Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2021

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Ms. Gill, please go ahead.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was wondering if, given the technical difficulties, it would be possible to give Chief Picard time to make his usual presentation, even if it meant seeking unanimous consent to continue the meeting beyond the usual time limit. Technical difficulties, unfortunate in COVID-19 times, should not deprive witnesses of their right to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Okay, we'll work that out.

Ms. Petawabano, do you have a question or a comment?

[Tina Petawabano]

I wanted to comment on two of the first questions that were put forth, since my grand chief is still trying to get on board. May I?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Please go ahead.

[Tina Petawabano]

For the first question that was put forth, it should be understood that the preamble is an important part of Bill C-15. It lays out the principles by which the operative sections of the bill must be interpreted. They are not peripheral; they are essential and critical.

In its totality, Bill C-15 provides the robust framework for levelling the playing field and provides for genuine inclusiveness of indigenous peoples in the economic life of government. The application of the Canadian law clause provides the basis for ensuring that all laws of Canada must be consistent with the provisions of UNDRIP. This was our first comment to the first question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you very much.

Committee, I'm going to ask for consent to go past our time in order to pick up some of the lost testimony and so on. Could I see a show of hands that we're all okay with going past the appointed time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

In order to accommodate what has been missed, before we get to Ms. Gill, who is the next questioner, I believe you wanted Monsieur Picard to make his statement.

Mr. Picard, I don't see your picture on the screen, but I assume you can hear me. Were there points of your testimony that you weren't able to make that you would like to make now?

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

Thank you very much.

I certainly could quickly go over what we had prepared. Obviously technical issues have sort of taken over for many of us, making it difficult to provide a full statement. I could certainly, depending on the time you would allow me, provide my comments. It probably would require roughly five minutes. Is that possible, or do you want me to shorten that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Five minutes is all right. Go ahead, please.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I'll do it in the two official languages, starting with French.

Thank you all very much.

[Witness spoke in an indigenous language]

[French]

The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, or AFNQL, wishes to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to present its brief, as part of the study of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The AFNQL is a forum for the chiefs of 43 first nations communities in Quebec and Labrador. At the heart of its mission and objectives are the affirmation of and respect for first nations laws, the recognition of first nations governments, the coordination of first nations' positions and the representation of their positions and interests before various forums.

Please note that the AFNQL is tabling a brief that will detail its views on Bill C-15. With all due respect, I want to make it clear that the brief reflects the positions of a majority of first nations in our region. You have heard or will hear the position of the Cree nation. That nation's way of thinking deserves our respect, even though our brief will confirm that we do not necessarily share the same views.

By tabling its brief, the AFNQL is requesting that amendments be made to clarify and strengthen certain parts of Bill C-15, a bill of the utmost importance. To this end, the AFNQL chiefs unanimously adopted a motion that “amendments to Bill C-15 are a minimum condition in order for the AFNQL to even consider supporting the bill.”

In fact, the implementation of the rights and principles from the Declaration for the Survival and Welfare of Indigenous Peoples Located in Canada requires that Bill C-15 take a greater step to move beyond the status quo.

To be clear, the chiefs support the principle of a bill that proposes the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, they cannot support Bill C-15 in its current form. The bill must go much further. The political context in Quebec, which conditions the relationship between first nations and the provincial government, deserves particular attention. We have to deal with a provincial government that refuses any discussion on the implementation of the declaration in Quebec, despite a resolution from its national assembly, which commits it to negotiate the terms of its implementation.

Next, the constitutional validity of the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, Bill C-92, passed in 2019, is being challenged by the Quebec government in the Court of Appeal. With the federal government considering the introduction of additional federal legislation, including in the areas of first nations health and policing, it is essential that the legislative context be conducive to ensuring that all future federal legislation is consistent with the rights and principles of the declaration.

The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada must be done in true partnership, nation-to-nation, that is, with indigenous peoples, and must generate concrete results for the members of our communities. The Prime Minister's commitments to reconciliation are clear, but they are somewhat less clear about results. It is important to note that reconciliation in the Canadian political framework involves a clear commitment from the provinces as an essential condition for any progress in relations with first nations.

In closing, this measure cannot be treated as a form of relinquishment by first nations governments of their areas of jurisdiction, over which first nations will continue to fully exercise their right to self-determination.

Indeed, our region has carried out a vigorous examination of the bill, and we conclude that essential amendments are required so that it meets the minimum standard of legal and political acceptability. Several provisions of the bill must be amended to move beyond the status quo, including achieving certainty that the provisions of the UN declaration will be applied to interpret section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and to enable the effective implementation of UNDRIP in Canadian law.

The following amendments of Bill C-15 have been identified for the bill to meet the minimum standard.

One, during a discussion with the AFNQL on March 12, Mr. Lametti indicated that his understanding was that UNDRIP should serve to interpret section 35. The statement has also been made by Minister Bennett and the AFN. Unfortunately, section 2.2 of the bill fails to clearly state this and meet this standard.

Therefore, section 2.2 should be amended to expressly state that the laws of Canada, including section 35, must be interpreted in accordance with the rights and principles derived from UNDRIP; and that the law does not operate to abrogate or limit the aboriginal treaty rights of indigenous peoples recognized in the current section 35.

Two, the wording in this same section concerning non-derogation should therefore be removed from this provision.

Three, we are also concerned about overreliance on an expansive preamble that fails to reflect the substantive provisions of the bill. In numerous preamble provisions, the body of the bill most importantly, our region has identified that the bill must include a substantive provision in the body of the bill devoted to the remediation of the doctrine portion of discovery in Canadian law.

Four, finally the bill must include a provision requiring that all courts consider the rights and principles of UNDRIP when ruling on matters, issues or subjects directly or indirectly affecting aboriginal and treaty rights of indigenous peoples.

These amendments are what is minimally required for this bill to obtain support from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, and our written brief also proposes additional amendments that should be considered.

The FNQL deplores the fact that the emergency regarding the adoption of the bill to implement the declaration has lasted far too long, and that we are now being asked to support this bill under duress. A bill of such great importance cannot be subject to instrumentalization with urgency as its sole argument.

The FNQL fully supports the principles of UNDRIP, however, the FNQL opposes Bill C-15 in its current form and has clearly indicated which amendments could be made to make it more acceptable. This is not necessarily a missed opportunity, and Canada can still do what it takes.

Thank you very much.

[Witness spoke in an indigenous language]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

We'll continue now with the six-minute round of questioning with Madame Gill, followed by Ms. Gazan. I offered Mr. Viersen a couple more minutes after his session.

We'll go now to Madame Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for being with us. What you are telling us is valuable and helpful to our work.

My question, which is for Chief Picard, is about the presentation he just delivered.

You talked in particular about the preamble and the substantive provisions, in terms of repudiation. For our benefit and, of course, for your own, could you elaborate on what you have against the current bill?

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I think the brief details the amendments we are proposing to really strengthen the body of the bill. A lot of people agree that important elements of the preamble, including the issue of repudiation, should be incorporated into the core of the bill. In fact, they talk about the doctrines of superiority, which include this important aspect of discovery. In my view, the proof is in the pudding, and I don't see why Canada is so reluctant to strengthen the very core of the bill in this way.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

I would have liked to hear from Chief Bosum, but he is not here either. I know we can approach the bill from a number of angles.

Mr. Picard, you said it would take more time to get it right. On the one hand, there is an urgency, but on the other hand, we need more time to amend the bill.

What do you think the timeline should be for completing this work and how could we, as much as possible, get there quickly?

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I don't know if it's possible. In my opinion, it is very difficult to set a specific deadline for the process that we all need to pursue. The most important principle, which I would like to emphasize, is that of finding the right balance between the urgency to act and the obligation to do it right. This is the way we should look at our concern. We have to find the right balance between these two elements. I think we all live that reality.

We understand the importance of the legislative process, which you can have some control over, but right now, the aspect that we take the liberty of emphasizing is the great opportunity that we feel we have. I may repeat myself. We fully support the principle of a bill proposing the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but we still need to make sure we get it right.

One element is not to be overlooked, though not to be criticized, and that is the geopolitical context, which is quite diverse across the country. We are well aware that provinces are asking for additional time before the passage of Bill C-15, as introduced last December. For our part, we are making much the same arguments, but for different reasons. This is also important. I have given the example of Quebec, and it is up to the other Canadian provinces and territories to make their position known. In Quebec, the government is in absolutely no hurry to sit down and consider the implementation of the declaration based on what Bill C-15 proposes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

The question of geopolitics is very interesting, but you have to understand that there are over 600 nations in the first nations territories. I imagine that there are disparities as well from one community to another and perhaps also within the first nations themselves.

You represent communities that are located in Quebec and Labrador. Do you also observe a great disparity across Canada?

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

No. You have just to some extent described the political reality as it is expressed within our various nations. I say that very respectfully. There are parties that have to take into account what I would call our consideration of the political landscape and its environment. There are indeed nations that have not only achievements, but a balance of power that is not that of some other nations. This is fully demonstrated and supported. I have spoken about the situation in Quebec because that is the reality that I have to deal with on a regular basis.

Last Friday, we had a second meeting with Mr. Legault's government, at which he was present. It was our second meeting since he took office. Mr. Legault took the liberty of reiterating to the chiefs we represent and who sit at our table the same argument he made last November. He said that he did not want to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at all, based on arguments that were made earlier on the issue of a possible veto power and also based on principles that were considered perhaps a bit too coercive, such as free, prior and informed consent.

I am therefore of the opinion that we are very far from a climate conducive to open, frank and comprehensive discussions on the implementation of the declaration in a provincial context. Obviously, Quebec has not been alone—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

[The member spoke in Innu, as follows:]

Tshinashkumitin.

[Translation]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you.

Ms. Gazan, you have six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Regional Chief Picard.

I thought that your comments that the Quebec government is not ready to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples were peculiar, particularly because the JBNQA uses the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a framework for negotiations. It's something that is currently being used by the local government.

I'm wondering why this has shifted, knowing that certainly we've seen, with the Crees of Eeyou Istchee, that they have signed several agreements over the past 45 years by utilizing the framework.

Why would you come out so strongly against the minimum human rights that have clearly afforded strong relationships in the province?

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

Let me just rectify that. We're not going against any of the minimal standards that are promoted by the UN declaration; we support the declaration in its entirety. The means by which to implement it is where we have some difficulty. Understanding and knowing the lay of the ground in Quebec from a political and geopolitical perspective I think will certainly indicate, with all due respect—and this is not a criticism—that the kind of leverage some nations have is not the leverage that other nations have.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I agree with you; that's certainly the reality.

However, would you not agree with me that the JBNQA specifically, since it was enacted 45 years ago, has modelled positive relationships based on the minimum rights afforded by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? All indigenous peoples and nations throughout the country should be afforded the same level of respect, which is something that is not happening. Would you agree with me?