Debates of April 15th, 2021

Second reading

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that there has been a normalization in this country of violating the rights of indigenous peoples, as we have seen globally. We need to move beyond decision-making that is made only when it suits our economic and political interests and brushing it aside when it does not. Human rights are human rights. Human rights are a non-partisan issue and need to be applied.

This bill would provide application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law. It would clarify rights that have already been affirmed through the courts, through hundreds and hundreds of Supreme Court rulings, so it is necessary. That behaviour is colonial behaviour and if we truly want to move beyond reconciliation, we have to at least uphold the minimum human rights of indigenous peoples in this place that we now call Canada.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her incredible passion and the work she has done on this file.

As we speak today, the people of Kashechewan are being forced to face another evacuation. Year in, year out, every spring, the people of Kashechewan have to leave their traditional territory because they are living in a community that is fundamentally unsafe. I bring this up at this point because we have had the Conservative government break agreements with the people of Kashechewan, we have had the Liberal government sign agreements with the people of Kashechewan, but there is no difference between the actions of either party. They continue to ignore the health and safety of people. The Liberals make promises, but do not follow through.

With other year of threat to people's very lives, having to leave their homes in the midst of a third wave of COVID, what does the member think about the government's failure to live up to the obligations of legal contracts that it has signed with indigenous people to guarantee human rights and justice?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that Canada has signed on to international human rights obligations. We are signatories to human rights in the international community, yet the government has wilfully and intentionally violated the minimum human rights of indigenous peoples. We know indigenous peoples in this country, as a result of human rights violations, were already behind and we know as a result of COVID-19, people are even further behind.

The fact that in all the COVID spending, although we were further behind, although indigenous people comprise 5% of the entire population, we were given less than 1% of the overall COVID funding. That is a normalized behaviour in this country that we need to look at. We need to stop turning a blind eye and ensure that all people who live in this place that we now call Canada are ensured minimum human rights. That includes the right to housing, to accessing clean drinking water, to keep their kids, the right to go to school in their own territories, these very minimum human rights that are up for debate almost daily in the House.

I will continue, along with others in the House, to do what we need to do to ensure human rights for all.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot thank the member enough for her comments today. It is so important to hear from her. She is such an ally. I have learned so much from the member about the rights of indigenous people in Canada and around the world. I honour her for her words she has brought forward today.

As the member for Edmonton Strathcona, I would also like to talk very briefly about a community in my province that has been suffering for decades, that has been suffering with insufficient housing, with insufficient care for the people in that community. The community of Saddle Lake has been asking the federal government for years and years for support. I want to flag to the member that the incredible work she is doing is something that I will be sharing with those people. If there is anything she would like to say, any support she would like to offer to the people of Saddle Lake, I would be happy to take that to them after this debate.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, allies, need to unite. We need to unite. The bill is not perfect. It requires amendments, but it is a starting point. We need to stop fighting against ensuring that indigenous peoples have minimum human rights in this country and finally realize human rights for all.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

I am honoured today to speak to Bill C-15 as the member for Nickel Belt in Greater Sudbury, Canada's mining capital, which is located on the Robinson-Huron treaty territory of 1850 and on the traditional unceded lands of the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and Wahnapitae people.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the Métis people. As a member of the Liberal indigenous caucus, I am especially proud to support this bill, which is so important to the future of my region and the country as a whole.

Like many other members, I work closely with indigenous communities and their leaders to build relationships, mutual respect and, in some cases, good friendships. We all know that too many of these communities across Canada are struggling with the legacy of residential schools, as well as other problems related to systemic racism, intergenerational trauma, housing, access to clean water, high incarceration rates and a lack of jobs.

Today, we are having a debate on legislation that will help us address these enormous challenges. Bill C-15 would bring Canadian legislation into line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP sets out the rights of indigenous peoples around the world, including their right to self-determination and their right to develop their lands, territories and resources.

My speech today will focus on the role that our natural resource economy has played, is playing and will play in helping to right historical wrongs.

Let me share an example from my region. It involves Vale Canada's copper mine and Sagamok Anishnawbek First Nation. The property is less than 50 kilometres south of where I am in my riding, next door to my riding of Nickel Belt and the riding of my good friend, the hon. member for Sudbury.

Work began in the sixties, but hopes to extract the nickel, copper and precious metals vanished in the early 1970s due to the world's low pricing. That was during a time when most Canadian companies did not bother consulting local first nations. The Sagamok Anishnawbek people still refer to this ignorance as a 100-year wall of indifference.

Things have changed and while progressive companies have played a role, credit must go to indigenous rights' pioneers, leaders from B.C. to Nova Scotia, who launched court challenges, starting in the early 1970s, to assert their rights. It was in that context that the Sagamok Anishnawbek nailed down an agreement with Vale prior to the mine opening in 2014.

First nation members got training and access to jobs, which involved everything from underground mining to trucking, hauling and snow removal services. In 2019, the first nation acquired control of the mine's ore and waste rock haulage contract. More important to the community, it was a sense of pride.

At the time, the leaders of this first nation called it a historic event. It will go down in history. The future is here, and I am proud that our government is encouraging these partnerships all across Canada.

I just watched a video on YouTube about another success story in northern Ontario. Honestly, I got choked up.

Last year, Natural Resources Canada provided $500,000 in a training fund for the Agoke Development. The money came from the $13 million three-year indigenous forestry initiative.

Agoke, a forestry company in northern Ontario, is owned by three first nations. Their leaders are determined to create local jobs, especially for youth who otherwise have to leave their families and traditional territories to get employment. Today, they are truck drivers, millwrights, power engineers and heavy equipment mechanics, and some are trained in forestry management.

One of the youths in the video said that he was reluctant to take part, but then his grandparents convinced him to take that leap of faith. That youth was bursting with pride when he was asked if he was glad he had applied. He said that it was life changing. A young woman echoed that sentiment, telling other youth, “Honestly, just to sign up.“

The Natural Resources Canada program also gave $330,000 to the Cree first nation of Waswanipi in Quebec, which is located 800 kilometres north of Montreal. This financial assistance enabled the first nation to reopen a shuttered sawmill. That is fantastic, but the government cannot do this alone.

We need the private sector and its private purchasing power. Industry is answering the call, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is a good business decision at a time when many companies are experiencing labour shortages, especially in areas that are remote and near indigenous communities. The oil industry already supports more than 10,000 indigenous jobs and has invested some $12 million in the communities.

Just last spring, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reaffirmed its 2016 endorsement of the UN declaration as a framework for reconciliation. The LNG sector has helped set the pace. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada said recently that this sector had the potential to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people.

Meanwhile, the Mining Association has taken action to support and embrace UNDRIP.

It revised its indigenous and community relationships protocol. This will make it possible for its members to align themselves with the requirements of our new Impact Assessment Act, our government's initiative to achieve the objectives of the declaration.

There are approximately 1,200 indigenous communities located near several hundred active mines and more than 2,500 active exploration properties. These agreements provide for training programs, apprenticeship opportunities, and substantial scholarships and retention bursaries. The objective is to provide transferable skills that can be used after the mine shuts down.

The forest products industry also recognizes the importance of establishing partnerships with indigenous peoples, 70% of whom live in or near forests.

In B.C., for instance, the various partnership agreements have brought roughly $250 million in benefits to indigenous communities. This progress is not confined to traditional resources and industries. Many communities will take part in a clean energy wave as we drive toward a net-zero 2050 target.

In northern Alberta, our government is helping indigenous communities build Canada's largest off-grid solar energy farm. This is hardly an isolated incident. The Conference Board of Canada noted that indigenous communities owned half of Canada's renewable projects, which is making real progress.

However, the truth is that there is still more work to do be done. That is why everyone, government, industries and these communities, must work harder and together to build that foundation of trust.

The natural resources sector is the largest employer of indigenous peoples in Canada. The natural resources economy provides jobs, equities and opportunities for indigenous businesses and impact agreements that benefit communities adjacent to natural resources. UNDRIP will provide a clearer picture for resource development in Canada, helping to ensure these projects are done in full partnership with indigenous people.

Working together, we can be part of correcting this grave historic injustice. I urge all members of the House to support the bill.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into debate on this subject, although it is unfortunate it is under the auspices of time allocation.

I heard from a number of indigenous leaders, communities and individuals, who are very concerned about the consequences a legislated implementation of UNDRIP would have on their ability for economic self-determination. Certainly, I appreciate the fact that the member brought forward a number of concerns about how stakeholders needed to be engaged and whatnot, but I am concerned about how some indigenous leaders see this as having possible negative consequences on their ability to participate in Canada's economy.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill has provided some opportunities for consultation. Some indigenous communities have concerns, but the vast majority of indigenous communities are in support of natural resources and work collectively with a natural resources company. It is clear that many, if not all, of the industries have embraced UNDRIP. They know that we need to consult with indigenous communities. They know that to get resources to market, we need to partner and we also need to look at a net-zero plan by 2050.

This is important for the consultation that is happening. It is important that we pass the legislation. We need to move forward. We need need to build the trust with indigenous communities, and the private sector is leading the way.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. He talked about what went on in his backyard, the lack of consultation with first nations people and the fact that first nations youth had to leave the north, again and again. What is happening in his backyard is the destruction of the indigenous languages, the indigenous education, the indigenous politics and environmental programs at Laurentian University. There has been no consultation with them and that member has gone to ground.

The member talks about how great it is that indigenous people can learn to drive trucks. Yes, they know how to drive trucks all right, but we have a world-class program at Laurentian to ensure access for indigenous youth not to have to leave the north, but to stay and be doctors, nurses or teachers. It is being wiped out and that member has not bothered to stand up and fight for them.

How can he have the nerve to talk about consultation with first nations now while this program is being wiped out on his watch?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting hearing the member speak, because he could not be further from the truth. We all agree that the program cuts that are happening at Laurentian University are unacceptable. The indigenous, the environment and what is happening is unacceptable during the court proceedings.

However, I want to assure the House, members of Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, indigenous peoples and people all across my riding that I have been standing up. Our government will be supporting a plan that has been proposed. This is something we have to do.

Today, we are debating the consultation approach that we have taken. We are debating UNDRIP. We need to pass this legislation. We need to do this now. The urgency is here. We have supported it over the years and now we need to pass it. I hope that tomorrow my colleague and all the members of the House will take that initiative to ensure it is passed.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, resource development and extraction have offered some opportunities for first nation communities: training, jobs, accommodation agreements and perhaps economic prosperity in certain cases. The trouble with highlighting only the positive is that it lacks integrity; it comes off as disingenuous. We know many of the ways that resource development and extraction have actually used and abused indigenous territories and peoples.

Could the member comment on some of the ways that missing and murdered indigenous women are impacted by, say, man camps that accompany this development?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously more work needs to be done. The House of Commons and all political parties need to support indigenous communities across the country. We need to ensure that we look at housing and clean water, and at the many issues facing first nations. We have many issues to deal with, and we will be taking action. We are making great strides. We need to promote the good that is happening in indigenous communities and we need to do better.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, good day and áma sqit. I am speaking to members today from the traditional unceded territory of the Coast Salish peoples, including the territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam nations. My riding also includes the traditional unceded territories of the Líl'wat, the Shishalh and the N’Quat’qua nations. I am very grateful to also call this place my home.

Tanúyap. It is particularly important to start with this language acknowledgement as we are debating Bill C-15, which seeks to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian federal law.

It is important because we need to remember that indigenous peoples have lived on these lands and waters since time immemorial. Their laws, their practices and their ways of life did not end when settlers reached Canada’s shores. However, our nation has stubbornly not been able to reconcile this reality and has instead sought to carve out a box, figuratively, to isolate first nations in society. It has sought to marginalize indigenous people in Canada or to assimilate them into society more widely.

The actions of settlers and Canadian governments over time have been to dispossess indigenous peoples of the land they enjoyed communally, to separate families, to suppress indigenous culture and to deny the same basic rights to indigenous peoples that the rest of Canadians enjoy freely.

The advances on indigenous rights we have seen in our country were not simply given to first nations. They were the result of long, arduous litigation that led to the development of aboriginal law. This was by no means easy: It started from a point of first nations not having the right to legal counsel to having rights protected under section 35 of the charter. The common law has evolved to recognize aboriginal rights to traditional practices such as fishing under indigenous leaders and visionaries like Ron Sparrow.

Recognition of aboriginal practices and title in seminal cases such as Delgamuukw had to be built from an evidentiary base that was recorded through oral history, when the law did not recognize it. These cases had to be heard in front of leading jurists who, only 30 years ago, dismissed indigenous ways of life as nasty, brutish and short before they finally worked their way up to the highest courts in our land where our laws continue to evolve.

The adoption of Bill C-15 would help flip this script with the government finally taking a proactive approach to recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, including the inherent right to self-determination. Nothing less is required to move forward in reconciliation.

Since 2016, progress has been made by introducing new approaches to negotiations and establishing mechanisms for co-operation and collaboration, as well as through ongoing steps to implement and respond to the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has called upon the Government of Canada to fully adopt and implement the declaration as a framework for reconciliation, and Bill C-15 responds to calls to action 43 and 44.

Bill C-15 would take this step by further requiring that our laws be consistent with UNDRIP, or else modifying them so that they are. It is a simple and short bill, but its implications are wide-ranging. For that reason, an up to three-year timeframe is established to develop an action plan to implement this legislation. I know that seems like a long time, but when we consider that this implicates all federal ministers, the whole of government, and 634 first nations in this country speaking 50 different languages, as well as the amount of federal legislation that will have to be looked at, we can understand the scale of the task.

This is not the first time we are debating this bill in this chamber. This bill was first introduced by Cree former Liberal MP Tina Keeper in a 2008 private members' bill, which failed to be enacted. Former NDP MP Romeo Saganash’s private member's bill passed in the House, but unfortunately languished in the Senate for over a year before the last election.

I have to emphasize that we are not the first movers in this space of adopting this bill into domestic legislation, given that the provincial government in British Columbia did so in 2019. We can learn from its experience. The sky has not fallen since. Instead, the province has had one of the most robust economies in our country since then. I mention this to dispel a common misconception about the likely impact of this bill.

When it stalled the previous iteration of this bill, the official opposition in this chamber and the Senate voiced fears that the article recognizing free, prior and informed consent from indigenous people for projects on traditional indigenous land would paralyze resource development. However, these fears disregard the fact that the Government of Canada already aims to secure free, prior and informed consent when actions are proposed that impact the rights of indigenous peoples on their lands, resources and territories. Case law has grown to recognize that significant impacts to closely held rights require a meaningful process that seeks consent, in practice anyway, to uphold the honour of the Crown and to meet constitutional obligations under section 35.

These fears also disregard that industries already work from within this frame because their shareholders expect it, because it is necessary for social licence and business certainty, and because they know that the projects will become fixtures in the communities. Partnership with indigenous peoples is the way forward.

Giving first nations a say in projects that affect them does not mean that projects do not get built. It means that bad projects do not get built, and that the issues that impact first nations are addressed in the process. The Squamish Nation in my riding pioneered an indigenous-led environmental assessment process that a major project proponent agreed to be bound by. Rather than reject the project, the EA approved it with important conditions that would mitigate the impacts of the project. From that, an impact benefit agreement was then ratified by the nation through a referendum.

Similar progressive processes have been developed by nations such as the Tahltan Nation in northern B.C., where mining is a hotbed of activity, and the Secwepemc in the interior of B.C. Processes like these are now allowed, and indeed encouraged, by the Impact Assessment Act that became law in 2019. It is a great departure from the assessment regime that the official opposition brought in, in 2012. When the Conservatives were in power, they treated fist nations as stakeholders rather than as the rights holders that they are, and treated consultation with indigenous peoples just the same as with other individuals: as a box-checking exercise. This was not only dishonourable, it was also unlawful, and it is one of the reasons that inspired me to be where I am today.

The Impact Assessment Act is one of nine federal laws that references, and was created within, the spirit of the declaration. We need not fear these developments, because when first nations have clear power over decisions that affect them trust is built, confidence increases and opportunities become available for indigenous peoples. Decolonizing our relationship with indigenous peoples presents perhaps the greatest opportunity for economic growth in this country. If first nations can get out of the absurdly titled Indian Act, they can gain access to basic abilities, such as getting a mortgage from a bank, among many other benefits.

I wish to recognize Shishalh Nation hiwus Warren Paull, who was a councillor in 1986 when the Squamish Nation became the first self-governing nation in our country through visionary leadership, blazing a trail for many other nations. The nation has since developed advanced land-use plans to guide development and is assuming new areas of responsibility from other orders of government. It participates as a full partner in the Sunshine Coast Regional District, has reformed its constitution and voting laws, negotiated detailed provincial agreements on reconciliation and inspired the next generation of leaders, all while continuing complex negotiations on rights with the federal government. This is also happening against the backdrop of a community where survivors of residential schools still painfully recount their experiences.

Chief Paull was one of many dignitaries at the B.C. legislature for the announcement that the province would be the first in Canada to introduce and pass legislation to implement UNDRIP. There he noted that:

It's been 52 years since Frank Calder and the Nisga'a Nation did the first court case on land claims. Since those 52 years and counting, we finally get back to the place where recognition is there.

It is high time, 14 years after UNDRIP was introduced to the globe, that we recognize the same rights here. It is time that we work with first nations proactively to advance reconciliation rather than respond remedially to court decisions. It is time that we co-develop the future that we want to see in this country.

As my time is running out, I will conclude with that.

?ul nu msh chalap.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member emphasize the importance of this being dealt with now, but I had the honour of supporting Romeo Saganash's bill in the 41st Parliament, which ended in 2015. In that election, the Prime Minister promised to pass and implement UNDRIP. We have not seen that happen. We are now a year and a half into the second Parliament with the prospect of this not getting through, as it did not the last time.

Could the member tell us why it is taking so long? How can indigenous people, or any Canadians, take seriously the Liberal commitment to having this actually put in legislation with an action plan for implementation?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it is high time that we pass this. It is high time that we implement this in Canada. It has been over 14 years since the declaration was passed. There have been many strong efforts to finally move ahead with this in Canada.

While this process takes place, important progress has been made on implementing some of the principles, but we need to have this as a framework and an action plan so that we reform all types of legislation across the country.

I would certainly agree with the member that it is high time that we pass this. I certainly hope that my colleagues across the House will agree with me as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, could the member provide further comment on the issue of reconciliation and how important that has been for the government over the last number of years? As the member pointed out, Bill C-15 is another piece of legislation that responds to the calls for action, and to a deep desire that I and many MPs have to see UNDRIP take effect. How important is it toward reconciliation from his perspective?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, moving forward with reconciliation is incredibly important for our country.

The Prime Minister has said that our relationship with indigenous peoples is the most important relationship we have. There are significant challenges we have in moving forward with this. This is a long process: It is one that is going to require trust-building to make sure we are able to make the progress that we need to. It is also one of the biggest opportunities that we have in this country with respect to economic development.

We see lots of great progress already. There have been major changes in the way that the Government of Canada approaches negotiations to treaties in British Columbia, which I think is really important progress. We certainly have a long way to go. We have a lot we can learn from the province of B.C., for instance, on how it has been able to move forward in the same respect.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, we have heard about how quickly we need to pass this piece of legislation, and I understand that perfection in a perfect world is not necessarily what we can aim for.

Significant amendments must be made to this bill. I would like to hear the member's comments on that, specifically about the lack of true intent around including the word “racism.” It is not there. We see instead “systemic discrimination”, and a measure to address injustices. Why does a hesitancy to address racism exist? Could the member comment on that?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, systemic racism exists in our country. I mentioned a few examples, going back over 100 years, of how that has been present.

We just have to look at the lack of access to clean drinking water in way too many areas across our country, and the third world conditions that many first nations live in at this point.

I certainly agree that this is here and we need to make sure we are addressing that through any means possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Calgary Centre.

I am honoured today to speak to Bill C-15, as the relationship with indigenous people in this country is a lived experience for me growing up and living in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. I must admit there is some trepidation on my part as we embark on this journey. The impacts of this bill would be both long-term and far-reaching, requiring more than the seeking of short-term political gains and talking points. The historical relationship between the federal government and indigenous people in this country is filled with distrust that has put in jeopardy the true potential our great country has to offer all of us.

A couple of months ago, in the announcement that the government would not fulfill its promise to end boil water advisories in first nations communities, it was pointed out that the scope of the problem was not fully understood at the time the election promise was made by the Prime Minister in 2015. This is another reminder to all of us that making promises one cannot keep is not an ideal way to develop trust in a relationship that badly needs more of it.

In a Globe and Mail article published recently, it was pointed out that Public Services and Procurement Canada for the past three years “has said a key indicator of the government's economic and social-policy goals was an increase in the participation of [indigenous-led business] in procurement.” Unfortunately, it was revealed in the departmental plans in the last three years that the targets have remained as TBD, to be determined. That is three years that we have seen no change in the ministry's plans to set targets or measure results.

Even worse, to this day, there is not even a mechanism in place to track which bids are coming from indigenous businesses. If the government's goal really was to increase procurement for indigenous businesses, one would think that, at the very least, creating an instrument in its data management system could have been developed in three years. At best, this is an astounding lack of competence.

Further evidence of lowering the bar was in the minister's 2021 mandate letter, where there was not even a mention of the 5% indigenous procurement promise that had been made to indigenous businesses in the past. Instead of doing the hard work and fixing the department's failures, they just removed the targets. It is not exactly an example that one would find in a leadership manual.

These examples illustrate a troubling trend with the government's actions when it comes to delivering results for indigenous people and their communities. It starts with making election promises and getting photographs at press conferences, and it continues by using phrases in ministerial letters, on websites and in announcements like “strongly encourages” and “the most important relationship to this government”. It then ends with walking back the original promise, changing the targets or, in the case of the procurement example, eliminating them altogether. The government tends to act only when it has its back to the wall, after spending too much time walking backwards while making little progress on its promises. We see this again today in the fact that it has to invoke closure on a bill that has seen one hour of debate in this House.

This brings me to Bill C-15. After Bill C-262, the government had ample opportunity and time to develop a national action plan that could have created the certainty and clarity that stakeholders have been consistently asking for. Putting together an action plan before tabling the bill would have allowed for many of the concerns of people across the spectrum to be addressed. The worry that government is putting the cart before the horse is justified, as history has proven that to be the case all too often. Why would we not ensure, on such an important piece of legislation, that we remove as many rocks off the road as possible before we proceed? That approach would alleviate a lot of the judicial quagmire that is sure to follow the passing of Bill C-15 without this transparent road map.

With no certainty, the very real worry is that there will be many court battles over the next few decades because of political short-sightedness. As we have seen this past year with the Nova Scotia lobster fishery issue, that is a path not worth taking. In this relationship, we cannot afford more failures. We have to be honest: Governments have a terrible track record on delivering expectations for indigenous people.

Let me use some numbers that the Indigenous Resource Network shared recently, to show who has not fallen short in delivering for indigenous people and communities in this country.

The private sector has led the way in spending on indigenous businesses. Suncor has spent over $6 billion on indigenous procurement since 1999, including $800 million, or 8% of its total spending, in 2019 alone. Sunova has spent $2.9 billion since 2009, including $139 million in 2019. Imperial has invested $2.6 billion in indigenous businesses since 2009.

Diamond mines in the Northwest Territories spent $5.9 billion on indigenous spending between 1996 and 2017. Agnico Eagle in Nunavut spent $408 million on Inuit businesses in 2019 alone. Teck Resources spent $225 million on indigenous procurement in 2019. Coastal GasLink has spent $720 million on indigenous and local contracts. TMX, when it is completed, will have generated over $1 billion on indigenous-based contracts. Finally, from its own published data, Cameco, a uranium company, has procured $3.85 billion since 2004 from local suppliers in my riding in northern Saskatchewan.

These numbers represent more than just dollars. They represent real outcomes and direct impacts on the daily lives of indigenous people. They allow for investments into communities that have far too long been left out of the opportunities the rest of Canada has enjoyed.

It is often implied that any discussion around economic opportunity and job creation for indigenous people is somehow insensitive to the social issues they face. I believe the opposite is actually true. Advocating for jobs, own-source revenue streams, equity ownership and financial independence is in fact the pathway to self-determination and the solution to many of the social challenges.

The culture of poverty has for too long defined the culture of the people. A culture with such rich history deserves so much better. The private sector has done the heavy lifting in the building of trust with indigenous people and their communities, and it has been doing it for years. It should be recognized and applauded for the advancement of reconciliation and the role it has played in it. Part of that recognition should be reflected in its voice being heard in the areas of this bill it is simply seeking clarity on.

Since Bill C-15 was tabled, I have had the opportunity and pleasure to meet virtually with many indigenous stakeholders. The common theme in our discussions always came back to the lack of certainty in Bill C-15's plan to implement UNDRIP. That is why it is so important that this bill clarify the following issues.

Number one, in the three years the government has given itself to develop an action plan on the implementation of the declaration, what is the approach going to be to collaborating and consulting with indigenous communities, the indigenous business community and the numerous regional and national organizations across Canada so all their views will be considered?

Number two, how will the application of the declaration be applied when there is conflicting support and opposition from the indigenous communities on projects that are both large and vertical in scope? Does the federal government retain the final authority in the decision-making process?

Number three, will not allowing time and space for indigenous communities to find an answer to the question of who has the authority to provide or withhold consent undermine the process? With the current lack of consensus, what does this mean in the years ahead?

Bringing clarity on these issues is the right thing to do. There is a responsibility in the consideration of Bill C-15 that requires us to not only listen to the concerns around the lack of certainty, but to respond by advocating for indigenous people, communities and leaders who are asking for answers to the important questions they are bringing forward.

We have a long way to go in building the lost trust in the relationship with indigenous people in this country. Divisions within Parliament have often led to legislation that is based more on politics than on real solutions. That is why it is obvious that seeking clarity and certainty on Bill C-15 is not only a fair and valid request, but it is the very essence of what the aspirations of UNDRIP require us to do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we be really clear. The Conservative members say what they will during the debate, but their actual intentions would be not to allow the legislation to ultimately come to a vote. We have seen that on other types of legislation. Even though they might talk nice in regard to reconciliation and so forth, their actions on this particular piece of legislation, as it was with Bill C-262, say more than their words do.

I am wondering if the member could provide a very clear indication as to why the Conservatives would not have recognized the value of allowing this to come to a vote so at the very least it could go to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, let us just be clear in the question the member is asking. This legislation is already at committee; it has been at committee for weeks already, as we were required to do a prestudy of this legislation at the INAN committee. Maybe we should actually let some facts do the talking.

As I said in my comments, I have had the opportunity to speak to many indigenous stakeholders, and what I have heard and what I understand is that many of them have not had the opportunity to have their input into this legislation. They have asked to come to committee; they have sent letters asking to be at committee, but the member's government limited the amount of time and the number of meetings where we could listen to the evidence at committee, so for him to talk about the Conservatives obstructing the process is literally quite a folly. It is actually the Liberals who have obstructed the process for us to hear from the voices at committee.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I represent a very large natural resources region, and we know that no projects get off the ground without indigenous consent. It is now a fundamental principle.

The issue of consent is important, because it is not just about saying “yes”; it is also about the ability to say “no” when a project has fundamental problems that threaten the environment of traditional territory. I know, from the days when I was working with the Algonquin nation in Quebec, that we actually had to have blockades to get anyone to come to the table. We are talking about a fundamental principle, a principle that has been defined in court case after court case, a principle that the issue of consent is fundamental when we are talking about resource development in Canada.

I would encourage the Conservatives to recognize that if they are willing to work with first nations communities, we are going to move a lot further ahead, but we have seen obstructions against UNDRIP year in, year out. UNDRIP needs to pass before we can move together as a nation.

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

Madam Speaker, in all fairness, I could not agree more with the member. As I said in my comments, not allowing time and space for the indigenous communities to find an answer to the question of who has the authority to provide or withhold consent undermines the process.

What I have heard from the stakeholders, many of them indigenous organizations representing opportunity for indigenous people whose mandate is to end poverty in first nations, is their concern about the uncertainty and the lack of clarity on this particular piece of legislation and how it may hinder their opportunity to fulfill their mandate of serving their people in first nations across this country.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask quickly about some of the words we use. Language is so important, and “reconciliation” has been said time and time again in the House. I have heard from many people who feel that this word is actually losing some of its meaning. In fact, if we think of reconciliation, it means to reconcile, to improve what was perhaps once a good relationship, which we know was not the case.

Could the member speak about reparations and what we could actually be doing in Canada to ensure that we repair a broken relationship?