House of Commons Hansard #81 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was peoples.

Topics

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-15.

I am trying to understand. Many bills have been introduced in the past on this matter. My colleague applauded the work of Romeo Saganash, who advocated for the recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Liberal government has been in power since 2015. Has waiting so long to pass the bill not caused more misery in indigenous communities?

Clean drinking water is still a problem. Women and girls have disappeared or been murdered. We know that passing this bill could help solve these types of problems. That is why it is so important to do it, especially for a self-proclaimed feminist government. Has the failure to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples not harmed the cause of indigenous women?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I started off my speech on the premise that it has been 400 years. We can look at the past, and we should look at the past. However, the best time to implement these rights is right now. That is what we have in front of us, the ability to take those strides that no government has taken before.

I ask my learned colleague from the Bloc to join with us in not delaying, for any more time, when indigenous people could have the same human rights as every other Canadian.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by thanking Professor Sákéj Henderson, and my friend from Sydney—Victoria for his enormous leadership within the indigenous caucus and within our government as well.

As the member just mentioned, this is the moment for us to capture, this is the moment in which we could reset the relationship. For parties that are not supporting this bill, what does this member have to say to them? What is it that they are missing that others have been able to capture? What is the message that he has for the Conservatives and the Bloc?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, It is a difficult question, because I want Conservatives to be on board with this. I want Conservatives to want to give indigenous people human rights.

The delays, tactics and talking about vetos; it is baseless. It has been pointed out by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond that it is fearmongering to suggest that we somehow would slow down the economy by getting the most basic human rights.

The question that I have to ask all of my other colleagues in this House is, what expectations would they have for their communities. Why should the expectations of indigenous people be any different?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House today to speak to Bill C-15. I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

This is important legislation and is an opportunity to have a debate in the House about our relationship in Canada with the first nations community. I always try to start off my speeches by providing a local context or ensure at some point I cover the local context of my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I am fortunate to represent not only the city of Cornwall, the united counties of most of SDG, but also the residents and people of Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, 14,000 people strong. This is probably, from a federal issue, one of the more difficult geographic first nations communities we have in the country. It is located right along the Canada-U.S. border, there is a port of entry there. The geographic set-up that goes back a long time certainly makes it difficult to navigate through and work with them on many issues.

I am grateful for a good and respectful working relationship with Grand Chief Abram Benedict. I also want to acknowledge some of the meetings I have had to date with members of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne. We had two, I think, pre-COVID, and unfortunately everything else needed to be put on the back burner. I made a commitment in our community, as a new member of Parliament, to ensure I would reach out just as much to members in Akwesasne as I would to every other part of the riding. There certainly are a lot of federal issues, federal files, on which we need to work with them.

The debate today is not about whether Canada needs better reconciliation with first nations communities. That is a given. I know there is not a party nor a member in the House and very few Canadians who do not know we need to do better and build a better relationship.

What I want to speak about in my comments today is a theme I built on in several of my speeches since I have had the honour of being in the House, which is the difference between an announcement and an intention, a theme, respectfully, in the actual delivery and follow-through in getting things done.

With Bill C-15, the details do matter. There is no issue with anybody with an overwhelming part of the declaration. In Canada, we are proud to say that we have already implemented many of those measures for which the declaration calls. That is progress. It is a positive and a strength of our country to show the progress we have made.

I listened to my colleague before me. I have respect for all colleagues in the House as well as the questions and comments even going back with my friend from the NDP from Vancouver Island. I do not think the concerns being raised, including from first nations communities, representatives and allies, are racist, stereotypical or laughable. They are very valid concerns.

I speak about my concerns on certain parts of Bill C-15 not because I do not believe in reconciliation, not because I do not believe we need a better relationship with first nations but actually the opposite. By not better defining and laying these things out, making them more clear, more and black and white, I worry we take steps back when it comes to reconciliation.

I will use the example in the Maritimes of the fisheries disputes in the province of Nova Scotia and some of the vague definitions, such as moderate livelihood, that are subject to court interpretations and DFO interpretations. We are seeing serious tensions between first nations people in Nova Scotia, residents of the province, lobster fishermen, fishermen, the government, provincial government and local law enforcement. We have even seen violence happen. Nobody wants that to happen. The reason, I believe, is the definitions. It takes time. It is not easy. I am not pretending it is simple to do. However, we need to have more clear timelines and more clear wording when it comes to certain aspects, not the overall intent of UNDRIP but rather certain parts.

I can say quite a few things, but I want to listen, as I mentioned, to some of the stakeholders who have spoken at committee and who have the interests of first nations communities across the country at heart, first and foremost, as we do in the House.

I want to quote Stephen Buffalo, president of the Indian Resource Council. Just a couple weeks ago in committee, he said, “It would be much better if this committee could define 'free, prior and informed consent' in the legislation and determine who can represent and make decisions on behalf of indigenous peoples for the purpose of project approvals. Better yet, this committee can engage indigenous people across Canada to come to a consensus on what 'consent' means before passing this legislation, because you know as well as I do that some people think it's a veto, and if the committee doesn't think it's a veto, then they should make that clear.”

We have heard numerous other stakeholders. I know of a comment from Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs, who said “However well intentioned Bill C-15 is, my discussions with legal experts, industry representatives and investment bankers have persuaded me that it is introducing another layer of uncertainty and risk to development in indigenous territories.”

People, like myself, our caucus and all Parliament want to get this right. We want to move forward on reconciliation and do better. However, what I worry about, and this is from a passion of mine, is that words, actions and themes and good intent are important, but so are the details in legislation like this. The frank reality is that we will need to take the time, whether it is before the legislation or after, through courts and legal battles that will go on for years over certain projects, certain wording and what it is or what it is not.

If we pretend that we will just pass this, that there will be no problems and that it will be all tickety-boo, that will not the case. If we can take the time and get those clarifications through consultations, close, passionate deliberations with first nations communities, we can make the legislation and the process more clear for everybody. That does not hurt reconciliation; that makes it smoother.

We have seen in Nova Scotia what has happened. We are seeing some of the concerns of potential investment. This is not big corporations versus first nations communities; these are people with a vested first-person connection to the well-being of our indigenous people and with a better, smoother future that involves economic development that does all these things.

This debate is not about whether we are racist, or whether it is laughable and stereotypical or how awful anybody is. These are valid concerns. I know members who support this know that if we pass the bill in this form, there will be serious legal challenges. We will be in courts and litigated, and there will be gray areas for years to come. That will challenge our path to reconciliation. That will challenge better economic development opportunities for communities like Akwesasne in my riding.

I thankful for the time to give my voice and my perspective. I am always trying to be positive and constructive, if I can. We can do better and we must do better. As a country and as a Parliament, we will be better off with much clearer black-and-white definitions on some of these things to move our reconciliation process forward in the country.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Milton Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for his work on other files, protecting rights of people. He is always speaks from the heart, which is I really appreciate.

I do, however, want to bring up a couple of things. First, I just want to remind everybody in the House that the use of possessive nouns when referring to indigenous people should be avoided at all costs. Indigenous people do not belong to Canada and they do not belong to us, so we should never say “our indigenous people”.

The assertion that Bill C-15, one of the most important pieces of legislation that I think we as a generation will ever see in the House, would take steps back on reconciliation or people's rights is really troubling to me. I want to refer to the response of Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond to my question two days ago in committee. She said that the most important thing it would do would be to put an obligation on Canada to conduct its policies and conduct its interactions with indigenous peoples on the basis of recognizing indigenous people have rights.

I think we can all agree that more rights is never a bad thing. How in the world would more rights have a negative impact on people who have title to land?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague, and I apologize for my wording and my adlibbing. First nations people are not my constituents. They are my friends, they are my neighbours and they are my colleagues, not only locally but across the country. I thank the member for that part of his intervention.

We talk about adding rights. Some of the vague definitions and wording in certain parts of the bill, which could be strengthened, could lead to confusion. The rights and the battles could end up in court. We have seen that with different issues when we did not originally take the time to get the definitions right and specific, to come to that balance, to have that cohesion and that reconciliation in certain communities.

I am all in favour of enshrining rights. The overwhelming majority of this document is attainable, because we are doing many parts of it and there are many parts on which we can all agree. However, where we could have stronger definitions, that would help a reconciliation process in building rights, strengthening rights, not having them end up in courts for years to come.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech. It was top-notch as usual.

He mentioned that it is important to define certain concepts to avoid legal challenges in the courts. He spoke mainly about free, prior and informed consent. However, Bill C-15 sets out criteria that, if necessary, will guide the courts in assessing what should constitute consent. All of the witnesses who appeared before the committee said that it will take time to come to a consensus or establish a clear definition.

Since we need to establish those definitions anyway, should we not just pass Bill C-15 now, rather than delaying the entire process? We should work on those definitions, bill or no bill. The current bill provides direction on how to do that, but it also includes a long-awaited recognition of indigenous rights that should be quickly implemented.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my colleague from Saint-Jean, albeit virtually. I do miss sitting with her at committee in my former committee role on PROC.

I hear what she says about the details needing to be worked out, but I go back to the same thing. We are better off as a country, as a Parliament with respect to reconciliation if these things are ironed out and if the consultations and resolutions happen sooner rather than later.

The member alludes to courts and different interpretations. That leads to my argument that we will have many of these consents end up in court for years and years to come. They could create divisions, not unity, when it comes to reconciliation, when it comes to economic development opportunities.

I come from a space of not wanting to stop progress but making progress smoother. The member is right that we will have to tackle these definitions. We need to do it sooner rather than later. The sooner and the better the clarity is, the better our path to reconciliation and stronger future for first nations communities in every part of the country.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today about my opposition to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is evident that much of our contemporary political debate is denominated in terms of human rights, with both sides' various questions using the language and philosophy of rights to justify their conclusions. This is most evident in contentious debates about social issues, where one person's assertion of a right to die is measured against another person's assertion of a right to encounter a health care system that does not make distinctions based on ability, or whether one person's assertion of a right to bodily autonomy conflicts with the potential claims of another person in terms of someone's right to life. In these cases, it clearly is not enough to say one is for or against human rights as such. Rather, one has to develop a procedure for determining which rights claims are valid and which are not, or for determining which rights claims can be justifiably abrogated, or for determining which rights claims take precedence in the case of a conflict.

When we are evaluating these questions of how to compare competing rights claims, it matters very much where we think rights come from. We need to establish where rights come from if we are to determine which rights claims exist and which rights claims take precedence. On this point, let us say there are three general categories of options. Rights either come from positive law, from social consensus or from nature.

Some seem to take the view that rights exist because they are called “rights” by the state or some multilateral body. This would imply that those rights only come into existence when the associated statutes or declarations are promulgated, and that nothing can be called a violation of rights if it is done legally. This view of rights would imply, falsely in my opinion, that no violation of human rights occurred in the context of horrific, violent actions against indigenous peoples in previous centuries, if those actions were legal. That seems to be a monstrous conclusion. I therefore reject the view that rights come from positive law. Arbitrarily depriving some of their lives, freedom, culture and community is a violation of their rights, regardless of whether it is recognized as such by domestic or international law.

The same general issues arise if we see rights as derived from social consensus. There have been many times and places in which a social consensus existed in favour of policies that also arbitrarily deprived people of their lives, freedom, culture and/or community. As such, if we wish to justify the conclusion that these acts of violence have always and would always constitute violations of human rights, then we must start from the premise that human rights emanate from nature as opposed to from law or convention: that is, human rights come from being human.

Deliberations in the House or international bodies about human rights are not fundamentally about creating rights, but rather about discovering rights. Rights are discovered, not invented. If rights exist in nature, as gravity exists in nature, then we should be able to identify a procedure for discovering rights objectively. Whether such a procedure can exist or not, it does not seem to be invoked often in this House. More often, we hear the assertion of the existence of a certain right as being self-evident. We hear a call for more rights, not fewer rights. We hear rights referred to as “hard won”, and perhaps referenced in the context of some domestic or international text deemed sacred by our legal tradition.

If rights come from nature, then members should argue for how we can know that a right exists, not simply point to a text that says it does. If rights come from nature as opposed to from text, then texts that claim to codify human rights may contain gaps, errors or other problems. It is possible to believe that human rights have all been correctly codified by UN documents because of some metaphysical process by which the deliberation of these bodies is protected from error. However, believing in this idea would require a kind of faith in a metaphysical process: a faith that I do not think can be grounded in reason alone.

The particular legislative proposal before us today, with respect to human rights, is to graft UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, onto existing law and practice in this area. Much of the debate today has centred around the importance of indigenous rights. I think we all agree about the importance of indigenous rights, but that is not really the core question we have to evaluate when determining whether to support this legislation.

The question really is about what impacts or changes the implementation of this legislation will have on existing rights frameworks, and whether those changes will advance human rights for indigenous peoples or not. With this question, I think it is also important to challenge some of the Hollywood-ized framing of indigenous communities. Many of us will have seen the 2009 movie Avatar: a movie about a group of human colonizers who seek to exploit and destroy a natural environment guarded by an indigenous community that lives in perfect harmony with it.

Although filmed in colour, the moral message of the film is very black and white. Those who fully absorb the message of this film will perhaps come to the conclusion that indigenous communities never want development, but this is, of course, false. The complex history of European settlement in North America involved a great deal of colonial violence and oppression, as well as mutually beneficial exchange and collaboration. Today, many indigenous communities want development.

As wonderful as being in harmony with nature in this sense is and that some people ideologize, generally development can be associated with higher standards of living and amenities associated with modern life. For me, defending indigenous rights means respecting the rights and choices of indigenous peoples, and indigenous nations acting autonomously to make their own choices about their own development paths. It is about competing balance: how they balance traditions with opportunities to develop in new ways. These are choices that individual communities and nations should be able to make for themselves.

Sadly, we have seen many attacks on indigenous rights by anti-development forces, advancing a kind of green colonialism based on this Avatar-informed view of the world, which seeks to force indigenous people to live in the equivalent of national parks even if they would much rather enjoy the benefits that come from resource development in terms of jobs and convenience.

While my friends on the political left like to assume that their opposition to natural resource development aligns them with the wishes of indigenous people, they are increasingly offside with the wishes of indigenous people in areas where resource development is taking place. The anti-development policies of this government are increasingly raising the ire of indigenous people and indigenous proponents of resource development projects, such as those seeking the construction of the Eagle Spirit pipeline, blocked by Bill C-48, or those indigenous people in the Arctic who were not consulted at all when the Prime Minister brought in a ban on drilling.

For reasons described earlier, these anti-development voices still frame their positions in terms of indigenous rights, believing that the right to say “no” to development is so much more important than the right of those same people to say “yes” to development. I think we all know and understand that this gets dicey in situations when the rights of some indigenous peoples come into conflict with the desires and rights of other indigenous peoples, when different peoples and different communities disagree about whether a particular project should proceed, or when indigenous proponents find themselves in conflict with members of their own or other communities over how to proceed on a development path.

Bill C-15 would establish a principle in law that there must be free, prior and informed consent for resource development to take place within an indigenous community, but it lacks significant clarity about who consents on behalf of indigenous communities or what happens when different communities, perhaps with competing legitimate claims to traditional presence in an area, disagree. The lack of clarity about who gets to decide will make it nearly impossible for indigenous communities that wish to develop their own resources to proceed.

We got a sense of the risk associated with this uncertainty last year, when the country faced widespread rail blockades in solidarity with some Wet'suwet'en protesters who opposed the Coastal GasLink project. Members of the House, at the time, seemed to believe that the opposition of a minority of hereditary chiefs required that the project be stopped on the grounds of indigenous rights.

These arguments came from an Avatar-inspired world view and a failure to take into consideration the legitimate competing rights claims of the majority of indigenous peoples affected by this project who supported it, the fact that all of the elected indigenous bodies responsible for this project had approved it, and the fact that those who, from a democratic perspective at least, were the representatives of those indigenous people wanted to say yes. It was enough for members of the House that people from a different hereditary leadership who claimed to speak on behalf of those nations wanted to say no. This is the problem that arises when we have competing rights claims. When we lack a procedure, and when there is ambiguity inserted in the law about how to resolve the desires of those people, it ends up always being a path of no development instead of a situation where those communities get to decide.

I am suspicious that members of the House who are promoting the bill in the name of indigenous rights are actually happy with that outcome. They are actually happy with an outcome in which development has a hard time proceeding, when investments do not get made even if indigenous people in a particular area, in association with a particular project,overwhelmingly want to see it happen.

As a member who cares deeply about human rights, and well-structured procedures and mechanisms for affirming those rights democratically, I think we need to recognize the existing rights frameworks we have in this country and build on them, but I do not think this particular legislation would do that. It would introduce more confusion and more challenges to development that would, in effect, deny the rights of indigenous peoples in cases where they want to make the choice to develop their resources.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member this. Why does he believe that indigenous knowledge, passed down through languages, passed down through generations and enshrined in our teachings as indigenous people that we should live sustainably within our ecosystem while promoting positive development and smart development, is somehow based on Hollywood notions of Avatar and not within our languages, as has been taught for generations? I am trying to understand his notions on that.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member ascribed to me views that I do not hold. My view was quite clearly expressed: There are some politicians here who have this Hollywood-informed idea that all indigenous peoples do not want development. The reality is that many indigenous nations and communities across the country want development, and their right to choose to proceed with projects is not respected when the government puts in place a highly ambiguous legislative framework that makes it virtually impossible to demonstrate the consent required by the new procedures and mechanisms in place.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I asked a Liberal member a question earlier. I asked him why his party had not moved forward with such a bill earlier, since it is such a strong supporter of reconciliation. He said that Mr. Saganash's bill was blocked by the Conservatives in the Senate.

I did hear my colleague talk about human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples. He addressed these extremely important points, but I did not hear him say whether he is in favour of implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Will he vote in favour of this bill?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I apologize if it was not clear. I will vote against this bill. I do not support this bill. I do not think this bill is an effective way of advancing reconciliation. The Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples contains positive aspirations and values within it that Canada should support and move forward on, but the legal framework contains a lot of problems and ambiguity: problems that would negatively affect indigenous peoples. As Winston Churchill said, “It is not enough to do our best, we have to know what to do and then do our best.” In other words, the mechanism and details matter.

We can all have positive aspirations, but we have to get the mechanics right if we want to deliver on those aspirations. That has been the biggest problem with the government when it comes to indigenous peoples. There is a big emphasis on their aspirations, but the government has not been able to deliver on the details. Delivering on the details means sometimes saying that this piece of legislation does not work, and we need something better.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was nothing short of impressive. I followed his rights framework all the way until I got lost with Avatar. I thought maybe he was going to go full Jason Kenney and start talking about Bigfoot. Make no mistake: The brutal and violent genocide of indigenous peoples by successive French and British settlers in these lands is by no means a Hollywood story.

When the member suggests that rights are discovered, does he not acknowledge that the basis of all the legal frameworks we have is the racist and white supremacist doctrine of discovery based on the theory of a terra nullius here, and that indigenous people were less than human upon the arrival of the Europeans?

Further to that, does the member's only relationship with and understanding of indigenous rights have to do with the commodification of resource extraction in oil and gas? Does he not see value in these rights outside of the extractionary capitalism of oil and gas?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, there was a bit of conflation involving the term “discovery”. I was talking about rights being discovered, which is very different from the very legitimate and correct criticism of discovery that the member used in a different context. I think he knows that, but I wanted to clarify that because the word was used in different ways.

I agree that there is a great deal of horrific violence associated with various periods up until quite recently, and there are still many instances of racism and violence targeting indigenous people. The question we have to ask ourselves in this debate today is what we can do to advance justice and human rights for indigenous Canadians. That includes the opportunity for economic development. I believe there is a broad spectrum of issues that we need to attend to regarding justice and human rights for indigenous Canadians, and one of them is giving indigenous people the power to develop their own natural resources in co-operation with others and without undue burdens imposed on them by the state.

I will not apologize for thinking that economic development matters. It matters for all Canadians. It matters so that people can stay in their communities, find jobs and opportunities—

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

We will have to leave it at that.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Parkdale—High Park.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

In December 2020, our government introduced Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Since then, I have received many letters, calls and emails from my constituents in Mile End, Outremont and Côte-des-Neiges. They asked me to pass the bill quickly, and they urge the House to do more to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples.

Most of the people who contacted me told me that they were not indigenous. They were proud to say that as Montrealers, Quebeckers and Canadians, the nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples was important to them. It is an issue that speaks to the foundation of our Canadian identity, no matter our background.

We must correct past injustices as much as we can and continue to move forward on the path to reconciliation. Through Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we are taking another step along that path. As its name suggests, Bill C-15 seeks to protect and promote indigenous rights, including the rights to equality and non-discrimination, in order to establish stronger relations with indigenous peoples.

The bill provides the necessary legislative framework for Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Through this bill, the Government of Canada will be required to collaborate with indigenous peoples on developing an action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP. If passed, this bill will represent another major step forward in our shared journey toward reconciliation.

Passing Bill C-15, which would ensure consistency between Canadian laws and the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, is an important step forward on the path to reconciliation. The bill requires the development of an action plan to implement the objectives of UNDRIP and requires the ongoing involvement of indigenous peoples at all stages, while mandating annual reports to Parliament.

Bill C-15 would enshrine the principles of UNDRIP, which include affirming the general application of international human rights laws to indigenous peoples; the right to participate in decision-making, with free, prior and informed consent; the right to culture, religious and linguistic identity; the protection of treaties and agreements with first nations; and of course the protection of the rights of indigenous women, including an obligation for governments to work with indigenous peoples to end violence against indigenous women.

Let us talk for a moment about what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada chose to uphold.

The findings and evidence of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada forced us to confront the discriminatory and oppressive practices that continued unabated for nearly 150 years in Canada's residential schools. In addition to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action 43 and 44, which call on the government to adopt and fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and develop an action plan to achieve its objectives, all of the calls to action cite the UNDRIP. Our commitment to upholding indigenous rights by acknowledging and redressing the damage caused by assimilation policies and practices is unwavering.

Passing Bill C-15 will not only address calls to action 43 and 44, but will also provide the Government of Canada with a framework for broader reconciliation.

I would also like to talk about what our government is doing right now to demonstrate our commitment to our first nations.

Throughout the pandemic, our government has shown its commitment to supporting indigenous communities in very real and tangible ways. Let us look for a moment at our vaccine rollout.

We know that remote indigenous communities are more at risk of getting COVID-19 and that health systems in those communities are more vulnerable to outbreaks. That is why we as a government prioritized indigenous communities in the procurement and delivery of vaccines for COVID-19.

To date, nearly 300,000 doses have been administered in first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, with over 50% of people having already received a COVID-19 vaccine. In the Northwest Territories, 55% of the entire population has received a first dose. In the Yukon, 59% of the population has received one dose, and already 43% has received both doses. This accelerated rollout has contributed to a dramatic drop in COVID-19 cases in our indigenous communities, with a decline of 80%. That is something we can all be proud of.

Let us also discuss for a moment where we are with respect to eliminating boil water advisories. Like many in the House, I am sincerely troubled by the fact that any boil water advisory still exists in any corner of our country, but real progress has been made and is sometimes overlooked.

When our government came into power, there were 105 boil water advisories in the country. We have eliminated 106 of them, and as of March 2021, 177 short-term drinking water advisories were also lifted. In fact, access to clean water has been restored to approximately 5,920 homes in first nations communities. I know and understand that much more work still needs to be done on this, but never before have we had a federal government in Canada that is more committed to getting that work done.

We have also made historic investments in education, housing, police services and shelters in indigenous communities.

The 2020 fall economic statement includes an additional investment of $781.5 million over five years starting this year as well as ongoing funding in the amount of $106.3 million to fight systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples and expand efforts to fight violence against indigenous women, girls and LGBTQ2 and two-spirit people.

These proposed investments include the following amounts: $724.1 million to launch a comprehensive violence prevention strategy to expand access to culturally relevant supports for indigenous women, children and LGBTQ2 and two-spirit people facing gender-based violence; $49.3 million to support the implementation of Gladue principles in the justice system in order to help reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice and correctional systems; and $8.1 million to develop administration of justice agreements with indigenous communities to strengthen community-based justice systems and support self-determination.

There is still a lot of work to do, but we are working even harder.

Bill C-15 is an action plan that will confirm that the declaration is a universal human rights instrument that applies to Canadian law and provides a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the declaration. It is an essential step toward reconciliation, and it is long overdue.

I therefore ask all members of the House to pass Bill C-15 as soon as possible.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Boudrias Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Madam Speaker, the House has a responsibility to recognize the legitimacy of the declaration we are discussing today in our debate on Bill C-15.

Since the time of New France, Quebeckers have historically been partners and supporters of indigenous nations. I would even say that our history and our nation are bound up with the well-being of all of North America's indigenous nations. This declaration comes at the right time, as does some of Bill C-15. However, a declaration means nothing without measures to back it up.

Since the 1960s, Quebec has signed various agreements on its land regarding the self-government for indigenous nations. Under these agreements, these nations must be provided with as many resources and tools as possible so they can govern themselves. Could my colleague tell us whether her government foresees any major actions to put an end to the vassalage of indigenous nations and allow them greater self-government?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I completely agree that Quebeckers want us to move forward with this and that they want to strengthen our nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples.

As I mentioned in my speech, I think that not only do we need to adopt the declaration and the principles in it, but we also need to back that up with money, which we did. In the 2020 fall economic statement, we announced historic investments to address the needs of indigenous peoples.

We need to adopt Bill C-15, which enshrines the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we also need to invest in equipping indigenous peoples with the best tools possible.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke of vaccines in the indigenous community, and that of course leads to the issue of indigenous health. We know that indigenous people in Canada score below the mean on every major health metric, and one of the core elements of health is access to basic nutrition and clean water. However, the government has missed its self-imposed target of removing every boil water advisory by this time.

The Liberals have been in government for most of the last 150 years but have failed miserably on indigenous health. Why should indigenous peoples have any faith that the government will make any meaningful progress on actually implementing UNDRIP?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. What we have seen through many different statistics is that our indigenous communities are more vulnerable and do have real challenges when it comes to the health systems that are available, particularly in remote communities. That is exactly why this government prioritized indigenous communities in our vaccine rollout. That is why such a significant number of indigenous communities have been vaccinated. As I mentioned in my speech, over 50% of indigenous communities have been fully vaccinated. As I also said, that contributed to an 80% decline in COVID-19 cases in indigenous communities. Our strategy had real and concrete results, and I think we need to continue in that vein as we move forward and continue to support the health and safety of our indigenous communities.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, I will ask a brief question.

In testimony before committee, Mark Podlasly of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition asked for a clear definition of what consent means in the context of Bill C-15. I will not read the quote, as I am conscious of the time.

Will the member commit to ensuring that clarity is added to the bill? Many first nations have expressed to me that it lacks a great deal of needed clarity.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The hon. parliamentary secretary has 15 seconds.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I can give a complete answer in 15 seconds, but I will start by saying that free, prior and informed consent, as it does appear in various aspects of the declaration, refers specifically to the importance of meaningful participation among indigenous peoples through their own mechanisms in all of the decisions and processes that could affect them, including with respect to energy projects. It is a way of working together to establish consensus through dialogue and other means, which would enable—