of representation of indigenous women's voices during the consultation on Bill C-15.

My first question is for Madam Omeniho.

How do you think this can be improved moving forward?

[Lorraine Whitman]

Thank you.

First of all, when we look at Bill C-15, it's like any piece of legislation; it's not perfect. In this case, however, perfection is not simple. The enemy of the good, I guess you could say, is demanding perfection of Bill C-15, as this operates directly against the rights and the interests of the indigenous women and girls who have every right to be as free from violence and discrimination as you or any other woman would love to be.

That's why we're saying that we need to be there. We don't want women to be just a token or an afterthought, which has happened.

I feel if the respect is truly there, I can certainly appreciate that we would be able to go much further than we are going and move forward in such a way that our women, our girls and our gender-diverse people will be appreciated and respected, because we are a large marginalized group of women who are dealing with the violence.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I have a more general question.

You spoke about the history of Métis women, first nations women and Inuit women, and the history of colonization, which was terrible for women in particular, and in different ways. There's no way to fix what happened. However, how can Bill C-15 contribute to reconciliation, by also including women? Would you like to point out anything specific for women?

My question is for everyone. I'll leave it up to you to respond.

[Melanie Omeniho]

I can go.

Actually, why it's important for there to be a gender-based analysis used when we're working with Bill C-15 is that in the onset of the development of the UNDRIP within the United Nations, at that time, there was never a lot of work or process in looking at things from a gendered perspective. I think that in the development and the work, especially in the process of the implementation of Bill C-15, we can do a better job of ensuring that there is a lens for all the intersections that make up the indigenous community.

As far as consultation is concerned, the biggest thing I want to say about consultation is that very often as indigenous women we're an afterthought in being engaged. We're brought in at the 11th hour and only given a very marginal opportunity to have proper engagement. In equal and fair process, everybody would have the same opportunity and be given the same capacity to be able to engage fully on any conversations or discussions on all matters going forward.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses: Ms. Omeniho, Ms. Whitman, Ms. Symes, Ms. Sharpe and Mr. Bond.

I'm very pleased today that we're shedding this additional light on Bill C-15. Of course, everyone spoke about GBA+, meaning gender-based and inter-sectoral analysis. This issue came up in your presentations along with the issue of consultations.

I have a two-part question for you. We still don't have much time. However, if possible, I would like to hear all of you speak about GBA+. Hypothetically, what do you think we could find on this topic, in the bill? How would this improve the bill? Also, how would you like to be consulted and really be part of the consultation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Melanie Omeniho]

Thank you for the opportunity.

We believe that UNDRIP provides the issues and a lens on human rights that haven't been addressed. The TRC and the missing and murdered report clearly identify that there are many significant issues that really haven't been addressed that are required for us to move forward in trying to create reconciliation and equality in this country. We see evidence of that in all the work we're doing, including racism in the health care system and the issues that we are trying to engage on with the police services, trying to change the lens on how those kinds of things are happening.

Bill C-15 is just a cornerstone piece of legislation. It will help build the foundation for a better future and more reconciliation.

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

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

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

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

[Adam Bond]

It's a really important question. I think there is a lot of confusion about how this operates. I don't think many people are under the assumption that Bill C-15 would elevate UNDRIP to the extent where it would create new actionable grounds.

However, what you're speaking to is the interpretation in clause 4 that recognizes that UNDRIP.... As a declaration, it's not a binding treaty under international law, as I'm sure you're aware. The purpose of this clause would be to say that, for Canada, this declaration is now considered to be an international human rights instrument with application in Canada. That means it becomes an interpretive tool under the presumption of conformity. When a charter challenge is brought or when some action or judicial review is brought before the courts, this would allow the courts to use UNDRIP as an interpretive tool. The presumption of conformity is a well-established legal principle that says the courts will work to interpret our legislation in a way that conforms with international law that is binding on Canada.

What does that do? One of the main concerns is article 32 of UNDRIP. If we now have UNDRIP elevated to an interpretive tool, and article 32 requires that governments consult in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent before approving projects that can have adverse effects on indigenous rights, how does this fit into the legal test?

I wish we had more time. These are obviously complex issues. I don't know that I'll be able to boil it down too quickly, but the Coles Notes version is essentially that it's not that large of an effect. The existing jurisprudence we have with respect to the duty to consult, and that most people refer to in the Haida Nation case, still stands. Whether or not there is an existing claim, what the content of the duty to consult might be based off of an unresolved claim—all of that jurisprudence is still relevant. In fact, even the jurisprudence that deals with the test for justification for an infringement of a section 35 right will still remain relevant right up until the step for justification, where the reverse onus turns to the government to justify any infringement.

For example, if you have a proposed project and you have—

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

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

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

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

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming here today and, despite the technical difficulties, getting their testimony on the record. I very much appreciate it.

Ms. Sharpe, the story about the two-dollar bill and your family being on it is really cool. I like that a lot.

I have spent most of my time in Parliament battling against the scourge of human trafficking that happens here in Canada. Human trafficking is happening within 10 blocks of where most of us live. We don't necessarily see it. We know that the victims of human trafficking are typically young women between the ages of 15 and 35. We don't really have a good handle on how many victims we have in this country. The stats of the ones who we are able to help and to rescue from human trafficking indicate that 50% of them are first nations, Inuit or Métis—indigenous people from Canada.

I want to thank each of your organizations. I know particularly the indigenous women's association has been at the forefront of that battle working with me to bring forward a bill. They supported my Motion No. 47 back in 2017. For all of your organizations, I'm sure that it's a big part of what you do around battling human trafficking. I really appreciate all of the things that you do on that.

Today, we're talking about Bill C-15. It's a somewhat controversial bill in that.... In the areas I work in on the human trafficking front, I use the UN document called the Palermo protocol that was adopted in the year 2000. Canada is a signatory to it, and we use it. Although not all of our laws are in line with the Palermo protocol, I still have a private member's bill on the record right now to bring Canada in line with the Palermo protocol. There's one aspect of the Palermo protocol that Canada isn't fully aligned with yet.

I also use extensively the UN document on the rights of the child. That, as well, is something that we use. Again, Canada is a signatory to that document; however, our Canadian laws don't necessarily fully align with the aspirations of that document.

To me, it feels that the UNDRIP—the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—is a similar document to the Palermo protocol and the rights of the child. I am wondering how this is different. Probably Mr. Bond is the likely guy to take a crack at this one first. How would legislating UNDRIP have application in Canadian law? Is that different from the Palermo protocol and the rights of the child, or am I just imagining that?

[Gerri Sharpe]

[Witness spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following translation:]

Good morning. I am joining you from Yellowknife, and I am happy to be here.

[English]

President Kudloo had connectivity challenges this morning and sends her regrets.

The passage of Bill C-15 is important to all Inuit women and girls in Canada.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee on this legislation. With me today is Beth Symes, Pauktuutit's legal counsel.

I was born in Yellowknife to David Sharpe and Maudie Qitsualik. My mother is the oldest of 17 born to Gideon Qitsualik. My grandfather Qitsualik helped shape the Nunavut land claims agreement in which education and self determination were key. He is also one of the seal hunters on the back of the 1972 two-dollar bill.

My childhood was spent in Nova Scotia and Gjoa Haven, an Inuit hamlet in Nunavut. I was among one of the first Inuit women in 60 or 70 years to receive facial tattoos to strengthen my connection to my Inuit culture and identity. I work towards the advancement of Inuit for my children and my grandchildren.

Inuit women in the mining industry are an example of the larger issue of the lack of respect for the voices of Inuit women and the partnership that is needed with all members of our community for the future resource development in Inuit Nunangat and to make progress on reconciliation with Inuit. Progress with Bill C-15 will advance by supporting Inuit and project developers to find a common ground.

Pauktuutit is the voice of Inuit women wherever they live in Canada. I am the vice-president of Pauktuutit. Our board has representatives from each of the four regions of Inuit Nunangat as well as representatives from urban centres and youth representatives.

For 36 years, Pauktuutit has been the national voice for the rights of Inuit women and girls, working towards our health and education and economic, physical, emotional and social security. Pauktuutit had legal standing at the MMIWG inquiry and was at every hearing where Inuit families told their stories. Pauktuutit and ITK are co-chairing the Inuit working group that is writing the Inuit chapter on the MMIWG national action plan.

Pauktuutit is also active on the international stage on the rights of indigenous women. Every year, Pauktuutit participates in the session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women and the UN indigenous peoples permanent forum.

In October 2020, Pauktuutit was invited to two consultations with CIRNA and Justice on a preliminary draft of Bill C-15. As well, Pauktuutit filed a brief asking for changes to the draft legislation. Bill C-15 incorporates many of the changes that Pauktuutit sought.

Bill C-15 is a step forward for Inuit women and all Canadians on the journey towards reconciliation. It is important because it states that Inuit women will have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that affect them; the right to improvement of economic and social conditions including education, housing, health, employment and social security; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and the same rights and freedoms guaranteed to Inuit men. As well, Inuit women are able to enforce all their rights in the UNDRIP act wherever they and their children live in Canada.

For all of these important reasons, Pauktuutit is not seeking any amendments to the legislation. Pauktuutit asks members of this committee to work towards a quick passage of Bill C-15.

I conclude by addressing the development of the action plan to implement UNDRIP. The action plan must be distinction based. Gender equality is a deeply held value for all Canadians. The federal government must use a GBA+ lens to develop the action plan. The voices of all Inuit women must be heard.

Bill C-15 is critical to closing the gaps for Inuit women with other women in Canada in education, culture, language, health, housing and economic security. It is also critical to realizing the hopes and aspirations we have for our children and our grandchildren. The passage of C-15 is also a historical opportunity for Canada to advance the path of reconciliation with Inuit and other indigenous people.

Qujannamiik. Thank you.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Melanie Omeniho]

I am.

In conclusion, I support the work of this committee. We're hoping that Bill C-15 moves forward and will become an act that we can all start working on building an action plan for that we can be proud of.

I thank you for this opportunity today.

[Melanie Omeniho, President, Women of the Métis Nation - Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to come and present to the committee on behalf of Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak, which is the Women of the Métis Nation.

It's a continuing journey to ensure equality of rights, of treatment and of access to education, health, employment, justice and democratic leadership among Métis women and two-spirit and gender-diverse people across the Métis motherland. Les Femmes Michif is actively engaged with its grassroots constituency in exploring options of the equitable and meaningful implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

Elders and representatives from across the Métis motherland have noted that this historic piece of legislation, if implemented according to its spirit and intent, could have the transformative power of an indigenous bill of rights. Bill C-15, the proposed UNDRIP act, represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reset both the scales of justice and the balance of power so that indigenous women, children and two-spirit and gender-diverse people are protected, safe and free.

Accomplishing the equitable implementation of UNDRIP domestically will be no easy feat. It will require a distinctions-based approach that recognizes no hierarchy of rights among the first nations, Inuit and Métis. Moreover, within each of the three distinctions-based groups, the unique experience of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people will also require specific analysis and attention, given their precarious and vulnerable positions in Canadian society. Indeed, taking a distinctions-based and gender-based approach to UNDRIP implementation will help ensure equality of outcomes for all indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse indigenous people.

Accordingly, diligent implementation of the UNDRIP will demand a whole-of-society acknowledgement, recognition and respect for the basic human rights and the constitutionally protected aboriginal rights of the indigenous people of Canada, with particular protections for first nations, Inuit and Métis women, children and two-spirit and gender-diverse people. From LFMO's perspective, the UNDRIP act holds up the hope and promise of equality of treatment and outcomes for all Métis women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse folks from our Métis motherland.

LFMO is a national indigenous women's organization that serves as a democratically elected representative and gives a national and international voice to Métis women across the Métis motherland. LFMO is mandated to represent the economic, social and political needs, interests and aspirations of Métis women and two-spirit and gender-diverse people.

LFMO acknowledges and appreciates the comments on Bill C-15 provided to the government thus far that have been incorporated into the draft legislation. We've been included in many of the engagement sessions that the Department of Justice held prior to the legislation [Technical difficulty—Editor] coming into existence, and we support the process of moving the bill forward. We're not asking for any amendments or changes to the bill.

We believe that the implementation of UNDRIP will only be meaningful when the development of a national plan comes into being. Based on Stats Canada reports and the reports we have for missing and murdered indigenous women in this country, we think it's imperative that the action plan be all-encompassing and support the engagement of ensuring that there is consultation and process available to help support the activities and engagement of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people throughout the process.

We think that employing a culturally relevant, distinctions-based and gender-based lens to the development of Bill C-15's action plan and its implementation will be critical to the act's success. To accomplish this, LFMO calls for an indigenous-first, gender-based analysis plus approach to inform the development of the action plan and the annual reporting to Parliament.

National, regional and community indigenous women's organizations, as well as indigenous two-spirit and gender-diverse representatives and organizations, must have as equal a seat at the table to other national indigenous organizations for the implementation of Bill C-15. Anything less than equality in representation would democratically detract from the honour and meaning of the sense of inherent equality contained within UNDRIP.

Before colonization, many indigenous nations were either matrilineal, matriarchal or matrilocal, with women holding important equal positions with their male counterparts.

Our women of the Métis nation were highly respected and central to the functioning of our society. They held essential roles in buffalo hunting brigades, subsistence trapping and fishing, voyaging expeditions, governance, raising children and passing down cultural, spiritual and social knowledge.

With colonization, imported Euro-Canadian notions of inequality, racism and gender norms radically transformed our society. Displacement, land dispossession, residential and day schools, and child apprehension have left Métis women marginalized, vulnerable and subject to targeted violence and negative societal attitudes. An important part of decolonization is in empowering the voices and roles of women and two-spirit and gender-diverse people in decision-making for our Métis motherland.

An honourable implementation of UNDRIP requires that the process be inclusive and incorporate the perspectives, aspirations and lived experiences of first nations, Inuit, Métis women and two-spirit people in planning and decision-making.

While male-led and male-dominated national indigenous organizations have been canvassed and consulted at length on C-15, the NIOs and the two-spirit and gender-diverse representatives also need to have an equal role in all planning and decision-making.

[Gerri Sharpe]

[Witness spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following translation:]

Good morning. I am joining you from Yellowknife and I am happy to be here.

[English]

President Kudloo has connectivity challenges this morning and sends her regrets.

The passage of Bill C-15 is important to all Inuit women and girls in Canada. Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee on this legislation—

[Adam Bond, Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thank you, President Whitman.

My name is Adam Bond. I am legal counsel with the Native Women's Association of Canada.

I'm here with President Whitman in a support capacity, and I'm happy to answer and respond to any questions of a more technical nature as they relate to NWAC's interests and concerns for Bill C-15.

I think that it was a very thorough discussion in the first panel. I'm pleased to have been able to listen in and hear your questions and the responses. I think this is a great dialogue. We're addressing some of the concerns that have been raised. I feel that those concerns generally gravitate towards some of the same concerns that were prevalent during the discussions on Bill C-262, particularly whether or not FPIC constitutes a veto and whether the changes brought in under Bill C-15 will essentially undo some of the jurisprudence with respect to section 35 rights.

I don't want to take up too much time here, because I'm sure that these questions will be brought up shortly. I look forward to hearing your questions and hope to have an opportunity to respond to some of these very important issues.

Thank you.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Calgary Centre.

I am honoured today to speak to Bill C-15, as the relationship with indigenous people in this country is a lived experience for me growing up and living in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. I must admit there is some trepidation on my part as we embark on this journey. The impacts of this bill would be both long-term and far-reaching, requiring more than the seeking of short-term political gains and talking points. The historical relationship between the federal government and indigenous people in this country is filled with distrust that has put in jeopardy the true potential our great country has to offer all of us.

A couple of months ago, in the announcement that the government would not fulfill its promise to end boil water advisories in first nations communities, it was pointed out that the scope of the problem was not fully understood at the time the election promise was made by the Prime Minister in 2015. This is another reminder to all of us that making promises one cannot keep is not an ideal way to develop trust in a relationship that badly needs more of it.

In a Globe and Mail article published recently, it was pointed out that Public Services and Procurement Canada for the past three years “has said a key indicator of the government's economic and social-policy goals was an increase in the participation of [indigenous-led business] in procurement.” Unfortunately, it was revealed in the departmental plans in the last three years that the targets have remained as TBD, to be determined. That is three years that we have seen no change in the ministry's plans to set targets or measure results.

Even worse, to this day, there is not even a mechanism in place to track which bids are coming from indigenous businesses. If the government's goal really was to increase procurement for indigenous businesses, one would think that, at the very least, creating an instrument in its data management system could have been developed in three years. At best, this is an astounding lack of competence.

Further evidence of lowering the bar was in the minister's 2021 mandate letter, where there was not even a mention of the 5% indigenous procurement promise that had been made to indigenous businesses in the past. Instead of doing the hard work and fixing the department's failures, they just removed the targets. It is not exactly an example that one would find in a leadership manual.

These examples illustrate a troubling trend with the government's actions when it comes to delivering results for indigenous people and their communities. It starts with making election promises and getting photographs at press conferences, and it continues by using phrases in ministerial letters, on websites and in announcements like “strongly encourages” and “the most important relationship to this government”. It then ends with walking back the original promise, changing the targets or, in the case of the procurement example, eliminating them altogether. The government tends to act only when it has its back to the wall, after spending too much time walking backwards while making little progress on its promises. We see this again today in the fact that it has to invoke closure on a bill that has seen one hour of debate in this House.

This brings me to Bill C-15. After Bill C-262, the government had ample opportunity and time to develop a national action plan that could have created the certainty and clarity that stakeholders have been consistently asking for. Putting together an action plan before tabling the bill would have allowed for many of the concerns of people across the spectrum to be addressed. The worry that government is putting the cart before the horse is justified, as history has proven that to be the case all too often. Why would we not ensure, on such an important piece of legislation, that we remove as many rocks off the road as possible before we proceed? That approach would alleviate a lot of the judicial quagmire that is sure to follow the passing of Bill C-15 without this transparent road map.

With no certainty, the very real worry is that there will be many court battles over the next few decades because of political short-sightedness. As we have seen this past year with the Nova Scotia lobster fishery issue, that is a path not worth taking. In this relationship, we cannot afford more failures. We have to be honest: Governments have a terrible track record on delivering expectations for indigenous people.

Let me use some numbers that the Indigenous Resource Network shared recently, to show who has not fallen short in delivering for indigenous people and communities in this country.

The private sector has led the way in spending on indigenous businesses. Suncor has spent over $6 billion on indigenous procurement since 1999, including $800 million, or 8% of its total spending, in 2019 alone. Sunova has spent $2.9 billion since 2009, including $139 million in 2019. Imperial has invested $2.6 billion in indigenous businesses since 2009.

Diamond mines in the Northwest Territories spent $5.9 billion on indigenous spending between 1996 and 2017. Agnico Eagle in Nunavut spent $408 million on Inuit businesses in 2019 alone. Teck Resources spent $225 million on indigenous procurement in 2019. Coastal GasLink has spent $720 million on indigenous and local contracts. TMX, when it is completed, will have generated over $1 billion on indigenous-based contracts. Finally, from its own published data, Cameco, a uranium company, has procured $3.85 billion since 2004 from local suppliers in my riding in northern Saskatchewan.

These numbers represent more than just dollars. They represent real outcomes and direct impacts on the daily lives of indigenous people. They allow for investments into communities that have far too long been left out of the opportunities the rest of Canada has enjoyed.

It is often implied that any discussion around economic opportunity and job creation for indigenous people is somehow insensitive to the social issues they face. I believe the opposite is actually true. Advocating for jobs, own-source revenue streams, equity ownership and financial independence is in fact the pathway to self-determination and the solution to many of the social challenges.

The culture of poverty has for too long defined the culture of the people. A culture with such rich history deserves so much better. The private sector has done the heavy lifting in the building of trust with indigenous people and their communities, and it has been doing it for years. It should be recognized and applauded for the advancement of reconciliation and the role it has played in it. Part of that recognition should be reflected in its voice being heard in the areas of this bill it is simply seeking clarity on.

Since Bill C-15 was tabled, I have had the opportunity and pleasure to meet virtually with many indigenous stakeholders. The common theme in our discussions always came back to the lack of certainty in Bill C-15's plan to implement UNDRIP. That is why it is so important that this bill clarify the following issues.

Number one, in the three years the government has given itself to develop an action plan on the implementation of the declaration, what is the approach going to be to collaborating and consulting with indigenous communities, the indigenous business community and the numerous regional and national organizations across Canada so all their views will be considered?

Number two, how will the application of the declaration be applied when there is conflicting support and opposition from the indigenous communities on projects that are both large and vertical in scope? Does the federal government retain the final authority in the decision-making process?

Number three, will not allowing time and space for indigenous communities to find an answer to the question of who has the authority to provide or withhold consent undermine the process? With the current lack of consensus, what does this mean in the years ahead?

Bringing clarity on these issues is the right thing to do. There is a responsibility in the consideration of Bill C-15 that requires us to not only listen to the concerns around the lack of certainty, but to respond by advocating for indigenous people, communities and leaders who are asking for answers to the important questions they are bringing forward.

We have a long way to go in building the lost trust in the relationship with indigenous people in this country. Divisions within Parliament have often led to legislation that is based more on politics than on real solutions. That is why it is obvious that seeking clarity and certainty on Bill C-15 is not only a fair and valid request, but it is the very essence of what the aspirations of UNDRIP require us to do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, could the member provide further comment on the issue of reconciliation and how important that has been for the government over the last number of years? As the member pointed out, Bill C-15 is another piece of legislation that responds to the calls for action, and to a deep desire that I and many MPs have to see UNDRIP take effect. How important is it toward reconciliation from his perspective?

[Lorraine Whitman, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kwe Kwe. Wela’lin.

My name is Lorraine Whitman, Grandmother White Sea Turtle, and I am speaking to you today from Mi'kma'ki, the unceded traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq L’nu people.

I would like to thank the members of this committee for asking us to appear before them to talk about Bill C-15.

NWAC is the voice of the grassroots indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people in Canada. As such, we have different perspectives from the male-led national indigenous organizations when it comes to issues like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I am going to turn the floor over to Adam Bond, legal counsel for NWAC, who will be going into the technical details of the bill and the UN declaration.

Before I do, I would put on the record that considering the importance of UNDRIP and the implementation of it in Canada, we are more than disappointed at how the consultation, or I should say the lack of consultation, has occurred. Indigenous women were not meaningfully consulted. Where is the honour of the Crown?

I want to bring this to your attention, because this is not an exception but rather the norm. This must stop. UNDRIP is about us, our families, our communities, the thousands of pages of the national inquiry testimony and its calls for justice. Specifically, call to action 1.3 demands that government end the political marginalization of indigenous women. Our exclusion from this important consultation flies in the face of these demands.

On saying that, I am going to ask our legal counsel Adam Bond to take over from here.

Wela’lin.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, good day and áma sqit. I am speaking to members today from the traditional unceded territory of the Coast Salish peoples, including the territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam nations. My riding also includes the traditional unceded territories of the Líl'wat, the Shishalh and the N’Quat’qua nations. I am very grateful to also call this place my home.

Tanúyap. It is particularly important to start with this language acknowledgement as we are debating Bill C-15, which seeks to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian federal law.

It is important because we need to remember that indigenous peoples have lived on these lands and waters since time immemorial. Their laws, their practices and their ways of life did not end when settlers reached Canada’s shores. However, our nation has stubbornly not been able to reconcile this reality and has instead sought to carve out a box, figuratively, to isolate first nations in society. It has sought to marginalize indigenous people in Canada or to assimilate them into society more widely.

The actions of settlers and Canadian governments over time have been to dispossess indigenous peoples of the land they enjoyed communally, to separate families, to suppress indigenous culture and to deny the same basic rights to indigenous peoples that the rest of Canadians enjoy freely.

The advances on indigenous rights we have seen in our country were not simply given to first nations. They were the result of long, arduous litigation that led to the development of aboriginal law. This was by no means easy: It started from a point of first nations not having the right to legal counsel to having rights protected under section 35 of the charter. The common law has evolved to recognize aboriginal rights to traditional practices such as fishing under indigenous leaders and visionaries like Ron Sparrow.

Recognition of aboriginal practices and title in seminal cases such as Delgamuukw had to be built from an evidentiary base that was recorded through oral history, when the law did not recognize it. These cases had to be heard in front of leading jurists who, only 30 years ago, dismissed indigenous ways of life as nasty, brutish and short before they finally worked their way up to the highest courts in our land where our laws continue to evolve.

The adoption of Bill C-15 would help flip this script with the government finally taking a proactive approach to recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, including the inherent right to self-determination. Nothing less is required to move forward in reconciliation.

Since 2016, progress has been made by introducing new approaches to negotiations and establishing mechanisms for co-operation and collaboration, as well as through ongoing steps to implement and respond to the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called upon the Government of Canada to fully adopt and implement the declaration as a framework for reconciliation, and Bill C-15 responds to calls to action 43 and 44.

Bill C-15 would take this step by further requiring that our laws be consistent with UNDRIP, or else modifying them so that they are. It is a simple and short bill, but its implications are wide-ranging. For that reason, an up to three-year timeframe is established to develop an action plan to implement this legislation. I know that seems like a long time, but when we consider that this implicates all federal ministers, the whole of government, and 634 first nations in this country speaking 50 different languages, as well as the amount of federal legislation that will have to be looked at, we can understand the scale of the task.

This is not the first time we are debating this bill in this chamber. This bill was first introduced by Cree former Liberal MP Tina Keeper in a 2008 private members' bill, which failed to be enacted. Former NDP MP Romeo Saganash’s private member's bill passed in the House, but unfortunately languished in the Senate for over a year before the last election.

I have to emphasize that we are not the first movers in this space of adopting this bill into domestic legislation, given that the provincial government in British Columbia did so in 2019. We can learn from its experience. The sky has not fallen since. Instead, the province has had one of the most robust economies in our country since then. I mention this to dispel a common misconception about the likely impact of this bill.

When it stalled the previous iteration of this bill, the official opposition in this chamber and the Senate voiced fears that the article recognizing free, prior and informed consent from indigenous people for projects on traditional indigenous land would paralyze resource development. However, these fears disregard the fact that the Government of Canada already aims to secure free, prior and informed consent when actions are proposed that impact the rights of indigenous peoples on their lands, resources and territories. Case law has grown to recognize that significant impacts to closely held rights require a meaningful process that seeks consent, in practice anyway, to uphold the honour of the Crown and to meet constitutional obligations under section 35.

These fears also disregard that industries already work from within this frame because their shareholders expect it, because it is necessary for social licence and business certainty, and because they know that the projects will become fixtures in the communities. Partnership with indigenous peoples is the way forward.

Giving first nations a say in projects that affect them does not mean that projects do not get built. It means that bad projects do not get built, and that the issues that impact first nations are addressed in the process. The Squamish Nation in my riding pioneered an indigenous-led environmental assessment process that a major project proponent agreed to be bound by. Rather than reject the project, the EA approved it with important conditions that would mitigate the impacts of the project. From that, an impact benefit agreement was then ratified by the nation through a referendum.

Similar progressive processes have been developed by nations such as the Tahltan Nation in northern B.C., where mining is a hotbed of activity, and the Secwepemc in the interior of B.C. Processes like these are now allowed, and indeed encouraged, by the Impact Assessment Act that became law in 2019. It is a great departure from the assessment regime that the official opposition brought in, in 2012. When the Conservatives were in power, they treated fist nations as stakeholders rather than as the rights holders that they are, and treated consultation with indigenous peoples just the same as with other individuals: as a box-checking exercise. This was not only dishonourable, it was also unlawful, and it is one of the reasons that inspired me to be where I am today.

The Impact Assessment Act is one of nine federal laws that references, and was created within, the spirit of the declaration. We need not fear these developments, because when first nations have clear power over decisions that affect them trust is built, confidence increases and opportunities become available for indigenous peoples. Decolonizing our relationship with indigenous peoples presents perhaps the greatest opportunity for economic growth in this country. If first nations can get out of the absurdly titled Indian Act, they can gain access to basic abilities, such as getting a mortgage from a bank, among many other benefits.

I wish to recognize Shishalh Nation hiwus Warren Paull, who was a councillor in 1986 when the Squamish Nation became the first self-governing nation in our country through visionary leadership, blazing a trail for many other nations. The nation has since developed advanced land-use plans to guide development and is assuming new areas of responsibility from other orders of government. It participates as a full partner in the Sunshine Coast Regional District, has reformed its constitution and voting laws, negotiated detailed provincial agreements on reconciliation and inspired the next generation of leaders, all while continuing complex negotiations on rights with the federal government. This is also happening against the backdrop of a community where survivors of residential schools still painfully recount their experiences.

Chief Paull was one of many dignitaries at the B.C. legislature for the announcement that the province would be the first in Canada to introduce and pass legislation to implement UNDRIP. There he noted that:

It's been 52 years since Frank Calder and the Nisga'a Nation did the first court case on land claims. Since those 52 years and counting, we finally get back to the place where recognition is there.

It is high time, 14 years after UNDRIP was introduced to the globe, that we recognize the same rights here. It is time that we work with first nations proactively to advance reconciliation rather than respond remedially to court decisions. It is time that we co-develop the future that we want to see in this country.

As my time is running out, I will conclude with that.

?ul nu msh chalap.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I just want to say hello to President Chartrand. It's so nice to see you. I can see you face to face here, even though it's on Zoom. I just want to say I really admire the Métis people and your nation for everything that you've accomplished.

When I first landed in Canada as an eight-year-old child, we came to Regina, Saskatchewan. My dad was a professor at the university there. There was an unveiling of the statue of Louis Riel in 1968, and we went to that as one of our first events as a family. Actually we met Prime Minister Trudeau, Sr., there, so Louis Riel and his rebellion and his fight for the rights of his people has meant a lot to me and to my family. Thank you for all you do.

You talk about UNDRIP being a blueprint. I also want to stress the fact that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has made clear reference to the consideration and protection of indigenous women. By its commitment to implement UNDRIP, Canada also agrees to measures to improve the economic and social conditions of indigenous peoples by taking into account the special needs of elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

You mentioned subparagraph 6(2)(a)(i), regarding racism and violence towards indigenous peoples. Can you expand a little on that and on how you feel that Bill C-15 will help the people in this regard?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much. I can appreciate those comments. I think maybe you're looking a little farther ahead than I was when I asked the question, and I'll try to bring it back to just when the government was developing Bill C-15 itself. Do you feel there was an adequate consultation, an adequate dialogue?

I understand what you're saying about once it's in effect, but what about at this point?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Chartrand for his comments.

You've given us a lot to think about already. In one of the comments that I picked up on—I don't remember when you were saying this—you stressed the importance of being included in the process, I believe perhaps in response to the questioning from our friend from the Bloc.

I'm just wondering if you can speak a bit about the process of consultation on Bill C-15 to this point. Do you feel there has been adequate consultation with the Métis nation?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank you, Mr. Chartrand.

Let's pick up where we left off in the first round of questions. You said that you were afraid that the bill would be used as a political tool, that it would be co-opted and that it wouldn't lead to real concrete changes.

What real impact do you really hope to see as a result of the passage of Bill C-15?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will begin by addressing the Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission, Mr. Jules.

Kwe.

What is your reaction to the exchange you just heard between Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Ross? Do you agree with those statements being attributed to first nations?

You know that we are currently debating in the House Bill C-15, which recognizes more indigenous rights, including the right to self-determination. Do you consider this to be a worthwhile process? It includes the obligation to consult first nations. Would you prefer that?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chartrand. I appreciate the contribution.

I appreciate the conversation we're having today. There's a lot of great input. I may need some additional clarification, because you did talk about free, prior and informed consent not being a veto. I appreciate that.

Grand Chief Bellegarde of the AFN has been quoted a number of times as saying, “You simply cannot tell a people that they have no right to say 'no' to what happens to them. Imagine a system where you cannot say no. That’s what we have had for more than a century under the Indian Act. That’s what led us to the mess we are in today.” I do agree with that.

Based on what you said, based what Chief Bellegarde said, what do we do when we're in a conflict situation, say for a major infrastructure project? If we have one nation against another nation, one that wants it and one that doesn't, who makes that final decision? Is that still the Government of Canada? I think that's the clarification we're looking for. I know that could be the next step after C-15 too.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you. I think that's a really important thing for all of us to be considering.

I'm curious if you could just talk about how Bill C-15 would support the advancement of Métis rights in Canada, and if so how that's going to roll out. What that's going to mean for those communities, for your communities?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

Brenda Gunn, a law professor from the University of Manitoba, shared with the committee that Bill C-15 was “an important step toward reconciliation, toward recognizing inherent human rights, toward a fairer and more just Canada for all.”

Do you agree with this assertion?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chartrand, for your speech today. I thought it was very important. I want to especially thank you for clarifying that all other government structures have free, prior and informed consent. This is just about making it fair.

In 2019, the Government of British Columbia introduced Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Bill 41 authorizes provincial governments to enter into agreements with indigenous governing bodies for the purpose of establishing joint decision-making or consent with respect to the use of statutory powers.

What are your thoughts on that? Do you believe there are benefits with this approach? Should Bill C-15 be amended to include this provision?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you.

We fully understand your desire to speak about nation to nation. Let me assure you that the Bloc Québécois understands and supports this concept.

Mr. Chartrand, do you have any concerns about what will happen before or after the bill is passed? Could you identify some of your concerns about the aftermath of Bill C-15?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise today to speak to this very important bill. I would like to start with commending all those who spent so many decades drafting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the grassroots, leadership and civil society groups that have brought us here today.

I would also like to thank those who introduced bills in support of the implementation of UNDRIP, such as former members of Parliament Denise Savoie and Tina Keeper, or tabled motions in its support, as former MP Irene Mathyssen did.

The NDP has a long history of support for the UN declaration. For instance, in 2006, the late Jack Layton wrote to the UN of our belief in social justice and equality leading us to support the declaration. He stated that even before the UN General Assembly had adopted it.

I would also like to give a special acknowledgement to my partner, Romeo Saganash, whose Bill C-262 forms the basis for Bill C-15, the bill we are debating today. It has been a very long road to get here.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 2007 to enshrine the human rights that, as it outlines, “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world.” I would also respectfully suggest adding the security of the person to that list.

The declaration was the result of over two decades of negotiations between indigenous peoples, civil society groups and nation states. It consists of 24 preambular paragraphs and 46 articles that define the inherent minimum human rights of indigenous peoples. This was a recognition that the rights of indigenous peoples were being violated throughout the world.

The articles within the declaration affirm the social, cultural, political, economic, environmental and spiritual rights of indigenous peoples. They include the right to self-determination, the right to free, prior and informed consent over matters impacting indigenous rights, including resource extraction on indigenous lands and territories.

Should these rights be violated, article 27 of the declaration also provides for fair and mutually acceptable procedures to resolve conflicts between indigenous peoples and states, including procedures such as negotiations, mediation, arbitration, national courts, and international and regional mechanisms for denouncing and examining human rights violations.

It is important to note that the requirement for free, prior and informed consent in activities of any kind that impact on indigenous peoples, their property or territories, differs in law from a veto. Courts are obliged to take into consideration the facts, circumstances and applicable laws in any given cases, while veto is an absolute concept in law.

Canada, over a period of two decades, was an active participant in the drafting of the declaration, along with numerous indigenous organizations and representatives, and other states. However, despite that hard work, Canada, under the Harper government, opted to oppose the adoption of the declaration in 2007 with three other countries: Australia, the United States and New Zealand.

Although the current Prime Minister indicated in 2015 that the “most important relationship” was with indigenous peoples, he, along with the Liberal caucus, continued to not support Bill C-262, which was introduced in April 2016.

It was only through public pressure that the Liberals finally caved and voted in favour of Romeo Saganash’s bill. This was in spite of the fact that during the 2015 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised repeatedly to adopt and implement the UN declaration.

It is time we move away from the Indian Act, and move forward in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples throughout Turtle Island. It is time that we confirm the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canadian law, obliging the government to ensure that all legislation is consistent with the rights articulated within the declaration, as well as to prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the declaration’s objectives, including addressing injustices, combatting systemic racism and discrimination, and eliminating violence against indigenous peoples.

However, as we speak here today, we are very far away from achieving that goal. Today, as I rise in the House, the current government is in breach of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling to immediately stop racially discriminating against first nations children on reserve. There have been 10 non-compliance orders to date, and the Liberals have now indicated they will break the law and not pay what was ordered by the tribunal.

There are more children in care now than at the height of the residential school system as a result of human rights violations, including failing to afford families the right to housing, failing to meet international obligations to ensure access to clean drinking water, and numerous other human rights violations that make it almost impossible for families to survive, let alone thrive. The government turns a blind eye to human rights, even when it impacts our children and families.

The amazing warrior Cindy Blackstock so eloquently stated, “There’s simply no credible defence to suggest that we, the people of this period, don’t know any better.”

As talk about reconciliation has become the new normal in this House, the government continues to fight St. Anne residential school survivors in court and sixties scoop adoptees, a Crown behaviour that continues to strip survivors of justice. It shows a total disregard for the violence they endured and continue to endure in real time while dealing with the residual traumatic and lingering pain.

Those experiences changed or shattered lives, including that of my dear friend and spirit sister Michele Guerin. Michele Guerin is a member of the Musqueam Indian Band and an esteemed lawyer who testified as a survivor during the national inquiry's truth-gathering process. Michele was apprehended in the hospital at birth, during the sixties scoop, from her mother Beverley Guerin, who served two years in the Canadian navy and worked as a secretary at an engineering firm.

The lives and fates of persons who end up in the system are often left to the whims of those making decisions, often leaving them very unstable. That was true for Michele, who decided to testify and chose to pursue a freedom of information request to obtain her child welfare file, records she used in her testimony, walking her through her journey as a kid in care labelled as a “high risk youth”. I would argue that the label was incorrectly provided. It should be given to institutions that are at risk of not meeting the needs of children and families.

There was a failure to meet Michele's needs as a young person, including objectifying her at the age of 14 in a local newspaper ad posted by the ministry of child and family services in an attempt to find her a home. The ad stated it was looking for a home for “a pretty independent teenage girl. Absolutely no parenting required.”

Even as a young person, she was objectified and sexualized by the system. Her rights were totally disregarded. Her personal experience brought her to feel connected with the late Tina Fontaine, a young indigenous girl who at 14 was left alone by the system and who was murdered. Her valuable life was further disrespected with the acquittal of her accused murderer.

Michele so clearly shared this during the hearing in British Columbia during the national inquiry:

The system labels us, neglects us, ignores us, and fails us. The worst failure is that decade after decade nothing changes. Our girls and women are still the prey. So we held the Inquiry. There were a lot of politics around the Inquiry, yet the families persisted. They needed to be heard. I testified as part of my own healing journey. The Inquiry lawyer told me, it’s rare that we have a lawyer testify as a Survivor. More importantly, I testified to be a voice for my Sisters. Still, there is no action plan. It feels as if our words fell on deaf ears and the government has chosen to Do Nothing.

These deaf ears are failing to invest in the current housing crisis, which has become even more critical during the pandemic. Many indigenous people continue to be unsheltered as a result of the violent and wrongful dispossession of our lands, territories and resources, a situation that has become even further pronounced on reserves, where issues of overcrowding, disrepair, inadequate infrastructure and lack of affordability are the norm, not the exception.

There has been a continued failure of this government to heed the calls from the member for Nunavut, the member for Keewatinook Aski and the member for Timmins—James Bay to take immediate action to address the massive shortages of homes and the mould crisis that have resulted from major disrepair.

There is also the promise of ensuring an end to water boil advisories on reserve, and it is one broken promise after broken promise. This is a vile human rights violation, as noted by Human Rights Watch in a 92-page report citing the Canadian government’s failure to meet a range of international human rights obligations, including its failure in, and extensive excuses about, ending all boil water advisories on reserve in Ontario, Manitoba and throughout the country. Even now, as we are in the midst of a pandemic, the government continues to find excuses not to afford indigenous peoples with this basic human right to water, yet it had billions of taxpayer dollars to spend on the TMX pipeline. These are choices.

Although Canada has endorsed the UN declaration, the Liberals still do not apply the right to free, prior and informed consent, as has been witnessed in Kanesatake, Site C, TMX, Keystone XL, Muskrat Falls, Wet’suwet’en territory, Baffinland Mary River Mine and 1492 Land Back Lane. It is not limited to these instances. We have seen excessive police force, or a lack of it, as witnessed in the Mi'kmaq fishing dispute, where police forces stood by their fishery, literally watching it burn to the ground.

It is no wonder that there has been criticism of Bill C-15 coming from indigenous peoples who have even lost faith that maybe this time the government will do the right thing. It is one thing to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and it is completely another thing to respect and uphold the rights affirmed throughout the articles of the declaration. Indigenous peoples have no reason to trust the government.

I understand this mistrust. It is valid, warranted and earned. I have the same mistrust, which is why we need this bill, Bill C-15, so we can finally have some legislative affirmation of our minimum human rights contained in the declaration. My support for the bill comes from my valid mistrust of the government to do the right thing. My trust has grown thin watching the clock run down, taking away hope, once again, that this will actually make it through Parliament.

Why does the government continue to hold up this bill? It is because indigenous people have seen and felt the impacts of human rights violations, including those contained in the Indian Act and other policies in Canada that maintain the violation of our rights to this day. Not only have governments failed in meeting the most basic human rights, but they legislated a violation of these rights.

It is abhorrent that in 2021, indigenous human rights are still up for debate almost daily in the House. Consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments can pull billions out their hat for their corporate friends, but banter back and forth about how they can come up with the money needed to resolve the water boil advisories on reserves, respect the right to housing and actually put in place a national action plan to resolve the ongoing violence perpetrated against indigenous women and girls caused by colonialism that continues to this today.

It is time for the Liberal government to start upholding human rights to ensure that the dignity, safety and the security of all persons is realized. This bill confirms these rights and ensures that any new legislation going forward will be consistent with United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as the summary of the bill affirms.

It is a critical step toward replacing the Indian Act with human rights. The Liberal government needs to act now, and I cannot express that strongly enough. The implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is essential. Bill C-15 confirms its application in Canadian law, meaning that courts can refer, and have referred, to the declaration to interpret domestic law, in addition to other distinct legal frameworks that also inform the interpretation of indigenous rights including the Constitution, indigenous law, our treaties, and international law that also respect and affirm those rights. None of these legal frameworks supersede the others, they are interrelated and mutually reinforcing.

Bill C-15 is not perfect and requires amendments. This has been noted in witness testimony by indigenous and non-indigenous people in our study of the bill in committee. We must ensure that broad-based consultations occur as we move forward to strengthen the bill. For example, a recommendation to include, in preambular paragraph 8 and article 6(2), a reference to racism.

We know there are growing movements of white supremacy here and abroad. We also know that as a result of human rights violations, indigenous peoples throughout what is now referred to as Canada have been left poor and, far too often, unsheltered on our very own lands. All the while violence resulting from systemic racism, including what is being witnessed in the case of Eishia Hudson or a failure of the justice system in the case of Colten Boushie, the fact the indigenous women and girls 2S and diverse gendered people continue to be murdered and missing without urgent action, like our lives or loss of lives does not matter. The onus of proving systemic racism is placed on indigenous people whether sitting in the House of Commons or boardrooms, or fighting boots to the ground.

Indigenous peoples are constantly put in the place of having to justify experiences with systemic racism and the microaggressions we experience, having to explain this reality to those in privilege who get to decide whether the claims are valid or not. Gaslighting: we need to call this out. To do otherwise would merely uphold the white supremacy and paternalism that is designed to keep indigenous peoples oppressed. Let us stop with the games and the need to protect the status quo, and just call it what it is, systemic racism, and not only when it is convenient but let us just call it systemic racism, neo-colonialism, white supremacy and human rights violations.

We need to first acknowledge truth if we are ever to realize a change in behaviour. Call it out, and let us get on with the work of creating a world where all people are safe and uphold their basic human rights, so we can all achieve our right to joy and dignity.

Let us stop fighting indigenous peoples in courts, whether it be about lands and resources; our right to free, prior and informed consent; fighting children; sixties scoop adoptees; and residential school warriors. Let us just honour human rights. Laws need to be put in place to protect indigenous peoples from acts of racism.

The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should have happened 13 years ago, when it was adopted by the UN General Assembly.

How many years will we have to wait before indigenous peoples' human rights are finally respected? The time for excuses has run out. That is why I am proud, along with the NDP colleagues, to call on the Liberal government to act now and to finally uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chartrand, thank you for your excellent and clear presentation. I also wanted to thank you for taking the time to point out the delay in the translation of your speaking notes into the other official language. It means a lot to me that you did this.

I know that your organization hasn't suggested any amendments to Bill C-15. Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention and I missed this, but could you tell me whether there are any amendments that you don't support among the amendments suggested so far?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like members of the House to think in terms of reconciliation. I want to emphasize that Bill C-15 is about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP is an international call for action that was adopted by the United Nations back in 2007.

I will quote from one of our Canada websites, dated November 12, 2010. It states:

Canada joins other countries in supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In doing so, Canada reaffirms its commitment to promoting and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples at home and abroad.

I believe that all members of the House of Commons recognize the importance of reconciliation. Would the member provide her thoughts in regard to the timing and how critically important it is, after years of certain types of delays, which I will not go into, for the House of Commons pass the legislation?

[David Chartrand]

Okay. I usually don't read, Mr. Chairman. I speak off the cuff, but I wanted to give this particular committee the respect and the information it deserves on such an important message. I think it was very important for us to share as best we can.

We've made it very clear from our perspective that, in the matters the AFN brought before you regarding amendments to be made, there's obviously a misreading of the preamble and paragraph 6. I want to conclude these comments. From our view, it's crystal clear that the Métis nation existed in western Canada before Canada was ever formed.

When you look at all of this, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you could take the time to read the rest of the report yourselves, and again I apologize to my friends in Quebec. We will get it to you hopefully by today.

I want to make it clear. Without Bill C-15 coming into play, there's going to be uncertainty. There are going to be more fights in courts. More battles will take place. Again, if I'm a shareholder, a stockholder, I sure as hell would not want to be putting my money on a particular unknown factor when I have a blueprint here in Canada.

Recently we were ranked number one in the world, Mr. Chairman. If we want to maintain that leadership, this is a good example. We need to pass this, and we need to do this together. I think we can do it together. I know that—

[David Chartrand, Vice-President and National Spokeperson, Métis National Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for allowing us to come to this very important committee. I want to start off by saying good morning to everyone and thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to speak today. My apologies for a late submission that is coming your way in French translation. We don't have a lot of funding in this particular area, so we always seem to be late. I want to express my apologies to our friends in Quebec. We will never forget them for standing up for Louis Riel. We do apologize to them for not having the French translation on time.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Métis nation in support of Bill C-15 and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The Métis nation is a distinct indigenous nation based in western Canada. We are a rights-holding nation under section 35 of the Constitution, and we are a partner in Canada's Confederation.

For the past year, the Métis nation has worked collaboratively with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Assembly of First Nations, and the Government of Canada to develop legislation using former Bill C-262 as the floor. Bill C-15 is the result of this process. The human rights contained in the UN declaration are the minimum standards for our survival, dignity and well-being, and Bill C-15 sets out an effective process to implement these rights in Canadian law.

In 2008, former MP Tina Keeper introduced a private member's bill to implement the UN declaration in Canada. In 2016, Romeo Saganash did the same under Bill C-262. We are here today because, unfortunately, these bills did not receive royal assent. On the positive side, we have the foundation that these previous bills have provided, and we have the momentum to make change right now. We must not allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers. We have waited for too long to see the rights of indigenous peoples fully recognized.

We believe that passing this bill into law is critical to a future that respects our rights as a nation. We urge members to expedite the process to ensure that Bill C-15 is passed in this session of Parliament. We urge members to reject proposals for amendments that would impede this objective, including the amendments put forth by the Assembly of First Nations and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. I will speak to this more in a few minutes.

In November 2020, we held nationwide engagement sessions, at which we heard from a broad range of Métis nation citizens from across our homeland. I think each of you has a copy of this. You can read it. Hopefully you've read it. If not, please read it. We heard from Métis nation women, elders, youth, persons with disabilities, gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons. We heard from our leaders within Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak-Women of the Métis Nation, which is part of the governing structure of the Métis nation.

In our engagement processes, the citizens of the Métis nation voiced their strong support for the implementation of the UN declaration, and expressed hope that this bill will become law and positively impact their lives and futures. During these sessions, our citizens emphasized a number of areas in which their rights matter in their daily lives. These included education, language, housing, health, child and family services, jobs and economic opportunities. They also feel strongly about their right to self-determination and jurisdiction over lands, territories and resources. We are strong protectors of our land. We also understand the role that responsible resource development plays in the economic security and well-being of our communities and the prosperity of Canada as a whole.

The Métis nation is uniquely positioned to strike a balance between the environmental and economic factors of our homeland and resources. The recognition of our rights supports this. Our Métis nation governments must have a central role in implementation, and we will work in partnership with the Crown and with industry when it comes to our land.

The common theme in all of this is our inherent right to self-determination. This is our cardinal right. Much of the discussion around this bill and the declaration has centred around free, prior and informed consent. This is a natural and necessary part of our right to self-determination. I will speak more on this later.

Our lives are rich and deep, and our self-determination is exhibited in many different areas. As you can see from the priorities of our citizens and from reading the declaration itself, our self-determination fortifies our citizens, communities and nation in a holistic manner.

Bill C-92, passed in June, 2019, is a good example. It was developed in partnership with indigenous peoples and makes good progress toward implementing the UN declaration in the area of child and family services. It does this by affirming our right to self-determination and affirming our jurisdiction over our nation's children. We continue to support this approach to implementation.

It's also important to the Métis nation that implementation of the UN declaration, through Bill C-15, is done in a meaningful, transparent and accountable manner. The inclusion of the reporting requirements and an oversight mechanism to provide recourse for rights violations are key additions that strengthen this bill.

Likewise, the success of the action plan is crucial for meaningful implementation. The declaration affirms the right to self-determination and supports the role of indigenous governments in representing their nations. The action plan must reflect this. It must be developed in true partnership between the Government of Canada and indigenous governments. It must not be unduly limited in scope. It must be properly resourced so that indigenous peoples in Canada have the means to truly implement their rights.

I'd like to turn now to the issue of certainty. As with Bill C-262, claims that this bill will result in uncertainty and threaten economic opportunities has been a major point of contention. Let me be clear. Economic growth is very important to the Métis nation and to Canada. Free, prior and informed consent is not a veto. Implementing the UN declaration will result in more certainty, not less.

We must recognize that we have been living in this uncertainty for years. This has resulted in using the court system to try to find certainty. We fought for our land rights in court for 32 years in the Manitoba Metis Federation case. We'll always stand up for our homeland and our self-determination, but Bill C-15 offers us a better way forward than fighting battles in courts. This is why I call the UN declaration a blueprint for clarity.

The market always tries to find greater certainty. This point has been raised several times before this committee, but look at how the market has responded to the uncertainty we have been living in. Industry has moved towards forming more respectful relationships with indigenous peoples, and some companies such as the Mining Association of Canada have even looked to incorporate policies on free, prior and informed consent under processes. This is how they have found greater certainty. The idea that moving further towards this approach through Bill C-15 would result in less certainty is nonsense.

I would hold up the productive relationship the Métis nation has formed with industry groups, such as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Mining Association of Canada and Enbridge, as further evidence that Bill C-15 will create greater certainty. These relationships have translated into projects that have provided tangible benefits for the Métis nation and for Canada, such as projects that the Manitoba Metis Federation has undertaken with Enbridge.

Free, prior and informed consent is key to our ability to participate meaningfully in the decisions that impact our lives, our land and our rights. This is necessary if our right to self-determination is to be upheld. We will be involved from the very beginning as partners in natural resource projects on other developments. We will look together for the best way forward in a way that builds consent.

This is not a veto. I repeat that again: This is not a veto. It does not undermine or override due process. There is no due process if we are excluded. Free, prior and informed consent ensures due process by ensuring our participation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

With quorum, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

In Ottawa, we always acknowledge that we meet on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. Various of us around the country are in other lands. In my case, it would be the lands of the Anishinabe, Haudenosaunee and Chonnonton peoples.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 25, 2021, the committee is continuing its study of the subject matter of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Once again, to ensure an orderly meeting, speak and listen in the official language of your choice. At the bottom of your screen, using the globe icon—you can see it there—select either English or French. As you speak, you can change languages without changing that selection.

Ensure your video is turned on. When you speak, speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

I must inform the committee, pursuant to the motion of March 9, 2021, that Al Benoit, Celeste McKay, Lorraine Whitman and Melanie Omeniho have not completed the technical pretest.

With us today by video conference from the Métis National Council are David Chartrand, vice-president and national spokesperson; Al Benoit, chief of staff; and Celeste McKay, consultant.

Thank you all.

Just before I ask Mr. Chartrand to present, I understand that we have a hard stop at a quarter past the hour of our meeting normal time, so we may have to adjust the time as we go along.

Mr. Chartrand, I'm asking you now to open up for six minutes on your presentation to committee.

Please go ahead.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset I would like to say that it is an honour to speak in the House to Bill C-15. This is an historic bill and I hope we will be able to adopt it swiftly.

My colleagues know that I represent a northern riding and the majority of its population are members of the Innu or Naskapi nations. I rise in the House with my brothers and sisters from the North Shore and the Nitassinan in mind. I speak for the communities of Essipit, Pessamit, Uashat, Maliotenam, Unamen Shipu, Kawawachikamach and more. It is for these communities and the entire North Shore, which is also in favour of this bill, that I rise today.

This bill comes in the wake of great moments in our history in Quebec, including the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701, which forged the alliance between our adoptive ancestors. My own ancestors were not on Quebec soil at that time, but that is what happened between the French and the indigenous peoples.

I will talk about three things today, one of which is extremely important to me because there are many myths about Bill C-15 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We must deconstruct these ideas, comments and opinions, which lead our reflections on the issue in the wrong direction.

Before speaking about self-determination, the third point of my presentation, I would like to remind members of the positions and actions of the Bloc Québécois that are in line with what we are doing today in the House.

The Bloc Québécois has promised on several occasions to be an ally of first nations. Whether in my work as an elected member or in the case of the entire Bloc Québécois, we have never wanted to speak for first nations. On the contrary, we want to be a conduit. These are nations. Quebec is a nation. To have a respectful relationship, we must let the other speak. Today, I hope that my words and those of the Bloc Québécois demonstrate that we wish to convey the words, wishes and desires of first nations.

It will not come as a surprise if I say that we support the bill. The Bloc Québécois has stated its support for the declaration many times. Even in the previous Parliament, we were in favour of Bill C-262, which was introduced by one of my former colleagues. I cannot name him in the House, but he knows who he is. I thank him.

We have always been an ally to first nations, and we support the declaration that was signed over 15 years ago as well as the previous bill. Despite introducing private members' bills about this over the past 15 years and pressuring the government, we still have not managed to pass a bill. That is why I want to emphasize that passing this bill is urgent. This is just the first step, and there will be more to follow, including the implementation. It is very important that this be done quickly for first nations.

I now want to talk about the concerns that have been expressed by different communities. Although the concerns are shared in different ways, they all come down to the feeling of a loss of control. I always find that surprising, since we are talking about first nations' rights. I do not think we should even be asking these questions, on principle, since these are their rights. These rights belong to them.

There are nevertheless some concerns that may play on fear, whether consciously or subconsciously. Sometimes these concerns are born out of a lack of understanding, which is why we need to dispel the myths.

The first has to do with free, prior and informed consent, known as FPIC, a topic that has evoked some strong feelings in almost all of the speeches. We hear so much about FPIC, as though it were the only key to adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and enshrining it in law.

However, we are told that FPIC is a veto right, which blurs the line between two completely different notions, but what we hear is that consent is a veto. The first point I want to make in my speech is that these two notions are completely different. Consent is not a veto. FPIC is a notion all on its own.

According to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we have an obligation to co-operate in good faith with indigenous peoples in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent. We are therefore not talking about a veto.

There is no significant difference between such consent and the duty to consult established by the Supreme Court. This is nothing new, and it is something that should always be done. I agree with the declaration. I agree with obtaining the consent of a people or nation living in a territory with regard to activities that will have a direct impact on them and on their lives, culture and health. In my opinion, we should all agree on that.

I have lots of things to say, but I will move on to another point people often raise about how there is some uncertainty regarding the legislative intent. The Minister of Justice said that the legislative intent was not to grant veto power. He said so clearly during his speech at second reading of Bill C-15. I do not have the minister's exact quote here, but I am sure it is in the official report of the House of Commons Debates.

Now I would like to talk about the legal definition of consent. Consent was already required in the past, though it was not called that. It already existed. Now it is being named and made mandatory. Examples from history are the James Bay project in the 1970s, the Oka crisis and the Grande Baleine project. First nations were being asked for consent back then.

In any case, the first nations are rallying and mobilizing. We have seen it over the past couple of years. Political pressure is being exercised on many fronts and it is warranted. There is a desire be consulted and to be able to provide free and informed consent.

There is another concern regarding the revenues generated by resource-related activities. I think the issue of royalties is simply ridiculous, and I believe the British North America Act is clear on the matter: Quebec and the provinces are owners of their own land and the resources therein. In the case of Quebec, this is an absolutely indisputable interpretation of the Constitution. There is already an agreement on the sharing of revenues from these resource development projects. That already exists.

When it comes to wealth sharing, I do not see how anyone could have a problem with sharing the revenues with the first nations who live on the land, creating jobs for those first nations and promoting wealth creation in remote areas like mine. The Bloc Québécois believes that sharing resources is patently obvious. It is necessary, and it goes without saying any time there is an agreement, a deal or a consultation with first nations.

I will address another point, but first I would like to conclude my thoughts on Quebec's jurisdictions, as I was talking about earlier.

On Bill C-15, the Minister of Justice said the following:

Let me be clear: Bill C-15 would impose obligations on the federal government to align our laws with the declaration over time and to take actions within our areas of responsibility to implement the declaration, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples. It would not impose obligations on other levels of government.

The notion that this would infringe on Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions is yet another myth and another concern that I want to debunk. This is not true. The intent seems quite clear in this legislation. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the bill precisely because our interpretation is that the bill does not infringe on the provinces' exclusive jurisdictions.

I want to talk about the notion of self-determination under the declaration, since that is exactly what it does. The declaration recognizes that indigenous peoples and nations have the right to self-determination. Members will know that a nation's right to self-determination is something that we in the Bloc Québécois hold dear. I do want to point out that this right to self-determination is an internal one. It has nothing to do with a state's borders, and this is made clear in several articles of the declaration. This right to self-determination can simply be interpreted as an inherent right to self-government within a sovereign state's legal framework. There is autonomy, but within the legal framework of a sovereign state, within Canada. I hope that one day this will apply to Quebec.

On top of that, international law has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There is a lesson to be learned from what has been done internationally.

Canada has also taken a position in support of UNDRIP. We agree, but there is one more step to take. We must follow through and finally pass Bill C-15. Then we need to implement it, which we hope will be done swiftly. There is talk of a three-year time frame, but we would like to move quickly and see that shortened to two years. My first nations brothers and sisters have been waiting long enough.

In closing, I would like to quote a few passages from UNDRIP that I think are clear examples of why we should pass this bill very quickly. These are points that everyone agrees on and, again, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could not support this. I will now quote a few articles all at once. Article 10 states the following:

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.

I do not know how anyone could be against that. The declaration also states the following:

Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.

These are fundamental rights. Who is against that? I will continue:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights....

I would ask the same question. The declaration also states the following:

Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining....

Who is against that? I will continue:

States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.

Once again who is against that? This is my last quote:

States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:

...

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

...

There are many other articles I would like to read, but they are all along the same lines. They speak about rights, integrity, freedom, essential needs and respect; in the end, they are about human beings.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois obviously supports Bill C-15 because we agree with the principle of it. We would like to see the bill be implemented quickly. With regard to all the misconceptions surrounding Bill C-15, I would like people to learn more about the bill and for us to talk about it, because we need to clear up those misconceptions. We must not vote based on impressions or opinions, but on facts, and we always need to remember that we are talking here about the rights of nations.

At the same time, since the Bloc Québécois obviously seeks to speak on behalf of Quebec, I would like to remind the House that, on Tuesday, October 8, 2019, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion:

THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the conclusions of the Viens Commission, expressed on 30 September 2019, as regards the responsibility of the Québec State with regard to the overwhelming and painful findings set out in its report;

THAT it recognize, as the leaders of all the political parties represented in the National Assembly have affirmed, the importance of taking concrete actions, now, to put an end to discrimination against the members of the First Nations and the Inuit and to forge egalitarian relations with them;

THAT it acknowledge that the report from the Commission Viens calls on the Québec Government to recognize and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a recommendation also made in the report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls tabled last May;

THAT the National Assembly ask the Québec Government to recognize the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and commit to negotiating its implementation with the First Nations and the Inuit.

The will of Quebec, which I am expressing today, and the will of first nations are clear.

The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the blame game that the minister tries to put forward. I do not think anyone is buying it. We all know it is the government House leader who controls the House schedule and decides what we vote on.

The minister earlier alleged that the Conservatives keep bringing up the same things. Here is some new information that was brought forward since we last met. Treaty Six first nations chiefs utterly reject Bill C-15. That came out just a week or so ago. They are asking the government to begin a process of engagement with them. We have heard from elders from a number of first nations who wrote to us because they flatly reject and refuse to accept Bill C-15. Many others have been talking about it.

What does the government have to say to these indigenous communities and leaders? Why will the government not practise what it preaches?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to pick up on the idea of the importance of UNDRIP. This is an issue that has been before the House, in one form or another, for quite a while now. When we speak about reconciliation, we talk about issues, such as reforming justice legislation and doing what we can in dealing with systemic racism. UNDRIP also plays an important aspect in reconciliation.

Can he take a broader approach in terms of why it is so important that we pass Bill C-15?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it kind of ironic that the government continues to use time allocation on a bill that purports to provide indigenous Canadians with free, prior and informed consent and that the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore the multitude of indigenous leaders who have yet to have their voices heard.

We support the aspirations of UNDRIP, we have been perfectly clear about this, but there are significant issues that need to be addressed with this legislation. We need to get this right, we need to define “free, prior and informed consent” before it moves through the legislative process. For example, it has taken over 10 years to gain clarity from Canadian courts on section 35 rights enshrined in Canada's Constitution.

The lack of clarity, that lack of understanding of key concepts of Bill C-15, threatens to turn the clock back on economic reconciliation and dismantle the hard work of indigenous leaders. How does the government actually justify ignoring the legitimate concerns indigenous leaders and communities have on Bill C-15?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Obviously, I agree with him about the importance of Bill C-15.

First, there are no surprises in the bill. It is based on a previous bill introduced by our former colleague Roméo Saganash, so members are familiar with it and it has already been debated in the House of Commons and studied in committee. We therefore need to move forward.

With regard to the work of the House, the Conservative Party's strategy is to filibuster all of our legislation. That is what it did to the bill on medical assistance in dying, the 2020 fall economic statement and the net-zero legislation. The Conservative Party always tries to stop bills from being examined and passed by filibustering.

That is why I want to thank the NDP and the Bloc Québécois for their co-operation on the bill on medical assistance in dying. As a result of that co-operation, we are able to move forward and pass very important bills that represent progressive measures in the history of our Parliament and our country.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is imposing time allocation, better known as a gag order.

This is an exceptional measure that should only be proposed on rare occasions and agreed to even more rarely. It is an exceptional measure that applies to exceptional circumstances.

However, the current government has made a habit of using this measure. It almost always imposes gag orders and time allocation motions. That has become the government's modus operandi.

Why is that the case? I think that the answer lies with the current government's management of its legislative calendar, which has lacked rigour and effectiveness. Even though the opposition parties often co-operate, the government is still not managing its calendar properly and always ends up imposing time allocation motions.

Bill C-15 is an extremely important bill. Today is the second day of debate. The first day, we debated this bill for only an hour and now the government is already moving a time allocation motion.

Of course, Bill C-15 is very important for first nations, but it is important to understand that the debates in the House are also very important, and the government needs to respect that.

My question is simple. Why does the government want to stop debate at this particular point in time?

Bill C-15—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I want to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In addition to the Conservatives holding indigenous peoples and people to a higher standard of democracy than we even see in colonial electoral systems, I want to go back to this question again.

Madam Monaghan, one of the suggestions we've heard at this committee from the Conservatives, as repeated by Mr. Viersen, is that we need to incorporate a definition of FPIC into Bill C-15. I think it would be somewhat dangerous to have a single definition for all situations in Canada, given our diverse legal and political context with modern treaties, numbered treaties and unceded territories.

Could you please provide your thoughts on that?

Thank you.

[Natan Obed]

We've listened closely to not only Inuit perspectives but also Canadian perspectives on this piece of legislation. We've also listened to ministers and governments speak about indigenous people's rights and what may happen with the adoption or passage of Bill C-15.

I think there is sometimes an overstatement of what this bill actually will do, especially on day one. Industry's fears about natural resource extraction, I think, are a strange bogeyman that exists, but it is of less concern to me when it comes to the implementation of this bill than it would be to how to use the provisions in the bill to get the change that we all believe and want. We desperately need the bill to pass, but we also need it to be strengthened.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

I have heard you, and I hear you.

You've also indicated ITK's position regarding Bill C-15. You stated that it would be strengthened if it were amended to include the establishment of an indigenous human rights commission.

Could you expand on why that is so important? Can we hear your thoughts about others who have said that the development of the action plan could be used to explore this establishment instead?

[Natan Obed]

There was a co-development phase of the legislation, which included the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. We, on our part, have worked through our Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami board of directors. Those four presidents who sit as our voting members are presidents of the four Inuit land claim agreement regions and are elected by each of their constituencies. They have the confidence of their particular people, and then in turn direct Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami to have national positions.

Tania Monaghan referenced the passage of a resolution last week supporting Bill C-15. There are also, on a concurrent path, consultation sessions that the Government of Canada had with Inuit in relation to this bill.

It is for each of the indigenous peoples of this country to answer that question for their respective peoples. For Inuit, we have a democratic process that has led to the support of this bill.

There has been a federal consultative process, which happens in every single piece of legislation. That is not exhaustive to every Canadian, but it attempts to understand and adhere and incorporate the views of individual Canadians, as well as the positions of representatives of Canadians.

I believe, for Inuit, this has been met and the legislation should proceed, but I cannot speak for first nations or Métis.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Under article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it says that “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with... indigenous peoples” and “to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing [laws] that may affect them.”

I guess what I'm asking is whether it is possible that Bill C-15 can move forward without doing that consultation ahead of the passage of the bill.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

I want to continue with the conversation we were just having that Ms. Gazan brought up.

We, as legislators, have to examine every piece of legislation—not every piece of legislation is perfect—and we have to vote yes or no on the words of the legislation.

We have seen many organizations come forward that are concerned about the lack of a definition of FPIC.

Mr. Obed, I want to clarify—and I appreciate your comments—whether the ITK is satisfied that if Bill C-15 were to pass, it would meet the UNDRIP requirement found in article 19?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have one follow-up question. One of the suggestions we've heard at this committee time and time again by the Conservatives, as certainly repeated again by my colleague Mr. Viersen, is to incorporate a definition of FPIC into Bill C-15. I believe it would be somewhat dangerous to have one definition for all situations in Canada, given our very diverse political and legal contracts, modern treaties, treaties 1 to 11 and unceded territories.

I was wondering if you could comment on that.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for President Obed and Madam Monaghan.

What impact, if any, would Bill C-15 have on Inuit communities, some of whom have signed on to modern treaties?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Obed and Ms. Monaghan.

I'd like to ask you very generally about your wishes. You have proposed a series of amendments. What are your priorities in terms of Bill C-15, apart from having it passed?

I'd also like to hear your thoughts about the action plan. Do you want the plan that will follow when the bill is passed to be prepared more quickly?

[Tania Monaghan]

Sure. Maybe I'll begin by noting that the ITK board of directors met recently and passed a resolution to unanimously support the passage of Bill C-15, noting, as President Obed remarked in his opening statement, the interest in seeking some improvements or strengthening the particular section of the bill in order to advance this commission's concept that's been a long-standing position of ITK. In the written brief that's been circulated in both languages to the committee for consideration, at page 4 there's a lengthy section of proposed amendments that really delve into the concept further.

The proposal to strike paragraph 6(2)(b) is really just in the interest of carving out a space where this would realistically fall within the current structure of the bill. There's an interest of course in acknowledging the establishment of the indigenous human rights commission as well as in laying out some interest in content regarding how the strategy could be approached to develop this further, including of course familiar language and other legislative mechanisms, associated time limits, advisory committees, and taking a distinctions-based approach similar to what we've seen in the Indigenous Languages Act, and considering the appointment of commissioners.

I'll end there. Thank you.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Monaghan, would you care to comment at all on any of the legal matters that may be specific to Inuit Nunangat and Bill C-15 that we may have missed from the AFN? I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really ask you an appropriate question, but I would ask for your insight.

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Thank you so much, Chair.

It is very good to be here with you all this morning for such an important topic. I believe you have the submission we sent along yesterday.

I am the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national representational organization for Canada's 65,000 Inuit. We live primarily in Inuit Nunangat. Our homeland spans approximately 35% of Canada's land mass and approximately 75% to 80% of Canada's coastline. We have been instrumental in protecting Canada's sovereignty in the Canadian Arctic. We have signed modern treaties, or land claim agreements, with the Government of Canada, and we do not fall under the Indian Act.

We have had many colonial experiences that are consistent with the treatment of first nations and Métis. We have many things that are unique about our relationship with Canada and our relationship with the provinces and territories in the ongoing colonization and, now, in the ongoing reconciliation process in this country.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami welcomes Bill C-15 as a promising opportunity to close legislative and policy gaps that contribute to human rights violations against the Inuit, as well as for preventing discrimination and providing recourse and remedy for human rights violations experienced by our people.

ITK worked positively and constructively with the federal government on the development of Bill C-15 within a relatively short time frame for legislative development and within the parameters of the government's legislative mandate. Recognizing these limiting factors, Bill C-15 should be further strengthened by amending it to include provisions that enable the creation of an independent indigenous human rights commission. We liken this to having something that is very good and making it even better. The amendments that we have tabled are improvements upon our already positive support for Bill C-15, as we had already provided support for it upon first reading it.

Federal legislation is necessary to implement the UN declaration in Canada. While many articles of the UN declaration are already recognized as binding rules of customary international law, affirmation of the UN declaration in domestic statutes provides additional guidance on the legal effort of the rights affirmed by the UN declaration. In the absence of legislation, indigenous peoples are likely to continue to seek implementation of the UN declaration in courts and in administrative tribunals.

The UN declaration fills the gap that previously existed in the international human rights regime as an instrument that promotes and protects the distinct status and rights of indigenous peoples. The adoption of the UN declaration by the UN General Assembly curbed attempts by traditional international law to subsume indigenous peoples and entrench a colonial view of indigenous nations, peoples and communities. After 25 years of dialogue and negotiation between indigenous peoples and member states, the international community managed to finalize every article affirmed in the UN declaration.

Human rights experts associated with the UN recognized this gap in the human rights regime. Indigenous peoples worked to create political pressure to respond to the alarming and urgent human rights violations facing Inuit in the Arctic and indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world.

In this regard, it must be noted that Inuit representatives prioritized this work through the Inuit Circumpolar Council. Representatives of the Inuit Circumpolar Council worked, from 1982 until the UN declaration in 2007, as leaders in a global indigenous movement for the UN to consider and ultimately adopt the UN declaration. We were motivated by the need to develop a human rights framework that safeguards our people and the integrity of our communities.

It's important to note that the rights affirmed in the UN declaration are not new rights; rather, they are rights that have been recognized in domestic law in numerous countries across the globe and in international law. The outcome of the UN declaration provides the distinct cultural context of indigenous peoples, both as individuals and as collectives, with important economic, social, cultural, spiritual, gendered and political rights that are responsive to our distinct status and rights as indigenous peoples.

Bill C-15, as you see before you, is very focused on two particular concepts: one, the alignment of laws and policies within this country with the UN declaration; and two, the creation of an action plan. We do hope we can focus this conversation and ensure that everyone who's reviewing it and everyone who considers it sees this as filling a gap in our human rights review, in the Canadian domestic human rights regime. Indigenous peoples' rights are human rights. This is a class of human rights that needs this particular legislation, and we do hope that Canadians accept the rights of indigenous peoples as human rights in this country.

Nakurmiik. Thank you.

[Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

Well, with respect, the declaration has been already used. Parts of the declaration, like the prohibition against genocide, have the status of customary international law. The declaration has been used in court cases, and used quite valuably in court cases, to help understand these concepts. In particular, there's the work of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to address the rights of indigenous children. There's been extensive reliance on the declaration there.

So that hasn't take anything away. It isn't a disruptive factor. It's additive. It's supports proper context and framework. The experience to date is that it is being applied, but Bill C-15, if it should pass through this House and Senate, I think will provide a more stable and clear foundation for that work to proceed.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay.

Do you believe Bill C-15 will be a game changer for first nation communities in moving forward with a greater respect for our rights?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Ms. Gazan, thanks for the question.

There is no question that we operate from our chiefs-in-assembly mandate, and I indicated earlier that when Bill C-262 was not passed in the Senate, our chiefs met in assembly and said “National chiefs, AFN, go get a government bill that's as strong as, or better than, Bill C-262.” That is what Bill C-15 represents. It is a bill that is as strong or better. Part of that dialogue and support for Bill C-262 was the eventual hope to see it in legislation, so that carries through to Bill C-15. We have numerous resolutions of support for the UN declaration itself, as well as for legislation going forward.

There are a lot of people—and it's first nations politics as well—some who like it and some who don't. Some will say, “Oh, the national chief should not be saying this; he doesn't have a mandate.” We do have a mandate, and because of that mandate we are pushing very hard for this and it's an opportunity that we don't want to lose. That's my response to the question.

It's a very good question. We have a resolution by our AFN chiefs-in-assembly, and that's what we're building on and implementing.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

National Chief, you already answered my question about your mandate to co-develop this legislation, but some have argued that a second mandate would have been required for you to support Bill C-15.

I'd like to give you an opportunity to respond to that.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Gill.

The only fear that we have about the bill is that we're running out of time. That's the biggest fear. We're already into April. You have May and June. The sitting days are getting to be few. We need to get it out of the House of Commons and into the Senate as soon as possible.

My biggest fear, then, is that we are running out of time and will have a missed opportunity again. We need to work together as soon as possible to get this passed. We know that COVID-19, the pandemic, surrounds us; we know there's a budget coming down next week; we know there is an election coming. We need to seize this moment and not miss the opportunity to get Bill C-15 passed. It is a road map to reconciliation.

I think it's time that we get this done. I'm asking all members of Parliament and the Senate to get this done as soon as possible. That's my biggest fear: that we're going to run out of time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really want to thank the esteemed panel for being here. It feels like déjà vu. You were here a couple of years ago on this.

I'd like to ask Grand Chief Littlechild first about the importance of legislating UNDRIP. Many observers have indicated that UNDRIP is being interpreted in Canadian law already. Why is it important to legislate it within the framework of Bill C-15? Why is UNDRIP so important to the concept of reconciliation?

[Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

Yes, I can. I don't know the exact context in which the Attorney General made the comments, but I can certainly say that consent is part of the law of Canada now. In terms of the government's obligation to create a proper framework for consultation, engagement and consent, that has been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions.

It's important, again, to emphasize that consent and veto are not the same thing. Consent is not a veto over resource development. No rights, of course, are absolute, and government has government powers. We're acutely aware of that. One of the issues with this bill is to operationalize that concept very early so that first nations, as governments, are engaged with the proper rights holders early in processes where there are developments and that indigenous people are not excluded from development.

In fact, if we look at some provinces like British Columbia, I think the highest number of new mining permits have been given to companies working closely with first nations and where free, prior and informed consent of the nations have guided that work. I think the Attorney General's words about the existing framework.... I'm not sure what they are. I do know that Bill C-15 can add to and support that, but the legal framework is already—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, National Chief and other witnesses today. We do appreciate your time and contributions to this process.

I want to follow up a little bit on what my colleague, Mr. Schmale, did in his first round of questioning, and then I'll move on to a couple of other things if I can squeeze the time in.

Minister Lametti, on Bill C-15, specifically said that, if passed, this bill will not change Canada's existing duty to consult with indigenous people or change the other consultation and participation requirements under other legislation such as the new Impact Assessment Act. I know that you've responded to the question of veto and that you've responded to some of those matters to my colleague. Do you agree with this statement by Minister Lametti? Does the implementation of Bill C-15 change the government's decision-making ability in the context of projects?

[Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

I agree fully with that statement. The declaration is an international instrument. It does contain the minimum standards. Through this bill, the laws of Canada will be aligned and will become more consistent through a process, and there is an action planning process. It does not take the UN declaration and subordinate it to some other process. That's not how this works. International instruments, conventions and the like must be implemented in Canada through implementing legislation like we have here or like was passed in the Province of British Columbia.

It does not alter our constitutional framework. What it does is raise our sights up to a standard that's been long overdue. Of course, there are no new rights in the declaration, but the way it is articulated advances meaningful reconciliation, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission said, because the declaration itself can provide a framework.

I would be in full agreement with the statement that you've made. Unfortunately, some of the misunderstanding that is out there.... Again, I understand where it may come from because indigenous people have had many, many bad experiences, both with government and elsewhere, in trying to assert and seek recognition of rights. This is a shift, and it's a shift that's a major shift in Bill C-15 because it puts us on the foundation of recognition and working together differently. It should not be adversarial, which is why the Assembly of First Nations has very strongly supported this since Romeo Saganash brought it forward in the House of Commons as a private member's bill.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

I'd like to welcome all the guests here today to committee.

Can you explain your understanding of subclause 2(2) of Bill C-15? It refers to section 35, and some people claim that because of that, the bill won't have any impact. Is that accurate? The question is for either the national chief or Madam Turpel-Lafond.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Chief Bellegarde and Ms. Turpel-Lafond.

I would like to ask another question. Ms. Turpel-Lafond said that certain comments about Bill C-15 indicate that some people would be afraid if it were passed. I find that very interesting.

Ms. Turpel-Lafond, can you tell us more about those comments, which are not really objective? Can you re-state the facts about the bill?

Have you noticed anything else that is problematic in the discourse around the bill?

[Dale Swampy, President, National Coalition of Chiefs]

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the study of competitiveness in Canada.

My name is Dale Swampy. I'm a Samson Cree Nation member and a COVID survivor. I'm honoured to be presenting to you from the traditional territory of the Tsuut'ina Nation and the Treaty 7 first nations in southern Alberta.

I'm the president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, or the NCC, a coalition of industry-supportive chiefs. Our mandate is to defeat on-reserve poverty through participation in our country's development of its natural resources. We work in co-operation and in partnership with natural resource proponents in an effort to enhance the economic prosperity of reserve communities. We also support indigenous-led natural resource projects.

I appreciate that you have included an indigenous perspective on the panel today, because Canada's ability to attract investment is a major challenge, more so today than at any other time in our country's history.

As you are aware, Canada has experienced a significant loss in its ability to compete on the international market, as well as within its own boundaries. We are no longer able to trade effectively even between our own provincial borders. Many would agree that this is a direct result of restricting regulatory barriers that have been introduced over the past few years.

For example, we believe the tanker ban, or Bill C-48, was passed in order to ensure that Alberta's oil does not cross the borders of British Columbia and on to tidewater. International trade of our most valuable commodity would have increased the standard of living of all Canadians, including first nations. First nation communities in B.C. and Alberta lost $2 billion in benefits when the northern gateway project was cancelled. The cancellation had no effect on world greenhouse gases. It only created uncertainty for would-be investors in Canada's economy.

The new national regulatory regime, or Bill C-69, was forced onto an existing regulatory process, the National Energy Board, which was already a world leader in safety, integrity and environmental protection. We feel there was no need to amend this process.

The new UNDRIP legislation, Bill C-15, will create additional uncertainty and legal ambiguity in an economy that is already hindered by major project delays caused by lawsuits that challenge our own Constitution. The NCC has already expressed its issues and concerns regarding this legislation, and has asked, through its participation in hearings, that the federal government consider alternative legislation to fulfill its promise for reconciliation with first nations in Canada.

The NCC believes that increased indigenous community participation in the natural resource industry, through employment, contracting and ownership, will increase Canada's competitiveness. We want the federal government to give first nations a share in ownership and control of Canada's natural resources in a manner similar to what the U.S. gave the 13 tribes in Alaska.

Who better to give ownership of natural resources and natural resource development than first nations. Our people have lived on this land for thousands of years. We respect and want to protect the land. Many people will come and go, but first nations people will never leave this land. We have a spiritual tie to the land. We will never sell our lands or resources. Since 1971, the Alaskan tribes have had the authority to sell their lands and resources, and not one tribe has ever considered selling their land.

We have missed out on 150 years of natural resource development in this country, along with countless billions of dollars' worth of projects, projects that would have supported thousands of jobs in indigenous, rural and remote communities. It is time for Canada to grant first nations the right and ownership of their natural resources.

Instead of using new legislation, such as UNDRIP, as a form of reconciliation, the NCC requests that the federal government consider an act similar to that of the Alaskan tribes, which will provide ownership of lands and resources currently owned by the Government of Canada.

In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, in a report issued by the Liberal Party under the leadership of Jean Chrétien, recommended that the federal government grant to aboriginal peoples of Canada 30% of all the lands and resources owned by the federal government as a form of reconciliation. Through this report, the federal government possesses the ability and justification to grant this to all first nations in Canada.

We are hoping your study will provide our chiefs with an opportunity to create a reconciliation process that provides real and tangible benefits for first nation communities and supports Canada's economic growth and competitiveness. Together we can defeat on-reserve poverty.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions and further discussion.

[Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

First of all, we all know how hard fought it was to add the rights to into the Constitution Act in 1982 in section 35, as well in section 25 of the charter. Unfortunately, the history of the last 40 years has been one where indigenous peoples have had to fight hard for the recognition of their rights, including recognition of their title.

A lot of that jurisprudence has been really hard because, for some of us who have been involved in those cases, the Crown has taken a very adversarial and hostile approach to the existence of the rights of indigenous peoples, and it has been a challenge. Section 35 of the Constitution Act is a very important provision that indigenous people fought hard for. While it has been interpreted mostly by courts, where there are no indigenous people present, those rights are very important.

The declaration as an international instrument is there to assist us to have a better discussion about the right of indigenous people in section 35, because the declaration brings good information and value in terms of what the standards, principles and rights should be.

In my view, the declaration is a way of interpreting our constitutional rights that gives us a better set of understandings of how to frame issues for indigenous people. I know that the national chief has spoken a lot about the issues of racism and discrimination.

If we look at article 2 of the UN declaration, which says that indigenous people have rights like all other human beings, including the right to be free from discrimination, I'm sure no one on this committee would disagree with that, but that isn't expressed very clearly in our charter or in our Constitution and needs to be reinforced, because we have seen very much, for instance during this pandemic, how much systemic discrimination and racism indigenous people are experiencing.

The Constitution of Canada is there. Those rights are there. They are important, but the declaration provides through this bill an opportunity to promote a more reconciliation-focused approach to get away from the highly conflictual, adversarial approach and to shift to recognition of rights. It's extremely valuable legally, but it does not in any way take away from the constitutional rights of indigenous people, and there is a non-derogation clause in Bill C-15. The national chief has tabled some suggestions on how that should probably be strengthened to better reflect Bill C-262 based on the concerns of first nations. There is delicate balancing when we implement international laws, and Bill C-15 does support that.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Maybe I could jump in quickly to clarify some misconceptions. It's not that we as Conservatives believe that UNDRIP or Bill C-15 will mean that the bill is against development. That's not what we're saying. We're asking about this because there's no clear definition. When a first nation says no to a project, does that mean the project is dead, or does the government have the authority to make a final decision?

I'll open the floor to anyone who wants to answer.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here. It's a very important conversation. As has been pointed out in many speeches in the House of Commons, the Conservative party does support the goals and aspirations of UNDRIP. We do have some concerns with it—I don't think that is any secret—in terms of free, prior and informed consent and what that actually means.

Chief Bellegarde, maybe I will start with you if that's okay.

You have stated previously that first nations communities have the right to say no to projects. I would like to understand what that means.

The Government of Canada currently has the authority to make final decisions with respect to the approval of major projects after meaningful consultations with indigenous rights holders. Its current role involves giving due considerations to the concerns and interests identified by different rights holders, and making a decision balancing those interests and the interests of the broader Canadian society.

I guess my first question to you, sir, is whether you believe that Bill C-15impedes the government's authority to make a final decision if an indigenous community says no.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the committee members for agreeing to the 15-minute time.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

That was just a little bit in Cree for my friends and relatives.

I'm very happy to be here with all of you.

I used one of my spirit names, King Thunderbird Child. That is one of the names I carry. I'm from Little Black Bear First Nation and Treaty 4 territory in southern Saskatchewan. I gave thanks to the creator for this beautiful day and I acknowledged as well the Algonquin peoples here in the Odawa territory, where I'm sitting and working from today, their ancestral lands.

Chairman Bratina and honourable committee members, thank you so much for this opportunity.

I also want to acknowledge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who is with me on this presentation, and Willie Littlechild as well. I acknowledge them and thank them for their work.

Our Assembly of First Nations has long supported the adoption of a clear and strong legislative blueprint to advance the implementation of the United Nations declaration.

I appeared before this committee three years ago to support the adoption of Bill C-262, the private member's bill brought forward by Romeo Saganash, so I'm very pleased to now speak in support of a government bill that builds on the foundations of Bill C-262.

The Assembly of First Nations chiefs-in-assembly have passed numerous resolutions calling for the full implementation of the declaration. These resolutions included support for the adoption of Bill C-262.

When a filibuster prevented Bill C-262 from coming to a final vote in the Senate, where it did have sufficient support to be passed, our Assembly of First Nations chiefs-in-assembly passed a resolution in December 2019 calling for a government bill as strong or stronger than Bill C-262. That's my mandate. That's the direction the chiefs of Canada gave me as national chief: to get a government bill that's as strong as Bill C-262.

Bill C-15 meets that test. Bill C-15 provides a principled and pragmatic path forward to ensure that Canada respects and upholds fundamental human rights that have been affirmed and reaffirmed by the international community many times through consensus resolutions of the UN General Assembly.

I want to emphasize that the declaration did not create new rights, and neither does this proposed new bill. They also do not impinge on or detract from any inherent or treaty rights.

When I testified before this committee about Bill C-262, I felt very strongly that a collaborative and coordinated approach to implementing the declaration was critical to closing the social and economic gap facing first nations people.

Today, I am even more convinced that implementation legislation is the right way forward. I also applaud the work of elected officials in other jurisdictions who have taken steps to implement the United Nations declaration and note the chiefs' work with British Columbia in achieving the unanimous passage of a law in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia on November 28, 2019.

Given the deep racism and discrimination that first nations still face every day, Bill C-15's critical commitment to combat all forms of discrimination makes this bill both timely and urgent. I have seen how in B.C., with the implementation of the declaration, important work has been undertaken to address the racism against indigenous peoples in the health care system, using the standards in the declaration to bring people together in the health care system.

Now, we know that every bill can be improved. Since the tabling of Bill C-15, we have heard critiques and suggestions for improvement—most importantly, from indigenous peoples ourselves. Some AFN regional chiefs and first nations leadership have appeared before you and have identified areas for improvement from their regional perspectives. You should listen carefully to those positions. In Canada, some first nations are in support of Bill C-15 and some are against Bill C-15, while others support it with amendments.

What I am tabling today is a contribution from the Assembly of First Nations that constitutes some relatively straightforward suggestions for improvements. These are intended to respond to the overall objective of first nations to make the bill stronger and clearer. So this is indeed an historic moment.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada looked closely at the UN declaration and concluded that the declaration was “the framework for reconciliation at all levels and across all sectors of Canadian society.” They set that out as their first principle of reconciliation. That's how important the declaration is as a source of guidance and as a foundation for action.

Canadians have embraced the cause of reconciliation; implementation legislation is crucial to bringing that commitment to life.

With the improvements we've tabled, Bill C-15 will better enable us to move forward in a collaborative and coordinated way, consistent with first nations treaty and inherent rights and Canada's legal obligations.

I'd like to review those 12 improvements right now.

Number one is preamble clause 6. It's our recommendation that this provision is not accurate and should be deleted.

Number two is preamble clause 8. It's our recommendation that the word “racism” be added to this clause. Racism is a critical daily concern for first nations, and we believe strongly that it should be named.

Number three is preamble clause 9. It's our recommendation that the paragraph include explicit reference to the doctrines of discovery and terra nullius, and to be clear that, as the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Tsilhquot'in Nation case in 2014, these doctrines should not be part of the law or policies of Canada.

With regard to clause 2(2), it's our recommendation that the non-derogation clause be revised to more accurately reflect the working of the UN declaration, article 37, the previous approach in Bill C-262, and wording has been provided for you to consider.

Number five, it's also recommended that you consider adding two new clauses in the interpretation section, clause 2, to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation on some matters of great importance to first nations. The first of these two new clauses is clause 2(4):

For greater certainty, the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights, must be interpreted flexibly so as to permit their evolution over time and any approach constituting frozen rights must be rejected.

This provision is important because we cannot permit interpretation of treaty rights or any of the rights of indigenous peoples as frozen in time. Approaches that reflect stereotypes and old ideas, especially on treaty rights, must be overcome as an ongoing obstacle to moving forward.

Number six, and the second of the two new clauses, is 2(5):

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to diminish or extinguish the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights.

This provision makes it clear that extinguishment of the rights of indigenous peoples is not acceptable under any circumstances and cannot be part of Canada's laws or policies. Indigenous peoples have been subject to policies that sought to extinguish our rights and identities, such as the residential schools and other unilateral crown policies. Extinguishment is a systemic barrier to reconciliation that Canada must permanently and clearly reject.

Number seven, it's our recommendation that the subtitle for clause 4 or the purpose section is incorrect and it should be titled “Purposes”. Romeo Saganash spoke to this issue in his appearance on March 11. This is an obvious grammatical problem, but could lead to inaccurate interpretation in the future and should be fixed, as it has been flagged by first nations as a concern. I urge you to correct this at this study of the bill by committee members.

Number eight, in this same clause, it's recommended that the word “framework” be removed. As acknowledged in the preamble of this bill, the UN declaration itself is the framework, and reference to other frameworks simply cause confusion.

Number nine, I also note that the reference to the “Government of Canada” in the purpose clause 4 must be removed because Canada's obligation extends not just to government, but to Parliament, and this wording as it currently reads is inaccurate. The phrase “Government of Canada” could simply be removed, and I recommend you do that as we show in the table submitted.

Number 10, it is recommended that the time frame set out in clause 6 for the action plan be reduced from the three years to two years. Implementation is already long overdue. Canada should have begun implementing the declaration when it was adopted as a global minimum standard in 2007. Canada has been committed to implementing the declaration without qualification since 2017. I don't think it's necessary to wait another three years.

Number 11—which is similar to the preamble provision in number eight—the recommendation is to add the word “racism”. This word also must be added to paragraph 6(2)(a), as the wording is tracked in both parts of the bill.

Finally, number 12, I recommend that the words “implement”, “implementing” and “implementation” be used in the bill only in relation to implementing the declaration. For all other uses, I recommend that expressions like “carry out” be substituted, and you will see those suggestions in the table attached. If I have missed other examples, as the First Nations Leadership Council of British Columbia has indicated in their submission to you, I recommend that we adopt those recommendations to ensure that the entire bill is corrected, so that “implementation” is only used in relation to implementing the declaration.

Bill C-15 deserves the support of this committee and the support of all members of Parliament and senators. In my view, the improvements we have brought forward are modest and reasonable, and I urge you to adopt them when your committee gets to that part of your deliberations.

To conclude, I want to be very clear. The AFN is eager to see Bill C-15 move forward to final votes in the House of Commons and the Senate as soon as possible. First nations leaders and legal experts like Chief Littlechild poured their heart and soul into the creation of the declaration. They did this for a reason. They went to the United Nations year after year for more than two decades because they saw this international human rights instrument as key to building a new relationship with Canada.

Canadian government officials were also active participants through that long process at the United Nations. In fact, Canada deserves a lot of credit for helping to build support among other states so that the declaration could be finalized and adopted. This is something that we accomplished together and something that Canadians can be proud of. Yet, despite what was accomplished, more than 13 years have passed now since the declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly, more than 13 years since the UN proclaimed the declaration as “the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples [in all regions] of the world.” In this time we have had expressions of support for the declaration from federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments of all political stripes.

Canada has been part of numerous consensus resolutions at the UN committing to domestic implementation. Canada has made commitments to the indigenous peoples of the world that it would implement the declaration. It's time to complete this and make good on these commitments by working together. Canada has added the commitment to implement the UN declaration into the text of other laws passed by Parliament, including important bills on the inherent right of self-government in relation to child welfare and indigenous languages. What we still lack, however, is the legislation that implements the declaration and sets us on a course of recognition of rights and provides a framework for reconciliation, as the TRC wisely called for action. Bill C-15 provides that path. It's important for first nations, and I believe it is important for all Canadians to seize this opportunity now. We need to hear the words “royal assent” before the end of June.

Thank you. Kinanaskomitinawow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I call this meeting to order.

I will start by acknowledging that when in Ottawa, we meet on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. Here, where I am, is the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, Haudenosaunee and Chonnonton first nations.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 25, the committee is continuing its study of the subject matter of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

To ensure an orderly meeting, participants may speak and listen in the official language of their choice. The globe icon at the bottom of the screen allows you to select either the floor, English or French. Choose what you want, and if you do speak in two languages, English and French, you don't need to change that. The technology will pick it up.

When speaking, ensure that your video is turned on. Please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on March 9, I must inform the committee that Natan Obed has not completed the technical pretest.

With us today by video conference, from the AFN, are National Chief Perry Bellegarde, Wilton Littlechild and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond.

Thank you, all, for taking the time to appear.

The committee is being asked to allow an extension for the witness statement time beyond the current approved six minutes. As chair, I am reluctant to adjust the rule in view of the unfairness to the previous witnesses and the precedent it will create for future witnesses. As well, we have a number of written submissions that have taken more than six minutes to read, which suggests to me that, as we often tell witnesses, any matters or points of view they feel might have been missed or need further emphasis would be accepted after the meeting as supplemental documents to their brief.

In view of this, I now ask the committee for unanimous consent that notwithstanding the routine motion governing time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses that the AFN be allotted up to 15 minutes for their opening presentation. Those who do not wish to give unanimous consent, please unmute now to indicate so.

Is there anyone who is opposed to unanimous consent for the extension?

Seeing none, we approve the extension for 15 minutes to Mr. Bellegarde and his associates.

Perry, welcome. It's so nice to have this opportunity to hear from the AFN.

Please go ahead for 15 minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Because of the confusion the expression seems to give rise to, what is your understanding of preamble paragraph 18 and paragraph 4(a) of Bill C-15, where it is affirmed that UNDRIP is a source for the interpretation of Canadian law and has application in Canadian law?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Some people told us that while they supported Bill C-15, they felt that the rights of indigenous peoples were already protected by section 35 of the Constitution.

Do you believe that the passage of Bill C-15 would do anything more? What are the distinctions between section 35 of the Constitution and Bill C-15? What makes the passage of the bill necessary for first nations? Of course, as you said, everyone would benefit from the passage of Bill C-15.

[France-Isabelle Langlois]

The passage of Bill C-15 would benefit not only indigenous peoples, but all of us. When economic development projects are implemented with the consent of the people involved, they are better off and develop better, for the benefit of all.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but this means that the passage of Bill C-15 and its subsequent implementation would benefit first nations.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Langlois. Actually, you started to answer another question I wanted to ask you.

You talked about the veto and free, prior and informed consent. We have heard several witnesses say that economic development and the passage of Bill C-15 about the declaration are irreconcilable.

What is your interpretation of this situation?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses who are appearing today.

My questions are for Ms. Langlois. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight all the work that Amnistie internationale does.

In your speech, you mentioned that we need to move expeditiously to pass Bill C-15. Perhaps this implies that there may be some difficulties to iron out. We didn't have time to pass Bill C-262; we don't want that to happen again with Bill C-15.

Is it possible to foresee difficulties that might prevent us from acting diligently? What difficulties might not be addressed by the subsequent implementation of Bill C-15?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us here today. We've received a lot of great testimony over the last few weeks on our study of Bill C-15.

First, Mr. Schmidt or Ms. Joseph—I'll let you both have the opportunity to respond, if you want—I read a brief that you submitted a while back in which you referred to many of the same concepts as in your testimony today. It was about the great work that people in your organization have done with regard to their work with indigenous people and first nations and the relationships and whatnot that your industry has in those communities. You talked about investment. You talked about the contributions that are made.

Last week I made a statement to one of our witnesses that those who champion poverty reduction through economic development often get labelled as lacking compassion. I would see that as the exact opposite. You might want to speak to that in the context of the work your member organizations do in these communities.

Mr. Schmidt, you talked about your own relationship specifically with your company. I'd like you to expand on that a little bit and talk about how the work your organizations do, the relationships you have and the incredible amount of procurement and job creation you initiate in these communities has...on the opportunity to end poverty, create success for many first nations and grant them the opportunity to be successful in the future, investing in things like housing and recreation and the social issues they have. In my community, in my riding, we deal with a lot of suicide crisis kinds of things. The investments made by industry are huge in those kinds of issues in the first nations communities.

I'd like you to speak to that. I would also like you to speak to how the potential uncertainty of Bill C-15 might either contribute to or hinder that in the context of the great work that you've already done.

[Brian Schmidt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tamarack Valley Energy, and Board Member, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Thank you to the standing committee for the opportunity to present today.

I'd like to acknowledge that I'm speaking from the traditional territories of treaty 7 and the Métis Nation of Alberta, region 3. My colleague, Ms. Shannon Joseph, is speaking from the traditional Algonquin territory.

My name is Brian Schmidt, Aakaikkitstaki. I am the CEO of Tamarack Valley Energy, and I am here today on behalf of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in my capacity as chair of our indigenous affairs policy group.

I have also been in business with the Kainai people for decades as an operator of oil and gas drilling rigs on the reserve land of the Blood Tribe. I was proud to be honoured a few years ago with the title of honorary chief of the Kainai.

CAPP first publicly voiced its support for UNDRIP back in 2016 at the same time the federal government did. We continue to support UNDRIP implementation in a manner consistent with the Canadian Constitution and law. For the people of our association, creating mutually beneficial partnerships with indigenous people, communities, businesses and employees is central to how we operate and to our role in reconciliation.

Today the oil and gas industry procures more from indigenous businesses, than any other industry in Canada and—if I may say so—far more than the federal government as a whole. In 2017-19, an aggregate spend with indigenous communities was $5.9 billion. In 2019, indigenous procurement was 11% of our procurement. We are also one of the largest employers of indigenous people, indigenous men and women. They earn, in our industry, the highest wages compared to any other sector in the country.

These relationships and opportunities have been one of the strongest paths for building indigenous prosperity in Canada. There are indigenous groups that are looking to purchase the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, and there are pretty much new equity deals being announced every month with indigenous ownership in oil and gas projects.

Finally, indigenous communities across Canada earn hundreds of millions of dollars each year from royalties and other benefits through the development of resources on reserve lands. What this means concretely for my indigenous colleagues is that resource development provides important opportunities to address poverty and advance economic self-determination, and I've seen that first-hand.

We aren't here to ask you to choose between our industry's interests and indigenous people's interests. I'm here to say firmly that I believe that we have the same interests in this matter. We want indigenous rights to be protected, and we also want to have a healthy and prosperous oil and gas resource sector so that we can all benefit from a strong, Canadian economy.

Bill C-15 as written will create more uncertainty for our industry and resource development as a whole in Canada. This will mean that we cannot attract investment from capital markets and that good projects, including one supported by the majority of indigenous communities, will not proceed. This will harm the oil and gas sector, and we want to avoid that. More importantly, it will also harm the indigenous communities who value resource development as an important means of creating jobs and revenues. Human rights equals human economic development.

The Financial Post calculated that in the last five years we've lost 150 billion dollars' worth of energy projects in Canada, abandoned or suspended because investors would not take the risk of financing them. Just last week, we heard about Chevron pulling out of Kitimat LNG, which had tremendous indigenous involvement. If you do the math, 11% of indigenous procurement on $150 billion on projects means $16.5 billion of lost income to indigenous people. The lack of clarity and uncertainty has real consequences in terms of people's livelihoods and opportunities for prosperity and self-determination.

What industry is asking is to not leave things undefined. Make it easier for us to do business with indigenous communities, not harder. CAPP has some specific amendments that would help alleviate the major concerns to our industry and investors on Bill C-15. These include, first, clarifying that Bill C-15 does not have an immediate application as domestic federal law but, rather, establishes a process for the review of existing Canadian laws; and second, defining free, prior and informed consent for the Canadian context.

In our understanding, FPIC is a process, not an outcome, and as many—including Minister Lametti—have said, it is not a veto. We have a suggested definition that reflects this and that is consistent with principle six of the federal government's 10 principles for the implementation of UNDRIP. It is also consistent with the federal and provincial governments' retaining their authority to make final decisions.

The final one is ensuring that the action plan is the main vehicle by which to make UNDRIP practicable in Canada, co-developed with indigenous people and with the intention that stakeholders, such as ourselves, would be able to engage in dialogue where appropriate to our industry. The action plan process should be adequately resourced and create clear accountabilities.

Thank you.

[France-Isabelle Langlois, Executive Director, Amnistie internationale Canada francophone]

Mr. Chair, vice-chairs, members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, good morning.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that the offices of Amnistie internationale Canada francophone are located on unceded indigenous territory.

Thank you for this invitation to Amnistie internationale Canada francophone to participate in the hearings on Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, hereinafter referred to simply as “the declaration”.

The adoption of the declaration into various Canadian laws is a priority human rights issue for Amnistie internationale Canada francophone, and anglophone Amnesty International Canada. Amnistie internationale actively lobbied for the adoption of the declaration by the UN General Assembly in 2007, and both Canadian chapters lobbied for Canada's adherence to the declaration until it was achieved in 2010. We have intervened in several forums that have taken place in Canada, and each time we have reiterated the importance of the effective implementation of the declaration in Canadian law.

The various inquiries, whether it be the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, or the Viens Commission, to name a few, have all recommended the implementation of the declaration. This is principle number 1 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: “The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides the framework for reconciliation at all levels and across all sectors of Canadian society. ”

We previously supported Bill C-262, sponsored by NDP MP Romeo Saganash, which had the same purpose as Bill C-15. Unfortunately, this bill could not be passed before the 2019 election was called. By the same token, we welcomed the BC government's announcement in 2019 that it would implement the declaration in its legislation.

On March 10, the Hill Times published an open letter signed by more than 200 predominantly indigenous organizations and individuals and supported by Amnistie internationale calling for the passage of Bill C-15 before the end of the current session of Parliament.

As you can see, Amnistie internationale is in favour of Bill C-15. It is long overdue and it is long past time for Canada to implement the declaration. It is no longer time for surveys and studies, but for action. Civil society has been working for 13 years to make the declaration a reality. Indigenous peoples in Canada have suffered and continue to suffer the oppression of colonization. The Parliament of Canada has an historic opportunity to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a global consensus instrument on human rights. It defines the minimum standards necessary for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples. The implementation of these standards is essential to improving the lives of indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world, and to meeting Canada's formal and pressing human rights commitments. This bill is far from perfect. But it is nonetheless of the utmost importance. We cannot afford to see such a critically important piece of legislation slip through the cracks again.

Amnistie internationale would have liked to see issues specific to indigenous women more apparent in Bill C-15. It is true that the national survey is mentioned, but that is not enough. Indigenous women in Canada face double discrimination because they are both women and indigenous. Therefore, it is important that indigenous women be included in all stages of the implementation of the bill and that the action plan pay particular attention to their inclusion. They must be given justice and redress for all forms of discrimination, abuse, injury and attempts on their lives that they continue to suffer. Moreover, they must be part of building a just and equitable Canada for all its peoples.

Amnistie internationale would also like to see the mechanisms for consulting and working with indigenous peoples made more explicit in Bill C-15. In our view, several questions remain: who will be consulted, how and when?

Finally, Amnistie internationale would like to see the bill passed, an action plan developed, and Canadian laws harmonized with the declaration according to the minimum principles of international human rights law.

The declaration contains over 20 provisions affirming the right of indigenous peoples to participate in decision-making, including article 3, which addresses self-determination; article 4, which addresses the right to self-government or autonomy; article 18, which addresses the right to participate in decision-making; article 23, which addresses the right to be actively involved in decision-making; article 19, which addresses the obligation of states to obtain their free, prior and informed consent; articles 32.2, 36.2, and 38, which address the obligation to consult and co-operate with indigenous peoples; articles 22.2, 27, and 31.2, which address the obligation to take measures in concert with indigenous peoples; and article 26.3, which addresses the obligation to respect the customs of indigenous peoples.

Notwithstanding the few reservations we have just expressed, Amnistie internationale calls on members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate to act diligently, in a non-partisan manner, and in accordance with Canada's commitment to indigenous peoples. We call on members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate to be guided only by the highest standards of human rights and human dignity, so that Bill C-15 is passed by the end of the parliamentary session.

Thank you.

[Paul Joffe, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, honourable committee members.

I'm speaking from Saint-Lambert, Quebec, which is on the traditional territory of the Mohawk people.

I wish to acknowledge the crucial work of former MP Romeo Saganash. As confirmed by the federal government, Romeo's private member's bill, Bill C-262, serves as the floor, but not the ceiling, in moving forward with Bill C-15. We must now build upon the standards of Bill C-262.

Indigenous peoples in Canada continue to face human rights violations. These include, inter alia, racism and other forms of discrimination; dispossession of lands, territories and resources; impoverishment; lack of essential services; food insecurity; missing and murdered women and girls; and forced assimilation and destruction of cultures and languages. In too many instances, intergenerational trauma from residential schools continues to be experienced. It's time for real change.

In this context, it is worth noting that, to date, the UN declaration has been reaffirmed at least 10 times by the UN General Assembly by consensus. No state in the world formally opposes this human rights instrument. This reinforces its significance and legal effect.

I would like now to address the meaning of free, prior and informed consent—or FPIC—as affirmed in the UN declaration, particularly in the context of proposed developments in indigenous peoples' territories. With respect to FPIC, the term “free” means there must be no coercion or manipulation. “Prior” means that consent must be obtained in advance of the activity being approved. “Informed” means that information must not be withheld, misleading or inadequate. Without these three FPIC elements, there would not be valid consent in international law or Canadian law.

FPIC and other provisions in the UN declaration are relative and not absolute. Article 46(3) of the declaration includes one of the most comprehensive balancing provisions in any international human rights instrument. It states:

The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.

These are the same core principles as in the Canadian and international legal systems. These are also the same principles that have been denied to indigenous peoples throughout history.

FPIC is not the same as veto. The term “veto” is not used in the declaration. Veto implies complete and absolute power, regardless of the facts and law in any given case.

FPIC is also gaining support in the corporate sector in Canada and internationally. For example, in its 2019 guidebook, the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business advises to “Commit to meaningful consultation, building respectful relationships, and obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples before proceeding with economic development projects.”

As well, the UN Global Compact—the world's largest corporate responsibility initiative with over 12,000 companies in over 160 countries—has expressed strong support for indigenous peoples in its comprehensive business reference guide on the UN declaration. It states:

FPIC should be obtained whenever there is an impact on indigenous peoples’ substantive rights (including rights to land, territories and resources, and rights to cultural, economic and political self-determination).

Respecting human rights cannot reasonably be held up as an impediment to economic development. This legislation will lead to improved relationships, greater certainty and less litigation.

Currently Canada is demonstrating global leadership by implementing a federal bill on the UN declaration; however, some key revisions to Bill C-15 are still required. For example, I would urge adding racism to the eighth preamble paragraph and to the action plan in subparagraph 6(2)(a)(i).

Overall, Bill C-15 is a positive catalyst for co-operation, justice, healing and mutual respect.

Thank you.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Yes.

Let me start my question. I'm not sure if it's going to reboot before I get there.

My question is a follow-up to the previous question. Is this increasing or decreasing uncertainty? It's all about aboriginal title, I guess....

I'm not sure how much Bill C-15 really changes the present legal definition of aboriginal title as established by the courts, from Sparrow to Tsilhqot'in. Those decisions in Tsilhqot'in established that it was sui generis. There was a beneficial interest in the land and the province has a right to regulate land use in the public interest.

Now, I don't know all the fineries of aboriginal land law, and I know that was a case in B.C. where there was no previous treaty, but I don't see UNDRIP as really changing too much of what has already been legally established as to what aboriginal title is. Furthermore, I know that the courts, in informing their decisions on legislation, look to international legal instruments like UNDRIP.

Maybe I can first direct my question to Mr. Podlasly.

How much is this really changing things? We certainly hear the allegations that this is creating uncertainty, but it seems to me that's a little hard to buy into.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Would you say that, moving forward, a better way forward—I know you indicated your support for Bill C-15—would be to ensure that any agreements adhere to, at the very least, the minimum standards articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a way to support development that is rooted and framed within human rights?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Podlasly.

My next question is for Mr. Buffalo.

The concept of consent could evolve over time and move closer to a veto right. Yet you have expressed some reservations in this regard. In light of this and Mr. Podlasly's responses, do you continue to support Bill C-15 as written or do you question it?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Podlasly.

I will take the liberty of clarifying my question.

You mentioned that it will take some collaborative work to define the concept of free, prior, and informed consent and that it may take some time.

Wouldn't that concept be diluted if it is not defined prior to the passage of Bill C-15? Couldn't this even undermine the purpose of the bill?

Do you instead believe that this is not a problem and that we can stick with Bill C-15 as written, without adding the definition of free, prior, and informed consent?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for their very informative presentations.

My first question is for Mr. Podlasly.

I'd like to make a little preamble. You will not be surprised to hear that as a member of the Bloc Québécois, I am particularly interested in the issue of self-determination of peoples. In the case of Quebec, there have been attempts in the past to define the self-determination of peoples after the fact. I am thinking in particular of referendum clarity.

Is this something you might be concerned about? If the criteria in Bill C-15 do not clearly establish what constitutes free, prior, and informed consent, could there be an attempt to water down the bill and make it meaningless? Are the access to funding measures that you were announcing sufficient to prevent this?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate both those comments.

I'll ask simply this, and I know it's not going to be a simple answer. With all the work that has been ongoing already and some of the uncertainties that you alluded to in your opening remarks around UNDRIP and around Bill C-15, do you feel that the adoption of Bill C-15 could potentially put some of these processes and agreements in jeopardy?

[Stephen Buffalo, President, Indian Resource Council]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak today. I am in the Treaty No. 7 territory. My name is Stephen Buffalo. I'm the president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council of Canada.

Our organization represents over 130 first nations across Canada that produce or have a direct interest in the oil and gas industry. Our mandate is to advocate for federal policies that will improve and increase economic development opportunities for our first nations. Few will be more impacted in the short term than the 130 members of the Indian Resource Council if the proposed UNDRIP legislation is not clearly drafted. Otherwise this will compromise the ability of our members to engage in resource development.

The members of the Indian Resource Council, like all first nations, obviously find a lot to like in the UNDRIP, which we support without question. I'm personally from the same nation as Dr. Willie Littlechild, one of the architects of the declaration. I've spoken to him at length about understanding the spirit and the intent behind it, but I'm very concerned about the unintended consequences of this legislation. I think, in practice, it will slow down or even reverse the economic development that we've achieved in our nations.

Within our communities, the majority of our members support involvement in the oil and gas industry—not all but most. That's because the royalties and profits we generate from this sector have been essential to the well-being of our people. They pay for things like elder services, housing, cultural programs, bereavement costs, recreation centres and other programs and services that are chronically underfunded by the federal government, or not funded at all. They provide us some autonomy in spending that we do not have with federal funding. They allow us to exercise our self-determination.

In my own community of Maskwacis, we've created a trust company, Peace Hills Trust, a scholarship fund to encourage our youth to pursue post-secondary education. The energy sector has brought many benefits to us, and we don't need any additional barriers that will impact or eliminate these benefits. Creating a competitive and stable investment environment in Canada would help bring new development projects in our territories. Having sufficient pipeline capacity, for example, would allow our members to earn full value of their products instead of having to accept a discount due to transportation and market constraints, as we see now today.

We've already seen countless jobs, procurement opportunities and equity stakes lost in the cancellation of tens of billions of dollars from energy projects across western Canada as a result of legislation such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. We have a lot to lose if this legislation, in its current form, further impacts our ability to attract investment.

Let me share with you the biggest concern about Bill C-15. The legislation says that indigenous people need to provide consent for a project to go forward, but it doesn't say who can provide or deny consent and how it's to be demonstrated. If you're saying consent is provided by chief and councils through band council resolution or referendum, then that's one thing. But if you're saying that a small group of indigenous activists who declare that their consent is required, and that they have the right to blockade any project they do not like, or just to get a standing in court to contest it, then that's a recipe for disaster.

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.

Putting the declaration verbatim into federal legislation without these definitions is going to allow special interest groups to weaponize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a tool to stop any extractive project they do not like. This isn't my being paranoid. This is in our communities and in our projects all the time. I even heard it from some MPs using UNDRIP as a reason to cancel TMX, for example.

Many of our members are actually involved in negotiating and purchasing it, but whether or not you support the oil and gas industry, it's the right of the 130 first nations in our organization to develop their resources as they see fit.

At the end of the day, if the bill remains vague, as it is in its current form, I believe some judge down the line is going to decide what FPIC means in the context of resource development. No one is going to want to invest in any major projects in this country until that day comes.

IRC members want better protection for indigenous rights, and there's obviously a lot of good that can come from using the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a shield and framework for reconciliation. However, investment requires certainty, and if we're going to self-determine, reduce our dependency on government and move beyond meagre royalties, we'll need to attract investment of our own.

Thank you for the time. I'm happy to take questions.

[Tara Shea, Senior Director, Regulatory and Indigenous Affairs , Mining Association of Canada]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and fellow panellists.

I'd like to start by acknowledging that I'm participating from Ottawa, which is traditional Algonquin territory. Kara is participating from Edmonton, which is Treaty 6 territory and the homeland of the Métis people.

Thank you very much for the invitation to be here today to share our members' views on Bill C-15.

MAC members have a strong record of establishing respectful and mutually beneficial relationships with Inuit, Métis and first nations peoples. Our members are among the largest industrial employers of indigenous peoples in Canada and a major customer of indigenous-owned businesses. Across the country, there are examples of partnerships between mining companies and communities that are advancing reconciliation and contributing to the implementation of the UN declaration.

As an association, we looked to the UN declaration and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for guidance when we were drafting our recently updated indigenous and community relationships protocol as part of our sustainability initiative, “Towards Sustainable Mining”. We established a good practice level that includes a commitment to aim to achieve free, prior and informed consent for new projects or expansions where impacts to rights may occur. This is among many other criteria in the standard designed to facilitate strong relationships through effective engagement and decision-making processes.

We are supportive of the objective of incrementally and thoughtfully implementing the UN declaration through collaboration. We see potential for Bill C-15 to improve relations between the Crown and indigenous peoples and to help advance reconciliation, but this will require additional clarity on certain key issues, effective implementation and adequate resourcing.

Our understanding of Bill C-15 is that it is enabling legislation that will require the federal government to work with indigenous peoples to co-develop an action plan to ensure that the progress made to date continues. It acknowledges that the declaration is already used as an interpretive tool but that it is not meant to give the declaration direct, legal effect in Canada.

We raise our interpretation of the bill today because we recognize that there are differing views as to the purpose of this bill, and this growing spectrum of interpretations is creating confusion about what this bill means and what it is intended to do. We are concerned that, in the absence of a common understanding of the intent of the legislation, there will be unintended consequences, including unmet expectations, legal challenges and increased uncertainty, all of which impact the viability of natural resource projects and their associated benefits to indigenous individuals, communities and businesses.

To help avoid expectations diverging further, the federal government must be transparent with how it interprets the declaration and what obligations it sees arising from Bill C-15. This includes enhancing communications on the bill’s intent in Parliament with indigenous peoples, provincial governments, other Canadians and the investment community.

Clarity on the federal government’s approach to free, prior and informed consent and its relationship to existing duty to consult obligations is particularly important. There have been recent statements from the Minister of Justice and others explaining what FPIC means in principle and notably that FPIC does not grant a veto over government decision-making.

We believe there is an urgent need for further clarity on process, beyond whether FPIC equates to a veto. In particular, this includes the circumstances that give rise to the obligation to consult and, in some cases, to seek consent and the specific processes for each; the government’s approach when efforts to obtain consent have been unsuccessful or when consent is provided by some affected indigenous communities but not all; and whether existing indigenous engagement processes may change and the specific changes being contemplated.

While we recognize that, to some extent, government decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis by considering issues such as strength of claim, impacts on rights and overall project benefits, the current lack of clarity does create uncertainty for investment, and these issues need to be clarified before the legislation is passed.

In our submission we recommended that guidance, policies and training be enhanced to ensure that federal officials are able to effectively engage in relationship building and consultation with indigenous communities. The current “Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult” are extremely outdated.

In addition to updating these guidelines, there are other practical steps that can be taken now to help ensure there is consistency across the federal government, including issuing a directive to federal officials informing them of the government’s interpretation of FPIC and the intent of Bill C-15. This should be done now to ensure there is no confusion at the working level about what Bill C-15 means.

Additional steps include incorporating the government's interpretation of FPIC and the bill into guidance training and policies; implementing oversight mechanisms to ensure that guidance and policies are consistently followed; and committing resources for ongoing training initiatives to respond to high turnover in key federal roles. This cannot be deferred any further. This guidance is needed now.

In looking ahead to the action plan, it will be critical that the process to develop this plan be transparent and well defined, given the wide spectrum of expectations with respect to this bill and the range of outcomes that are possible. This includes establishing a meaningful consultation plan, determining how actions will be identified and prioritized, and ensuring that the required resources are in place.

We respect and support the intent for the action plan to be co-developed with indigenous peoples, and we have asked to be engaged in the development and implementation of the action plan on any elements that may impact our sector.

With that, Mr. Chair, thank you again for the invitation to present today.

We look forward to the committee's questions.

[Mark Podlasly, Director, Economic Policy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition]

Good morning, and thank you for this invitation.

My name is Mark Podlasly, and I am a member of the Nlaka’pamux Nation in southern British Columbia. I am speaking to you today from Coast Salish territory in southwestern British Columbia.

I am the director of economic policy at the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, a national collective of 70 indigenous nations working to ensure that first nations receive a fair share of benefits from projects in our territories through the ownership of equity in proposed pipelines, electric infrastructure, transportation routes and other revenue-producing initiatives.

I am here today to speak on behalf of our members in support of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. For our members, UNDRIP already frames how we see development and our ability to direct decisions that are supportive of our interests.

The declaration focuses indigenous attention on how first nations-supported development can enable self-determination as described in UNDRIP article 3. However, it is article 4 that, in the opinion of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, will be key to successfully implementing UNDRIP in Canada.

Article 4 states that:

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

This financing or fiscal component is key to ensuring that first nations have the means to pursue UNDRIP autonomy. No government, indigenous or not, is truly self-determining if it is reliant on an external government for financial viability. It is impossible for a government to function at any level without a source of revenue to pay for its operation.

This is why our members see revenues from indigenous-held equity as providing the financial means for self-determination, and why first nations must implement this according to UNDRIP. Without it, UNDRIP implementation will be impossible.

For first nations, a multi-generational source of equity-derived revenue will allow our nations the ability to set and fund our own UNDRIP self-determination priorities.

These UNDRIP priorities include culture and language. They are, as described in article 11, to practise and revitalize our culture, traditions and customs; in article 12, to manifest, practise, develop and teach our spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies.

They include education and media. They are, in articles 14 and 16, to establish and control our educational systems and institutions, to provide education and to establish our own media in our own languages.

They include economic, social and health improvements. They are, as noted in article 21, the improvement of our economic and social conditions.

They include revenue from traditional territories. They are, as described in article 26, to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that we possess by reason of traditional ownership, occupation or use.

They include development priorities. They are, as described in article 32, to develop and present priorities and strategies for the development and use of our lands and other resources, and as described in article 34, to promote, develop and maintain our institutional structures.

Article 39 notes that we are to have access to financial and technical assistance from states regarding the rights contained in the declaration.

These UNDRIP articles are all dependent on a revenue stream to pay for their implementation. A new indigenous-controlled fiscal component offers significant benefits for first nations and Canada, including greater investment certainty and reduced opposition to projects; self-sustaining indigenous governments; stable own-source revenue streams to fund first nations government priorities; the ability of first nations to access capital sources to leverage their revenue streams to further invest in the Canadian economy; a new nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown as a true UNDRIP partner; direct first nations involvement in the wealth-generation aspects of the Canadian economy; and fulfillment of UNDRIP.

These benefits will accrue only if there is a way for first nations to acquire a revenue stream to support self-determination. At present it is very difficult to nearly impossible for first nations to raise or access substantive capital to invest in major projects.

The advice that I wish to provide to the committee today is that the key to making UNDRIP work in Canada is to start with article 4, which is about the ways and means for financing indigenous autonomous functions. How this is implemented will determine if the promise of Bill C-15 and UNDRIP will be fulfilled.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

In view of the fact that we have a quorum, accordingly I call this meeting to order.

I will start by acknowledging that, in Ottawa, we meet on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 25, 2021, the committee continues its study of the subject matter of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

This meeting is in place of last Thursday’s meeting that was cancelled due to votes in the House. We regret that Professor Dwight Newman and Professor Ken Coates could not be with us today. I have ensured via the clerk that they have the necessary information to send in written submissions.

For an orderly meeting, participants, please speak and listen in the official language of your choice. At the bottom of your screen on the globe icon, you can select “Floor”, “English” or “French”. You may switch from speaking one official language to another without changing the language in Zoom. When speaking, ensure that your video is turned on, and please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on March 9, 2021, I inform the committee that Mark Podlasly and Stephen Buffalo have not completed technical pretests.

With us today by video conference is Mark Podlasly, director, economic policy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition. Representing the Mining Association of Canada, we have Kara Flynn, vice-president, government and public affairs at Syncrude Canada; and Tara Shea, senior director, regulatory and indigenous affairs. Also, as I mentioned, we'll be joined in the first hour by president Steven Buffalo from the Indian Resource Council.

Thank you, all, for taking the time to appear. Each organization has up to six minutes for an opening statement, followed by questioning.

Director Podlasly, please go ahead as our first witness.

National Strategy to Redress Environmental Racism Act

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, over the course of our nation's history, polluting projects have disproportionately been situated in areas adjacent to indigenous and racialized populations, which has led to increased impacts to human health in those communities. This is a reality that we need to confront, as Canadians, to become a more equitable society. I thank my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester for tabling Bill C-230, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to redress environmental racism, which follows similar acts she advocated for as an MLA in Nova Scotia.

Environmental racism is characterized by the disproportionate exposure of communities of colour to pollution and its associated effects on health and the environment, as well as the unequal environmental protection and environmental quality provided through laws, regulations, governmental programs, enforcement and policies.

Recently, the issue of environmental racism in Canada was emphasized by the United Nations special rapporteur on toxics and human rights, who visited Canada in 2019 to report on the prevalence of environmental and health discrimination faced by indigenous and marginalized groups.

Ultimately, he concluded that a pattern exists in Canada in which marginalized groups, and indigenous people in particular, find themselves on the wrong side of a toxic divide and subject to conditions that would not be acceptable elsewhere in Canada. This is the crux of the problem that we face.

In Canada, this environmental injustice for indigenous and racialized peoples stems in part from our history of colonialism: the lack of diverse representation in decision-making roles, the marginalization of racialized voices, income inequality and the general blind eye that our system over our history turned to negative externalities such as pollution.

Communities of colour, particularly poor communities, have been seen as attractive sites for industrial facilities and other developments that impact the proximate populace because they were seen as cost-effective and efficient. For example, when a decision is made to situate a landfill in a particular location, the surrounding population that has the ability to move, does. However, those who are already at a disadvantage in society, and who do not have the capacity to oppose such projects, are forced to live alongside pollutants that may impact their health and their surrounding environment.

Environmental inequality is not relegated to decisions of where to site projects alone. Consequences for environmental violations are not uniform. In my home province of British Columbia, the maximum penalties for dumping garbage or waste on Crown land currently have upper limits of $2,000 or $1 million, while the maximum penalty for dumping garbage or waste on Indian reserves is only $100.

In my community, the North Shore Sewage Treatment Plant has sat on the Squamish Nation's Capilano Reserve for the last 55 years. Known for emitting fumes, especially on hot summer days, the plant is situated metres away from the Squamish Nation community despite waste management facilities generating emissions that may be hazardous to human health.

Now, with the help of federal and provincial funding, construction of the new Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant is under way. It will be relocated from the Squamish Nation Reserve to a location in the District of North Vancouver owned by Metro Vancouver. The new treatment plant is being constructed with 100% odour containment, and the old facility's land will be returned to the Squamish Nation for it to redevelop as it sees fit.

The reconstruction of the waste water treatment plant will not only relieve residents of foul odours, but will also provide the north shore with cleaner water and a healthier ecosystem because, while the current plant only removes 50% of organic matter and 70% of suspended solids, the upgraded plant will ensure the elimination of 90% of all waste prior to the sewage entering the sea.

The neighbouring Tsleil-Waututh Nation is hopeful that the upgraded plant will help reduce contamination in shellfish harvesting areas both in Burrard Inlet and in Indian Arm. The North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant serves not only as an excellent example of what redressing environmental harm can look like, but also as an example of how varied and extensive the impacts of toxic exposure can be for indigenous and racialized communities, with a sewage plant directly impacting the air of one nation and the food supply of another.

Elsewhere in Canada, approximately 90% of Grassy Narrows residents currently suffer from mercury poisoning as a result of Dryden Chemicals dumping mercury into the English-Wabigoon River system between 1962 and 1970. As a result of the dumping, all commercial fishing in the river system has been banned: the fish were shown to contain mercury levels 10 to 50 times higher than in other areas. As such, the Grassy Narrows Nation was not only subjected to severe mercury poisoning, but also to the elimination of the community's main source of income. Despite this clear environmental injustice, it took 50 years for the government to provide the people of Grassy Narrows with an effective remedy.

Another compounding issue is that despite greater exposure levels to hazardous substances, indigenous and racialized peoples have been shown to face further discrimination in health care. As an example, 62% of Grassy Narrows First Nation members living on reserve report barriers to health care. While in many examples we have a painful legacy of environmental racism, our legal frameworks are evolving over time to mitigate the risk of future such examples occurring.

For instance, the Impact Assessment Act, which became law in 2019 and replaced the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, greatly increased the standard of public participation and transparency in environmental assessment. It became easier for the public to formally participate in assessments. It introduced a pre-assessment planning phase in which the public could participate to address clear issues such as project siting before the assessment in full began. It greatly enhances the consultation and accommodation process with affected first nations by requiring that this begin in the planning phase. It also incorporates traditional knowledge and creates the conditions for indigenous-led assessments.

In addition, with the introduction of Bill C-15, which if passed would implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into federal law, we would take further holistic action on reconciliation. Notably, this would also address environmental racism, as UNDRIP affirms that indigenous peoples have the right to conservation and protection of the environment.

Most importantly, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is the main piece of legislation we have in Canada to ensure that we protect the environment and human health. However, this legislation has not been substantially updated in over two decades. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development studied CEPA and delivered a comprehensive report. Among the recommendations were that the government should recognize the right to a healthy environment. It mentioned the importance of considering vulnerable populations and risk assessments, and of developing legally binding and enforceable national standards for drinking water in consultation with provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, stakeholders and the public.

I look forward to the introduction of a reformed CEPA in due course. If we follow through on these and other suggestions made by the committee, we would go a long way toward addressing future environmental racism in Canada, but there will surely be gaps that remain after all this is done, which is why the bill that we are discussing today is so important in further studying and uncovering where these gaps may lie. The bill would require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to collect information about the locations of environmental hazards and information about the negative health outcomes in affected communities, ensuring that the public and the government are informed and aware of the dangers associated with hazardous sites.

The minister would also be required to examine the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk, thus examining how race and socio-economic status expose indigenous and other racialized communities to contamination and pollution.

Furthermore, Environment and Climate Change Canada would be required to develop a strategy to address environmental racism and to provide regular reports to Parliament on its progress. Bill C-230 would ensure that there is a routine assessment of the extent to which environmental laws are administered and enforced in each province and would promote efforts to amend federal laws, policies and programs in order to address environmental racism.

To conclude, I believe that this bill will make progress on issues of both environment and equity. I will be voting in favour of sending it to be studied further at committee. At this stage, we can involve the voices of provinces, territories, rights holders and stakeholders from right across the country in its deliberation and to further strengthen it. I invite my colleagues from across this House to do the same.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I would be of the opinion that we certainly have the right to review our position, reassess our position, in light of the current political context. Since BillC-262, what have we experienced? This is where I go back to the position of provinces. We all know that at least six jurisdictions have expressed concern, going back to last fall, and before that, as the federal government was getting ready to introduce Bill C-15 in December.

At the time, what we also had in that evolving political context, if you will, was the Province of Quebec challenging a bill that was co-developed with first nations, which is Bill C-92. It's the same for Bill C-91. This is where we expressed, in my view, very legitimate concerns in terms of making sure that Bill C-15.... And, again, I want to restate the fact the UN declaration poses no concerns when it comes to our first nations. It's how we—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I say that because I know that, with Bill C-262, the AFNQL adopted a unanimous resolution in support of it. We now have on the table—and I'm a New Democrat talking about a Liberal bill here—Bill C-262, now called Bill C-15, yet there are now all these alarm bells being raised even though we know both bills are similar. I find that concerning, particularly with the fact that you commented on the preamble.

I know there has been criticism of the preamble of Bill C-15 as not being legally binding and a means to confuse and mislead indigenous peoples and nations. That's one of the things that have been quoted. We know this is a totally inaccurate understanding of the role preambles play in legislation, especially in light of how the federal Interpretation Act, article 13, defines the legal effect of a preamble. It states:

The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.

That's the federal Interpretation Act with respect to legislation. I am wondering where the concerns are coming from about the preamble not having legal effect with respect to Bill C-15.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I don't know if it's possible. In my opinion, it is very difficult to set a specific deadline for the process that we all need to pursue. The most important principle, which I would like to emphasize, is that of finding the right balance between the urgency to act and the obligation to do it right. This is the way we should look at our concern. We have to find the right balance between these two elements. I think we all live that reality.

We understand the importance of the legislative process, which you can have some control over, but right now, the aspect that we take the liberty of emphasizing is the great opportunity that we feel we have. I may repeat myself. We fully support the principle of a bill proposing the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but we still need to make sure we get it right.

One element is not to be overlooked, though not to be criticized, and that is the geopolitical context, which is quite diverse across the country. We are well aware that provinces are asking for additional time before the passage of Bill C-15, as introduced last December. For our part, we are making much the same arguments, but for different reasons. This is also important. I have given the example of Quebec, and it is up to the other Canadian provinces and territories to make their position known. In Quebec, the government is in absolutely no hurry to sit down and consider the implementation of the declaration based on what Bill C-15 proposes.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I'll do it in the two official languages, starting with French.

Thank you all very much.

[Witness spoke in an indigenous language]

[French]

The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, or AFNQL, wishes to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to present its brief, as part of the study of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The AFNQL is a forum for the chiefs of 43 first nations communities in Quebec and Labrador. At the heart of its mission and objectives are the affirmation of and respect for first nations laws, the recognition of first nations governments, the coordination of first nations' positions and the representation of their positions and interests before various forums.

Please note that the AFNQL is tabling a brief that will detail its views on Bill C-15. With all due respect, I want to make it clear that the brief reflects the positions of a majority of first nations in our region. You have heard or will hear the position of the Cree nation. That nation's way of thinking deserves our respect, even though our brief will confirm that we do not necessarily share the same views.

By tabling its brief, the AFNQL is requesting that amendments be made to clarify and strengthen certain parts of Bill C-15, a bill of the utmost importance. To this end, the AFNQL chiefs unanimously adopted a motion that “amendments to Bill C-15 are a minimum condition in order for the AFNQL to even consider supporting the bill.”

In fact, the implementation of the rights and principles from the Declaration for the Survival and Welfare of Indigenous Peoples Located in Canada requires that Bill C-15 take a greater step to move beyond the status quo.

To be clear, the chiefs support the principle of a bill that proposes the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, they cannot support Bill C-15 in its current form. The bill must go much further. The political context in Quebec, which conditions the relationship between first nations and the provincial government, deserves particular attention. We have to deal with a provincial government that refuses any discussion on the implementation of the declaration in Quebec, despite a resolution from its national assembly, which commits it to negotiate the terms of its implementation.

Next, the constitutional validity of the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, Bill C-92, passed in 2019, is being challenged by the Quebec government in the Court of Appeal. With the federal government considering the introduction of additional federal legislation, including in the areas of first nations health and policing, it is essential that the legislative context be conducive to ensuring that all future federal legislation is consistent with the rights and principles of the declaration.

The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada must be done in true partnership, nation-to-nation, that is, with indigenous peoples, and must generate concrete results for the members of our communities. The Prime Minister's commitments to reconciliation are clear, but they are somewhat less clear about results. It is important to note that reconciliation in the Canadian political framework involves a clear commitment from the provinces as an essential condition for any progress in relations with first nations.

In closing, this measure cannot be treated as a form of relinquishment by first nations governments of their areas of jurisdiction, over which first nations will continue to fully exercise their right to self-determination.

Indeed, our region has carried out a vigorous examination of the bill, and we conclude that essential amendments are required so that it meets the minimum standard of legal and political acceptability. Several provisions of the bill must be amended to move beyond the status quo, including achieving certainty that the provisions of the UN declaration will be applied to interpret section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and to enable the effective implementation of UNDRIP in Canadian law.

The following amendments of Bill C-15 have been identified for the bill to meet the minimum standard.

One, during a discussion with the AFNQL on March 12, Mr. Lametti indicated that his understanding was that UNDRIP should serve to interpret section 35. The statement has also been made by Minister Bennett and the AFN. Unfortunately, section 2.2 of the bill fails to clearly state this and meet this standard.

Therefore, section 2.2 should be amended to expressly state that the laws of Canada, including section 35, must be interpreted in accordance with the rights and principles derived from UNDRIP; and that the law does not operate to abrogate or limit the aboriginal treaty rights of indigenous peoples recognized in the current section 35.

Two, the wording in this same section concerning non-derogation should therefore be removed from this provision.

Three, we are also concerned about overreliance on an expansive preamble that fails to reflect the substantive provisions of the bill. In numerous preamble provisions, the body of the bill most importantly, our region has identified that the bill must include a substantive provision in the body of the bill devoted to the remediation of the doctrine portion of discovery in Canadian law.

Four, finally the bill must include a provision requiring that all courts consider the rights and principles of UNDRIP when ruling on matters, issues or subjects directly or indirectly affecting aboriginal and treaty rights of indigenous peoples.

These amendments are what is minimally required for this bill to obtain support from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, and our written brief also proposes additional amendments that should be considered.

The FNQL deplores the fact that the emergency regarding the adoption of the bill to implement the declaration has lasted far too long, and that we are now being asked to support this bill under duress. A bill of such great importance cannot be subject to instrumentalization with urgency as its sole argument.

The FNQL fully supports the principles of UNDRIP, however, the FNQL opposes Bill C-15 in its current form and has clearly indicated which amendments could be made to make it more acceptable. This is not necessarily a missed opportunity, and Canada can still do what it takes.

Thank you very much.

[Witness spoke in an indigenous language]

Thank you very much.

[Tina Petawabano]

For the first question that was put forth, it should be understood that the preamble is an important part of Bill C-15. It lays out the principles by which the operative sections of the bill must be interpreted. They are not peripheral; they are essential and critical.

In its totality, Bill C-15 provides the robust framework for levelling the playing field and provides for genuine inclusiveness of indigenous peoples in the economic life of government. The application of the Canadian law clause provides the basis for ensuring that all laws of Canada must be consistent with the provisions of UNDRIP. This was our first comment to the first question.

[Chief Gina Deer]

What I was going to finish on is to ensure that we're not shut out this time. Back in 1985, we were shut out. Here is a chance to have an amendment that includes indigenous communities and populations.

We are having a difficult time with COVID, but being involved in the gaming industry has helped us help our community members. We are helping them on an individual basis and with their local businesses through the funds that we have gained through this endeavour with Sports Interaction and Mohawk Online.

Again, we support what's being proposed, but we would also like to see, I wouldn't even say a carve-out, but just a level playing field for indigenous communities.

Within Quebec, we do not have any agreements with the province and we have no revenue share with the province. In other provinces, indigenous populations have some benefit or have some agreements. That's absent here in Quebec. We firmly believe it's the responsibility of Canada to make that amendment in this instance and accommodate first nations, because we always talk about reconciliation and the wrongs that have been done in the past. As we move forward, even with Bill C-15 and UNDRIP, there is the right to economic development.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

As a matter of fact, I just dealt with thirty minutes of technical difficulties, which prevented me from being with you in time.

If this is an opportune time, we will most certainly share with you the views of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador on the bill as a whole and the amendments that we would like to see adopted. However, we are aware that the Cree regional government has also provided its comments. We believe that these comments deserve our full respect, even if in some cases we do not necessarily agree with their premise. I think it is worth making that clear.

Free, prior and informed consent is an element of the declaration that raises enormous concerns. You have just confirmed that. Still, I think it's worth reiterating that the declaration in its entirety is the responsibility of all parties involved. This applies to industry as well as governments, and first nations governments as well. It is more from this perspective that the principle of free, prior and informed consent should be considered.

That being said, we are extremely vulnerable to various interpretations [Technical difficulty] of what I would call an uncertain climate politically, first of all, as well as in terms of development. I give you as an example some of the interpretations of the current Quebec government. It anticipates that there would really be episodes of darkness if Bill C-15 were passed and the principles of the declaration were recognized in full.

I think we have to be extremely careful, because we are all a little bit vulnerable to what I would call a [Technical difficulty]. So the point is that the future is uncertain in terms of the relationship between first nations governments and Canadian governments, or even between first nations governments and industry.

[Dillon Johnson, Member, Executive Council, Land Claims Agreements Coalition]

[Witness spoke in Sliammon and provided the following text:]

?ajecep?ot. toq?an?n k??t?? nan. tawac ?a??m?n. c?c?hatanap?c.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

How are you all doing? My name is toq?an?n. I am from Tla’amin Nation. I thank you all.

[English]

Honourable members of Parliament, thank you for the invitation to provide some remarks on Bill C-15 from a modern treaty perspective.

My name is Dillon Johnson. My Tla'amin name is toq?an?n and I'm a member of the Tla'amin Nation executive council. As mentioned in my sound check, the Tla'amin Nation territory is located in the area now more commonly known as the Sunshine Coast of B.C. We are a Northern Coast Salish nation that negotiated a modern treaty that took effect in 2016.

Tla'amin Nation is a member of the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, or LCAC, which was formed in 2003 by modern treaty holders to collectively address modern treaty implementation issues that are of a federal nature. Modern treaties are comprehensive land claims agreements. The first was the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, entered into in 1975. Twenty-six modern treaties now exist in B.C., Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador and cover more than 40% of Canada's land mass.

Tla'amin Nation is also a member of the Alliance of BC Modern Treaty Nations, which was formed in 2018 to collectively address modern treaty implementation issues that are of a provincial nature. All eight modern treaty nations in B.C. are members of the alliance, and we are currently actively engaged with the province on developing an action plan to implement B.C.'s UN declaration legislation, which is quite similar to Bill C-15, and came into force in November 2019.

Our messages in that work are similar to the messages that I am pleased to be able to share with the committee today. I'll focus primarily on what many consider, from a modern treaty perspective, to be the most significant provision of the declaration, namely, article 37, and then I'll close with a few points on the action plan required under clause 6 of the bill.

Article 37 states, in items one and two, that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties...” and that “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties...”.

The effect of article 37 is clear: Every other article set out in the declaration must be read in the light of the primacy of the right of modern treaty holders in Canada to have their treaties recognized, observed and enforced.

I must say that this is not to minimize or detract from the importance of the other articles set out in the declaration, each of which must be implemented to enable the full recognition, promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. Treaty rights are already recognized in section 35 of the Constitution, but those rights have too often not been observed by politicians in their legislative initiatives, nor by officials in their administrative actions or when exercising statutory authority.

The requirement under clause 5 of the bill that government “must...take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration” means ensuring treaty rights will not be diminished or eliminated by legislation or any administrative action contemplated by legislation.

This is what article 37 requires, so when enacting legislation, entering agreements, adopting policies or contemplating administrative action, government must determine whether doing so would diminish or eliminate a right under a modern treaty, and when exercising statutory authority, every statutory decision-maker must ensure that their decision is consistent with the recognition, observation and enforcement of modern treaty rights.

The declaration recognizes the distinct standing of indigenous peoples with treaties. In light of this, it seems appropriate that the action plan contemplated by clause 6 of the bill should have a separate chapter for modern treaty partners. In my view as a representative of a modern treaty partner, an effective action plan should include an upfront commitment to the timely, effective and fully resourced implementation of modern treaties and detailed actions to support this commitment.

Unfortunately, the timely, effective and fully resourced implementation of treaties has not been a priority for the Government of Canada. When we entered into our treaties, the government repeatedly avowed that modern treaties are the ultimate expression of reconciliation. However, time and time again, we have encountered challenges in advancing our government-to-government relationship and our shared commitment to treaty implementation.

This act and the development and implementation of the action plan provide the Government of Canada and its modern treaty partners a unique opportunity to transform our government-to-government relationship and align it with the requirements of the declaration. We are committed to working collaboratively, efficiently and productively with the government to build the kind of treaty partnership that all sides envisioned when we entered into our treaties.

Thank you for the time today. I look forward to the question period.

[Grand Chief Abel Bosum, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)]

Wachiya. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the importance of Bill C-15 and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I've been following very carefully the dialogue that has taken place during these hearings with the witnesses who have thus far appeared before you. I'd like to focus my remarks today on what I believe has been one of the most critical issues of concern by members of this committee—namely, free, prior and informed consent and its relationship to the notion of veto.

I address this issue from the perspective of an indigenous nation that has real and on-the-ground experience in dealing with the critical intersection between resource development projects and indigenous rights. The experience that we offer demonstrates very clearly that not only is the affirmation of indigenous rights not incompatible with the certainty that is required to promote favourable investment climates; rather, we have demonstrated that the affirmation of our rights is a necessary condition for investment certainty and for orderly and sustainable development.

We've developed in northern Quebec a framework that provides space for rights holders, space for stakeholders and space for the public at large to be involved so as to repeatedly produce a win-win-win situation. This is not just rhetoric. It's not wishful thinking. This is the result of our rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work of hammering out agreements that reflect the diverse interests that are at play in these circumstances.

Please let me state clearly that the notion of veto is not something that is in our vocabulary when we deal with resource development projects. Similarly, the concept of veto is not something that appears in either Bill C-15 or the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. When resource development projects within our traditional territory are proposed, we address them through our treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and in particular section 22, which provides for the environmental and social impact assessment for such projects.

This process takes into account our peoples' environmental and social concerns. The process results in our involvement in such projects, including environmental monitoring, employment [Technical difficulty—Editor] and financial benefits. This environmental and social impact assessment process is a forum that provides for deep engagement. Our engagement has included non-indigenous communities in the region, various levels of government, Hydro-Québec, mining, forestry and other industries. We actually work with project proponents to make their projects more sound environmentally and also more sound from a business perspective.

Has this process of engagement resulted in our ever saying “no” to a project? Yes—most recently in the context of a proposed uranium project. After much dialogue and public hearings, we determined that the project did not meet our standard for social acceptability. But that conclusion was not an absolute declaration. It was the result of an intensive process of engagement. It was a conclusion arrived at through the legitimate process of considering diverse perspectives, diverse interests and diverse opinions. It is how we in northern Quebec express the notion of free, prior and informed consent as it should be, as so much more than only being able to say “yes” to a project.

We're no longer in an era of resource development in Canada where projects are undertaken out of sight or out of mind. The world has become a smaller place. It's no longer possible anywhere in the world to pretend that development can supersede all other interests. This is a reality that has required that we all find the path that works for our territory. We have done so in an honourable way.

Bill C-15 and the UN declaration are not about enabling unilateral declarations. They are about precisely the opposite. They are about transitioning from the past, when such declarations were the norm, to a reality in which everyone has a voice. The UN declaration is about inclusiveness through honourable engagement. We have worked hard over the last 45 years to find the right balance of indigenous rights, development and governance. If it can be done in northern Quebec in a way that diverse voices find beneficial, then it can be done across the country.

The UN declaration will set the standard for the necessary conversations and the necessary engagement, which must freely take place wherever there is an intersection between resource development and indigenous lands. Anything less would entail a perpetuation of paternalism and colonialism and, as we all surely know by now, those are dead ends that serve no one in the long run.

Meegwetch.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

On that, I know that there have been many questions around Bill C-15 and the action plan. Certainly, concerns were raised. I know that with Bill 41 there was no specific timeline mentioned. In the development of the action plan, what are some of the challenges you're experiencing right now and just the lessons learned as we move forward, hopefully, with Bill C-15?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I understand completely. We will get used to it. I assumed it was my turn.

I thank all the witnesses who are with us. I find it very interesting to hear the nuances expressed by everyone about Bill C-15.

My question is for all of the witnesses.

It was pointed out a few times that the bill would not expand the scope of first nations rights. On the other hand, it is said that passing it would be harmful. Excuse the candour of my question, but if nothing changes, how could it be worse?

I would like Mr. Swampy, Teegee or Calla to explain it to me in a concrete way. I thank you.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm interested in how and if Bill C-15 will change the current law, especially with respect to aboriginal title. President Swampy says that Bill C-15 will create more uncertainty. On the other hand, Mr. Calla says that this is the start of a way forward to create clarity.

I'm wondering if there is anything in UNDRIP that changes the modern notion of aboriginal legal title as most recently established by the Tsilhqot'in decision. I'm no expert on aboriginal land title, but it seems to me that case decided that title was sui generis, but it was a beneficial interest in the land. There was some limitation, and the limitation was that the land couldn't be used in a way that would deprive future generations of the benefits of the land.

To me, in looking at UNDRIP, I'm not sure how much it really changes anything, but I'm interested in what the panellists have to say about that. Is there any substantial change from the law as it currently is?

Maybe I can start with President Swampy, because I think he probably has an opinion on this.

[Regional Chief Terry Teegee, Regional Chief of Assembly of First Nations (British Columbia), BC First Nations Leadership Council]

Mahsi cho.

[Witness spoke in Dene]

[English]

Members of Parliament, first of all, I want to acknowledge the territory that I am on, the Lheidli T'enneh Dene people of the Dakelh territory near Prince George, British Columbia. I want to also acknowledge the territories that you are broadcasting or attending this meeting from: that they are indigenous lands and have always been indigenous lands since time immemorial.

I want to thank the committee for the invitation to offer some remarks. I am honoured to speak on the topic of federal legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This marks a significant turning point in the history of this country and follows a historic occasion in the province of British Columbia. On November 28, 2019, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, DRIPA, passed unanimously in the B.C. legislature with support from all parties in British Columbia.

DRIPA was widely supported by first nations in British Columbia. It represents a sea change from the provincial government's tradition of denying and opposing our titles, rights and existence as distinct peoples and an acceptance of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission call to action 43 “to adopt and implement the...Declaration...as the framework for reconciliation”.

This was a turning point in B.C. While much hard work lies ahead, we are starting to see a shift toward the human rights-based approach required by the declaration.

As an example, last fall the B.C. government commissioned a comprehensive review of anti-indigenous racism in the provincial health care system, promoting article 24 of the declaration and affirming indigenous peoples' rights to access to health care without discrimination.

Historic and recent events demonstrate the imperative for concrete measures to address racism in our society and the responsibility of the public governments to act. The United Nations declaration is a global human rights instrument, and human rights cannot be fully enjoyed where there is racism and discrimination.

The anti-indigenous racism and discrimination that continue today underscore the appropriateness of the human rights-based approach to reconciliation. Reconciliation cannot be based on denial of rights or racism. This is inherently contradictory and incompatible with upholding human rights.

Bill C-15, with the improvements, is an important next step in Canada's implementation of the declaration. It is a long overdue pathway for change, predicated on respect for human and inherent rights and the repudiation and eradication of racist and colonial constructs and doctrines that have no place in this country or our relationships.

The preamble is important, as it speaks to our collective history in Canada and the legacy of colonialism that has had tragic and profound impacts on first nations across the country, underscoring the need for the United Nations declaration to apply in Canada.

The bill must be clear that Canada is repudiating the doctrines of advocating superiority, like the doctrine of discovery and terra nullius. All interpretations of indigenous rights from an era based on colonial denial cannot continue. It must also be clear that implementation of the United Nations declaration is a responsibility of all in government to take actions and ensure consistency of laws as required under article 5.

Further, it is imperative that the co-operation and consultation carried out under the bill reflect the constitutional relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples and key standards of the declaration, such as free, prior and informed consent. The bill must clarify and specify mechanisms and a plan needed for achieving consistency of laws. The new pathway will see laws of Canada shift to be more inclusive and respectful of the rights and our unique relationship and see new actions and approaches of partnership and participation.

Bill C-15 will complement the B.C. declaration act and contribute to the strengthened foundation of Crown-indigenous relations and reconciliation in B.C. where treaties were not concluded throughout the province and the land question remains largely outstanding, as does the implementation of pre-Confederation Douglas treaties.

The implementation of the declaration through laws and action by both Canada and the Province of B.C. will be a strong foundation for innovation and principled negotiations, improving and expediting the negotiation and conclusion of robust, enduring rights-based treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements in British Columbia.

The work of upholding and protecting indigenous human rights is urgent, particularly during a global health pandemic, when human rights are vulnerable and unordinarily impacted. The urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples is stated in the preamble. There are many actions that can and must be taken immediately and not delayed. This should be reflected in the time frames in the bill.

Chiefs in British Columbia have indicated that they believe this legislation meets the floor of the former Bill C-262, although they have identified areas where improvements are needed to address some drafting issues that may cause confusion and to reinforce issues of importance, such as those I have referred to here. We have provided you with a written table of our recommended improvements. We are happy to make ourselves and our technical staff available to further brief you, should you wish for more information regarding our position.

I thank you for the time today to speak in support of Bill C-15.

Mahsi cho.

[Dale Swampy, President, National Coalition of Chiefs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today as you study Bill C-15.

I am presenting to you today from the traditional territory of the Tsuut'ina Nation near Calgary, Alberta, and the traditional territory of the Treaty 7 first nations in southern Alberta.

My name is Dale Swampy. I am the president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, a coalition of industry-supportive chiefs. Our mandate is to defeat poverty on first nations reserves. We work to establish mutually beneficial agreements between first nations and industry partners in an effort to enhance the economic prosperity of reserve communities.

I am also a member of the Samson Cree Nation.

I think UNDRIP is important and significant in many ways, and I obviously support indigenous rights. However, I am skeptical about Bill C-15 itself. I think it needs to be written much more carefully, because as it is drafted today, it is obvious to me that it will deter investment in Canadian resource development, and that hurts the indigenous communities that rely on resources as much it hurts anyone.

Most of us want to attract investment to our territories. We want economic development and jobs and own-source revenues. In fact, UNDRIP affirms that very right to determine and develop priorities and strategies and to develop use of our lands, territories and other resources. This right is meaningless if we can't attract financing or business partners to develop our resources because the law is unclear.

I've spent my professional life in first nations and the oil and gas industry. I know first-hand what happens when federal bureaucracy gets in the way of development.

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. That is because it adds to the confusion about who has the authority to provide or deny consent on behalf of indigenous people, be they chiefs and councils, hereditary chiefs or small groups of activists. It also implies that a single nation can then deny consent—a veto in practice, if not in name—for projects that cross dozens of territories, be they pipelines, railroads or electricity transmission lines.

I think the uncertainty in the legislation makes it likely that it will be used to delay resource development projects by groups that oppose extractive and other resource projects under any circumstances, even those of which indigenous nations are overwhelmingly in favour and have equity ownership. I've seen first-hand how environmental groups can push their own agendas and use indigenous rights against our own interests.

Federal government structures have often worked to deter investment in indigenous lands and territories and to reduce our business competitiveness. Bill C-15 has the potential to add one more barrier between indigenous peoples and industry, on top of the Indian Act and other legislation.

The added uncertainty, hurdles and risk to development on indigenous territory make it difficult for our nations and businesses to attract investment and make it more expensive to do so when they can, due to risk premiums.

Undermining our own economy is not a recipe for prosperity and self-determination. The simple fact is that most of our communities need resource development in order to prosper. We don't need legislation that will make that harder.

I want to touch on one last thing before I close, and that is standards of consultation and consent. The federal government has imposed very high standards of consultation on industry, even to the point where projects that first nations want to see happen can't attract investment because the process is too burdensome, expensive or unclear. Now, with Bill C-15, I don't see you applying those standards to yourselves.

COVID-19 is restricting the ability of our chiefs to travel to Ottawa to speak directly with representatives of Parliament and share our thoughts and concerns regarding the bill. Our leaders are busy dealing with public health issues. They need the time to understand, before legislation is passed, how it will affect indigenous peoples in practice, what it will mean to the approval of processes for projects on our territories, and how the proposed action plan will be developed.

Article 19 of UNDRIP specifically says that you need the informed consent of first nations and all indigenous peoples before you pass legislation that affects them. I know you don't have universal consent for Bill C-15. I know many chiefs who are concerned and want, at the very least, some more time to better engage with and understand the implications of Bill C-15 and want to have input into how it's written. What is your understanding of how you need to obtain and demonstrate indigenous people's consent to pass this legislation? How you define it to pass this bill and what you think is a reasonable standard should not be different from how you expect industry to obtain consent on other projects. In fact, I would think you'd hold yourselves to a higher standard, especially on this piece of legislation.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gill.

Let me put it to the committee that access to the binders typically would not be in order. However, we could agree, on unanimous consent of the committee, notwithstanding the routine motion governing the distribution of documents, that Ms. Gill and Ms. Gazan be granted access to the committee's digital binders for the duration of this study on the matter of Bill C-15.

Do we have any objections from anyone on our committee to allowing the digital binders to be shared?

Seeing none, I will ask for unanimous consent, by a show of hands, to allow the binders to be shared.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to raise a point of order, Mr. Chair, simply to ask for the unanimous consent of committee members to have access to the digital binder for the duration of the study of Bill C-15. I was not given access.

I would like to get unanimous consent from committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I call this meeting to order, acknowledging first of all that in Ottawa we meet on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 25, 2021, the committee is continuing its study on the subject matter of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Before I continue, I see that Ms. Gill has her hand up.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I want to move to Minister Bennett now.

I appreciate the conversation earlier about Bill C-15. I very much encourage you to talk to your government and to make sure we actually see it being debated in the House. We saw what happened in the last Parliament. I certainly don't want to see that happen again. It needs to be debated. I appreciate that the committee is doing the prestudy, but if we're not debating it in the House, the process isn't happening so I encourage you to do that.

One of the questions I have for you around reconciliation is on the issue—and you and I have talked about this, Carolyn—of enforcement. We heard in the last study we did about the impacts of COVID-19 on indigenous communities that one of the biggest challenges was their inability to enforce the band bylaws. They weren't able to call somebody when people were gathering in bigger groups. We've heard again and again in different studies that enforcement continues to be a challenge. Local police or the RCMP don't know how to follow through on certain things. There seems to be a disconnect between the governance structures and the local law enforcement, and that's continuing to bring up big issues.

I'm just wondering if there's any commitment from your government to help bridge that gap so that we can see more reconciliation.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

We are all very grateful for that work and consultation.

On the theme of consultation, Bill C-15 requires that the designated minister “must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples and with other federal ministers, prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.”

This has come up quite a few times at this committee and I've heard it discussed as well. Is this just a statement, or will action come out of it? I think this committee would really benefit from your sentiments and thoughts on what this government bill would produce in terms of action and on the process, preparation and implementation of that action plan.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm joining today from the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Huron-Wendat, the Anishinabe, the Attawandaron and more recently the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, as well as many others. I'm very grateful to be joining you here and talking about these important issues.

Speaking of important issues, I'm a strong believer that Bill C-15, on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is some of the most important work we'll be doing on this committee.

Minister Bennett, I know you'll be coming back next month to discuss Bill C-15 and how important it is with us. The supplementary estimates include additional funding for that bill.

I am hoping you could give us a sense of the engagement that the government has done to develop the bill. It's been a hot topic of discussion among us, particularly with our indigenous partners. Give us a bit of a prelude for Bill C-15, if you could.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Kwe kwe, unnusakkut, tansi, hello, bonjour.

I am speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. I wish to honour the waters they paddled and their moccasins, which walked these lands.

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to appear again before this committee today, to discuss my department's supplementary estimates (C), as well as its 2021-22 main estimates.

I am appearing with my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs, and supported by our officials, led by Deputy Minister Daniel Quan-Watson.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges to everyone in Canada, especially people living in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. The priority of indigenous leadership has been to keep their people safe.

From the very beginning, our government has been there to support first nations, Inuit and Métis communities through the fight against COVID-19, with daily calls with the three ministers. We are so grateful for the truly amazing public servants who are working 24-7. We'll be there as we work towards the recovery and building back better—socially, economically and environmentally.

Reconciliation and self-determination are essential to a strong recovery and represent the core of my mandate. No one wants to go back to normal. We now have the opportunity to bring all Canadians with us as we accelerate the progress to self-determination and support indigenous communities as they implement their own visions for the future.

Our commitment to advancing reconciliation and accelerating self-determination is reflected not only in the estimates being considered today but in everything we do on a day-to-day basis. The 2020-21 supplementary estimates (C) reflect a net increase of $138.6 million for CIRNAC, which brings the total budgetary authorities for 2020-21 to $6.9 billion.

Some of the key priorities that funding from the supplementary estimates (C) will support include the implementation of the Métis government recognition and self-government agreements, the implementation of Canada's collaborative self-government fiscal policy, engagement to support the introduction of Bill C-15 and the coordination and implementation of the national action plan on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, two-spirit and LGBTQQIA+ people.

Notably, the $35.6 million to implement the Métis government recognition and self-government agreements signed with the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, and the Métis Nation of Alberta will support their visions of self-determination and their ability to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural development. The $8.2 million for fiscal transfer agreements with self-governing indigenous governments will support ongoing funding to these governments, as well as enforcement activities under the Teslin Tlingit Council Administration of Justice Agreement.

In addition, $5.2 million is assigned to support the engagement process of Bill C-15. The current version of the bill, built on the momentum and support from indigenous groups for the former private member's bill of Romeo Saganash, Bill C-262, is a reflection of our ongoing engagement with indigenous partners. Moving forward on Bill C-15 is the right thing to do, and I look forward to working closely with all of you during your examination of the bill over the next few weeks and on potential further improvements to the bill. We are grateful for your prestudy.

The funding of $2.6 million over three years for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, two-spirit and LGBTQQIA+ people will help ensure that survivors and family members can continue to meaningfully participate in the development and ongoing implementation of the national action plan. The MMIWG secretariat, led out of CIRNAC, will provide support to the national family and survivors circle to ensure that it is included, supported and connected with all the working groups and at the very centre of the process.

The 2021-22 main estimates for Crown-Indigenous Relations will be approximately $4.7 billion. While this reflects a net decrease of $189 million, or 4%, compared with last year's main estimates, this is mainly due to the anticipated settlement of claims. Also, as you know, main estimates do not reflect the additional funding made available throughout the year through the supplementary estimates and cannot ever be viewed as a complete picture of intended spending.

In closing, I know you all agree that the top priority of this government during this difficult time has been the safety and physical and mental health of all Canadians, including first nations, Inuit and Métis people and especially their elders. I'm proud that even in these extraordinary times, our government has continued to advance reconciliation, right wrongs and accelerate self-determination for indigenous peoples in Canada.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marci. Thank you.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Does Bill C-15 have a precise definition of free, prior and informed consent?

[Romeo Saganash]

That is an important aspect that must be considered in the debate about Bill C-15.

In this whole debate, what must be understood is that various legal frameworks deal with the rights of indigenous peoples. Of course, section 35 of the Constitution is a major legal framework, a constitutional framework, no less. Treaties and international law are other major legal frameworks. There is also Indigenous law. We have our own laws.

Those four legal frameworks are distinct, but they strengthen each other and are interrelated. They are frameworks that we as Indigenous peoples can use to stand up for our inherent rights and our treaty rights.

[Romeo Saganash]

I do not. For a long time, the chairperson of the working group on indigenous populations would repeat at every session of negotiations that “this declaration does not create new rights”, that it just confirms inherent rights of indigenous peoples, the pre-existing rights of indigenous peoples.

I think this question is not relevant in my mind, because both Bill C-15 and the UN declaration reaffirm that these are pre-existing and inherent rights.

[Romeo Saganash]

I think it's important to re-emphasize that point. When we say that our rights are inherent or pre-existing, it means that no one has given us those rights, that we possess them as indigenous people and indigenous peoples.

What this bill does is recognize and affirm that very essential and fundamental fact that all of these 46 rights that UNDRIP enshrines are inherent and pre-existing. That is the very reason why courts have been using the UN declaration to interpret aboriginal rights here and abroad. There are specific countries that were mentioned. In Colombia, Guatemala and Belize, courts have interpreted indigenous rights in those countries based on what the content of the UN declaration was, yet these countries do not have Bill C-15 legislation which confirms that UNDRIP has application in their national law.

I think that is the important aspect of the law in this discussion. That includes, of course, the right to self-determination and the right to free, prior and informed consent. These are human rights. We're in 2021, and I think it's grand time that all politicians, all members of Parliament, stand up, recognize and uphold those human rights of indigenous peoples, of the first peoples in this country.

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

Thank you. I'd like to start off by asking Romeo Saganash a question.

Romeo, I want to start off by acknowledging your work on this and getting it to where it is right now. I want to say how deeply I appreciate your work on this over the years. As you know, my father and Alex Denny, the Grand Captain of the Mi'kmaq nation, were going to the United Nations for years in trying to implement indigenous self-determination.

You noted earlier that UNDRIP and Bill C-15 are the minimum standards. Rights such as section 35 rights are talking about pre-existing inherent rights. The preamble of UNDRIP speaks to “the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples”.

As in your earlier comments, why is it an important point to know that these are pre-existing inherent rights?

[Romeo Saganash]

Absolutely not. It doesn't. I think that Bill C-15 just confirms that this international human rights instrument, like all other international human rights instruments, has application within law, in the sense that any court, in its impartiality, can refer to this international document to interpret domestic law.

It's the opposite. I think it's from a domestic perspective that we need to consider these other documents to interpret the rights in this country, so it serves...in that sense.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Another concern raised by opponents of Bill C-15 relates to the claim that Bill C-15 domesticates or Canadianizes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Do you agree with this assertion?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

Romeo, the committee recently received a letter from the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations, basically cautioning that Bill C-15 will have an effect of changing the definition of “indigenous persons” as defined in international law.

Can you speak to this important matter? Has the UN ever adopted a definition of “indigenous people”?

[Romeo Saganash]

As I mentioned earlier, I did send a copy of the study the UN did on the concept of free, prior and informed consent. I invite all members of the committee to review it. It's an important document for your consideration, especially when considering Bill C-15.

Free means no coercion or intimidation. For instance, I can give you the example of the Site C dam where BC Hydro intimidated the opponents of the project with lawsuits of $4.3 million per individual. That's called intimidation. You're not allowed to do that.

No coercion, no intimidation is what free stands for.

Prior means these discussions for this engagement with indigenous peoples that may be impacted by a project need to happen prior to any decision taken about a project.

Informed means that we need to have access to studies and information that is readily accessible to the people you represent. For instance, for a long time Hydro Québec provided the Cree with studies about the impacts of their projects on my people but solely in French, not in English, not in Cree, so we cannot be informed if that's how things are going to happen.

All three of these steps need to happen prior to embarking on a specific activity and that's how Thierry Rodon, who testified in the first hour, talks about this. I read his paper, and it's consistent with what the UN has been saying about free, prior and informed consent.

Like all human rights, the right to free, prior and informed consent is a relative right. You need to take other factors into consideration, whereas a veto is an absolute concept that doesn't take into consideration the law or the facts or circumstances of a given case.

[Romeo Saganash]

Thank you for your question, Mrs. Gill. It is always a pleasure to see you again. Thank you for the work you are doing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on all these matters.

I mentioned in my introduction that there are differences between the French and English versions of Bill C-15. Subsection 2(2) is a good example of that.

Here is what it says in English:

This Act is to be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.

But here is what it says in French:

2(2) La présente loi maintient les droits des peuples autochtones reconnus et confirmés par l’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982; elle n’y porte pas atteinte.

The two versions are different. Actually, I prefer the French version; it is much clearer as to the intent of this provision of Bill C-15.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My thanks also to my colleague.

First, I would like to thank Mr. Saganash. I did so earlier but he had not yet joined us. I thank him specifically for the important work he has done over the years and in the last Parliament. He has been working since 1982, as Ms. Lightfoot and Ms. Augustine pointed out.

We are now studying Bill C-15. I know that Mr. Saganash previously worked on a similar bill and that there are differences between the two. I would like him to tell us about those differences, in a qualitative sense. I would like to hear his comments, since they could make our work clearer.

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

Thank you.

To go back to Romeo, I know that one of the conversations we had throughout Bill C-262 was the issue of veto, and the same types of concerns are raised here. Does Bill C-15 represent a veto with respect to FPIC? Maybe you can comment on your position as you outlined previously.

[Romeo Saganash]

First of all, Bill C-15 is pretty much similar to Bill C-262. I think the engagement we've done around Bill C-262 was pretty much thorough throughout the country. I've met with indigenous and non-indigenous communities in town halls to explain Bill C-262 and to explain what the UN declaration is all about, and I've answered the questions or concerns that people had about Bill C-262 at the time.

I can tell you that throughout my travels across the country, I did not leave one town hall, whether indigenous or non-indigenous, where people were opposed to Bill C-262 or the UN declaration. That work, I think, is a legacy in going forward with Bill C-15. We calculated that the indigenous organizations and communities that adopted resolutions of support for Bill C-262 represented approximately one million indigenous individuals in this country. That engagement has been extensive and it was comprehensive, and I think that's a legacy we can take on in moving forward with Bill C-15.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

On that point, Mr. Saganash, if I google “Bill C-15 UNDRIP”, the first thing that comes up is the APTN article on concerns around consultations on Bill C-15. That's the challenge we are going to have bringing in this as the application in Canadian law.

What's the body that governs the aboriginal opinion in this country, the indigenous opinion? That's going to be the big challenge.

[Romeo Saganash]

Let me say this from the outset: The courts have already confirmed that provision that you read to us. The courts are using the UN declaration—referencing the UN declaration—to interpret domestic law, and that's been going on for many years. Our human rights tribunals, provincial and federal, were using the UN declaration even before it was adopted by the UN General Assembly.

What Bill C-15 does is it confirms what the courts have been saying, and the interpretation in how courts have been using international human rights instruments like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

What this bill will add, in my view, is that.... As a member of Parliament, you know that the Minister of Justice has an obligation under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act to make sure that any legislation, before it is introduced, is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We don't have the equivalent for aboriginal rights and treaty rights in this country. Bill C-15 will provide that.

[Dr. Sheryl Lightfoot]

I'll just close with one sentence, if that's all right.

If Canada is serious about reconciliation, we need a different approach. The declaration is the right foundation, and Bill C-15 provides a clear, sensible process to bring these commitments to life. Thank you.

[Dr. Sheryl Lightfoot, Canada Research Chair in Global Indigenous Rights and Politics, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to those on the west coast, and good afternoon to those of you further east.

I want to open by acknowledging the lands of the Algonquin people where the hearing is physically being held, then also the lands of the Musqueam people where I have the privilege to work and live and where I am currently sitting joining you virtually this morning.

I'm Anishinabe, from Lake Superior Band of Ojibwe. I am Canada research chair and professor of global indigenous rights and politics at the University of British Columbia.

I had the honour to appear before this committee three years ago, in April 2018, when Bill C-262 was being debated in Parliament. Along with many other first nations scholars, advocates and community members, I, of course, was deeply disappointed by the failure to pass that bill into law.

However, I'm very pleased to be with you here today in hopes that Parliament can soon correct this historic failure and pass Bill C-15. I want to thank you for the invitation to appear today.

International human rights instruments like the UN declaration are developed with the intention that they will be implemented in domestic contexts and in full. In legal human rights scholarship, there is often talk about rights ritualism. In short, this means that states say one thing in the international arena, the human rights arena, and then do something else at home.

In my own academic work as a political scientist, I've observed a pattern that I have referred to as “selective endorsement”. What this means is that some states have attempted to water down the rights in the UN declaration, accepting only some of them for implementation and then self-selecting out of other rights. This is simply not morally acceptable to pick and choose human rights that one will respect while others are left behind.

I want to point out that rights ritualism and selective endorsement, as phenomena, are not limited to any one government or any one political party. Governments of all political stripes have repeatedly broken their promises to indigenous peoples. Treaties have been violated and Supreme Court judgments are at times reinterpreted and occasionally ignored, all the while portraying Canada as a global model for democracy and human rights.

Of course, many out there wonder if Canada is really serious about reconciliation. I've heard some very frustrated indigenous people say, reconciliation is dead.

What are we to do? Do we give up, or do we continue to try to find better tools?

I'm strongly in favour of the implementation model that Romeo Saganash created when he first brought forward Bill C-641 and then Bill C-262 to Parliament. This model, which is the foundation for Bill C-15, has a number of elements that I think are crucial.

First of all, it requires collaboration with indigenous peoples. It also requires concrete action including legal reform and, as has been discussed, the creation of an action plan, and it requires public reporting and accountabilities.

A large part of my own scholarly work involves looking at the comparative experiences of indigenous peoples around the world. I feel that Bill C-15 is advancing the global conversation and setting a very positive example for other states.

When we look around the world, we can see that a number of states have undertaken legal and policy measures to implement the declaration. As was mentioned in the first hour, committee members have heard about the national action plan process being developed in New Zealand, for example.

In addition, several countries in Africa have also implemented national legislation and policies to operationalize their commitments to the declaration. Constitutional reforms have also been an essential step, and Latin America has been especially proactive in this area.

National courts, from Belize to Botswana, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico and the Russian Federation have all cited the declaration in legal decisions nationally.

National human rights institutions in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Namibia, the Russian Federation and the United States have used the declaration as a framework for monitoring the implementation of indigenous peoples' rights at the national level. The declaration is also being implemented regionally, and examples here include the European Union and the Organization of American States, the African Commission and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also drawn substantially from the UN declaration.

For more than a decade now, the declaration has been used to set guidelines and standards on the international level. A number of organizations have developed policies and/or guidelines to align with it. For example, and my colleague Professor Gunn mentioned some of these as well, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the Inter-American and Asian development banks and UNESCO. Various UN agencies and programs have addressed indigenous peoples' rights as they relate to business practices and commercial activity as well. International treaty bodies for the conventions that were signed are also increasingly utilizing the UN declaration in their assessments of compliance, therefore making the declaration legally binding through those treaties.

Quite simply, Bill C-15 represents the best approach to human rights implementation that I have seen from around the world, bringing all of these various elements together. Passing Bill C-15 into law will set a genuinely positive example for the rest of the world community. I know that other governments and indigenous peoples in other regions of the world are watching this process very closely.

Last week my colleague, Joshua Nichols from the University of Alberta and I published an opinion piece about the unfinished business of reconciliation. The Supreme Court has recognized reconciliation as a constitutional imperative. As Professor Nichols and I wrote, the court meant something much more profound and challenging than simply trying to get along. Reconciliation is about putting inherent rights and title into meaningful practice. As we said in the article, “Up to now, federal, provincial and territorial governments have largely left this crucial work in the hands of the courts. This has been a mistake.”

[Romeo Saganash, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

Good morning to other committee members. Thank you for the invitation to appear at this committee and make some opening remarks before we go into questions.

To date, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been reaffirmed by the UN General Assembly at least 10 times by consensus. That means it was done without a vote. So we can say safely today that no state in the world presently opposes the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That's what it means.

Last December the UN General Assembly highlighted that the declaration, “has positively influenced the drafting of several constitutions and statutes at the national and local levels and contributed to the progressive development of international and national legal frameworks and policies.”

The UN declaration affirms, as Professor Gunn mentioned, a wide range of economic, social, cultural, political, spiritual and environmental rights. These rights are inherent, or as we say, pre-existing. So it is urgent for Canada to finally respect and implement those rights in federal legislation.

I am pleased that Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, is based on my own private member's bill, Bill C-262, and goes further, as a matter of fact, in certain instances. In my countless meetings and conferences across Canada, Bill C-262 received widespread support from indigenous peoples and the general public. It wasn't easy tabling a private member's bill. My first bill on the UN Declaration, Bill C-641 was tabled in December 2014. It was defeated on second reading in April of 2015. In April 2016, I tabled a new and stronger Bill C-262. The House of Commons passed the bill at third reading on May 30, 2018. However, a filibuster by a few senators killed the bill in June of 2019, just a couple of days before the passing of my mom.

Therefore, I fully support Bill C-15 being tabled by the federal government in the House in early December 2020. Government bills can proceed more efficiently, I believe, before the House and the Senate. Bill C-15 confirms the declaration as the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples. I would add security to that list. The bill must be implemented in Canada, as preambular paragraph 2 says.

As a survivor of Indian residential schools, I'm especially pleased that Bill C-15 acknowledges in its preamble the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the calls for justice by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, both of which call for the implementation of the UN declaration.

In reviewing Bill C-15, we see that it is important to underline that its 17 preambular paragraphs have significant legal effects. They add important content to the seven operative positions in the bill and they must be fully considered. For example, doctrines of superiority—preambular paragraph 9—which include discovery and terra nullius, are condemned as racist and legally invalid. All forms of colonialism—preambular paragraph 10—are also rejected, and the Government of Canada has committed to advancing relations based on such principles as justice, equality, non-discrimination and respect for human rights.

In the preamble, paragraph 11 emphasizes the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. The Supreme Court of Canada has also affirmed our inherent and pre-existing rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

In the preamble, paragraph 12 of Bill C-15 asks that the Government of Canada recognize that all relations with indigenous peoples must be based on the recognition and implementation of the inherent right to self-determination, including the inherent right to self-government.

As indicated in the two international human rights covenants, Canada has an affirmative obligation to recognize and respect our right to self-determination. This obligation has existed, as you know, Mr. Chair, since 1976 when Canada ratified the two international covenants.

In my introductory remarks, I would also like to emphasize two current problems with the current text of Bill C-15. First, in some instances, the English and French versions are not compatible, and this is a problem that must be immediately redressed.

A second problem is in section 4 of the act. As currently drafted, it erroneously conflates two distinct and separate purposes as a single purpose that appears to solely relate to the actual plan. This is patently incorrect and would not be consistent with C-262.

Section 4 should therefore read:

The purposes of this Act are

Followed by (a) and (b).

I think my time is up.

I'm looking forward to the questions from the members of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Thierry Rodon]

That is exactly what I am advocating. I feel that having a clearer process and a relationship with Indigenous people in which they fully participate will avoid a number of problems, such as with courts, with blockades or with RCMP actions.

I don't know whether you saw the foreign coverage of the RCMP operation against the Wet'suwet'en. But it did Canada and investing in Canada no favours at all. Everyone loses in that kind of situation.

Having a more inclusive process, in which Indigenous people are part of the decision-making, will help a lot. It will not solve all the problems, some will remain. However, it provides a friendlier climate for investors. In New Zealand, the fact that the Maoris are part of the decision-making poses no problems.

Thinking that having Indigenous people participate will limit investments is a narrow point of view. In my opinion, the opposite will be true; it cannot be worse than it is at the moment. I feel that action is required. Bill C-15 is one way of doing it, but it's not the only way.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

Yes.

Not just investors, but also other indigenous organizations interested in resource development don't want that uncertainty. The general consensus from the people that we've been able to talk to is that the action plan would be a great vehicle. We have a lot of concrete ideas on things that can make it easier for indigenous people to attract capital, putting the “I” into ESG standards; procurement and things like that. I know our partners do too.

I think that the more the legislation makes clear that the action plan will fully articulate that there's a status quo until the action plan is agreed to, the better. Then you can have the consultation.

I know there's lots of concern that there hasn't been enough time, that this feels rushed, and I think that if there were an understanding that the action plan is the place where we can decide what's going to be different, what's going to change and what are going to be the practical implications of C-15, that would take care of a lot of people's concerns.

I'm sure that if you speak to other people in industry or pension plans, they might say the same thing, but certainly from the perspective of the indigenous organizations we're working with, they have lots of ideas for the action plan and prefer to see that be the vehicle.

[Prof. Brenda Gunn]

Thanks, Ms. Gazan, for your question. I'm going to try to answer it as quickly as I can.

There was included in the original Constitution the idea to try to negotiate additional understanding of section 35 through those constitutional round tables that were going to look at self-government, and those didn't succeed. We've had the very unfortunate situation in Canada where a broad general phrase, “aboriginal and treaty rights”, is what is protected in the Constitution, and with unsuccessful negotiations, you're right, it was left to the courts to determine. We continue to have litigation over the scope of these rights and some negotiations as well.

I do think that Bill C-15 and the UN declaration provide some useful supports, because they help flesh out that general understanding of what aboriginal treaty rights are. There's a whole list of rights that are included with the UN declaration that help us understand. I would just say, importantly, from my perspective, the inclusion of the economic, social and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights is really important, particularly when we think of indigenous women. I think the national inquiry as well as the B.C. inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women highlight the way in which economic, social and cultural rights are particularly important for indigenous women and to ensure equality. We haven't seen as much success in litigating economic, social and cultural rights in either the Constitution or the Charter, so I do think there's a lot of clarity that can be gained through Bill C-15.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a very limited amount of time. The reason I ask is that we know that risk disclosure is a warning you must provide investors, any investment, in terms of following law. I just wanted clarification on that.

My next question is for Ms. Gunn. The 1982 Constitution of Canada recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights, which is a general concept and has a level of ambiguity, and we know that. This has been a constant issue in defining the concept of aboriginal rights. Do you think that Bill C-15, which affirms the application of UNDRIP in Canada, will lessen this ambiguity?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Madam Exner-Pirot.

You spoke about three years of uncertainty, because that's the maximum time provided in Bill C-15. You claim that it comes with a cost for investors. I'd like you to comment on risk disclosure in international trade rules, especially in relation to land claims. In this country, areas that are still under dispute, referring specifically to land claims.... Aren't we negotiating international trade deals, then, on a lie?

[Prof. Brenda Gunn]

I can say, from my experience participating internationally, that many indigenous peoples turned to the international arena when there were challenges that they were facing domestically and could not find sufficient resolution.

What I have seen and heard, and even what I continue to hear today when I hear people speaking about Bill C-15, is that it's time to recognize these basic, fundamental, inherent rights of indigenous peoples. We can't keep treating indigenous peoples as lesser peoples. That's why I read out those preambular paragraphs. It's really time for Canada to recognize indigenous peoples as people. There's too much of Canadian law that is based on these racist ideas...in Johnson v. M'Intosh, back in 1823, that indigenous peoples were fierce savages whose occupation was war.

It really should be now in 2021 a time when we start rejecting those ideas and work with indigenous peoples to realize these fundamental human rights.

I think importantly that this bill has a lot of wisdom in that it's not just saying, okay, we're accepting UNDRIP, but it's actually forcing us to come to the table, sit down and come up with a plan to implement it. On these concerns that are being raised, the national action plan, this is the time and place to hash out some of these questions. It has built in the bill itself, in the legislation, a way to address these concerns and not to just say we're concerned that there might be impacts, but to study and come up with a plan that ensures that indigenous peoples and Canadians benefit from development.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I don't know if you want to add more, but we all heard the debate in the House of Commons. The government, in its own words, claims C-15 does not provide a veto yet they refuse to actually define what consent is.

To your comments about the concerns and uncertainty, you're right. If you add even a 1% risk factor to some investment, there are many places investors can take their money and resource projects. It doesn't necessarily have to be resource projects. I think it's almost anything. Adding that uncertainty does hurt the economic reconciliation that I think needs to happen as well.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, Research Advisor, Indigenous Resource Network]

Maybe, Arnie, I'll jump in first and you can follow up on me.

It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Heather Exner-Pirot and I serve as a research advisor for the IRN.

The answer to your question is yes. As Arnie mentioned, we've been doing our research on C-15, and we have some close relationships with some members of industry. We reached out to mining, to oil and gas, to hydroelectricity, to railroads, to some investors, to pension funds and to private funds.

We've also spoken closely with our colleagues at the Indian Resource Council, the FN LNG Alliance and the First Nations Major Projects Coalition to get a sense of the practical implications of C-15.

There is a lot of concern. You don't have to take my word for it. I encourage you to talk to investors yourselves. If our particular principle is that first nations people—indigenous people—deserve economic development and resource development is almost certainly the best opportunity to get that, then certainly we want to have an environment in Canada where resource development can happen.

In speaking to all of these people, yes, there was a sense that Canada is not a good place to invest and that there is some risk. C-15 is one more thing that adds to risk because it isn't clear what consent requires. Is it a band council resolution? Is it a referendum? Who is the representative institution? Is it hereditary chiefs? Is it the band council? Is it any member of a nation? All these things just make it riskier for capital.

We did hear that it's very difficult to invest on indigenous territory because it's very risky. I think you're all aware that indigenous peoples have been getting more involved, especially since the duty to consult decision in 2004-05. They've moved from being employees to being contractors, and to now becoming equity owners themselves. When they have been going out to try to attract equity—and that is the future—there is a risk premium for indigenous nations to attract capital, to do their own resource projects, to be their own proponents and to attract that equity.

As Arnie mentioned, talking to the B.C. Business Council to see what had been the implications of their Bill 41,they said that yes, the premium has been 1%. That's the number they said. There's a 1% risk premium attached to B.C. resource projects since that bill itself passed.

Where I'm coming from, personally and professionally, I want to see indigenous people being able to benefit fully in resource development. I understand that there's a commodities boom coming and that we're kind of coming out COVID-19. However, if we add three years of uncertainty—as we develop an action plan—to the ability of investors who want to invest in indigenous territories when indigenous people want it themselves, I think tens of billions of dollars are at stake in their development. I honestly do.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good morning to our witnesses.

There is lots of great testimony today, and I want to start off by saying that we here on this side of the aisle do support the spirit of UNDRIP. There are a lot of good parts to it that I think will take us on the path to reconciliation and to having that important and meaningful conversation.

As many of you know, the issue we have with it, as some of you have said in your testimony, is with FPIC and the “C”, the consent, and what that means.

Maybe I'll start with the IRN. I've looked at your website, and your organization knows that there are already barriers that exist to attracting investment to your lands and to your people and that Bill C-15, without a proper definition, could add yet another barrier and potentially take away that idea of investment in jobs and opportunity in some of your communities.

Do you want to comment on that?

[Thierry Rodon, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Good morning to all.

Thank you very much for inviting me to appear before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Northern Affairs.

I am a professor of political science at Laval University, but I work more specifically on aboriginal issues, particularly on aboriginal politics in Canada and elsewhere. It is therefore from this perspective that I will deliver my speech. I am also working on a research project on relations between indigenous communities and mining companies in Canada, Australia, Fennoscandia and New Caledonia. It focuses on the issues of the implementation of free, prior and informed consent and the social acceptability of mining projects in indigenous communities.

So I'm not going to talk to you about the legal aspect, even though I'm familiar with its issues, but rather about the issues and the power relations that are being created in Canada. I'm going to dwell on the issue of uncertainty, because it is very poorly understood. In fact, I think that we are currently experiencing uncertainty with regard to major projects.

Unlike Canada's usual aboriginal policies, which tend to maintain the colonial relationship that has been established since 1867 through the notorious Indian Act, this is a policy that stands out because it focuses on the relationship between Canada and the first peoples. This is a change that we have seen with the new Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations. That's why I'm very supportive of this legislation, which will allow to change that relationship. In fact, it has started a little bit, but it's mostly symbolic. I think it is necessary to have legislation in this regard, even if it is imperfect—legislation is always imperfect—and it can be criticized, and rightly so.

In my view, the legislation must recognize that a relationship with indigenous people, the first peoples, must be established and that solutions must be found. In my opinion, the bill has the potential to contribute to the reconciliation process that is underway, but with many failures. We all saw the armed intervention of the RCMP against an aboriginal group, the Wet'suwet'en. These are the questions we need to ask ourselves. These are things that are happening now.

I am pleased to see that consultations are being carried out with indigenous peoples, although in my view, they should be expanded. I will come back to this, because we must ask ourselves who should be consulted on these issues. At present, the major national aboriginal organizations are being consulted, which is a good thing, but I think that we need to go a little further.

I will now return to the issue of uncertainty, because commentators who oppose this legislation often mention it. This surprises me a little bit, because, in my opinion, the uncertainty already exists. It won't be brought about by the legislation. Right now, in Canada, there is uncertainty about the development of major projects, especially linear ones, but also about mining projects. I know this subject a little better. In general, mining projects are less problematic, because fewer parties are involved. However, they can create extremely high tensions.

Here are some examples, which you all know. First, there's the Trans Mountain project, which resulted in a rare cabinet decision that was overturned by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. Then there's the Coastal GasLink Project, which I mentioned briefly when I talked about the police action against a group, the Wet'suwet'en, who was opposing that pipeline. Finally, there is another case that we are less familiar with, and that is the Mary River Mine in Nunavut, operated by Baffinland, whose expansion plans are under threat, even though they had the support of Inuit organizations.

Those familiar with the Nunavut agreement will know that specific processes were put in place for consultation and approval of projects, even though approval ultimately rests with the federal government. All of these procedures were intended to lead to consent. But there was no consensus, because the Inuit communities on the ground opposed the expansion, blocked the airport, and ultimately put the expansion of this mine in jeopardy.

I would say that we don't yet know how to get free, prior and informed consent. Having a bill that helps define it better will help avoid all these conflicts.

Indeed, the uncertainty is in the conflicts, for now. There will always be some, because we cannot eliminate all conflicts, but there is a problem with not having a clear way to act on these issues. The failure to address the rights of indigenous peoples has created significant costs to Canadian society. If we don't want to think about it in terms of law, we can think about it in terms of economics.

In fact, in the course of my research, I observed that indigenous communities have appropriated free, prior and informed consent. They are implementing it at the moment in the only way they can, which is by establishing a power relationship. Mr. Saganash may be able to tell you about this, but the Cree have a very clear policy that no mine will open on their territory unless they give their consent. This is a way of establishing a power relationship, and they have established it. It can also be done through blockades and airport blockades, for instance.

It is therefore important that free, prior and informed consent is better integrated into the legal framework. This is what Bill C-15 will try to do and it could help to reduce this uncertainty.

I'd now like to talk about some recommendations or conclusions that have come out of my research, but which may be helpful to this committee.

First of all, defining free, prior and informed consent is not a problem. We know what consent is. However, there are two more complex questions: when is consent needed and on what project?

We have a lead with the Delgamuukw case and the issue of consent, which already exists in Canadian law. I won't go into that in detail.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the question of who should consent. Who should consent is a problem that arises very much from the colonial relationship between Canada and aboriginal communities, with traditional governments and Canadian governments.

Thank you.

[Arnie Bellis, Chair, Indigenous Resource Network]

Thanks for allowing us to present to the standing committee.

My name is Arnie Bellis. My Haida name is Gwaii Gwanglan. I'm a member of the Staa’stas Eagle Clan in the Haida Nation.

There's a lot to speak to. The young lady before me did a very good job of summarizing the history of Canada and its relationship with first nations.

I tend to look towards the Canadian Constitution that we fought for in the world wars. It talks about multiculturalism, rights and all those wonderful things that we live under.

I find it interesting that first nations people had to go to the Supreme Court numerous times to have those rights upheld and worked on.

I'll let the statistics of the land speak for themselves in terms of the employment and all the incarceration, and so on. They speak for themselves.

We used the resources for 10,000-plus years, and from there we developed a very sophisticated society. We found ourselves under the Indian Act, and people were working hard to move us to their line of thinking, in terms of their religion, and move us off our mythology.

In saying that, to a certain extent our intellect was stunted. Now we're back on track, and we're looking to use our resources to enhance those things, such as culture and mythology. Under the Constitution of Canada, we're allowed to do that.

As one thing, the Haida people went down to 580 people from 12,000 plus because of smallpox. Yet we're still trying to define our relationship with Canada, where all could benefit—and it works both ways.

We developed the IRN to speak for the working people of first nations. We're a non-partisan group. We're a young organization. We saw the need to participate in this discussion to try to evolve that relationship between first nations and Canada—and industry, too.

I have an extensive background working with industry and coming to some really positive situations that provide solutions for both parties.

I have been studying Bill C-15 and participated in a number of round tables and consultations and Zoom conferencing, and our members have done the same. Heather will add more detail to that.

Part of it is the economic development. That's one wedge of the pie. There are other wedges, too, that have to be addressed. I talked about the environment, the culture and things of that nature.

We also realize that other things exist in this world, and one of them is investors. In order to stand up more, and things of that nature, we have to have investors. First nations are not exempt from that. We like to attract investors but not give away the farm, so to speak. But also, we fully understand that we need that mechanism.

In saying that, I'll get right to it. We'd like to participate in the action plan and I think we could have a really good, clear conversation on how to make it enhance the relationship in a stronger way and to come to a place of greater understanding. There is understanding between first nations and Canada now, but that's evolving on a daily basis.

With that and talking to a friend in the Business Council of British Columbia, I know the UNDRIP situation is already starting to cost investors a bit. We need to concern ourselves with that if we want to make ourselves a reliable group to invest in.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank you again, and I'd like to thank Romeo Saganash and the individuals who brought this to fruition so we could speak to it. I have some friends who went to the UN for a lot of years, you know, and took time out of their lives to develop this. I'd like to say hawaa to them and thank them very much for their sacrifice in being away from their families. I'd like to acknowledge that.

[Professor Brenda Gunn, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Northern Michif]

Hello, my name is Brenda Gunn. I live in Winnipeg and my family is from the Red River.

I am Métis, and, as noted by the chair, I am an associate professor at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Law. I have worked in both international and constitutional law, including the application of international human rights law in Canada, for almost 20 years now. I've developed a handbook on implementing the UN declaration and I've done many presentations on the UN declaration and how to begin implementing it domestically.

Today, I am speaking from Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Métis nation, my home territory. I want to acknowledge also the Algonquin people, as the House of Commons is located on unceded Algonquin territory.

Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I am very grateful to be here and I want to acknowledge my co-panellist as well.

I will start by saying that on March 22, 2018, I sat before this committee, invited to present on Bill C-262. As I prepared for my presentation today, I was wondering what I should say, thinking about what has changed and evolved over the past three years. I kept returning to the same thought: it is devastating that we have lost these three years, three years that could have been spent developing a national action plan building on the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the national inquiry, three years where indigenous peoples have continued to have lower socio-economic and health outcomes than other Canadians. Three years is a long time. In fact, it's a lifetime to my daughter.

I support this legislation because I think it is an important step toward reconciliation, toward recognizing inherent human rights, toward a fairer and more just Canada for all.

When speaking about the UN declaration, and why I believe it to be the framework for reconciliation, I often highlight four key preambular paragraphs that I'm going to read out to all of you now.

The first is, “Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such”.

The second is the UN is “Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests”.

The third is the UN is “Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith”.

Finally, the fourth is that the UN “Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect”.

What these four preambular paragraphs tell me is that in Canada we need to stop believing in mythologies that recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples is going to somehow tear Canada apart. We have to accept that we are broken, that indigenous peoples have paid too high a price for the development of Canada for too long. We have to accept that the only way to reconcile is to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and shift from a colonial relationship to a relationship based on justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith.

With this understanding of why we have a UN declaration, and its significance in Canada, I want to just highlight one key aspect to the substantive rights included within the UN declaration. Specifically, I want to note that the UN declaration includes economic, social and cultural rights in areas such as language rights, education, health care, housing and economic development, all of which are critical to the exercise of civil and political rights.

Under the international human rights system, there is no hierarchy of rights.

Under Bill C-15, a national action plan that can be developed is critical to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights receive the same level of attention and consideration as political and civil rights.

During the prolonged debate over Bill C-262 there was unfortunate fearmongering that claimed that it introduced uncertainty, highlighted concerns around indigenous peoples' right to free, prior and informed consent, and implied that indigenous peoples might try to stop all resource development projects from proceeding.

From my perspective, these so-called concerns highlight the need for a better grasp of the UN declaration in Canada and the need for a coordinated effort to implement the UN declaration into Canadian law in a way that builds upon the over 20 years of international human rights jurisprudence on which the UN declaration is based. Canada was very slow in turning its support toward the UN declaration. There is a lot of work to do. We've lost a lot of time and now is the time for action.

While Bill C-15 is not going to resolve all problem and tensions between indigenous peoples in Canada, it can be part of the solution. Bill C-15 includes some critical steps toward developing a plan to implement and realize indigenous people's inherent rights. It includes important accountability measures to ensure Parliament puts words into action. It addresses some of the misunderstandings of the application of the UN declaration in Canada.

Marsi. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Having a quorum now with proper technical connection, I accordingly will call this meeting of the indigenous and northern affairs committee to order. I'll start by acknowledging that, in Ottawa, we meet on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 25, 2021, the committee is continuing its study on the subject matter of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The artwork that you see behind me is a photo of a remarkable group of sculptures located near my office at the site of the 1813 Battle of Stoney Creek, four “nine-foot-high granite eagle figures inscribed with symbols and text arranged on a circular plaza.” The artist, David General, is Oneida, a member of the Six Nations of the Grand River who works in “a distinctive style” using “interpretations of the cultural traditions of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinabek communities to address the theme of healing and reconciliation.” I am sure that it will be in that spirit that we conduct the business before us.

Members of the committee and witnesses, please speak in the language of your choice. You can select the language at the bottom centre of your screen, in the globe, where you will find “English” or “French”. When speaking, ensure that your video is turned on, and please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

We have our witnesses ready. We have Professor Brenda Gunn, a professor from the Faculty of Law at the University of Manitoba. From the Indigenous Resource Network, we have Arnie Bellis, chair; and Heather Exner-Pirot, research adviser. I believe we've agreed that Thierry Rodon, as an individual, will be the third member of the opening panel.

Professor Gunn, please go ahead for six minutes.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, colleagues, and thank you to all the members from my departmental team who are here with me today.

I am pleased to help the committee as it studies the 2020-21 supplementary estimates (C) and the 2021-22 main estimates for the Department of Justice.

I am joining you today from the Department of Justice Canada, which sits on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

Despite the challenging times, Justice Canada has accomplished an enormous volume of work to help ensure a fair, transparent and accessible Canadian justice system.

We continue on our reconciliation journey with indigenous peoples, including introducing Bill C-15, legislation respecting the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. This is fundamental to our broader efforts to tackle deep-rooted and systemic discrimination.

An important example of that is Bill C-22, which proposes changes that would reform sentencing practices and focus on diversion programs. It also proposes changes to treat substance use as a health issue, rather than a criminal one.

We also introduced Bill C-23, which provides greater flexibility on how courts hold criminal proceedings and issue orders. We must ensure that both victims and accused receive their fair and timely justice.

Ultimately, our goal is to ensure that our justice system remains fair, effective, accessible and equitable.

These priorities are echoed within the 2020-21 supplementary estimates (C), which include an additional $78.5 million this fiscal year, bringing the total budgetary authority for 2020-21 to $863.9 million.

Also, the 2021-22 main estimates include a budgetary authority of $794.5 million—an increase of $25.5 million from the previous fiscal year.

I would like to highlight a few key funding areas.

I mentioned Bill C-15 and our commitment to changing the relationship between the crown and indigenous peoples. To this end, the supplementary and main estimates include $2.6 million from the $2.8 million in funding announced in the 2020 fall economic statement. Coupled with funding provided to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to support indigenous partners, this funding will help us continue the engagement process as the legislation moves through Parliament.

The supplementary and main estimates also include an increase of $7.3 million per year to continue to respond to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls final report. This will extend family information liaison units and community-based services to provide direct support to families of victims.

We are also focused on supporting the courts. The supplementary estimates of both the court administration service and the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada include funding to help courts serve Canadians and adapt to new realities.

The supplementary estimates also include $20.3 million to address immigration and refugee legal aid pressures, to help provinces maintain service delivery levels and prevent processing delays for asylum seekers.

We are also taking action to better respond to the needs of families, particularly children, during divorce or separation. The supplementary and main estimates include, respectively, $1 million and $6.7 million to implement new family support enforcement provisions and to increase access to family justice services in the official language of one's choice.

Budget 2019 announced funding of $21.6 million over five years, starting in 2020-21, to support these provisions. These funds will help the department transform the Canadian justice system to better serve all Canadians. Our government will continue to push ahead with measures to create a strong, equitable and effective justice system that protects Canadians, their communities and their rights.

Thank you for your time. I'm now happy to take questions.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everyone for being here to discuss the motion.

I would like to talk about the idea that we not waste any more time in this committee. Obviously, making sure there is time for debate is very important. It is a very big part of our parliamentary process. But I also think there comes a time when Canadians expect their parliamentarians to take action and to actually move forward with things. The worst-case stereotype of a politician is one who can talk about absolutely nothing for hours, wasting the time of the committee, the analysts and the other members of Parliament. I think it would be useful if we could just make a decision on this motion. Of course, I would very much like to see it pass. It is the motion that I brought forward.

One thing I'd like to highlight is that I don't think there can be anything more important to Canadians right now than the government's response to COVID-19 and the government's ability to procure vaccines. I don't think there is a single thing, probably, that will interest Canadians more than that. As much as the NDP have been pushing very hard to have bills like Bill C-5, bills like the net-zero legislation, bills like Bill C-15 and all sorts of them come forward to the House, and the government has chosen not to bring those forward, I think it is still very important that in the House of Commons, all members of Parliament, whether they're part of this committee or not, have an opportunity to look at the issue of Canadian procurement of vaccines and how vaccines are being shared among other countries. I think it's very, very important. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that this wouldn't be something that Canadians and all members of Parliament would be very interested in learning more about.

I'm not interested in filibustering or talking for a full hour. My expectation is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to move legislation and to move studies forward. I was very, very open to some of the amendments Ms. Sahota brought forward. I had actually verbally agreed during committee meetings that I would be willing to change some of the language within the motion.

That said, I think it's vital that this be something that's reported back to the House. I am not willing to change my mind on that particular portion of the motion. I would like to see all members of Parliament be able to represent their constituents in Canada on something that is so vital, so important, at this moment in time.

I would like to ask that we put the question and that members from all four parties be able to vote on whether or not they would like this amendment to go forward.

I will cede the floor at this point. Of course, the Liberals have every opportunity to continue to filibuster, if that's what they see fit to do. They have every opportunity to say that the reason they're doing this is for clarity, but I think Canadians know better.

That would be my comment. I'm certainly happy to talk about amending the language and happy to work with my colleagues in whatever way I can to move this forward. I'm not terribly interested in sitting for another full hour of one person talking.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

That brings us to time.

Witnesses, I want to thank all of you for bringing your insights to our committee. It's one of the honours and pleasures of being in this kind of work to meet people from all over the country who are doing amazing things and have real perceptions and passion for moving the country ahead. Thanks to all of you for that.

The evidence and testimony will be captured by our analysts in our report. Once again, thank you to everyone.

Committee, we will meet on Thursday for two hours to discuss Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Mr. van Koeverden, could I have a motion to adjourn?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate the comments that all my colleagues have made. I do take some exception to Ms. McPherson trying to get me back on track. I think I'm completely on track. I think it's important that I'm speaking to my amendment. My amendment is to remove the last sentence. Part of my amendment is to remove the last sentence of the NDP motion, and I think it is important, if we do get to a vote on my amendment or essentially the motion unamended or amended, that we need to understand what the impacts are.

I want to make it very clear so that we all have a good understanding before we vote on these things. Also, I even want to, perhaps through the discussion that we're going to have on this, fully understand where the NDP or other parties that wish to support the original amendment were going with this and what the intention really is. Is the intention for us to better understand the Covax initiative? Is it to better understand how Canada can play a better role in providing vaccines not only to Canadians but also in supporting other countries? Is that essentially what we're trying to achieve or are we trying to achieve something else?

I would argue that at the end of the day, that last sentence is really there to try to achieve something else. That's happening not just in this committee. It's happening in many committees. We're seeing many things being done so that all of the House time is blocked up with opposition motions and concurrence motions. We're even seeing—we just saw here on Tuesday.... Actually, I won't mention that part, but we are seeing in other committees as well attempts to bring whatever issue it is, reports and such, to the House as quickly as possible so that they can be concurred in, so that there can be debate on those issues in the House. I want us to fully understand what's at stake here.

I know, to Ms. McPherson and to her party, that Bill C-15 is incredibly important. Bill C-15 is an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP is something that one of her esteemed colleagues from the NDP has worked very hard on to make sure that the government would move on this piece of legislation so that we could recognize those rights within our own country. It's very important to me, but seeing how things are evolving, I really hope that we get this work done in this Parliament.

If we continue to send all the work that we're supposed to do in committees to the House, then we're not going to get anywhere with legislation at all. Why are we trying to get rid of work that we should rightfully be doing in this committee as members? We should be doing our job. We should be bringing, perhaps, the minister in to try to figure out how this program of Covax was put together, what it was intended for. We could be bringing in other witnesses if those proposals are on the table. But all I'm seeing in this original motion is an attempt to make some value judgements and to send this to the House so it can block up legislation. That's what I'm seeing.

That's why I'm trying to get to a point where maybe we can come up with a solution that would better serve the sentiments behind—or at least what I hope are the true sentiments behind—this motion, the original motion, to make sure that we're doing our role as a leader.

Some of the language I haven't even attempted to amend, really, because I was trying to do the least possible amount of amendment to the original motion so that I wouldn't offend the original motion's intent. There's definitely language beyond that, with which I'm not happy, but I let it go. I'm trying to do the bare minimum so that we can still move on and do some important work and look into the whole Covax initiative.

That's why I haven't removed the fact that Covax was an initiative that was intended to provide vaccines to high-risk individuals in low- and middle-income countries.

With regard to the intent of Covax's program and the initiative, I think there's a failure to completely understand what the intent of that program is. It is to provide equitable access. That doesn't say it's to deny any developed country access to Covax. It is to ensure that all countries that are investing in and supplementing this program could also benefit from this program. It is an equal opportunity program. I'm really proud that Canada is a leader in the investments that it's made into Covax.

Another issue which I think is important is.... God forbid, I don't want this to happen, and I don't think most members that sit on my other committee really would like this to happen, but when I was interrupted before, I was about to say that we have Bill C-19 also in the House. That is election legislation. It is something that the elections commissioner has asked us to pass so that they can prepare if there were to be an election in this pandemic. The government doesn't control that necessarily. Things can happen. Oftentimes, you know, I'm getting to the point that—

Indigenous Affairs

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, our government remains firmly committed to implementing Bill C-15, which would ensure that indigenous rights are considered when reviewing and updating federal laws that affect those rights. At core, this is a human rights issue. It is about protecting the rights to self-determination, self-government, equality and non-discrimination. This bill is a major step forward in our reconciliation journey. We support it wholeheartedly. It remains one of our top priorities and we will see this through.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks a lot about how the government's relationship with indigenous peoples is the most important one. The Liberals talk about it during elections, they talk about it after they are elected, and they talked about it when they introduced legislation on UNDRIP, Bill C-15. However, that bill was introduced three months ago and we have only had two hours of debate, with no further debate scheduled. What is going on? It is almost like the Liberals do not want this bill to pass. If this relationship is really the government's most important one, when will the Liberals stop talking and get to work proving their words?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that everything has to be done in the proper way. Whether it be natural resources projects, or anything really, the rules have to be clearly defined and outlined, so people undertaking the application process understand the path forward and if there is a path forward. If we do not know that at the beginning, it makes it very difficult to continue on a project or even start one in the first place.

That is why we keep saying that we approve of the aspirational part of UNDRIP and of Bill C-15. However. What we are opposing and questioning, which is no secret, is the lack of due diligence in putting forward this legislation without coming to a common understanding of what free, prior and informed consent actually means.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend across the way for that question, and I do mean “friend” in the true sense of the word. I appreciate his work on the file as well. However, there are a number of indigenous communities that are concerned about the wording of Bill C-15. We have even had letters from provincial ministers responsible for those files saying the exact same thing.

As we come out of this pandemic, those in industry will be looking for certainty. They will be looking for markets that allow them to invest their money and have light at the end of the tunnel, if they meet all of the requirements.

Until we have a definition of free, prior and informed consent, that certainty remains up in the air. When we are trying to rebuild the economy, bring these jobs back and bring opportunities to some of these first nations communities that, in many cases, rely on natural resources as their source of revenue and jobs, we need to have that certainty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's intervention today, but I fundamentally disagree with his approach, because a lot of what he said is what we heard during debate on Bill C-262. Members will recall that Bill C-262 was stalled at the Senate by Conservative senators. As a result, the hard work of former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash, in essence his life's work, did not pass in the last Parliament.

The consultation that he and many others did during that process was unprecedented. Essentially, with the member for Winnipeg Centre in many cases, he went community to community to do the consultations. Bill C-15 is built on the work of Bill C-262. The consultation has been extensive. It is never perfect, but it has been extensive.

On the discussion with respect to the premiers, and with the greatest respect to our provincial and territorial counterparts, it is worth noting that there has been 13 years to implement that essential human rights legislation. Sadly, many jurisdictions have not taken that step forward. One notable exception is British Columbia, which has implemented it in a fairly successful way—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a bill that has had seven iterations since 2008. Right from the beginning, Conservatives have seen the value in UNDRIP as an aspirational document that provides guiding principles toward reconciliation. We also recognize that many of the articles of UNDRIP are supportable. However, the impact of free, prior and informed consent and its impact on the cultural, social and economic development of indigenous peoples remains unclear. This is not coming as a surprise to the government. Conservatives have been clear from day one that this needed clarification. The fact that the government in its legislation has failed to clarify free, prior and informed consent yet again indicates it simply does not care about the implications that this bill would have for indigenous and non-indigenous communities.

Let me be clear. Conservatives support indigenous communities and their rights. We support the process of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people, including the importance of education, economic development, and employment and training opportunities. We supported the Indigenous Languages Act and legislation relating to indigenous child welfare. We support many of UNDRIP's articles, but what we oppose is the government's lack of due diligence in putting forward legislation without reaching a common understanding of how free, prior and informed consent will be interpreted. We also do not think that enough consultation has been done with indigenous communities. This is something that has been echoed across the country, in fact. This will lead to uncertainty and could potentially undermine trust if expectations are not met, which could in turn set back reconciliation.

The government will say not to worry, and that this will be sorted out later. We have heard this many times. In fact, this is exactly what the justice minister told the Assembly of First Nations recently, but when it comes to taking action that will impact the lives of indigenous peoples, such as ending long-term boil water advisories, the Liberals have consistently failed to keep their promises. The Liberal government has a track record of saying it will sort it out later and then never delivering, so how can we trust them this time to do anything differently? That is why we have to worry with the Liberal government. We have to worry that the undefined statement of free, prior and informed consent could be interpreted as a de facto veto right, and thus have profound detrimental effects not only for a variety of industries across Canada, but for indigenous communities as well. National Chief Perry Bellegarde stated on May 12, 2016, that free, prior and informed consent “very simply is the right to say yes, and the right to say no”.

What if two or more indigenous communities want different things? The exact impacts on workers across regions and industries are unknown. The impacts on indigenous entrepreneurs are unknown. However, with the uncertainty created by the Liberals around the interpretation of free, prior and informed consent, the cost to communities, labour unions, indigenous businesses, and provincial and territorial governments could be astronomical. If existing laws and regulations could be superseded by implementing UNDRIP, the regulatory burden on industries could increase and deter business in Canada. This uncertainty hurts both prospective development and indigenous communities. There is a lack of clarity regarding how UNDRIP will work with Canadian jurisprudence and within each level of government. Everyone has a different interpretation. The only people who stand to benefit from a lack of clarity or a lack of definition are lawyers.

During a December 3, 2020, briefing for parliamentarians, representatives from the Department of Justice stated that Bill C-15 respects Canadian jurisprudence, while officials from Natural Resources Canada stated that the bill does not create requirements for industry, but for government. Which representatives were correct? We know from the Wet'suwet'en dispute that many indigenous Canadians believe the government and all industries operating in British Columbia, where a bill similar to Bill C-15 was passed, are bound by UNDRIP. In this case, hereditary chiefs maintained that they had not given their free, prior and informed consent for the pipeline. This was despite the proponent entering into agreements with all elected chiefs and councils along the approved route.

What if two or more indigenous communities want different things? Even within the same community, what if there is conflict between what the elected band council and hereditary chiefs want? Whose free, prior and informed consent trumps whose? Government officials appear to believe that the Indian Act and therefore elected chiefs would take precedence, but then why did the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations enter into an agreement with hereditary chiefs and ignore the elected chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en? There is not enough clarity.

There are many more examples.

Article 3 states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

How does that work, regarding Supreme Court decisions such as Marshall I and Marshall II, which state there are limitations on economic rights subject to definition by the responsible minister and the Badger test?

Article 19 states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

How does that work with the October 11, 2018, Supreme Court decision, which clearly states that the duty to consult does not extend to the legislative drafting phase?

Further, article 28.1 states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.

What does that mean for the City of Ottawa, for example?

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Supreme Court established in 1901 that it does not need to be bound by previous decisions, meaning it could subsequently choose to revise certain decisions once UNDRIP is affirmed as a tool for interpreting Canadian laws, including the Canadian Constitution.

Another important question is that of how land claims and modern treaties will be affected by UNDRIP. Currently, for example, article 4 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement lays out a division of powers within the territory. It includes a political accord granting powers, such as in other provinces and territories, to a public government and creating space and decisions that would affect the socio-cultural development of Inuit for input from the beneficiary organization. However, the lack of a clear definition of free, prior and informed consent may lead to the reopening of that land claim, as is already happening in Nunavut.

ITK president Natan Obed stated on December 3, 2020, in an interview with a news agency that “There are many things that the land claims are silent on.” Since devolution has not occurred, these discussions can still happen between Canada and Nunavut Inuit.

Is it possible that modern treaties and established land claims across the country may move to reopen negotiations to reclaim rights groups feel they may have given up in exchange for self-government?

In its December 2008 resolution, the AFN specifically states that the relationship between first nations and the Crown has been, and must continue to be, governed by international law. It added that treaties concluded with European powers are international treaties created for the purpose of co-existence rather than submission to the overall jurisdiction of colonial governments, and that the Canadian government has at no point been able to provide proof that first nations have expressly and of their own free will renounced their sovereign attributes. This statement clearly suggests an unwillingness to accept Canadian jurisprudence as the ultimate authority, calling into question how discrepancies between Supreme Court rulings and UNDRIP articles would be resolved. That is of critical importance.

Clause 5 of the bill states:

The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.

Not some laws, but the laws of Canada: not just federal, but provincial and municipal as well. Has the government consulted with the provinces and municipalities?

On November 27, six provincial ministers of indigenous affairs sent a joint letter to the government to share their concerns with this legislation. That included Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec. They were concerned that they were only given six weeks to review the legislation and about the impact it will have on the laws and regulations in their provinces. The letter states:

...delay is necessary both to allow for appropriate engagement with provinces, territories, and Indigenous partners on the draft of the bill, and to allow time for Canada to fully and meaningfully consider and address the legitimate...concerns that we have already raised about the draft bill in its current form.

The letter goes on to say:

A hasty adoption of ambiguous legislation that could fundamentally change Confederation without the benefit of the widespread and necessary national and provincial consultation and consensus not only risks undermining reconciliation, but will create uncertainty and litigation and risk promoting deeper and broader divisions within our country.

The list goes on.

The lack of clarity in this bill could have sweeping implications. The purpose of legislation is to make the law clear. As I said earlier, this bill fails to do that. The Liberal government has failed to do the real work necessary to make good on its promise to implement UNDRIP. Instead, it has presented a bill that is woefully incomplete because all it wants to do is check a box, but this bill is nowhere near a promise kept. It is yet another in a long line of the Liberal government's broken promises to indigenous communities.

On December 17, the National Coalition of Chiefs wrote to the Prime Minister, expressing its concern:

While the affirmation of Indigenous rights is always welcome, there are implications to this legislation, as currently drafted, that is likely to have negative impacts on the many Indigenous communities that rely on resource development as a source of jobs, business contracts and own source revenues. I do not want to see symbolic gestures of reconciliation come at the expense of food on the table for Indigenous peoples.

That is worth repeating: The legislation “is likely to have negative impacts on many Indigenous communities". How is that keeping with reconciliation?

Industry stakeholders are generally supportive. Like Conservatives, they share an understanding of the aspirational spirit of UNDRIP and the need for renewed nation-to-nation discussions on the path to reconciliation. However, they also share concerns, similar to those of Conservatives and many indigenous communities, that before Bill C-15 is passed, the government must clarify free, prior and informed consent. They are seeking clarity and want to ensure they understand the rules, but most concerning is the lack of consultation on Bill C-15 with indigenous communities.

The National Coalition of Chiefs expressed concern, stating:

...the lack of consultation is a flag for Indigenous leaders and communities across Canada. While the NCC was able to meet once with the Minister of Justice, there was an understanding that we would meet further to discuss our issues and concerns. The current comment period is far too short for us to consult with our representatives of Parliament.

Legislation of this magnitude only warranted one meeting.

On February 3, the elders of Saddle Lake Cree Nation wrote to the Prime Minister. They expressed deep concerns and indicated that they fully disapprove of Bill C-15 and the process that has been followed to date by the Government of Canada. This is because the government had not made any attempts to meet with them, or to provide adequate time and opportunity to consult.

The Liberal government has repeatedly demonstrated its inability, or perhaps just its unwillingness, to properly consult, let alone come to any agreements on the definition of “indigenous rights”. It is this uncertainty in the ability and willingness of the government to really deliver on Bill C-15 that has so many worried. Leaving interpretation to the courts over the ensuing years will lead to uncertainties that will have enormous implications for Canada.

While the Conservative Party supports the goals and aspirations of UNDRIP, we are concerned the government is going ahead with legislation, enshrining it into Canadian law, before we have developed a common understanding of what concepts such as free, prior and informed consent actually mean. There is currently a lack of consensus in the legal community. Without a common understanding, we risk creating uncertainty and misunderstanding in the future. That would mean letting indigenous Canadians and their communities down yet again.

Conservatives believe that the path to reconciliation lies in taking meaningful action to improve the lives of indigenous peoples and ensuring that they are able to fully participate in Canada's economy. We are concerned that a lack of clarity and common understanding about key concepts in the bill could have unpredictable and far-reaching effects that could undermine reconciliation in the long term.

Without a clear definition of free, prior and informed consent, there are several outstanding and troubling questions left unanswered. Whose consent must be sought when it is clear that consent has to be given? Could an unelected individual or group undermine the will of elected indigenous representatives or invalidate the decision of an indigenous-led process, an institution, or a public government?

I appreciate that the government feels that free, prior and informed consent does not mean a veto. The National Post reported the justice minister saying, “The word veto does not exist in the document”. In that same article, David Chartrand, the national spokesperson for the Métis National Council said, “We made it very clear, this is not a veto, we’re not out to kill industry”.

Why not then include a definition of free, prior and informed consent in this document? Why not spell it out for all Canadians that it does not mean a veto? If this process is about providing clarity for indigenous communities, non-indigenous communities and industry, let us start with some clarity around Bill C-15.

When it comes to taking practical actions that will impact the daily lives of indigenous peoples, such as ending long-term boil water advisories, the Liberals have, unfortunately, failed to keep their promises. I feel that Bill C-15 may be just another failed promise.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can agree that Bill C-15 is certainly imperfect and is going to require some amendments. For example, we know in Canada that that there is a growing white nationalist movement here and abroad. We hear in the news about issues of ongoing racism and policing, and issues with health care, where people are literally dying in hospitals as a result of racism. Let us not forget what the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling that the government has failed to to bring an immediate stop to racial discrimination against first nations, a clear indication of systemic racism. I know the bill mentions systemic barriers. I do not think that goes far enough.

Would the minister be open to amending the eighth paragraph of the preamble and subclause 6(2) to include a reference to racism? I certainly know that the calls have been strong from the leadership and people on the ground that this be included in the bill. Would the minister be open to that amendment?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the second reading debate on Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to remind the House that it has taken decades of work to get to where we are today.

Negotiations and discussions have been taking place at the United Nations for over 20 years. Many Canadian indigenous leaders, speaking on behalf of the indigenous people of the world, have been strong advocates for a human rights instrument that would take into account the unique experiences and historical situations of the world's indigenous peoples.

I must acknowledge the tremendous efforts of parliamentarians and indigenous leaders in Canada who have proposed legislative frameworks for the implementation of the declaration since it was adopted by the United Nations in 2007.

I especially want to recognize the efforts of our former colleague Roméo Saganash, who introduced private member's Bill C-262 in the last Parliament. This bill was read and studied in quite some detail. His efforts brought us to this point and remind us of the constructive discussions that contributed to the drafting and presentation of Bill C-15. I thank Mr. Saganash.

Bill C-15 and our endorsement of the UN declaration are intended to renew and strengthen the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, a relationship based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, partnership and reconciliation.

It is also part of a broader work to make progress together on our shared priorities for upholding human rights, affirming self-determination, closing socio-economic gaps, combatting discrimination and eliminating systemic barriers facing first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an international human rights instrument that affirms the rights that constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples. It includes 46 articles that affirm a broad range of collective and individual rights, including rights related to self-determination and self-government; equality and non-discrimination; culture, language and identity; lands, territories and resources; and treaty rights, among others.

The declaration also recognizes that the situation of indigenous peoples varies from region to region and country to country. As such, it provides flexibility to ensure rights are recognized, protected and implemented in a manner that reflects the unique circumstances of indigenous peoples across Canada. This means that implementation of the rights it describes must respond to the specific and unique circumstances in Canada.

In Canada, both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2015 and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in 2018 called upon governments in Canada to fully adopt and implement the UN declaration in partnership with indigenous peoples. We heard these calls, and in 2016 the Government of Canada endorsed the declaration without qualification and committed to its full and effective implementation.

We have been making significant progress on the implementation of the declaration on a policy base. While we have done this, Bill C-15 would create a legislated, durable framework requiring government to work collaboratively with indigenous peoples to make steady progress in implementing the declaration across all areas of federal responsibility. This reflects the sustained transformative work that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and so many others have repeatedly told us is required to truly advance reconciliation in Canada.

Some of the declaration's principles are already included in several Canadian laws, policies and programs, such as section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the right to equality, and the protections against discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Working within Canada's legal framework, the Government of Canada has also taken measures to better reflect the declaration in federal policy and legislation, such as the recent initiative, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, and the Indigenous Languages Act. Bill C-15 represents another important step forward. By working in co-operation and partnership with indigenous peoples, we are creating new opportunities to dismantle colonial structures, establish strong, lasting relationships, close socio-economic gaps, and promote greater prosperity for indigenous peoples and all Canadians.

I would like to turn now to the key elements of Bill C-15.

The bill makes a number of important statements in the preamble by acknowledging the importance of the declaration as a framework for reconciliation, healing and peace; recognizing inherent rights; acknowledging the importance of respecting treaties and agreements; and emphasizing the need to take diversity across and among indigenous peoples into account in implementing the legislation.

The preamble also specifically recognizes that international human rights instruments, such as the declaration, can be used as tools to interpret Canadian law. This means that the human rights standards they outline can provide relevant and persuasive guidance to officials and courts. While this does not mean that international instruments can be used to override Canadian laws, it does mean that we can look to the declaration to inform the process of developing or amending laws and as part of interpreting and applying them. This principle is further reflected in section 4, which affirms the Government of Canada's commitment to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples and the declaration as a universal human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. Together, the objective of these acknowledgements is to recognize existing legal principles and not give the declaration itself direct legal effect in Canada.

The bill also includes specific obligations intended to provide a framework for implementing the declaration over time. By requiring the Government of Canada to, first, take measures to align federal law with the declaration in clause 5; second, to develop an action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples in clause 6; and third, to report to Parliament annually on progress in clause 7, Bill C-15 proposes a clear pathway to stronger, more resilient relationships between the government and indigenous peoples.

Bill C-15 would also contribute to our efforts to address discrimination, socio-economic disparities and other challenges on which we continue to make progress. By mandating a collaborative process for developing a concrete action plan on these and other human rights priorities, we should see an improvement in trust and a decrease in recourse to the courts to resolve disputes over the rights of indigenous peoples.

I would now like to talk about how Bill C-15 was developed. This bill was the result of our collaboration and consultation over the last several months with indigenous rights holders, leaders and organizations. Using the former private member's bill, Bill C-262, as a starting point in these discussions, we worked closely with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

We also received valuable input from modern treaty and self-governing nations, rights holders, indigenous youth, and regional and national indigenous organizations, including organizations representing indigenous women, two-spirit and gender-diverse people.

All of this feedback helped shape this proposed legislation, and we thank everyone who participated. We also held talks with the provincial and territorial governments, as well as with stakeholders from the natural resources sector.

These discussions were enriched by the contributions of indigenous representatives and provided an opportunity to learn about many of the efforts and initiatives already under way in the provinces and territories, and in various natural resource sectors, to further engage indigenous communities, create partnerships and lasting relationships, and work collaboratively to support responsible economic development that includes indigenous peoples.

People always say that young people are our best hope for the future. There is a lot of truth in that, and we held a virtual roundtable with indigenous youth to ensure that their perspectives and their vision of the future were included in the process.

First nations, Inuit and Métis youth from across the country shared their views on the bill and their priorities for the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am grateful that they took the opportunity to ask me many difficult questions.

Looking back on that event, it is clear to me that young indigenous people have a vision for a better Canada. This stems from the vision of the future that they have for their nation and their people. They see a future in which strong, self-determined indigenous peoples thrive and are connected to the land and culture.

Young indigenous people see a future in which indigenous-Crown relations are truly nation-to-nation, reflecting equality and respect, and not colonial attitudes.

Clearly, we still have a long way to go together to build that better future. However, it is also clear that Bill C-15 will enable us to harness the full potential of the declaration in building that better Canada.

To this end, and consistent with this government's mandate commitment, Bill C-15 builds on the core elements of former Private Member's Bill C-262 including the requirement to align federal laws with the declaration over time, develop and implement an action plan in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, and report to Parliament on progress annually. However, our recent engagement process led to a number of key enhancements. In addition to new language in the preamble highlighting the contributions the declaration can make to reconciliation, to sustainable development, and to responding to prejudice and discrimination, the addition of a purpose clause and more detail with respect to the development of an action plan and annual reporting requirements build on and enhance what was set out in Bill C-262.

Over the course of our engagement, we heard some questions about the scope of Bill C-15 and the concerns that it might create economic uncertainty. Let me be clear: Bill C-15 would impose obligations on the federal government to align our laws with the declaration over time and to take actions within our areas of responsibility to implement the declaration, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples. It would not impose obligations on other levels of government. However, we know that the declaration touches on many areas that go beyond federal jurisdiction. The preamble, therefore, recognizes that provincial, territorial, municipal and indigenous governments have and would continue to take actions within their own areas of authority that can contribute to the implementation of the declaration. Our goal is not to get in the way of good ideas and effective local action, but to look for opportunities to work collaboratively on shared priorities and in ways that are complementary.

The declaration and, by extension, the legislation provides a human rights-based framework for the development of the relationships required to support the effective exercise of the indigenous peoples' right to self-government and self-determination. The exercise of these rights contributes in turn to creating more prosperous, resilient and self-reliant communities.

Arising from the right to self-determination, “free, prior and informed consent”, as it appears in various articles of the declaration, refers specifically to the importance of meaningful participation of indigenous peoples, through their own mechanisms, in decisions and processes affecting them, their rights and their community.

Free, prior and informed consent is a way of working together to establish a consensus through dialogue and other means and of enabling indigenous peoples to meaningfully influence decision-making.

Free, prior and informed consent does not constitute veto power over the government's decision-making process. After all, human rights and the resulting obligations and duties, particularly those provided for in the declaration, are not absolute.

The declaration states that indigenous peoples have individual and collective rights equal to those of other peoples. That means that the provisions of the declaration, including those that refer to free, prior and informed consent, must be taken in context. Different initiatives will have different impacts on the rights of indigenous peoples and will require different types of approaches.

Thus, free, prior and informed consent could require different processes or new creative ways of working together to ensure meaningful and effective participation in decision-making.

If passed, this bill will not change Canada's existing duty to consult with indigenous peoples or the other consultation and participation requirements under other legislation such as the new Impact Assessment Act. As also explained in section 2, it would not diminish constitutional protection of the indigenous and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in section 35.

The bill would inform the government on how it plans to phase in its legal obligations in the future. In addition, the bill would do so in a way that would provide greater clarity and foster greater certainty over time for indigenous groups and all Canadians.

When indigenous peoples have a seat at the table for decisions that may affect their communities, we are respecting their rights and encouraging stronger economic development and outcomes. As we work to implement the declaration federally and to support indigenous peoples' inherent right to self-determination, we will help develop a stronger, more sustainable and predictable path for indigenous peoples, the Government of Canada and industry. We are ready to work with all levels of government, with indigenous peoples and other sectors of society to achieve the declaration's goals.

I would now like to turn to the road map this bill would lay out for the future. If passed, the bill would require the Government of Canada to develop an action plan in consultation and co-operation with first nations, Inuit and Métis to ensure that we achieve the objectives of the declaration. I believe the additional details included in Bill C-15 with respect to the action plan are very important. Indeed, the action plan is a central pillar of this legislation.

As outlined in clause 6 of the bill, developing and implementing the action plan would mean working together to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination, including systemic discrimination, against indigenous peoples, including all forms of racism against indigenous peoples; promote respect and mutual understanding as well as good relations, including through human rights education; and measures related to monitoring oversight, recourse or remedy and other accountability with respect to the implementation of the declaration, and include measures for the review and amendment of the action plan.

Some have also wondered why this bill is being introduced right in the middle of a global pandemic.

We know that racism and discrimination have not stopped during the pandemic. On the contrary, COVID-19 exacerbated many existing inequalities and hit many people particularly hard, including indigenous people and Black or racialized Canadians. We must not delay efforts to make Canada more just, inclusive and resilient.

Bill C-15 could help structure discussions on addressing the inequalities and discrimination against indigenous peoples, which are the root cause of these many vulnerabilities.

There will be many benefits as we work together to identify new measures to reflect the rights and objectives in the declaration. Through the process, we will continue to renew and strengthen the nation-to-nation, Inuit, Crown and government-to-government relations; better respect and implement the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples; build on the momentum to increase the ability of indigenous peoples to exercise their right of self-determination; support indigenous peoples as they restore and strengthen their governance systems and reconstitute their nations as they collectively address the impacts of colonialization and as we create a framework that will help increase clarity and certainty in the long term with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples and their implementation.

The bill would provide a road map for generational and transformational work, including how to support, while also getting out of the way of, indigenous self-determination.

I thank the leadership that has helped develop this and for the consultations that are continuing. I am happy now to answer any questions in this regard. I am proud to support the bill.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am pleased to have the Thursday question. It allows me to talk to him, which is increasingly rare these days.

To answer his question directly, tomorrow we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

When we return from our constituency week on February 16, we will resume consideration of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement. It is absolutely vital that we pass it quickly.

Wednesday, we will begin second reading of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is also referred to as UNDRIP.

Thursday, February 18 shall be an allotted day.

On Friday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-13 concerning single event sport betting, as well as Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I hope all our colleagues have an excellent week working in their ridings.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Madame Normandin for her intervention. I note the work that the Bloc has done on UNDRIP, and we're hoping to get the support of the Bloc as we move Bill C-15 through the House and this committee.

Without getting into a prolonged constitutional discussion, I just want to put on the record the importance of having this work within Bill C-8, the term “Constitution Act, 1982”. It is very important in the sense that it recognizes some very specific rights of indigenous people, defined in section 35.

Bill C-8 is a document that had consultation through a number of different indigenous organizations and peoples, and we believe it's an important outlet to reaffirm the importance of the Constitution and the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples as enshrined therein.

I will probably stop there. We are going to be opposing the amendment, and while we appreciate the suggestions put forward by Ms. Normandin, I do think it's an important element to incorporate into a citizenship oath.

Climate Change Accountability Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, for putting forward her first private member's bill, Bill C-215.

The climate emergency is the greatest existential threat of our time, and we are running out of time. Executive director Inger Andersen of the UN Environment Programme stated, “The science is clear that if we keep exploiting wildlife and destroying our ecosystems, then we can expect to see a steady stream of these diseases jumping from animals to humans in the years ahead.” There is a direct correlation between the climate emergency and the current pandemic in which we find ourselves. She went on to say, “To prevent future outbreaks, we must become much more deliberate about protecting our natural environment.”

It is clear that climate accountability and climate action are essential to preventing future pandemics. It is clear that without acting on this emergency, we will increasingly experience food and water insecurity, income crises, conflict and, even further, global conflict. The infinite cost of climate change will continue to rise unless we act now.

The climate emergency poses a serious threat to our environment, economy, health and safety. At the forefront of this issue are indigenous peoples. The government has even acknowledged that. In fact, a preamble paragraph in Bill C-15 states:

Whereas the implementation of the Declaration can contribute to supporting sustainable development and responding to growing concerns relating to climate change and its impacts on Indigenous peoples

This is in reference to the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The impacts of this crisis are already being felt in Canada, particularly in the Arctic and along our beautiful coasts. It is disproportionately impacting indigenous nations, rural communities and marginalized and racialized communities. This is what we call environmental racism. Indigenous and northern communities, farmers, food producers and others have been sounding alarms about the impact of climate change on ecosystems, but this has fallen on the deaf ears of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments, which have failed in their duty to protect our beautiful mother earth.

We know that the climate emergency is now impacting our food security, and indigenous people across our lands are among the most impacted. It is disrupting traditional ways of life and food security, especially in remote northern communities, where the climate is warming at a much faster rate, which is impacting traditional food sources.

Not only that, when we take away people's sustenance, we force them to find other ways to acquire food. We force remote communities to rely on expensive imported food alternatives, leaving individuals to afford only the unhealthy food options. This has a negative impact on health, so it is not surprising that there is a correlation between physical wellness and the impacts of the climate emergency.

In addition, it goes beyond just climate to include the kind of violence and the increased rates of violence against indigenous women and girls that come as a result of resource extraction projects that bring workers into our communities. They are perpetrating violence against indigenous women and girls, a crisis that was confirmed in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. We need to act now to respond to the calls for justice.

Indigenous people have experienced the greatest impacts of the climate emergency, so it is not surprising that many indigenous peoples from across this country, even as we speak in the House today, are on the front lines to fight against the climate emergency.

Reconciliation and fundamental indigenous rights, the rights that are articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, go hand in hand with environmental justice. With all due respect to my colleague, the fact that she did not even mention the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in her bill is shocking.

Not only that, but I think we see the impacts of climate change on emotional health, particularly the emotional health of young people who are fighting to keep our world healthy. People are tired of governments committing to targets and then missing them again and again. We are running out of time to turn things around.

With Bill C-12, we will not be on track to meet our international climate obligations. We need an action plan that honours our international climate commitments and obligations. We need a plan that addresses the urgency of the climate emergency.

Although the current government proposed Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, it is not consistent with agreements we have made with the international community. For example, there is no target for 2025 and there are no real accountability measures for the next 10 years, even though we know the next decade will be the most critical.

The accountability mechanisms, including the advisory committee, are weak and rely on the environment commissioner, whose office is already underfunded. We will not achieve climate justice without accountability, so it was surprising to me that although there are many good parts in the bill, the accountability measures put far too much power in the hands of ministers, who have a history of destroying our environment and not taking environmental stewardship seriously.

The NDP has a long history of pushing for greater accountability of government for its actions to fight climate change. I put forward, for example, Bill C-232, which provided a clear accountability framework and called on the federal government to take all measures necessary to address the climate emergency. For the first time, a piece of legislation pushed forward a clean, safe and healthy environment as a human right that would be enshrined in law with the federal environmental bill of rights.

We have other examples, such as Linda Duncan, Jack Layton and Megan Leslie.

We need to work together to push forward a bold climate agenda. We are running out of time.

[Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux, Chair, Governing Circle, National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation]

Thank you.

Ahneen. Good evening. My name is Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux. I am the chair of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation governing circle and an honorary witness for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I'm also a proud member and resident of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation in Lake Simcoe, Ontario. Together with the Chippewas of Beausoleil and Rama and the Mississaugas of Alderville, Curve Lake, Hiawatha and Scugog Island, we are signatories to the pre-Confederation 1923 Williams Treaties, signed throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, which covered lands in different parts of south central Ontario.

First, I would like to acknowledge that I am also speaking to you from the original lands of the Chippewa. I want to thank the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for inviting the centre to appear in order to contribute to your study of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This is an important initiative, one that will breathe life into one of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada as set out in its call to action number 94.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation would like to thank the Honourable Ahmed Hussen for sponsoring Bill C-99 on this matter and the Honourable Marco Mendicino for sponsoring Bill C-8 and its predecessor, Bill C-6. We encourage all parliamentarians to ensure that Bill C-8 receives royal assent during this parliamentary session. We applaud the effort to be more inclusive as a society, as part of the very act of welcoming people to become citizens of our country. This addition to the citizenship oath, one which “recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples”, is in the true spirit of reconciliation.

At second reading of this bill, Minister Mendicino stated that at the time of the publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, too few Canadians knew about the tragedy of residential schools. He also noted, “Our government firmly believes that we must acknowledge the injustices of the past and envision a new relationship based on the inherent rights of indigenous peoples.” We agree, and note that considerable progress has been made towards creating awareness, developing a new relationship, and recognizing the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples as contained in section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. Indeed, much progress has been made in recognizing and upholding the international human rights of indigenous peoples.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples the “framework for reconciliation”, as it supports the development of new relationships as described by Minister Mendicino, relationships based on co-operation and mutual understanding, as well as recognition and respect for the human rights of indigenous peoples.

In this regard, we would like to express to the federal government our support and appreciation for the introduction of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was co-developed with first nations, Inuit and the Métis nation. Bill C-15 is itself a symbol of reconciliation and a new approach to the relationship. It is complementary to the aim of Bill C-8, to recognize and affirm “the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples”.

There is so much that we hope new citizens and all Canadians will understand about the history and relationship with indigenous peoples. This is why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended that the information kit for newcomers and the citizenship test be amended to reflect a more inclusive history of the indigenous peoples of Canada, including information about aboriginal rights, treaties and the history of residential schools. Although Bill C-8 does not address needed changes to the information kit, we do hope this complementary policy action to support the intent of call to action number 94 will be undertaken by the Government of Canada. This type of education and awareness building is important work, as has already been stated.

It is important for newcomers to have an understanding of the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. We need to build societal understanding about the rich, diverse and vibrant cultures and histories of the indigenous peoples in Canada. I myself have dedicated my life to building bridges of understanding among individuals and peoples. I see endless merit in bringing people from diverse cultures, ages and backgrounds together to engage in practical dialogue. I remain deeply committed to public education and youth engagement from all cultures and backgrounds, and spend a considerable amount of time throughout the year delivering those kinds of educational processes to people across the country.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation was established because of a shared vision held by those affected by the residential school system in Canada to create a safe place of learning and dialogue where the truths of their experiences are honoured and kept safe for future generations. They wanted their families, communities and all of Canada to learn from these hard lessons so that they would not be repeated. They wanted to share the wisdom of the elders and traditional knowledge-keepers on how to create just and peaceful relationships amongst diverse peoples. They knew that reconciliation is not only about the past; it is also about the future that all Canadians will forge together.

Bill C-8 is an important part of this journey we take together to create a brighter future for all Canadians.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and its governing circle stand ready to support the government's reconciliation [Technical difficulty—Editor].

Meegwetch.

[Chief Tyrone McNeil]

I will respond in the context of Bill C-15. Quite often we're educating everybody, including commercial and recreational fishers, on our rights, for example, regarding Sparrow. The federal government should be assisting us in that role, because if it's first nations standing alone, like on the east coast, you're going to get that racist attack by the public, but if we have the federal government standing with us, with an understanding of what our rights are, and moving that forward, bringing our local rights to bear, we could actually bring the province in with a similar conversation.

We could have a tripartite agreement between British Columbia first nations and the federal government in a collective, positive, forward-looking way, as opposed to being reactive to an uneducated public later on down the road, which is so harmful. Let's educate them collaboratively.

Climate Emergency Action Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my bill provides a consultation framework so that any climate emergency action framework would be developed in direct consultation with civil society and indigenous peoples. It would not be directed by the minister, but by people on the ground.

It also has very clear accountability measures that are consistent with what we heard with respect to Bill C-15 yesterday.

As well, it meets the new minimum human rights requirements outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that any legislation has to be compliant with.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved that Bill C-232, An Act respecting a Climate Emergency Action Framework, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share how honoured I am to be here today to share my first private member's bill as a member of Parliament. It is a very exciting day, for sure.

Close to 50 years ago, in 1972, the first international meeting on the environment took place where member states adopted the Stockholm declaration, which affirmed our responsibility to protect the environment for future generations. It is 2020. We have failed. We have failed in upholding this commitment and we now find ourselves in a climate crisis combined with a human rights crisis in our failure to recognize a clean, healthy and safe environment as a human right, something that has been recognized by 156 out of 193 member states.

Canada is far behind in the world in taking bold actions against the climate emergency. This climate emergency is threatening everything we know and value. Wildfires, flooding and extreme weather are worsening. The futures of our children's and grandchildren's lives are on the line. All life is now on the line and everything depends now on the actions we take.

The Canadian Paediatric Society indicates that children are among the most vulnerable to the health impacts of the climate crisis. Young people also report frequent experiences with anxiety related to their fears around the climate emergency. The reality is that this anxiety is based in fact. We are running out of time to turn things around.

Canada has not met a single climate target it has set. Young people, indigenous peoples and civil society groups want action and accountability from our government. The impacts of the climate crisis are already being felt in Canada, particularly in the Arctic and along the coasts, disproportionately impacting indigenous nations, rural communities and communities composed of people from marginalized and racialized groups.

The climate emergency has significantly impacted and destroyed the traditional territories of indigenous people, in turn, impacting livelihoods. This was noted by the current UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, as released in a report outlining how the lack of legal right to a healthy environment had a direct impact on indigenous peoples and racialized communities in Canada.

We are witnessing around the country that individuals, indigenous nations and young people want real action to address the climate crisis. I know our party, the New Democratic Party, shares this concern. This cannot be achieved without the recognition and respect of the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples as affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Canada's nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples must be respected. There is no reconciliation in the absence of justice and this bill would be a step toward climate justice and upholding human rights, particularly with indigenous people, something the current Prime Minister indicated was the “most important relationship”.

People are tired of words. We are faced with the biggest existential threat, and yet we have a government that continues to fail to act, and continues to willfully violate the human rights of indigenous peoples on its own watch. There is no reconciliation in the absence of justice, and that also includes climate justice.

Moreover, indigenous women are experiencing the most direct impacts of the climate emergency. Their interests must be specifically considered under article 22 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states:

Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.

It also states that:

States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, to ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.

It is important to note that the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls found that a direct correlation existed between an influx of transient workers, those who arrived mostly in isolated towns and cities from elsewhere to work in mines or industries like oil and gas, and hydro, and higher rates of sexual assault, harassment, STIs and human trafficking. A right to a healthy environment and human rights of women and girls is always interconnected. We are sisters, mothers, aunties and grandmothers. Our bodies and our lives are sacred, like our Mother Earth. The life she provides needs to be honoured, just like our women, girls, sisters, aunties and grandmothers who continue to face unimaginable violence for the purpose of economic gain. We are sacred beings.

In addition to women, girls and transgender people, indigenous peoples are among the most impacted by the climate emergency, which includes the disruption of traditional ways of life and food security, especially in the north, which is warming up at a much faster rate. This has given rise to higher costs for imported food alternatives, leaving individuals able to afford only unhealthy food options, which contributes to greater food insecurity and negative impacts on health. Indigenous people in Canada are among the lowest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the country, yet research indicates that they are the most impacted by the climate crisis.

Indigenous peoples have experienced the impacts of the climate crisis for generations and are most often the ones on the front lines fighting to protect our Mother Earth. I have joined them on those front lines. We must respect indigenous science and knowledge that provides a complex understanding about how to address the climate crisis, which is why it informs the development framework of Bill C-232.

Yesterday I was really happy to see the government introduce Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is why I am especially pleased to rise today to present my private member's Bill C-232, an act respecting a climate emergency action framework, the first test of the government's commitment to upholding the human rights articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Bill C-15 requires that all new legislation from this House be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am very proud to say that Bill C-232 is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a bill that supports the development of a made-in-Canada, green, new deal that ensures that Canada takes all measures necessary to respect its commitments under the convention on climate change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that it does so while fully complying with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We have international commitments, as well, to fight the climate emergency and uphold human rights, and this includes the UN Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I cannot say that too many times.

This bill upholds these international agreements and recognizes the right of all Canadians to a safe, clean, healthy environment as a human right. There is widespread consensus that human rights norms apply to environmental issues, including the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In fact, more than 100 countries in the world have recognized this human right in their legislation or Constitution, and it is time for Canada to follow their lead.

The Parliament of Canada has recognized that we are in a climate emergency, so the fact that the Liberal government fails to appropriately react and continues to put forth plans that will not allow us to meet climate targets needs to end. Bill C-232 calls on the Government of Canada to take all measures necessary to mitigate the impacts of the climate emergency and provides a framework to achieve a made-in-Canada, green, new deal with accountability and transparency measures to hold the government to account.

This framework would save lives and mitigate the impacts of the climate emergency on public health, the natural environment and on the economy while upholding, lifting up human rights. If the government is serious about Bill C-15, and I do hope it is, supporting this bill would be an act of good faith and a first attempt by the government to demonstrate that it is serious in its commitment to adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is time we begin divesting from fossil fuels and reinvesting in a green economy that brings workers along, increases employment in the green energy sector, and increases investment in green infrastructure and housing in respect of human rights. Bill C-232 provides the critical framework for this transformation to achieve the transformative climate action legislation.

We are running out of time. We must act now. Our ability to survive depends on what we do now.

Indigenous Affairs

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday our government tabled important legislation on the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Built upon the former Bill C-262, this bill aims to protect and promote indigenous rights, including the right to self-determination and self-government, equality and non-discrimination.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice update the House on the foundations of Bill C-15 and its ability to serve as a framework to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples?

Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the work of all indigenous and grassroots leaders across these lands, faith groups, human rights advocates and thousands of people who fought for the adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Bill C-15 is the result of decades of work by people who I walked side by side with. We wrote, gathered, rallied and published, fighting for human rights. These include Anna Collins, Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild, Dr. Ted Moses, Steve Heinrichs, Jennifer Preston, Jennifer Henry, Cathy Moore-Thiessen, Charlie Wright, Mary Ellen Turpel- Lafond, Tina Keeper, Denise Savoie, Paul Joffe, Ellen Gabriel, the member of Parliament for Scarborough—Rouge Park, my partner Romeo Saganash, who introduced Bill C-262, and so many others.

I look forward to this piece of legislation being passed to ensure that all indigenous people in Canada have their fundamental human rights upheld. It is always a good day for human rights.

[Marcel Lawson-Swain]

Tansi, boozhoo.

That is a really tough question. It's not easy to answer that.

Locally, in Vancouver, we have been calling for the government to begin the work of reconciliation by doing audits of systemic barriers to see what policies and laws exist that pose discrimination or systemic discrimination for indigenous people.

On the one hand, when government is doing reconciliation pieces, we're finding, locally here, that often government departments are working toward places where they're taking urban indigenous people and lumping them into an equity policy. We find that somewhat disrespectful, with respect to the unique and distinct history of indigenous people in this country, to find ourselves being assimilated into another process of equality, and assimilating us through equity provisions.

I don't know if that answers your question, but we need to do more nationally in this country to assess all of the rules, policies and laws that create systemic barriers for our people. That, I don't believe, has been done.

Hopefully, with Bill C-15 and the new issues with respect to UNDRIP, we will find ways to weed through those policies and become more effective with the work that we're doing nationally.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)