Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I have to say that time is of the essence, and I do believe that we've been waiting too long and need to move on with this. We've heard from many different witnesses who have said that this will actually help decide projects going forward and take away some of that uncertainty, so I am of the mind that we need to move on with it.

I want to ask Mr. Obed this. In addition to the specific Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 43 and 44, which call on government to fully adopt and implement the declaration and develop an action plan to achieve its goals, the declaration is also referenced throughout the calls to action and in the final report of the national inquiry into missing women and girls.

Can you expand on why you think that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the national inquiry both emphasize the declaration as such a key part of reconciliation, and also offer your own views on how this could help prevent the blight of racist, misogynistic violence and femicide of indigenous women and girls?

[Natan Obed]

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and then the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls all had different mandates. They all had different reasons for being. At the heart of it was human rights, and the violation of human rights of a specific group of people in Canada. It happened to be first nations, Inuit and Métis in all three cases.

The findings are then consistent in that human rights are being violated today. It is a necessity for the Government of Canada and for Canadians to understand this reality and address it. The UN declaration is a very powerful tool in an international human rights context. It is one of many tools that not only the commissioners of the MMIWG and all of the witnesses who brought forward testimony during that process talked about, but also something that through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission became such a massive part of the reckoning of the residential school experience. It was the unbelievable human rights violations that took place over the course of 100 years in this country, in communities across southern Canada. These are communities that you probably lived in—“you” being committee members.

We have the ability now to set a new course, and the ability to affirm human rights, instead of violating them. We have the ability to do better as a country, and to respect first nations, Inuit, and Métis women and girls, instead of putting them at risk for genocide.

These are the things we can do today. This bill allows for this movement to push forward rather than the status quo of the past, which has done so much harm, but which has been encapsulated by so much thoughtful work over the past 20 years with so many tears through the witnesses and the people who lived through this and continue to live through this today.

Their voices need to be heard. This is one of the ways the Government of Canada can say, “Yes, we have heard you, this country does need change, and this international human rights instrument needs to be fully implemented in this country.”

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

I have heard you, and I hear you.

You've also indicated ITK's position regarding Bill C-15. You stated that it would be strengthened if it were amended to include the establishment of an indigenous human rights commission.

Could you expand on why that is so important? Can we hear your thoughts about others who have said that the development of the action plan could be used to explore this establishment instead?

[Natan Obed]

The commission is filling an implementation gap. It is a mechanism to allow for the greatest possible implementation of this legislation. It is merely meant to be an aid. I would hope that committee members would read it, and imagine that this particular commission would help do the best possible job of implementing the spirit and intent of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you, Mr. Obed.

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At recent meetings of the committee, some people have indicated that it would be good to include women in the preamble. In fact, I heard Mr. Obed talk about that just now.

Do you believe it will be a plus to make reference to women in the preamble of the bill?

[Natan Obed]

As somebody who is in the co-development process, perhaps Tania could address that. I'm supportive of any language that recognizes the importance of women and girls in this particular process.

Tania.

[Tania Monaghan]

In terms of the co-development process that President Obed referenced, ITK had an interest and a position to ensure there was inclusion of that in the implementation of the final inquiry report and the calls for justice. It is a particular priority of ITK to make references specific to women, and addressing issues that have significantly impacted indigenous women and girls, and also inter-related family violence with indigenous men and boys. Any inclusion of references to these to strengthen the bill would be a positive change.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Obed and Ms. Monaghan.

By way of closing, I would like to find out your main fears about the bill. Are there items that are not included, either in the form of amendments, changes or any of your own ideas?

[Natan Obed]

We've listened closely to not only Inuit perspectives but also Canadian perspectives on this piece of legislation. We've also listened to ministers and governments speak about indigenous people's rights and what may happen with the adoption or passage of Bill C-15.

I think there is sometimes an overstatement of what this bill actually will do, especially on day one. Industry's fears about natural resource extraction, I think, are a strange bogeyman that exists, but it is of less concern to me when it comes to the implementation of this bill than it would be to how to use the provisions in the bill to get the change that we all believe and want. We desperately need the bill to pass, but we also need it to be strengthened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gazan, you have two and a half minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In addition to the Conservatives holding indigenous peoples and people to a higher standard of democracy than we even see in colonial electoral systems, I want to go back to this question again.

Madam Monaghan, one of the suggestions we've heard at this committee from the Conservatives, as repeated by Mr. Viersen, is that we need to incorporate a definition of FPIC into Bill C-15. I think it would be somewhat dangerous to have a single definition for all situations in Canada, given our diverse legal and political context with modern treaties, numbered treaties and unceded territories.

Could you please provide your thoughts on that?

Thank you.

[Tania Monaghan]

I think of your question in light of how we came here prepared to discuss proposed amendments for the inclusion of the indigenous human rights commission, and part of the intention behind the language that's before you I'll lean on to answer your question in relation to defining FPIC in the bill.

We see it as problematic. It's not providing the space and the time for consultation and dialogue between each of the distinctions-based groups. There are very distinct and unique circumstances and relationships with the Crown between all three—first nations, Inuit and Métis—so we simply do not foresee an ability to include such detailed language or definitions to confine and to create limitations on what could be discussed, elaborated on and interpreted moving down the line.

I know that I'm leaning back into the proposed amendments that we're seeking, but there was an interest to have a broader approach there that I think would also be the response to the question of having an FPIC definition. It's just simply not a good way to respect the distinct nature of each group and also to rely on the information and the dialogue consultation necessary with rights holders and other interested groups.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Vidal, do I have you for our next question?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I think you do, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much.

I'm working in a five-minute slot, right? Thank you.

President Obed, I want to just talk briefly about the action plan for a couple of minutes and give you an opportunity to respond to that. Many of the witnesses we've heard, many of the people that I've talked to, have expressed a desire to pursue that action plan in the context of removing some of the uncertainty and being able to provide clarity on some of the questions that people on all sides of this debate are asking.

I think back to when you appeared as a witness on the oath that we talked about. You talked about a lot of the work that had been done ahead of time and how it should have been pretty easy to move from the oath to the actual booklet and information that was to be provided to new citizens.

In the context of the action plan, we've heard people talking about a wasted three years with what happened after Bill C-262 until now. I'd be curious as to your perspective on whether that time was maybe lost when we could have been developing the action plan and getting a bunch of the frameworks in place, kind of rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work that could have been done to remove some of the uncertainty and to bring clarity on many of the questions that people are asking about this piece of legislation.

[Natan Obed]

Our position doesn't include specific revisions to the timeline, but I think the points you raise are very well taken. Government does need time, but it certainly seems, in all of the processes that I've been involved in or am privy to, that it's always a rush at the end. Many times, a three-year window ends up being a six-month work plan. Whether it's a piece of legislation or a specific amendment to a program, government is famous for not doing things unless it is under a very strict timeline, and I'm talking about any department at any time.

If the time frame is moved and is moved closer, that also, hopefully, would indicate goodwill and the ability to see this as the priority that it is.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you for that.

I want to pursue that discussion maybe just a little further with Ms. Monaghan, the senior legal adviser. We just heard the president say that if everything gets left to the end, we end up rushing at the end. I'm an accountant, not a lawyer, but I can assure you that when I'm rushing things at the end, there's a greater risk of me not getting it right, so to speak.

I'm curious. From a legal perspective, do you have some thoughts on the fact that when we rush all of it at the end, when we try to ram it through at the end, there's a risk of not getting it right and not getting the consultation process right?

[Tania Monaghan]

I can only speak to the process for Inuit as part of ITK. As I referenced earlier, with the connection through the Inuit-Crown partnership committee, we've already slotted space to prioritize this particular work through this relationship and these priority areas specifically under legislative priorities, working towards the identification of Inuit priorities to implement the UN declaration and identify priorities as they will be framed in the action plan.

We also have an opening and an obligation to look towards the strategic work plan as part of this Inuit-Crown partnership. For Inuit, we see that space as the ability to ensure that Inuit priorities are front and centre and that there's an ability through that process, which is inclusive of not just ITK but also the four Inuit land claim regions as well as representation from Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada and the Inuit Circumpolar Council of Canada.

Through that particular forum, we see the opportunity to not just roll our sleeves up and get the work done, but also to ensure that we keep our federal counterparts accountable. Through the structure and governance of the committee, we have an ability to do those check-ins throughout the year, should it be two or three years. That's how we hope to ensure that Inuit priorities are accounted for. However, we can't speak to the other groups and the complexities that some are facing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks, Ms. Monaghan.

Our final questioner is Marcus Powlowski for five minutes.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

International agreements have to be incorporated into domestic law to be legally binding in the country. With this legislation, that's what we're doing with UNDRIP.

We're not the first country that has done this. My understanding is that a number of other countries have in some way or other incorporated UNDRIP into domestic legislation.

The Conservatives are quite concerned about the legal interpretation of “free, prior and informed consent”. My understanding is that when the courts look to interpret such terms, they look to international agreements to inform their interpretation, and perhaps to what other courts in other countries have done when interpreting those provisions.

Given that I don't think we're the first jurisdiction to be doing this, can I ask you what the interpretation of those provisions has been in other jurisdictions? Does it mean a veto?

[Natan Obed]

The term “veto” does not appear within the provisions of UNDRIP, especially in regard to free, prior and informed consent. It is very clear, and it is an international instrument, just like conventions such as the UN charter.

It's fascinating to me that somehow, for indigenous peoples, all of a sudden the rules of engagement from a domestic Canadian perspective to an international community are out the window. We don't have these conversations in regard to the UN charter. We also don't have them concerning the rights of children or rights under many different conventions attempting to allow for human rights to be expressed and enjoyed globally. Somehow, with indigenous people, this doesn't seem to be acceptable, and that is really frustrating.

For the interpretation globally with respect to free, prior and informed consent, we have great examples of nation states that have recognized this concept. We also have many nation states that have not and that have violated indigenous peoples' human rights and have not allowed for free, prior and informed consent.

I hope that Canada wishes to be among the former and wants to uphold indigenous peoples' human rights and the rights that all peoples have.

Free, prior and informed consent, really, is an international concept. It isn't exclusive to indigenous peoples. The democratic processes that are put in place by nation states to allow these rights to exist and for people to exercise them is what is happening here today in real time. I hope that people can appreciate that.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Ms. Monaghan, do you want to add anything? I don't think I have much time to ask another question.

[Tania Monaghan]

I believe that President Obed summed up. I take his response and position on your particular question.

Thank you.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

You have 30 seconds,