Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2020

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you to all of the witnesses here today.

My question is for you, Dr. Borrows. Many of us have reflected on how this is a moment in history that outlines the way in which the federal government has disrespected the issues of land and title in this specific case. It also shines a light on the way in which so many rights around land and title are still unresolved.

Could you perhaps reflect on how important it is for the federal government to not just get this right, but to get it right when it comes to all first nations across this country?

I know you did speak to the importance of the UN declaration—I'm very proud to be part of a political team that has championed this—and how important it is to not water down the kind of framework that the UN declaration provides, including the importance of free, prior, and informed consent, including acknowledging the right to land and title. I'm wondering if you can speak to how important it for us to get this right and move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

You have a minute or so. Thank you.

[John Borrows]

This is a groundbreaking moment. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides the principles and processes to be able to get it right. The recognition of nations can occur through the declaration in a way that would allow for communities to deal with the local and often widespread sexism and lateral violence. That would incentivize communities to take the steps they need through time to get out from under the Indian Act. It's not a threat to economic development. In fact, there will be easier ways of approaching communities if, rather than going to 634 bands, they consolidate their relationships with one another. There would be a clarity that surrounds that.

It's also the case that it's not just rights and title that can carry us forward, as the courts have identified them. We need statutory direction as well to obligate the government to live in accordance with those principles. For me, that declaration is a path forward.

I read an op-ed in The Globe and Mail yesterday from Brian Pallister suggesting that the declaration could take us away from economic development. I think the reason we're in the circumstances we're in is that the current law is not working. If we were to bring forward the human rights instrument, that would be the path forward. I've been trying to explain that when indigenous peoples exercise their own laws, in the case here of the Wiikwemkoong, there are principles and processes that guide this that are respectful, humble, truthful, brave, loving, honest and wise. I appreciate those examples that come to us from coast to coast to coast when indigenous peoples can exercise their own laws.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to all of our very wonderful witnesses today. This was very revealing and helpful.

We have other committee business to do, we're well over time and some of us need to be in other places. We'll thank our witnesses today for joining us and we'll move on in just a moment to the remainder of the committee business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Let's get to committee business as agreed.

With adoption of the second report, we will proceed to committee business to discuss the future work of the committee on its studies.

Mr. Anandasangaree.

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

Mr. Chair, I think this was a very informative discussion today. I propose that we pause this discussion and return to the study that we had agreed to, which is on nutrition in the north. I realize that the analysts have put together some witness panels, so it will be good to follow up on that and continue that work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Okay. Is there any response?

Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

With respect, we have just started to see the tip of the iceberg with chiefs speaking this morning, and with only one round of questions, I had no time. I've been a former chair.

I think it warrants more witnesses, especially to hear a more fulsome conversation, being that this is—with the exception of the collapse in the markets and the rest of it—the issue of the day. People want to hear what's being done about it.

I would propose.... We talked about six meetings, but it went down to one. I think we need to do some more. I know time is short, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

If I could weigh in, we have put together a possible plan for food security. It may be the most critical thing for the people in distant places with regard to the current situation with coronavirus, with flights changing and so on. My suggestion is that the best thing we could do for the people whom we are concerned about is to get to the food security study, because other events will occur with regard to the other conversation. I think it's a very worthwhile conversation—I really appreciated the guests—but if you were asking me, I would want to get this.... I was the mayor of a municipality, and we got things done more quickly. I think we can do something more quickly than solving the crisis that we heard about today. That's my thought.

Does anyone else have something to say?

Yes, Pam.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I have a brief comment. I think you're talking about suspending the study. Is that correct? Is that what...? That would allow the Wet'suwet'en people to have the space they need to be able to do what they're doing, and then we'd come back to it when there's actually a resolution there. Then you could move on with your nutrition in the north study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

The suggestion is that we move on with nutrition in the north and have a suspension of the previous one.

Who would like to speak?

Mr. Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I do agree with Bob. I understand what Pam is saying, as well, regarding the conversation that needs to happen internally.

Having said that, we have a constituency week next week. We have the ministers this Thursday. That would give almost two weeks' space before our next meeting, which would be March 20-something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

It's March 24.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Recognizing what Pam has said, that does give that two-week leeway. I agree with Mr. Zimmer in terms of the amount of time we had to question. Unfortunately we just got one round, and I know things were busy and this isn't to blame anyone. I think it was a good conversation, but I think it has to continue.

Having said that, I guess it's up to our friends in the Bloc and NDP and what they want, too, so I'd like to hear from them as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I have a speakers list, but you go ahead, please, Ms. Gazan. Then I'll get to Mr. Anandasangaree.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to mention that I agree with suspending the study for a couple of reasons. One, even the title in itself is very divisive. I think even the way that witnesses are being called forward is really counterproductive and divisive in terms of actually being able to support, first of all, if we're talking about—I know a lot of people are talking about rights—the human rights of the Wet'suwet'en people to make decisions, self-determined decisions. I think it's really critical that we suspend the study. I think we've heard enough—I've certainly heard enough today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Mr. Anandasangaree.

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

I think when this study was initially proposed it was a response to what is going on, just to get an update, first and foremost, from the ministers who are involved in this, as well as some experts. They all represented themselves very well today in the expert testimony we received.

We can dissect many elements of this. I think history books will be written on what's happened in the last four to six weeks. The challenge for us in continuing this discussion in this form and in this forum is that I think it derails us from the work this committee needs to do. Issues that are brought up can be addressed through, perhaps, the public safety or justice committee, or many other committees. For the purpose of what this committee needed to do, I think today was a very important day to highlight that. The next steps for us—I'm not suggesting that we fully stop the study, but that we pause it for a period of time until things are settled. We can definitely brainstorm what elements of this committee should study. Is it the issue of hereditary chiefs, or the overall structure of the different elements of leadership that exist, that we need to respect?

We could do other things later on, but at this point I think this particular discussion has served its purpose. Let's move on to what I think are very critical studies we agreed to going forward. That's where we're at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Madame Bérubé.

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

I agree with Mr. Anandasangaree. We heard from witnesses. Sometimes their comments were somewhat similar, but not always. We'll be taking a break on this issue. If necessary, we'll discuss the issue again at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Could we agree, then? I seem to be hearing that we can move on to our next study, notwithstanding the importance of what we had discussed in the previous go-round.

I'll suggest that at our next meeting on March 24 we begin working on the food security study.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Do we need to vote to suspend the current study, or is that a decision of the chair? If not, I do have a quick motion on the food security study. I don't know if we have to finish before we start a new one.

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

Perhaps I'll move a motion, Mr. Chair, seeking support from other members, asking that the study that commenced today be suspended until it's brought back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Okay, that motion is on the floor.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll suspend and move on.

Now, Mr. Schmale, you have a further motion.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Yes. Sorry, Chair, I know the time is tight, but I'd like to move a motion that all witness lists be presented to the committee as submitted, not just the list that was produced by the Library. I think we need clarification and more information on who was chosen and who was not. I put forward the motion that the lists of all witnesses submitted by all parties be tabled to the committee.