Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Madam Gill, you have two and a half minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief Bellegarde, you wish to see the bill receive royal assent before June. Does your association have any other fears about seeing this bill passed?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Gill.

The only fear that we have about the bill is that we're running out of time. That's the biggest fear. We're already into April. You have May and June. The sitting days are getting to be few. We need to get it out of the House of Commons and into the Senate as soon as possible.

My biggest fear, then, is that we are running out of time and will have a missed opportunity again. We need to work together as soon as possible to get this passed. We know that COVID-19, the pandemic, surrounds us; we know there's a budget coming down next week; we know there is an election coming. We need to seize this moment and not miss the opportunity to get Bill C-15 passed. It is a road map to reconciliation.

I think it's time that we get this done. I'm asking all members of Parliament and the Senate to get this done as soon as possible. That's my biggest fear: that we're going to run out of time.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Chief Bellegarde.

I will continue along the same lines. You are recommending that the three-year period for preparing the action plan be two years instead, because you have waited too long. I imagine that strengthens your desire to see the bill passed quickly. I don't know if you want to comment on that.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

That is exactly right.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you very much.

We will go now to Ms. Gazan for two and a half minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

National Chief, you already answered my question about your mandate to co-develop this legislation, but some have argued that a second mandate would have been required for you to support Bill C-15.

I'd like to give you an opportunity to respond to that.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Ms. Gazan, thanks for the question.

There is no question that we operate from our chiefs-in-assembly mandate, and I indicated earlier that when Bill C-262 was not passed in the Senate, our chiefs met in assembly and said “National chiefs, AFN, go get a government bill that's as strong as, or better than, Bill C-262.” That is what Bill C-15 represents. It is a bill that is as strong or better. Part of that dialogue and support for Bill C-262 was the eventual hope to see it in legislation, so that carries through to Bill C-15. We have numerous resolutions of support for the UN declaration itself, as well as for legislation going forward.

There are a lot of people—and it's first nations politics as well—some who like it and some who don't. Some will say, “Oh, the national chief should not be saying this; he doesn't have a mandate.” We do have a mandate, and because of that mandate we are pushing very hard for this and it's an opportunity that we don't want to lose. That's my response to the question.

It's a very good question. We have a resolution by our AFN chiefs-in-assembly, and that's what we're building on and implementing.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I would argue that it's like Canadian politics, with all four different parties sitting around the table not agreeing on things all of the time.

Thank you so much for your clarification on that.

Mr. Chair, how long do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

You have 45 seconds.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay.

Do you believe Bill C-15 will be a game changer for first nation communities in moving forward with a greater respect for our rights?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Yes, because you have to jointly develop a national action plan. You have to do that together. That's very key. You have to get the laws and policies of Canada that don't respect aboriginal rights, title or jurisdiction, that don't respect treaty rights. They have to get in line. Therefore, it is a game changer. We're dealing with outdated policies that are about termination of rights, title and jurisdiction.

I'm talking about the comprehensive claims policy, the specific claims policy, the additions to reserve policy and the inherent right to self-government policy, which are all outdated. They need to be changed and brought up to speed for recognition of rights, title and jurisdiction, and move towards treaty implementation.

It is a game changer, and this is going to be another arrow in our quiver. We have to launch it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

Mr. Viersen, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the honourable witnesses for being here, particularly the national chief. I understand this might be one of the last times we see him here, as he is not running for re-election, so I thank him for his work there as well.

Chief Bellegarde, in terms of the purpose of the bill, the purpose of the act, you said you wanted to change the language around in it. For me, that's where the big stumbling block comes in this bill, the purpose to “affirm the declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law”. What does that actually mean? Free, prior and informed consent is a big part of that, but can we make the term “duty to consult”, which has been clarified and defined by the courts, equal, the same as “free, prior and informed consent”, or do we then throw all that jurisprudence out and start over with a competition between the two concepts?

I just wonder what your thoughts are on that. I think if we pull that piece out of the bill, subclause 4(a), and under “provide a framework for”, just say, “building of Canadian law going forward”, that would be more tenable.

What are your thoughts on that?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Just very quickly, thank you for the question. I made some recommendations. I'll go back to my 12 recommendations and I refer you all back to them. That's what we'd like to see.

To be clear, on the purpose of the act, it's just the implementation of the UN declaration, to take out the word “framework”. The purpose of the act is to provide for the implementation of the declaration. You have the United Nations declaration, passed by the UN. How do nation states give that legal effect? That's the purpose of the bill. I'm very clear on the purposes of the act.

I'll ask Mary Ellen to respond.

I'm kind of a bush lawyer, so I'll refer this to the constitutional lawyers.

[Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

There are a couple of things. As the national chief said in his submission today, we would first of all correct it to say “purposes” of the act. There are two, not one, so there is an error there. We're hoping that through your work as a committee some of these issues might be able to be corrected.

In terms of the comment you made, though, about how this will impact existing jurisprudence and so forth, I think it's very clear that this will bring greater assistance to understanding some of these key areas. That's particularly where there's been a flashpoint, where there's been a denial of the rights of indigenous people. It doesn't push aside all the jurisprudence. It simply doesn't do that. The declaration being implemented brings into the discussion the article's rights and standards in the declaration.

Therefore, it isn't quite legally as you suggested. Legally, what happens—

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

Yes. I don't think it pushes them aside. It just introduces a new concept that we will now have to argue about, right? That's—

[Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

Well, with respect, the declaration has been already used. Parts of the declaration, like the prohibition against genocide, have the status of customary international law. The declaration has been used in court cases, and used quite valuably in court cases, to help understand these concepts. In particular, there's the work of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to address the rights of indigenous children. There's been extensive reliance on the declaration there.

So that hasn't take anything away. It isn't a disruptive factor. It's additive. It's supports proper context and framework. The experience to date is that it is being applied, but Bill C-15, if it should pass through this House and Senate, I think will provide a more stable and clear foundation for that work to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

You have one minute, Mr. Viersen.

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

My experience with lack of clarity when it comes to major projects and decision-making is that it just postpones the project. It doesn't allow for a quick decision-making process, which then leads to the project just disappearing. The proponent of the project just moves to a different jurisdiction and does something else. We see that in British Columbia. The financial markets give the province of British Columbia a 1% risk factor when it comes to doing business there. They cite UNDRIP as part of that, just because of the tension between the two different terms.

If we removed paragraph 4(a), so we could leave the title as “Purpose”, and fixed your framework word, I think that would fix a lot of those concerns.