Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 20th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Ms. Israel.

[Marla Israel, Director General, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

You're quite right that already in the course of our work, we have engaged with women's organizations in particular, having heard from them prior to the bill's introduction. However, to your point, we've heard some interesting observations from Pauktuutit, for example, and from the NWAC.

Pauktuutit have made the point and have stressed the point that the engagement with, for example, NIOs has been important, and that with land claims organizations has been critical. However, they have definitely made a point of emphasizing the need to have Inuit women's voices, for example, at the table. They've made the point about women who are inhabiting cities and the needs in particular that they face there. All of that has come to bear in informing us as we move forward. Certainly, the relationships we have established and will continue to establish will continue to inform our thinking, moving forward, on the development of the action plan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Is that time? Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Mr. Vidal, you have five minutes. Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

To the witnesses, let me say that I'm not going to claim to be a lawyer here, but I'm going to read you something from a submission and ask for some clarification from your perspective. I'm not pretending to reflect legal opinion here.

The committee members received a submission from a Mr. Dwight Newman, who has a very impressive resumé as a professor of law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law at the University of Saskatchewan.

He talks about many of his writings being widely cited in Canadian courts and by scholars both within Canada and in the international community. He goes on to talk about some other things, but his is obviously a very respected voice on many of these issues.

In one comment in his brief, he says parliamentarians should seriously think about whether they wish to “adopt a statute that has these sorts of outstanding interpretative difficulties” or if it would be better to “improve upon the drafting to attain greater clarity”.

Skipping ahead a little, he goes on to say:

Parliament should consider asking for improved language that adds clarity, legal briefings on why particular language is thought to have certain effects, and ongoing scrutiny of these efforts through further outside analysis.

Finally, he specifically says:

There should...be further language to ensure that the final text affects only federal law. Section 4(a)'s use of the term “Canadian law” is different than the term “laws of Canada” used elsewhere in the bill. It is essential that the bill not include language that could be seen as impacting provincial law, or it will be susceptible to constitutional challenges.

Again, with my preface about not being an expert legal mind, I'm hoping somebody who has more of a legal mind might help us understand the concerns of somebody who, I think, is well spoken on this topic.

[Laurie Sargent]

Thank you. I will do my best.

I can't resist mentioning that I clerked with Professor Newman way back when, so I know of his scholarly reputation and work. Of course, he has been flagging questions about Bill C-262 and this legislation along these lines for some time.

We have done our best, I would say, through the engagement process and the update and enhancements made to the bill to address some of the questions raised, notably by provinces and territories, in relation to the scope of application of this legislation.

Ultimately there is a very deliberate choice and use of words in various provisions in the bill. The one that was flagged with respect to application in Canadian law is intended to reflect the fact I spoke to at the beginning of this session, that the declaration can inform the interpretation of all laws in Canada—federal, provincial and constitutional—and so, to be accurate, would need to reflect that.

That said, you will see the obligation in clause 5 that relates to alignment of laws. It uses the terms “laws of Canada” and Government of Canada. That speaks to what Minister Bennett and deputy minister Quan-Watson were emphasizing: that this obligation to align laws applies to federal laws—those enacted by the Parliament of Canada.

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

You don't believe there's any confusion in that matter within the legislation, then, such that it might be misinterpreted to affect provincial law as well.

[Laurie Sargent]

Our response would be that we have sought to make that as clear as possible in the legislation, recognizing that there is always potential for divergent interpretations. The effort has been made to use those terms deliberately and to reflect this point in both English and French.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'm going to take a totally different angle here, so I will back off the legal stuff.

There has been a lot of talk with people at committee, over the time we have been hearing from witnesses, about the action plan and how the action plan.... Even the minister, I believe, talked about how the heavy lifting isn't going to be done in the action plan. There has, however, been a lot of talk about maybe doing that action plan prior to the introduction of the legislation, rather than letting the legislation invoke the action plan.

I will open this up to everybody. Was there any discussion in any of the departments about working on the action plan during the time between Bill C-262 and Bill C-15? Was any thought ever given to doing some of that heavy lifting prior to introducing the new Bill C-15?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Who would like to answer?

[Laurie Sargent]

I can start, and then perhaps Ross will have something to add.

As reflected in the response on what the government has done to align laws with the declaration, there has been a great deal of work done, not only in anticipation of this legislation potentially coming forward, but more generally in relation to the government's commitment to implement the declaration in Canada.

There continues to be work in relation to aligning laws with the declaration. There will, of course, be a further effort made to develop the action plan for the future, but again, this must reflect and respect the fact that the legislation requires it to be done in co-operation and consultation with indigenous peoples. There is no plan already set. It clearly needs to be done in a collaborative way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks very much for that. That brings us to time.

There are two matters that I need to bring forward. For one of them, we'll use the final Liberal portion to deal with an intervention by Mr. Battiste. He has requested to make a submission.

Mr. Battiste, do you want to speak to that?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Recently I received a letter from the Royal Society of Canada. This is a senior colloquium of public intellectuals, academics and scholars who support Bill C-15. I believe their input is valuable and should be incorporated into the study of Bill C-15, and I would like to put forward a motion to do so.

Earlier today I sent out the English version of the letter to committee members for reference and provided a copy to the committee clerk. Unfortunately, the Royal Society of Canada did not provide a French-language version. However, if adopted it would of course be translated and made available in both official languages.

Therefore, I move that, in relation to its study of Bill C-15, the committee accept the brief provided by the Royal Society of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Is there any debate or comment on the motion?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Is he just submitting it, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Yes, it's for submitting the brief, which is not translated at the moment.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Are we in favour of allowing this letter to be submitted to the committee, on division? Are there any nays?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a question concerning the committee's routine motions.

The document is submitted in English only. If I'm not mistaken, it should have been translated into both official languages when it was submitted. Is that actually the case?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

That's correct.

Mr. Battiste, I understand your situation, but I'm concerned about a precedent that is clearly stated in the bylaws of the committee. Of course, your letter is directed to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Lametti, and to Ms. Bennett, so they would receive material that we would not have within our witness testimony.

Understanding that, do you still wish to move the motion?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

All right. By show of hands, all in favour of accepting this submission from the Royal Society of Canada?

All opposed? I don't see any hands.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair,as I understand it, we are not abiding by the routine motions that the committee has passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I'm concerned about that myself, so I'll ask the clerk to intervene.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.