Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2021

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I totally agree with you. That's exactly what we're seeking.

There again, at the risk of repeating myself, this is a reality that's faced throughout Canada. How can I put it? There are three treaties in Quebec, including the Naskapi and the Inuit. To me, they have the kind of relationship that other nations in Quebec would hope for. It is supported through legislation as well, so those rights, those new rights, are implemented through legislation. I'm not the one to speak about that in detail; I'm just referring to that situation to say that this is the kind of leverage we're hoping to achieve for other nations

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I say that because I know that, with Bill C-262, the AFNQL adopted a unanimous resolution in support of it. We now have on the table—and I'm a New Democrat talking about a Liberal bill here—Bill C-262, now called Bill C-15, yet there are now all these alarm bells being raised even though we know both bills are similar. I find that concerning, particularly with the fact that you commented on the preamble.

I know there has been criticism of the preamble of Bill C-15 as not being legally binding and a means to confuse and mislead indigenous peoples and nations. That's one of the things that have been quoted. We know this is a totally inaccurate understanding of the role preambles play in legislation, especially in light of how the federal Interpretation Act, article 13, defines the legal effect of a preamble. It states:

The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.

That's the federal Interpretation Act with respect to legislation. I am wondering where the concerns are coming from about the preamble not having legal effect with respect to Bill C-15.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I would be of the opinion that we certainly have the right to review our position, reassess our position, in light of the current political context. Since BillC-262, what have we experienced? This is where I go back to the position of provinces. We all know that at least six jurisdictions have expressed concern, going back to last fall, and before that, as the federal government was getting ready to introduce Bill C-15 in December.

At the time, what we also had in that evolving political context, if you will, was the Province of Quebec challenging a bill that was co-developed with first nations, which is Bill C-92. It's the same for Bill C-91. This is where we expressed, in my view, very legitimate concerns in terms of making sure that Bill C-15.... And, again, I want to restate the fact the UN declaration poses no concerns when it comes to our first nations. It's how we—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If you could just—

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

—ensure to give it the proper strength to be properly implemented, considering the geopolitics across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

We're at time there.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

We're going to conclude with two things: one, I'm going to ask you, Monsieur Picard, to submit to the clerk the amendments that you discussed; and, two, I have allowed Mr. Viersen another question because of the interruption that occurred earlier.

Arnold, you have the concluding point.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome Mr. Picard back to the meeting here.

I just had a question for him, and I'm not sure if he heard it the first time. Mr. Johnson and I engaged in a bit of a conversation around the terminology about UNDRIP having application in Canadian law.

I'm just wondering if he's concerned at all about the terminology that is laid out in UNDRIP and the terminology that has come over generations of legislation and jurisprudence in this country, for example, FPIC versus the duty to consult. The duty to consult was a hard-won battle in the courts of Canada. Is he not concerned that if we introduce a new concept of FPIC into Canadian law we will be muddying the waters around what is the duty to consult and what is FPIC, and essentially start a whole new round of court battles?

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

Certainly, I'll try to respond, given how I understand your question, in the best way possible.

Obviously, the duty to consult has been framed by different courts nationally, and then we went a step further within the language of the declaration in referring to FPIC. Some would interpret it as a new condition, others would see it as a right to veto. This is where some parties would see it as advantageous to create that fear among Canadians in general, but more specifically with industry, that we're really putting our collective future in the hands of indigenous peoples. This is not so.

To me, this is where it's important to remind ourselves that the declaration is an international instrument that calls for input by all parties. First nations people, indigenous peoples, have as much of an obligation deriving from the principles of the declaration as Canadian companies, the federal government, and the provinces and territories.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you very much.

That will bring us to the conclusion of our meeting today. Apologies to all of those in attendance for the issues that delayed us.

I want to remind everyone that written submissions bear the same weight as live testimony in our council. If there's anything that was overlooked, please make sure the clerk gets a copy of the remarks that you wish to have made or answers to questions that may not have been asked.

Once again thank you to all. We'll see you on Thursday.

Mr. Anandasangaree, you have a hand up.

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

I have a procedural question, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering if there's any way, between you and the clerk, we can work out the process of witnesses a bit more smoothly. Today was very disruptive for the witnesses, and I'm sure it was difficult for members as well.

I am wondering if there is a mechanism. For example, the clerk could give us a list of people in attendance who are going to be speaking. This could be sent ahead of time so that if an organization is bringing more than one witness, we can ensure there is ample time for them or there is some understanding of the division of time. This would hopefully make things smoother. There is also the possibility of having the witnesses join for the full two hours to avoid the transition. Given the limited time we have, we want to ensure that the process goes as smoothly as possible and that members have adequate time to ask questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

These are all valuable points. The clerk and I will discuss that after we leave the meeting, and hopefully at our next meeting on Thursday we'll have smoothed over some of the rough spots.

I'll ask Mr. Powlowski to offer a motion to adjourn.

All in favour? It is carried.

The meeting is adjourned.