Evidence of meeting #106 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was undrip.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'm going to pass my time over, Chair, to Dan Vandal.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Thank you, Mike.
Thank you to everybody for your very good presentations.
I guess the question I want to ask everyone is this. Let's assume that Bill C-262 will get approved, but before that, do you have any suggestions for how we can improve this private member's bill? Do you have any suggestions for amendments as we go down this road?
Let me begin with Mary Ellen.
Director of Indian Residential School Centre for History and Dialogue, Professor, Allard Law School, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Yes, there's one area that I think could benefit from clarification. In a way it's because of what I've heard in some of the misunderstandings of FPIC and these extreme views. I think we need to be moderate and respectful of our constitutional history. In particular, in the preamble, we could have a new paragraph that would say something like: whereas implementation of UNDRIP constitutes a principled framework for justice, reconciliation, healing and peace.
I think it should be focused on the fact that it is about bringing people together, not pulling people asunder. As someone's who's worked extensively with indigenous people throughout my career, I've repeatedly faced very adversarial events, cases, negotiations, whatever. But in the end, the most durable and successful initiatives are ones that are based on this commitment to reconciliation, healing, and peace. We have some historical precedents such as—I mentioned this—treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan, where people work together, and whether you want to call it consent, it's peacemaking, and it's been remarkably positive.
I would respectfully suggest to you there could be an improvement in the sense of clarifying that this is about creating a more harmonious and peaceful.... It's not a disruptive, radicalized initiative. It's actually about human rights, peace, and harmony, and that, I think, could help address some of the perhaps more extreme interpretations you heard, which I don't think are valid. It's to say, just to be clear, that we are about reconciliation, healing and peace. I think it would be very valuable to emphasize that.
Chairperson, Specific Claims Tribunal Canada
I think I've already spoken to how clarification would be very desirable. As it stands, it's open to some to understand FPIC, in particular, in one way, and others to understand it in others.
The last thing we need is conflict over understandings of what UNDRIP stands for and what the article that provides for FPIC stands for. I would join Professor Turpel in encouraging an amendment to the preamble along those lines.
Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Law, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I would be happy to see that occur. I do note that we have the language of harmonization and consistency. The Treaty of Niagara, a treaty that was a part of the formation of Canada in the central part of the country, talked about peace and friendship and respect. I think there's a long constitutional tradition of striving to live together in that fashion. Certainly what Mary Ellen suggested would be consistent with that broader hope that we have when we put together our treaty relationships.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
That's it. Those actually are the concluding comments we will be hearing from all of the witnesses, and I think the consensus among our presenters was that this is going to move Canada forward in a positive way. There's clearly some uncertainty. We hear that from large industrial operators, particularly in the mining sector and with some of the issues with FPIC, but overall, we hear about Canada's law and order, good government, and that's it's a positive step.
I want to thank you for coming, and now I see that we have a little bit of committee business to deal with. I'm going to recognize MP Kevin Waugh.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
With respect to Bill C-262 regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, I have a motion that reads:
a) the Chair of the Committee write, as promptly as possible, to the Chairs of the following standing committees inviting them to consider the subject-matter of the said Bill:
(i) the Standing Committee on Natural Resources;
(ii) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;
(iii) the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development;
(b) each of the standing committees, listed in paragraph (a), be requested to convey recommendations, including any suggested amendments, in both official languages, in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs no later than May 31, 2018;
(c) any amendments suggested pursuant to paragraphs (b) shall be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-262, and further provided that the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs may propose amendments notwithstanding the recommendations received pursuant to paragraphs (b);
(d) amendments to Bill C-262, other than the amendments deemed to be proposed pursuant to paragraphs (b), be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee before May 31, 2018 and distributed to members in both official languages; and
(e) the Committee shall proceed to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-262 on Tuesday June 5, 2018.
I have this in both official languages.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
There is no discussion.
(Motion negatived)
The meeting is adjourned.