Debates of Feb. 7th, 2019

Indigenous Languages Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation. Many in the House know that my wife and my children are first nations. They, too, do not know their culture or the language.

I stood in the House last Friday and gave a statement with respect to Lheidli T'enneh elder Mary Gouchie who passed away. She was one of four remaining elders who were left who knew the Dakelh language. In her passing, she left with a full dictionary essentially of the language.

I want to go back to the question that my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo brought up earlier.

The hon. minister is now part of cabinet, but he was the government whip for a time as well. The former minister of justice in her speech on October 30, mentioned that no matter the title she had, she was the first female indigenous justice minister, one that we were all proud of, she, too, faced marginalization at the cabinet table.

Our colleague on this side of the House brought up a serious question and the minister failed to address it. I would like to know how the minister squares his speech today with the actions by cabinet to the former justice minister who, in her own words, faced marginalization from her own team?

[Pablo Rodriguez]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for supporting this legislation. It is really important that we all support it because it will send a very strong message to our indigenous friends in all regions of the country.

I am not sure exactly what the link is to the bill with that question. The bill is about preserving and revitalizing indigenous languages. As my colleague said, too many languages have been lost. It is time for that to be over. This has to end. We have to revitalize the languages and we have to provide the necessary resources for indigenous people to do it. It it is not about us. It is about indigenous people. It is about their children and their grandchildren. It is about our country and how we can do this together.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-91 today. I want to start with a very personal story. The reason is not directed to the indigenous peoples who have worked so hard to see the reality of this bill being presented in the House. It is for my colleagues who will be supporting the bill, but really do not understand why is it important as well as other people and for people who may be listening at home, thinking this sounds important, but really do not know what it is all about.

I am a shama. I learned that word when I was 25 years old. I had a degree under my belt and maybe two years of nursing experience when I went in search of adventure. My adventure took me to an indigenous community where I was hired as its nurse. I was one of the first nurses hired by the band, as opposed to the federal government. That in itself was very unique, because it was the first step in the devolution of services.

What was the experience of that 25-year-old, urban, white person who had a university education and lived in a big city, going to a community? It was quite a shock to be quite honest. As a nurse, the first week I was in that community, there were three suicides, and it was devastating. In this case, it was three young men who took their lives.

I would visit homes, perhaps very small homes that needed a lot of work, in which up to 16 people would live. They were very poor living conditions. I witnessed some of the abuse, some of the destructiveness of alcohol. That was my initial experience and impression. It was devastating to see what was happening in the community.

It did not take very long though before I had some great mentors. A drug and alcohol worker took me under his wing as did the youth probation officer. Also community health reps made sure I saw more than just the devastation. They made sure I was part of the feasts, where the communities would come together and enjoy food together. Every fall, there were the fishing camps, where they would fish and hang the salmon up to dry. There was the berry picking. Of course nothing was more special than the drumming, the dancing under the moonlight and stars and the jokes.

I saw two worlds: a community that was devastated and the beauty and richness the people were trying so hard to recreate in their community.

That community gave more to me with respect to knowledge and life experience than I could ever give to them as a young nurse with two years' experience. Maybe I was pretty good at vaccinating the babies and giving a little information, but truly that experience gave me a life education.

I want to talk about the elders. In 1980, the elders of that community had been born pre-residential school time. When I would visit the elders, I would witness the beautiful cedar bosquets and the giant gardens. I had an interpreter with me because many of the elders did not speak English. That was my opportunity to interact with the elders. What was really important about that experience was when their children would return home from residential schools and could not speak the language.

Imagine a mother whose children have been taken away to residential school, and when they come come back, she cannot communicate with them anymore. For many elders, their knowledge of English was very limited and they lost the ability to talk to their children when they came home. The children had no interest, because when they were in the residential schools, they became ashamed of their language. Many were not able or did not want to relearn their language again because of their experiences in the residential school.

We saw the pain of grandparents who could not talk to their children or their grandchildren. We saw the pain in their eyes as they witnessed what had happened to their children, with some lost to alcohol and all sorts of other destructive areas. Therefore, it was an opportunity like none other to see what has happened and understand the actual destruction that occurred in these communities.

In the residential school apology from the previous prime minister, he talked about the residential schools being a place where languages, culture and practice were prohibited. He said, “The government now recognizes that the consequences...that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language”.

We acknowledged in 2008 that we were part of the destruction of these languages and cultures. Therefore, the government must be part of the solution in terms of helping to bring the languages back, and part of that is Bill C-91.

We absolutely support Bill C-91 in principle. We recognize that we are going to need to do our due diligence. Of course, our due diligence means examining whether the bill will accomplish what it sets out to accomplish, which is promoting the protection and revitalization of languages.

The example I have in terms of my nursing experience is that the percentage of these language speakers in the community is 3%. In the 1980s, it might have been significantly higher, but it is now down to 3%. However, people in this community do have a plan and are working very hard to get that back. Bill C-91 needs to support them in moving that work forward.

There are many different languages that we are talking about here, but we need recognize that it will be the communities who will drive how they renew and revitalize their languages. Certainly, when there is only 3% of the community speaking the native language, the strategy has to be very different from some of the more commonly spoken languages where there is a larger number of fluent speakers. Therefore, we need flexibility within the bill to recognize that different strategies will be needed for different languages. However, the goal is the same.

There are a number of components in Bill C-91. The rights would be affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act. Therefore, at committee, I think it would be good to have some constitutional lawyers to help us understand what that would actually mean. Also, we need to make sure that the office of the commissioner's powers and duties have been laid out. However, not only will we have to look at the powers and duties, but we will have to make sure that we monitor this office in the long term to make sure the bill would do what we have asked it to do. Therefore, the ability to research and monitor will be absolutely critical.

I have talked about the bill and about language, but I want to note Kukpi7 Ignace in the riding that I represent from the Skeetchestn Indian Band. I would note others as well, but he is from my riding so I want to give a special shout-out to Kukpi7 Ignace. He has made this his life's work. I run into him regularly, at times on an airplane because he is coming to Ottawa to do important work around language, and also in the riding. He is another teacher for me in terms of the importance of language and the importance of culture. I want to give him a special shout-out because I know for him today is important.

I came in today and wanted to talk completely about Bill C-91, but I have to say that I am terribly disturbed by the reports in The Globe and Mail today that speak to the government's veneer. The government has a veneer that this relationship is the most important relationship to them. I really appreciated my colleague's comment that, no, its most important relationship is with SNC-Lavalin. I thought of how appropriate that was, in terms of his comments. I think we need to be absolutely worried.

What we had was great pride in 2015. I mean we were, of course, disappointed to be on the opposition bench but I think we greeted the former attorney general of Canada and justice minister, the first indigenous woman, into her role and celebrated. We celebrated with Canada. We celebrated with British Columbia in terms of her taking on that very important role. We were all very curious because we saw a minister who negotiated the very difficult legislation about medical assistance in dying through the House. We saw her move a number of important initiatives. I would suggest if any minister needed a demotion it might have been the finance minister for not following through on his promises.

However, I think there was great puzzlement when the former attorney general of Canada and minister of justice was moved to veterans affairs. She talked about truth to power and she also, in a speech of October 30, talked about how even though she was in one of the most powerful positions in this country, she still had a feeling of marginalization at the cabinet table. The Liberal government is responsible for that feeling that she had. What is happening when someone in a powerful position is getting pressured by the Prime Minister's Office to make decisions that are absolutely inappropriate for a justice minister to make?

Again, I am repeating from a very comprehensive article today. It is widely reported in The Globe and Mail that the business interests of the Prime Minister's friends at SNC-Lavalin were more important to him than the integrity of his justice minister doing the job that she was supposed to do. That is absolutely shameful and showing a pattern by the Liberal government in terms of neglect and marginalization.

That is one example there and I think we have other examples of what the government has done. The Prime Minister stood up. He promised rights and recognition legislation. I am not sure where it is.

Gender equity legislation was another promise by the Liberals. Bill S-3 was an absolute mess and it is still a mess. It did not do what it was supposed to do. We have not seen any fixes come back, although it passed. The government did the bare minimum and had consultations. However, it did not fix Bill S-3 in terms of any of the fixes that it needs.

What is happening to the child welfare legislation? It was the Prime Minister who said that child welfare legislation will be tabled in the House in January. It is February 7. There are 12 weeks left in the House and there is no child welfare legislation. I do not see any conceivable way the government will get the child welfare legislation done before the House rises.

What we have is, again, a bill that we absolutely support. We support the revitalization of languages and Bill C-91 moving forward. However, I think if we look at the government and its record, for all of its stated promises, it is abysmal. The Liberals should be ashamed. They should be ashamed of how they treat women. They should be ashamed in terms of the ethics and the immoral depths to which they have gone.

I would like to close by moving out of this negative frame. It was such a stunning revelation today. It is a very concerning revelation. It is a moral and ethical failure of the government, and there will be more heard and said on it.

However, I want to go back to the communities. I want to go back to the communities that have taught me so much. We are now in 2019 and we still have a long way to go. The bill might be a step in the right direction, but we need to move forward. We know that the revitalization of language and culture is integral to the success of people as humans. It will also be integral to the success of communities. Economic opportunities will be another critical piece in terms of working towards success in communities, because jobs are important.

We have one piece of the puzzle with the legislation. We will be supporting it at second reading. I do think the government needs to be very reflective about its overall record in all the other areas.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go to questions and comments, I just want to remind everyone that the acoustics in this room are fantastic. They are very good and we can hear everything. I noticed some members taking their phones outside into the hall that surrounds the Chamber. Some members are very blessed with having a voice that carries, and when they are on the phone we can hear their conversation coming into the Chamber.

I just want to remind everyone that, if they are going to speak on their phones, to please whisper or to go into their respective lobbies so that it does not interfere with the discussions that are taking place in this wonderful room, and so that we do not hear their private messages.

Questions and comments.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, although this question seems off-topic, I feel I must respond to something that was part of the hon. member's speech. She referred to what has happened with our former justice minister, who is now the veterans affairs minister. The member referred to the minister having been thrown under the bus.

I would think that all members of the House would have more respect for our veterans than to consider a transfer to the ministry of veterans affairs as being thrown under the bus.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we have a justice minister who is saying, “I am marginalized at the cabinet table,” that is being thrown under the bus. Absolutely, the veterans affairs portfolio is a critical portfolio. The justice minister of this country is an absolutely critical portfolio.

Clearly, now we know why this happened. The reason is that, as the minister indicated, she was speaking truth to power. The Prime Minister's Office cared more about its friends than it did about listening to someone with integrity and compassion.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague sat through the committee study on Bill C-262, which was on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The things that are contained in the bill are one thing, but what is omitted from the bill is quite another. I would like to ask the member about the place that the UN declaration has in the bill. Clause 6 talks about the recognition of the right to indigenous languages, yet it only refers to section 35 of our Constitution of 1982. It does not refer to the specific articles on indigenous language in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Could the hon. member comment? The government has especially referred to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the basis for its new nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have said that we see the UN declaration as a very important guiding document. We have expressed a few concerns about how we put a declaration in Canadian law, and we have pointed out where there might be some consistency issues.

Having said that, the government has not expressed those same concerns. The government committed to supporting Bill C-262, whereas we expressed some reservations. The fact that the Liberals have chosen not to be inclusive with the language in this bill is another example of their hypocrisy.

Maybe they have the same concerns we have in terms of how to make the declaration work. The conventions, we know, are meant to be law in countries. They may have the same concerns as us, but they were not willing to say it or put it in the bill. Again, it is another example of their hypocrisy.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for acknowledging that the Conservative Party will be supporting this bill at second reading.

The member thinks along the same lines I do, in that we find it very troubling that the Prime Minister pretends. I use that word because he talks the talk, but does not walk the walk. What happened to the now Minister of Veterans Affairs, the former attorney general, is obviously not something a true feminist would do to a female minister. The other troubling aspect is that he has said he supports native rights, native culture and so on, but his actions all speak contrary to that.

If the member could respond to that, I would appreciate it.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for his comments and we will miss him in the next Parliament for sure due to his recently announced retirement.

I noted in my speech the number of promises the government made and has not followed through on. They are innumerable. The Prime Minister has a good bedside manner. Going back to my health care analogy, he says what people want to hear, but he is sure not the guy one wants doing one's surgery, because we see that his ability to execute the things he has committed to executing is very minimal and restrained.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the purpose of the act. It is very clear under paragraph 5(g), which says that one of the objectives of the act is to “advance the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.” In the preamble, there are a number of references to UNDRIP, so I am a little perplexed as to her previous comments, when she questioned inconsistent views.

It is very clear that this bill, in part, is a response to UNDRIP, as well as to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action 13, 14 and 15, along with a number of other national and international mechanisms that have called for the protection, preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages.

I wonder if my friend could comment on that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we note that there are articles in the UN declaration and calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that have guided the development of this legislation. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou is probably going to talk very articulately in his speech about how he believes the UN declaration is not properly incorporated in this bill. He is an expert in that area, and I expect to hear a fulsome response from him.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague started to talk about something that is becoming a disturbing pattern with the current government, which is that although the Liberals start out with good intentions, especially on the indigenous file, the execution and delivery of many things is not happening.

This includes the effort to eradicate the boil water advisories; we still have 60 or 70 in existence. The missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls inquiry has spent nearly $100 million now and is still nowhere in terms of action.

Very disturbingly, we then see from The Globe and Mail today that it appears the PMO tried to influence the former justice minister to interfere in a judicial process. I respect the justice minister for not doing that, but then we see her move to Veterans Affairs and we wonder.

It all looks like the government says a lot, but what it does is actually not right. I wonder if the member could comment.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who is the first-ever prime minister to be found guilty of ethical violations by the Ethics Commissioner, and we now see a continuing pattern of ethical violation after ethical violation. This is just another example. The Liberals should be ashamed.

Justice and Human Rights

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

There have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it I think you will find consent for the following motion:

That, in relation to the Modern Slavery Project: Legislative Drafting Seminar, three members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be authorized to travel to London, United Kingdom, in the Spring of 2019.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Indigenous Languages Act

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

[Member spoke in Cree, interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to speak Cree in this House and to be given that privilege. It makes me really proud to speak my own language in the House, and I thank everyone for this opportunity.

Before I speak to Bill C-91, I would like to begin by offering thanks to my parents. I would like to thank my mom for teaching me how to speak Cree. I would also like to thank the people of Waswanipi, who helped me to make it here and speak my language. I am really thankful to the people of Waswanipi.

I also want to thank all the Crees across the Cree nation, as well as all aboriginal people across Canada. They also helped me make it here so I could speak about the things we have gone through in the past and will be facing in the future. I would like to thank all the people who have stood by me so I could be given the privilege to speak my language. I always think about the people who came before me and have passed on. I always remember them.

Members know a lot of us speak our indigenous language, and it is something that helps us in our lives. In things one thinks about and goes through, one's own language is something that helps. When I first came here eight years ago, I asked if I could speak my native language to ask questions or when I rose to speak to bills. It is something I asked for, and I was told that I could only speak English. That was all I was told.

I felt really sad when that happened, but I did not let it go. I kept asking to speak my language, and now I am able to speak my own language in the House, and everyone can hear me speak it. It really touches my heart to be able to speak my language in front of everyone, and I want to thank all members for helping me achieve this.

Regarding Bill C-91, there are things I agree with, but there are also things that have not been included. I will speak about those today. I will stand by all members in order to make this bill pass, but if we want things to go well, we are going to have to do it the right way. We are going to have to try to bring in the things that have not been included in this bill. These things are needed to make it right, and this is what I am going to try to do before the bill is passed. This is what I am going to ask. I am going to help.

I remember when the Prime Minister spoke to us about a year ago. He spoke to us for a while, and I stood to answer, and when I was done speaking, I went up and spoke with him. I thanked him. I even told him I could help him if he needed help. I would allow myself to, with all of us working together, when it involved indigenous rights across Canada or our people who are still struggling.

I remember when he spoke to the chiefs in Gatineau and talked about the bill. It has almost been three years since he spoke about it. I remember when he brought it up. Everyone stood up and thanked the Prime Minister. When I saw that happening, I stood too. I was really happy when he brought that news to the chiefs. I was happy when he said that the bill would be written, that we would try to speak our indigenous languages. I was really happy, but I was not sure if he understood what was going on when everyone got up, that he had made everyone proud. I do not know if he understood that part.

[English]

Those were some words in Cree as an introduction to my speech. I will come back to Cree in my concluding remarks, but I see that the time is moving fast.

The vast majority of indigenous languages in this country are endangered, and there is a critical need to address that challenge. There is an urgent need at this moment, as we speak, to address that challenge. Our languages are important. If the legislation fails to reflect the intent of the bill, we are not doing our indigenous brothers and sisters in this country any favours.

It is important for the future of indigenous languages. As I said in Cree, I was there when the Prime Minister, almost three years ago, made the announcement and promised legislation. I feel it has arrived here almost too late.

I remember, after 30 years of attending Assembly of First Nations meetings, that I had never seen a standing ovation like the one I saw. Never. As I was watching from the back, I stood up too. I said to myself that I hoped the Prime Minister understood what was going on. I hoped the Prime Minister got the cue.

We know that communities such as the Inuit expected the bill to reflect their needs and submissions and to respect what they call co-development. What I understand of the situation right now is that co-development does not mean co-drafting. There seems to be a major distinction.

The government had expert advice from language experts who made recommendations. I personally know some of them who made submissions to the government.

The creation of the indigenous languages commissioner is not as good as it sounds. Having a national commissioner fulfills TRC call to action 15 on paper, but we also must address call to action 14.

Let me read call to action 14. It states:

We call upon the federal government to enact an Aboriginal Languages Act that incorporates the following principles:

i. Aboriginal languages are a fundamental and valued element of Canadian culture and society....

ii. Aboriginal language rights are reinforced by the Treaties.

iii. The federal government has a responsibility to provide sufficient funds for Aboriginal-language revitalization and preservation.

iv. The preservation, revitalization, and strengthening of Aboriginal languages and cultures are best managed by Aboriginal people and communities.

v. Funding for Aboriginal language initiatives must reflect the diversity of Aboriginal languages.

I would add urgency, because that is where we are today, given the situation.

As the minister proudly quoted, the Assembly of First Nations praised this legislation, saying it had been co-developed with it, and that parliamentarians must support the bill. Yes, I think we will all support it at second reading.

The Inuit organization ITK said that there should be Inuit-specific legislation. It said that the proposed indigenous languages commissioner would be “little more than a substitute for the Aboriginal Languages Initiative Program”.

I have heard from many indigenous leaders throughout the country on this proposed legislation over the years. We have been talking about it for a long time.

The bill fails to define aboriginal languages. We have two official languages in this place and in this country. They are called “official”. Should indigenous languages be considered official languages in this country? That is one option. I admit there are pros and cons. Should indigenous languages be given special status, given their historical value? That is another option.

I also want to raise the point that while the bill recognizes that the right to indigenous languages stems from section 35 as the basis of that recognition, it fails to mention articles 11 to 16 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We know that the concept of aboriginal rights is vague and general. However, we have a precise document in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Let me read article 13, which states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions....

2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected....

It is a clear concept. On one hand, we have in clause 6 of the proposed legislation recognition that this right exists, but one might certainly ask if the bill protects those rights. That is a fair question.

I see that my colleague from Rouge River is nodding with approval.

I know my time is limited, but I want to mention a few things I would have liked to see in the bill. First, there is a glaring omission in the preamble. The preamble paragraphs are clear and strong, but the ninth paragraph says this:

Whereas a history of discriminatory government policies and practices, in respect of, among other things, assimilation, forced relocation and residential schools, were detrimental to Indigenous languages and contributed significantly to the erosion of those languages;

What is glaring is that it forgets the sixties scoop survivors. I have many sixties scoop friends, and none of them speak their languages. I know a lot of Indian residential school survivors like me—I attended for 10 years—still speak their languages. However, the sixties scoop survivors had less of a chance.

Second, my friend referred to subclause 5(g):

advance the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.

Advancing does not mean implementing. It is a very subtle distinction.

Third, the bill should have included the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in clause 6.

There are many other omissions, but my time is running out.

[Member spoke in Cree, interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak my Indigenous language again. I would like to ask my friends if they have any questions.

[English]

[Gary Anandasangaree, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend for his speech. I know how special it is for him to be able to speak in Cree and also how important this legislation is for him personally.

I have noted the concerns he has outlined. However, I have to counter with respect to the provisions on UNDRIP. I believe that both clause 5 and the preamble clearly set out the commitment and the foundation of the bill, which is built on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am quite confident that it will withstand that type of scrutiny. I invite my friend to look at that.

The member mentioned that the timing can be quite difficult in the sense that it may be too late, but I can assure him that the timing is still in our favour. However, it requires the co-operation and support of the NDP. I want to ask the member if he would be willing to support the bill going to committee right away so that the important issues he highlighted here could be addressed through the committee process and brought back at third reading.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an important one.

[Member spoke in Cree, interpreted as follows:]

I would like to let the member know that before we send it, we should all sit down and look at it. It could help to make the bill stronger. What the member just told us, I understand that it is written.

[ English]

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does make reference to it in the preamble and also under subclause 5(g). Let me read 5(g) for the House, “advance the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.”

First, and as I said, advancing the achievement with the objectives is very different from fully implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Second, clause 6 is important. According to how I interpret the bill, clause 6 is the founding principle of Bill C-91 and the founding principle is based only on section 35 of the Constitution of Canada, 1982.

The fact is that you promised indigenous peoples in the country that the new relationship, which you talked a lot about but did nothing, would be based on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That principle should have been added under clause 6 and it is not there, and that disappoints me.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members to speak through the Speaker and not directly across, speaking in the third person.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.