Evidence of meeting #95 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 peoples.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Romeo, for sitting in the hot seat today.
This free, prior, and informed consent issue is a big part of the discussion, no doubt. I would say that free, prior, and informed consent is something all Canadians want and all Canadians get. Not everybody consents, but I know, for example, in my own community, there is a new power line proposal. Yes, there's a lot of consternation about where the route's going to go, whose land it's on, and what the payout is for the acres of land that get taken out of circulation, so to speak. We have a system that goes through and pays people for the land. We also all have the ability to go and vote for the government we desire. We vote for people we think will do a good job of administrating these things.
How is it that we have to have a different system? Why do we need a different system for indigenous peoples rather than having one system all Canadians participate in? Yes, there are lots of decisions made that I don't like, but we have a system where we have a vote and we choose people. When we don't like decisions that are made, we work harder, we try to convince more people, and we try to get a bigger movement going, and I understand that.
The other thing is that we live in the British system, for better or for worse. One of the beauties of the British system is that it always has taken into consideration minority groups, and typically minority groups have always had their voices within our system of government.
How do you balance the current system we have with what looks to me to be a proposal for a new system or an additional system on the side of that? I will let you run with the clock on that.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
I'm not proposing a different system. I think our system needs to take into consideration the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That's what I'm saying. We need to clearly recognize that that's a fact and move forward from there.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
So you wouldn't say section 35 takes that into consideration.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
We need to clarify it. That's one of the things. Section 35 of the Constitution talks about aboriginal rights. Never in this country have we agreed, indigenous and governments, on what the concept of “aboriginal rights” is. That's the problem.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Are you saying we have to go back to the Constitution?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Has there been free, prior, and informed consent for the Constitution, right? That's what we are getting right back to.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
That's not what I'm saying. I think the system needs to understand that the rights contained in the UN declaration already have application in our system. That's what I'm saying.
Also, I do recognize that aboriginal peoples in our Constitution are the only distinct group we recognize in our Constitution. Why? Because they were the first peoples of this country. As the first peoples of our country, they have rights that go with that.
It's not a different system. Our Constitution in 1982 confirmed that these are different peoples. They were the first peoples of this country, so they have certain rights that other peoples don't have in this country under our Constitution. That's all I'm saying. I'm not creating anything new here. I'm helping to clarify our constitutional situation in this country.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
It seems to me, though, that article 19 talks about “before adopting or implementing any legislative or administrative measures that may affect” indigenous people”. I would argue that any law we change in this country affects indigenous people.
How do we go about ensuring we have free, prior, and informed consent, particularly when we don't have a body that can necessarily deal with that or doesn't seem to even take up those questions?
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
I think the problem is governments, successive Liberal and Conservative governments at the federal level. Although we've had many decisions from the Supreme Court, their tendency was never to respect those rights and to forget about them in our legislation. Although we have the duty as members of Parliament to uphold the rule of law, upholding the rule of law doesn't mean sending in the police or the army to put down a barricade that indigenous peoples have raised. No. Upholding the rule of law in our system means that we need to respect the Constitution, and in our Constitution is section 35 on aboriginal and treaty rights. We have omitted to do that, although it is our responsibility to do it.
Bill C-262 will help in that regard for the future. That's why it's important for this country. It's important for indigenous and non-indigenous people in this country, if we're true about reconciliation or justice in this country.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
That is a good point at which to leave the debate today. I want to thank you for your presentation.
I will just point out that tomorrow our Prime Minister will be delivering a speech in the House of Commons at 3:15 on the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights.
We are in the midst of truth and reconciliation, and as we move forward, we are right in the midst of a process and we're all honoured to be here.
Thank you so much for doing your presentation today.