Evidence of meeting #24 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-15.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Regional Chief of Assembly of First Nations (British Columbia), BC First Nations Leadership Council
Yes.
I think self-determination, our own sovereignty, is our ability to make our own decisions. I think that's really what is recognized within the United Nations declaration— our human rights and our indigenous rights to govern ourselves. Whether it's the colonial construct of chief and council versus our own, I think at some point we're going to have to reconcile those ourselves.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Bratina
Thank you, all. That brings to a close this portion of our committee meeting today. We will suspend briefly while we set up our next panel.
If there is anything that you feel needs to be emphasized or that wasn't brought up, please feel free to make a written submission to our committee.
We'll suspend now for just a few minutes.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Bratina
With quorum, I call this meeting back to order.
From the Grand Council of the Crees, we have Chief Abel Bosum and Tina Petawabano, director of federal and indigenous relations.
Please go ahead, Chief Bosum. You have six minutes.
12:10 p.m.
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.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Bratina
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next we go to Mr. Johnson.
You have six minutes, along with Ms. Inutiq. Go ahead, please.
12:20 p.m.
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.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Bratina
Thank you very much for your submissions.
Now we'll go to a six-minute round of questioning.
Go ahead, Mr. Viersen.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
The bill is fairly straightforward. There's a long preamble and a long appendix at the end, but the actual meat and potatoes of the bill really comes down to clause 4, proposed paragraphs (a) and (b).
Paragraph (a) is to “affirm the Declaration”—UNDRIP—“as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law”. So that's the first part of the bill. The second paragraph is to “provide a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the Declaration”.
Conservatives don't have any issue with the proposed paragraph 4 (b), as to the implementation of the framework. What we are concerned about is just basically Canadian sovereignly and the mandating of a UN document to be Canadian law.
I'll start with Mr. Johnson. You referenced section 35 of the Constitution. Maybe I was mistaken, but I thought you referenced that. Is that not where we want to start with, rather than the UN declaration?
12:25 p.m.
Member, Executive Council, Land Claims Agreements Coalition
Modern treaties need to mean something. We negotiated these agreements and they have the strength of the Constitution protecting them.
Our view on UNDRIP—or at least my view on UNDRIP, and what I've heard other members of the LCAC and the alliance say as well—is that this provides an opportunity for modern treaty nations to elevate the focus of treaties within Canada. Although we've entered into these agreements that are constitutionally protected under section 35, they're often treated as an afterthought. The attitude is that we've met the agreement or we've reached the agreement and we go our separate ways, whereas, we want what we were promised, which was an evolving, living relationship—more of a marriage than a divorce.
With UNDRIP, this legislation, the action plan and the resulting reform of bringing legislation in line, we see this as an opportunity to bring the whole of government focused—
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
To clarify, what does the term “application in Canadian law” mean in relation to UNDRIP that you don't have under section 35?
12:25 p.m.
Member, Executive Council, Land Claims Agreements Coalition
The application of Canadian law under UNDRIP?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Paragraph 4 (a) just says that UNDRIP will now have “application in Canadian law”. I'm just trying to understand what that means and how does that change what we currently have, where under section 35 we already have....
What changes with UNDRIP having “application in Canadian law”?
12:25 p.m.
Member, Executive Council, Land Claims Agreements Coalition
Isn't that an exercise that needs to be sorted out within bringing the legislation in line? Isn't there a commitment to make sure to consecrate the laws?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
That's the second part of the bill. The bill does two things.
The first part is just declaring that UNDRIP has “application in Canadian law”. The second part is providing a framework to engage the Government of Canada in the “implementation of the Declaration”, and nobody has a problem with that.
It's the weird statement about making UNDRIP have “application in Canadian law”. What does that mean? Does that mean that the court decisions that have been hard won and fought for over the past are now moot if UNDRIP says something different? What does that mean?
12:30 p.m.
Member, Executive Council, Land Claims Agreements Coalition
I don't think so.
That's why article 37 is a focus of many of the members of the LCAC. It's because they see potentially exactly what you're getting at, where there will be groups without section 35 protected or established rights, or rights taking precedence over section 35 rights. That's a concern, but that's why we're saying that article 37 needs to have primacy I suppose over the other articles, making sure that those section 35 rights that have been established are not infringed upon.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Bosum, in the same vein around a UN document having application in Canadian law versus the Canadian Constitution and our jurisprudence over the last number of generations, is there any concern that there will be a conflict between those two?
12:30 p.m.
Tina Petawabano Director of Federal and Indigenous Relations, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)
Good afternoon.
Grand Chief Bosum is having some technical issues, so he's trying to come back on.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Director of Federal and Indigenous Relations, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)
I will wait, because he's just getting back on.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Okay. Mr. Picard, do you want to talk to that a little bit?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
