Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2019

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

I was only going to suggest that, rather than waste the time of the delegations over this, we could discuss this at the end of the meeting and decide then, and just continue hearing the delegations.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

It is a motion on the floor.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

My concern is that I've already brought this before the chair and asked for it to be dealt with in the last round that we had, and it wasn't. Of course I don't want to silence anyone. That's why I'm asking for these extra hours. I think it's imperative that we get this right. If there is some sort of solution that can be proposed and that's going to be dealt with today, I'm happy to have that discussion at that time.

I think it's good that you're empathetic to me, but it's really not about me. It's about the indigenous children of this country and making sure that people are heard here in this place.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Okay. Just for basic information, we have a regular meeting on May 14, and it is scheduled to adjourn at 10:45.

Dan.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

I completely agree with Rachel. It's just if we could get five minutes, we could vote on this before the end of our meeting today at 1:30. That way, we could continue with our delegations. We commit to vote on it.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I'm fine with that as long as it's done today.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

It seems to be amenable.

We will allocate five to 10 minutes at the end of the meeting before we adjourn to discuss committee business, so nobody leave.

Sorry about the disruption. Where are we in terms of the schedule?

It's my honour, on behalf of all members, to thank you for participating, whether you're on video conference or here in Ottawa. We all want to thank you for your words. They're going to be in the permanent record of the committee for all Canadians to share and to understand this very important bill.

Meegwetch.

The meeting is suspended. We'll bring in the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Good morning, everyone. We are here at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs of the Parliament of Canada on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. We are in our third panel for today.

We are honoured to have before us the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde. We are also honoured to have, as an individual, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who is Director of the Indian Residential School Centre for History and Dialogue and a professor at the Allard School of Law, UBC.

Welcome to both of you. You will have up to 10 minutes each and after that we'll have an opportunity for MPs to ask questions.

Grand Chief, you may begin any time that you're ready.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Witness spoke in Ukrainian]

[English]

That's little bit of Ukrainski. I know your background.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

That's “I'm happy to be here” in Cree.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

I'm thanking you all, as relatives and friends, and I'm thanking you for acknowledging the Algonquin territory here.

This morning, I also welcome the good thoughts, mind and brain of my colleague, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. She is a well-known person across Canada and an expert in child welfare, amongst other things.

The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada provided many concrete proposals for moving forward on the reconciliation and human rights of first nations. The TRC acknowledged in the first five calls to action that the matter before you today, child welfare, has to be addressed.

The TRC specifically identified the need for federal legislation to launch the change needed to end the crisis of over-apprehension of first nations children. The TRC also said that meeting the minimum human rights standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is foundational to reconciliation.

This approach informed the resolutions adopted by the Assembly of First Nations, which led to our involvement in this initiative. The reason is compelling. We have many resolutions from our chiefs in assembly. Nobody can question the mandate or ask why the AFN is doing this. You don't get a hundred per cent of everything all the time. I don't think any of your parties do. I don't think Canadians do, on any issue, and neither does the AFN, but we have a mandate and we have direction as per our process. That's why we're doing this.

When rights have been violated and children's lives have been harmed, we say that, over time in these systems, the respect for the basic human rights of children, families, communities and nations is only the proper framework.

Why is Bill C-92 important? Bill C-92 must be understood within the context of the status quo today for first nations children. I know it sounds repetitive—you've heard many witnesses—but we're going to keep saying it until people get it. There are 40,000 children in care right across Canada. Some of the provinces are worse than others.

You have two systems. There are on-reserve child and family services agencies, but now there are the provincial systems as well that need to be addressed. That's what this is trying to look at.

When we say that there are 40,000 first nations children in care in Canada, we know that there are more children in care than were in the residential schools at the height of their operations. That's a very astounding stat and figure and number. It's a human rights crisis in Canada. So we say that it's a humanitarian crisis and a national human rights crisis. It's not a challenge that will be met by federal, provincial and territorial governments continuing to impose their assumed jurisdiction over our children while ignoring the inherent rights of first nations people.

The status quo has been a clear and unconscionable failure. It has huge consequences for generations of children, families and communities. Bill C-92 marks a significant shift from the legal status quo regarding first nations jurisdiction. The bill includes several provisions that affirm the inherent aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, including self-determination and the inherent right of self-government in relation to children and families. Many first nations are ready to operate under their own laws, and they have been pushing for this for decades.

I always say this: Occupy the field. You have federal laws. You have provincial and territorial laws, but you also can have—and should have—first nations laws in different sectors. Occupy the field and assert that jurisdiction as part of that inherent right.

Splatsin First Nation and Kukpi7 Christian—he's going to be here later on today—is a case in point. Kukpi7 Christian and the tribal council are ready, as are many others across Canada. We are being held back by the lack of legislation supporting and recognizing full first nations authority and jurisdiction over child and family services.

In addition to the jurisdiction and law-making affirmations in the legislation, operational principles were added to ensure that critical problems in child welfare can be addressed immediately.

Principles such as the priority on prevention and the placement of children are designed to recalibrate the child welfare system on the first day after royal assent. Prioritizing prevention over apprehension, along with the importance of culturally relevant placements, are immediate improvements available to first nations even before first nations pass their own laws.

Bill C-92 also advances substantive legal recognition of the human rights of first nations peoples by affirming collective rights, critical rights of individual children and youth, and the rights of their families and caregivers.

Bill C-92 is a good step forward. It's a step forward for first nations, and there is a pressing urgency to complete the work and see the bill passed. It's very important work of this committee. Roll it all up. You have to get it into votes and then over to the Senate. That's another avenue to look at. June is coming and there's a sense of urgency for friends and relatives.

We say that no one piece of legislation is going to reverse all the problems, but this legislation is a step forward.

It's a step forward. No single legislative instrument will be enough on its own. Starting with a national framework while regional and first nations-level innovations continue is a good first step. There's flexibility. This legislation will complement and not detract from existing self-government agreements.

The impact of the child welfare system is felt every day in first nations communities and families. You've heard constantly—and it's true—that there is no greater gift from the Creator than our children. They deserve to grow and develop within their families, with full knowledge of their culture, languages, customs and traditions, and with the love and support of their first nations.

We require a system that affirms our identity and our family systems, where we no longer are required to push and plead for support and recognition from provincial governments: governments that have merely taken their cues from the Indian Act and consequently have imposed harsh policies on us that have failed our children.

Bill C-92 recognizes and affirms what we firmly believe that we have always had: a right to raise and take care of our children according to our own practices and values and to transmit our languages and cultures across the generations and into the future.

Clause 18 of the bill is critical for us. There must be a rights-based approach that affirms our inherent rights, including self-government for child and family services. It's time that Canada shifted the system to do what should have been done years ago.

Bill C-92 is an important step forward because it affirms our jurisdiction and creates space for first nations laws and practices regarding our families. It is rights-respecting legislation within the context of implementing the UN declaration, which is the minimum standard for the survival and dignity of indigenous peoples. It sets out key principles that will prevent children from being removed from their homes unnecessarily, promotes children staying in their communities and ensures that the principle of the best interests of the child is understood and applied with a first nations lens for our children and families.

We know that Bill C-92 is not perfect.

I made my little line here: Perfection in any bill or law can be seen and viewed as an enemy of good. Begin and build perfection over time, because there are reviews, but at least start. Start. Get it passed.

This can be strengthened and we have recommendations to strengthen it. There are four areas.

Number one is funding, a very important piece. Funding should be clarified through three amendments: (a) the language on funding in the preamble needs to be more precise to affirm that Canada acknowledges the call for funding and accepts the call for funding; (b) a funding provision in the body of the bill is needed; and, (c) clause 20 of the bill on coordination agreements needs to be more precise about the fiscal arrangement needed to support first nations governments and coordinate services across systems on the reserve and off the reserve. There has to be coordination.

That's one piece on the funding.

Number two, the UN declaration reference in the preamble is important but must also be included in the purpose section, clause 8, to include advancing the UN declaration as a key purpose of the legislation. This provision must be done in the same manner as was done in Bill C-91, the indigenous languages bill. The UN declaration is a framework and has many important provisions for children and families, like clause 8, on preventing forced removal of children from one culture to another.

Number three, the best interests of the child sections should be amended to clarify that first nations governing bodies that pass laws prescribing the factors for determining the best interests of the children will add to the factors in the bill, creating recognition and support for our ways of caring for our children and families. This is important, because for some of our people we do not remove a child. We remove the person harming the child and keep the family intact. We believe that this is in the best interests of the child. Our laws must be affirmed and our practices supported to preserve family unity.

The fourth one, Jordan's principle, should be given explicit reference in relation to substantive equality for children to ensure that this useful legal tool is confirmed in Bill C-92, building upon the resolutions of Parliament that have adopted Jordan's principle. This can be added to the preamble and to all sections referencing “substantive equality”, including subclause 9(3).

I say all of this foremost in the interests of first nations children and families.

Madam Chair, these are the formal amendments that I have just read. I want to formally table these amendments to the committee. It will help in your report writing. They're all here.

That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I appreciate it. That's very good.

We like getting suggestions that are put in a manner that we can consider for amendments, if that's what the committee wants. That's good.

To the second presenter, welcome to our committee.

You can begin any time you're ready to go.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Director of Indian Residential School Centre for History and Dialogue, and Professor, Allard Law School, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you very much and good morning to everyone. It's an honour to be here. It's a great pleasure to join the national chief in addressing you on this significant bill and to recognize the importance of the work that members are doing. I have had the opportunity already to present to the standing committee at the Senate, so I appreciate that both Houses are working with great attention to these significant national issues, which deserve careful and thorough review and I feel have had enormous attention over a long period of time.

I wanted to also note that I have had the great privilege to be a special adviser to a number of chiefs, including the chiefs of a legislative working group of the Assembly of First Nations who have been meeting since the national emergency meeting on child welfare, which was held in January 2018. We have been working in a unity-seeking methodology, which is chiefs from all over Canada, their advisers and their child welfare experts have convened approximately 12 times with day-long meetings to evaluate what the positions are that first nations would like to bring to Canada for inclusion in a bill.

That process has been a very positive process. I've certainly enjoyed it a great deal, but when I say unity-seeking process, I appreciate that you can't always achieve complete consensus. However, it was our objective, guided by the spirit and approach of the Assembly of First Nations, to be unity-seeking, work together and build together. That was a substantial period of work and that work was shared with the Government of Canada.

We've had several meetings with the Government of Canada and I'd like to, as well, acknowledge the significant work by public servants on this matter and on this bill. There are many, and I don't want to name them all, but there are at least three who I think deserve particular attention because they've worked tirelessly on this: the deputy minister for indigenous services, Jean-François Tremblay; the assistant deputy minister who has this file and education; Joanne Wilkinson; and the director for this area, Isa Gros-Louis. Those are just three public servants who have attended to the meetings with the chiefs and listened to us and heard our positions. As well, I've had a chance to work with them as an independent expert. I just wanted to give a shout-out to the incredible, hard-working professional effort that public servants in the Government of Canada have brought to this file and their focus and determination, especially since January 2018 after the national emergency meeting, to get this work done.

I wanted to start by addressing some of the constitutional issues that have come before this committee. I have observed the proceedings and read the Hansard and I am familiar with the fact that Professor Dwight Newman appeared and raised some constitutional questions with respect to the bill. I'm also aware of the fact that probably our most eminent constitutional professor in Canada, Peter Hogg, appeared just earlier this week to address the constitutional issues regarding the bill.

I wanted to clarify that from my own position as a constitutional expert, a professor of law, a former judge, a practising lawyer who's appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada several times and as someone who now is practising again dealing with constitutional issues, I feel that it is beyond question that the bill before you is constitutionally valid.

I think it's important to note that the provincial paradigm that's in place in Canada for child welfare is not really based on a correct understanding of the division of powers as it affects indigenous people. I would direct you, of course, to the very important work also of now-Justice Sébastien Grammond, who was also the dean of law at the University of Ottawa and who has written extensively on the area of child welfare legislation. I'm in full agreement with him, and as he's in full agreement with Professor Peter Hogg, then I would say to you that the preponderance of constitutional opinion in Canada would be that the federal government is well within its authority under 91(24) to enact this legislation.

Even beyond that position, the federal government may enact a national strategy to address issues of enormous importance. You will note in Bill C-92 there is reference to the fact that this is a national project with the government working with the provinces in the preamble. This is the indication, and in the position on coordinating agreements, it is seeking to have a new national approach.

I read those provisions of the bill as saying that there's respect for provincial authority and jurisdiction in child welfare. There is clear authority, constitutionally, for the federal government to act. However, ideally, we would harmonize and have what we sometimes call “double aspect”, or we would have a collaborative approach to child welfare.

I would go one step further to say that based on the scholarship and jurisprudence of Canada, and the recognition and affirmation of the inherent rights of indigenous peoples and first nations, in particular in section 35 of our Constitution Act of 1982, it is important to have this legislation for the following reason.

Until recently, for whatever reason, perhaps because of the colonial history of the Indian Act and the treatment of indigenous people, the federal government took the position that it was a mere funder of child welfare and had no obligation for the people who were in child welfare systems.

We know from both cases, significant class action and civil cases, and constitutional decisions, that all governments have a fiduciary obligation to their citizens, but particularly to first nations citizens, where the honour of the Crown is at stake. Canada is well within its right to enact legislation of this sort to act in that position as a fiduciary, understanding that the honour of the Crown is at stake.

There have been some abysmal and horrific failures with respect to child welfare. They are well known. I worked as an independent child advocate for a decade in British Columbia in that capacity, with a small staff. I had 17,000 child welfare cases, most of which were indigenous children. I catalogued report after report of the incredible failures that happened because of the absence of this legislation that we're dealing with today.

I want to begin by emphasizing to you, being open to answering any questions you may have, or bringing forward to the committee any material you may require, that the paradigm we have now is flawed. In particular, the provinces have authority over child welfare, because there's a provision of section 88 of the Indian Act that allowed them to apply child welfare legislation to first nations people without their consent. That is because of the Indian Act itself, which came into effect in 1876, which was a consolidation of some of the most heinous colonial ordinances. This horrible colonial chapter in our history sought to deprive indigenous people of their identity, their lands, their culture. That Indian Act continues to be on the books and that is the vehicle through which the provincial law is applied.

The world of Canada changed somewhat in 1982 when our Constitution was repatriated. From 1982 to today, our Constitution, which is called “a living tree”, has changed. We've had 40 major decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of indigenous people that have consistently found precisely what I am presenting today, which is that there have to be novel collaborative approaches to addressing these persistent public policy failures.

One cannot help but conclude that with respect to child welfare, this is an abysmal and total public policy failure, and a failure of our legal framework to address in a contemporary way, profound issues that need to be addressed.

The legal and/or policy position that I wish to share with the committee today is that Bill C-92 is not only constitutional. It's overdue. It's vital. It's essential. I think it certainly would withstand constitutional challenge. That is not to say that if it is passed, the application of this bill to particular cases in particular places would not always have to be carefully assessed so that it balances the rights of individuals, like children who may be facing peril, and the collective rights of their families and their nations and their peoples.

In application, there will be many issues to be worked out. All legislation, when it's new, takes time to be worked out in practise. It doesn't happen overnight. However, the shifts that are present in this bill are very significant shifts for Canada.

I have worked directly in the child welfare system on literally thousands of cases. I did the first custom adoption in Saskatchewan for a first nations nehiyaw child. I have represented chiefs repeatedly in courts to try to get them to at least have standing to speak for their children, which often times they have been denied that standing. I've had the opportunity, even now, to appear in child welfare matters for first nations chiefs and others, and I see the barriers.

In fact, we have a child welfare matter under way in a court in British Columbia, where the judge read the draft bill and said, “This is a very helpful approach. Maybe I should hold off deciding the matter until this has passed, because it would give us a new pathway forward to do things that we couldn't do before to support this family, the chief and this grandmother. We could have family reunification.”

I want to conclude my opening remarks by saying that there are technical issues, of course. No bill, as the national chief has said, on its own, is going to respond to the incredible human rights failure and policy disaster that child welfare has been, for first nations children in particular. Will this bill create new tools and opportunities to shift things in a positive direction? I think it will. Will it require very close scrutiny? Yes, it will.

Significant resources are needed, and new resources have come into the child welfare system. I feel very strongly that there has to be careful evaluation of outcomes for children. Those resources need to go to the children who need them. When we're shifting public policy like this, everything should look at the framework of being accountable to children. Are children getting the resources needed? We do know that the outcomes lens is significant.

I'll leave it there. Thank you again. I'm more than happy to answer any questions and to provide references for the matters I've identified in my testimony.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

We now move to MP questions. We begin with MP Yves Robillard.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for their testimony.

My questions are for Ms. Turpel-Lafond.

Questions were raised last week about the fact that Bill C-92 is binding on the provinces and that there could be a court challenge. Do you think this argument is well founded? How could this legislation be challenged in court by the provinces?

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

I think the argument is not well founded. For instance, even Professor Newman appeared before you, prior to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rendering the decision in the carbon tax reference, which put some of these issues into context, as well. I think the idea of a constitutional challenge to Bill C-92 by a province.... Of course, provinces can make references to any court. As we saw in the carbon tax matter, it doesn't always go the way people wish it would go. The legal reasoning and constitutional principles are very clear, as Professor Hogg and others will indicate. This is constitutionally valid legislation.

It's perfectly fine if people wish to challenge things. It's good for the salaries of the legal profession, but it isn't something that should be overly worrying to this committee, because people use strategies to address these things. Sometimes, they have other conflicts between Canada and a province, or what have you.

When it comes to these issues of child welfare, this is constitutionally valid. Moreover, because it's about children, I would hope very much that wouldn't happen. I've been involved recently in the first-ever reconciliation agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan and the Saskatoon Tribal Council. You heard from the tribal chief earlier this week. That was the first time the Government of Saskatchewan ever entered into a process to recognize jurisdiction. I was there to bear witness to the premier and speak passionately about the fact that, for the sake of children, we must not go to court and fight. They effectively buried the hatchet on a court fight that day, and said they are going to work together.

I think that's a wise strategy. I hope that any province thinking of a more aggressive stance will take that strategy.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

In Parents Naturels v. Superintendent of Child Welfare et al. in 1976, Justice Martland recognized that provincial adoption laws applied to indigenous children, unless Parliament had legislated in a way that would prevent their application. Do you think this also applies to indigenous child welfare cases? What is the connection between this case and Bill C-92?

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

First of all, that's quite an old case. It's an important case. There's actually an 1867 case called Connolly v. Woolrich, which is important for British Columbians because Sir James Douglas's wife's mother is the plaintiff's family. It was a Cree marriage of the country between a fur trader and a Cree woman. There was an issue in the Quebec court in 1867 as to whether the laws of the Cree.... There was an obligation to make sure that customary family law applied. In Connolly and Woolrich it was recognized that there was something called “marriages of the country” and aboriginal laws around family, and those were valid marriages.

There are a whole variety of cases. That's one very important one, and the case you reference is also critical. There are recent decisions as well, on issues like custom adoption and other things. We have three sources of law in Canada. We have indigenous law, civil law and common law. We must always think about how to harmonize these.

This is why I think BIll C-92 is quite positive. By focusing on children and child and family reunification, we will probably get beyond some of these concepts, like adoption, which are not necessarily indigenous concepts. We will get more into family unity. I think that's a progressive thing. I think it's consistent with jurisprudence, but we have to understand that after 1982, the jurisprudence in Canada has progressed.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for National Chief Bellegarde.

Some witnesses have shared their opinion that it is difficult to understand this bill in terms of jurisdiction. In your opinion, are there ways to clarify it?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Thank you for the question.

There is no question that things can always be made clearer. I've offered four recommendations to clear it up in four areas. You'll always look for ways to make it better and to improve it, but I'm always going to come back to that sense of urgency. Yes, let's make it better and improve it, but take it through the process as soon as possible for the appropriate votes in the House and then in the Senate. It's a timing thing.

There's a sense of urgency and an opportunity, especially in light of the upcoming election in October. You all know the legislative process. Anything can happen. There will be a throne speech. There will be a new cabinet. There will be other priorities. We don't know where this will rest with any kind of government in terms of a priority, but it's children and there's an opportunity now to do something.

I would urge you all to move it along as thoroughly, but as expeditiously, as possible.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

I'll leave it to Monsieur Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I just have a quick question about subclause 9(3), which looks at substantive equality.

Ms. Turpel-Lafond, I was just wondering if you could give us a little more understanding of your interpretation of that, and whether a future government could be taken to court over it if it decided not to fund this appropriately.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

The principles in substantive equality in clause 9 are very important. They're also in the preamble.

In a way, I view part of this provision as the Jordan's principle provision without naming Jordan's principle. I'm not sure exactly why we can't. I think there are some statutory construction rules that prohibit naming people in legislation, although I'd like to suggest you'd make an exception—as the national chief has proposed—and name Jordan's principle.

On the issue about statutory funding, out of an abundance of caution and given the conflicts that have happened in the past, I think it would be very important to have a free-standing provision on funding in this bill. I think the preamble provision on the call for funding should probably be migrated into an actual provision in the bill, likely after clause 15.

The substantive equality provisions may in fact be used to argue about funding because we've had these cases—and I'm sure you are familiar with these cases, such as the CN case, the Auton case and others—where meaningful realization of equality requires resources. A railway car has to accommodate those with disabilities. Children with autism cannot not be funded and not be in classrooms.

I just raise for you the fact that there are things that allude to standards and substantive equality here. It is possible. Your question is correct. It is possible to construct an argument, but I think a provision would be preferred.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The questioning now moves to MP Cathy McLeod.

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

Thank you to the witnesses.

I have promised to share my time, and I have two important questions, so I guess we'll need to move forward.

I appreciate your comments about the constitutionality, because that is something that I have been wondering about and having different opinions about that is, I think, very helpful. We have had one opinion, and you addressed it also, about section 88 in the Indian Act, which provides the ability for provinces to move in. I asked if it needed to be deleted within this bill to give greater clarity. The opinion at that time was no.

Do you concur with the opinion that it is unnecessary for it to be part of the bill because of the paramountcy of this legislation?

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

Yes. I feel very strongly that section 88 of the Indian Act should not be mentioned in this bill. The Indian Act should not be mentioned in any way, shape or form.

Any federal initiative that seeks to rehabilitate and reform the Indian Act is so fundamentally flawed that it's just completely unacceptable. It could compromise this bill. It would compromise the support of first nations for the bill, but it could also serve to continue a system that doesn't work.

Is it required? I don't think it is required. I think the structure of the bill is adequate and that first nations laws will kick it out. There are also first nations who want to pace what they do. They don't want to just kick something out right away. That would be unstable.

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

I appreciate that, because it did concern me that, if it was still there, it might still apply and it might provide complications.

National Chief Bellegarde, we've had many conversations over the last year in terms of the UN declaration, and I've certainly expressed my concerns.

You've asked for that to be in the main part of the bill, and I look at clause 19 and the issue of free, prior and informed consent, and I know—I think it's on the next panel—we're going to have the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs tell us not to pass this bill.

If you're inserting the UN declaration into the bill, and then you have article 19, the UN declaration about free, prior and informed consent, they will say, “We do not give free, prior and informed consent”. How do you align those concepts?

Can you say it in a minute? I want to make sure that my colleague has time.