House of Commons Hansard #102 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-15.

Topics

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. The answer is that it does not mean anything. This too is just for show. It is a flashy statement that does nothing but give federal politicians an excuse to congratulate themselves. Federal politicians do not deserve congratulations. Federal politicians have failed.

What we do need is to give indigenous communities the freedom and independence to make their own decisions and move forward without federal government interference.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.

The purpose of this legislation is to align Canadian laws with UNDRIP. The road to reconciliation has been a long and difficult one, with many ups and downs. Underlying it all is an understandable level of distrust on the part of indigenous peoples. Seen in that context, it could be said that at best, this is a well-intentioned piece of legislation, but even if that were so, it does not make it a good piece of legislation.

This legislation will likely move the process of reconciliation backward, rather than forward, and have grave impacts upon first nations communities to develop and prosper and achieve true self-determination. This legislation would undermine reconciliation, and nowhere is that clearer than in the complete failure on the part of the government in this bill to define what constitutes “free, prior and informed consent”.

What is free, prior and informed consent? If we were to look at the remarks of the Minister of Justice, we would be led to believe that it really means not much of anything, that the status quo ante would not be upended. In that regard, when the minister spoke in the House on this bill and the question of free, prior and informed consent, he said, “Free, prior and informed consent does not constitute veto power over the government's decision-making process.” The minister went on to say it “will not change Canada's existing duty to consult with indigenous peoples”. Clearly, that cannot be so.

Free, prior and informed consent is not the same as the duty to consult and accommodate, which is embedded in section 35 of our Constitution. There is a wide body of jurisprudence on that doctrine that makes clear that the right to be consulted and the right to be accommodated do not constitute a right of an absolute veto. When one looks at the words “free, prior and informed consent” on their face, they would seem to mean precisely the opposite of what the minister purports, namely that there would be a veto by someone.

Consistent with that, many persons who are authoritative on this matter have said as much. Let us take Senator Murray Sinclair, for example. Senator Sinclair championed Bill C-262 in the Senate in the last Parliament, which was the predecessor to this piece of legislation. Senator Sinclair is an esteemed retired justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.

On the question of what constitutes free, prior and informed consent, Senator Sinclair said this: “Free, prior and informed consent is a very simple concept.... And that is, before you affect my land, you need to talk to me, and you need to have my permission.” If “you need to have my permission” is not a veto, I do not know what is.

Assembly of First Nations chief Perry Bellegarde said that free, prior and informed consent, “very simply, is the right to say yes, and the right to say no”. He said it is “the right to say no”, full stop. If that does not constitute a veto, then I say I do not know what does.

It did not have to be this way. The one thing the government could have done was incorporate language expressly into the bill that made it clear that free, prior and informed consent does not constitute a veto. The Liberals could have provided a clearer definition of its meaning and its effect, thereby removing the considerable questions that currently exist about the implications of its meaning and effect, and what that will do to the development of major resource and other projects if this bill is passed.

One thing that is certain is that this lack of a definition would create considerable uncertainty and a torrent of new litigation around major development projects. It would undermine regulatory certainty, undermine investor confidence, and undermine the ability of individual first nations communities to determine their own destinies by seeking opportunities to engage and participate in projects that could help their people develop and prosper.

This is hardly a hypothetical. One need only look at Bill 41, passed by the B.C. NDP government in December 2019. That bill is quite similar to Bill C-15. It does not expressly enshrine UNDRIP into law in the Province of British Columbia, but it uses aspirational language about aligning B.C.'s laws with UNDRIP, similar to Bill C-15.

Within two months of the passage of Bill 41, three major projects were challenged by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: the Kitimat LNG project, the Site C dam and Coastal GasLink. The UN committee said that UNDRIP did apply, and that there had not been free, prior and informed consent. Many indigenous communities and leaders also took that position. That was despite the fact that, in the case of Coastal GasLink, 20 indigenous communities had supported the project but one faction of unelected hereditary chiefs opposed it. It underscores the uncertainty that would result from the passage of this bill, and it is why I cannot support this bill.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, does my colleague not think we should strive for collaboration? From his speech, it sounds as though he thinks the United Nations is an adversary.

Personally, I believe in a model that enables us to work closely together. If my colleague does not support this bill, what are his thoughts on how we can make progress?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Speaker, I reject in part the premise of the member's question, which is to suggest that this has widespread support among indigenous communities. It is opposed by the National Coalition of Chiefs, the Indigenous Resource Network, the Indian Resource Council, Chief Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, and the Mohawks of Montreal. I could go on.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite spoke extensively about resource extraction. Throughout the debate, a number of his colleagues have stood and said the UNDRIP represents a veto and FPIC essentially means a veto.

Could the member highlight where in the text of Bill C-15 he finds the term “veto”, and if he could maybe give us more insight into why that misconception is being reiterated by his party and his colleagues throughout this debate?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Speaker, in response I will quote a letter sent from the National Coalition of Chiefs to the Prime Minister in December on that very question. They said:

There are implications to this legislation, as currently drafted, that is likely to have negative impacts on the many Indigenous communities that rely on resource development...

It is unfortunate the government did not heed the concerns of the National Coalition of Chiefs.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, we are debating this bill today because we have to resume the work done by my friend and former colleague Romeo Saganash seeking to enshrine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into federal law. This would be a great thing to do, and it would put us in a good position to move forward on reconciliation with first nations.

Unfortunately, despite the expressed will of the majority of House members, the bill died in the Senate, thanks to the scheming of the Conservative Senators. What does my colleague think about the fact that unelected senators blocked the will of the elected representatives of the people?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Speaker, in response to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I have a great amount of respect for Romeo Saganash. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity to serve with him in the last Parliament.

That being said, Bill C-262 was a flawed piece of legislation for many of the same reasons that Bill C-15 is a flawed piece of legislation. I was unable to support Bill C-262 and I am unable to support this bill.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Madam Speaker, my colleague referred to the president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, Mr. Swampy, and I want to quickly highlight a quote from his committee testimony:

The federal government has imposed very high standards of consultation on industry.... Now, with Bill C-15, I don't see you applying those standards to yourselves.

Would the member for St. Albert—Edmonton agree that in the introduction of this bill, the government does not meet the consultation threshold that the aspirations of UNDRIP require?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. The very simple answer is the member is absolutely right. Yes.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Before I go to the next speaker, I want to advise her that unfortunately she will not be able to have the whole amount of time allocated to her at this point. She has about 13 minutes for debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fredericton.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging the unceded Wolastoqiyik territory from which I speak today. I have commented in this House before about the importance of this recognition and, most importantly, the actions that must accompany it.

There has never been a more important time to highlight this than with our discussion of Bill C-15, an act to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples here in Canada, in a colonial country, where land was extorted. In addition to threats and force, there were efforts to exterminate and bury the original peoples of this land. These efforts failed. Instead, they planted seeds, and what we are seeing is a reclamation, the ushering in of a new age. The time has come for reparations.

Many of my colleagues in this House know that my children are indigenous. I have also worked closely with hundreds of indigenous youth as a teacher. They have informed my work every step of the way. When I think of voting on this bill, I ask myself what their world will look like in five years, in 10 years and for the generations after them, with or without passing Bill C-15.

Bill C-15 introduces the notion of a national action plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law, with annual reporting mechanisms. It is important to note that the specifics of these measures are not articulated. This has brought with it uncertainty and a manifestation of a well-placed mistrust in government.

What Bill C-15 does well is lay out a robust preamble with ambitious, frankly incredible language. It includes value statements that acknowledge systemic discrimination, and now racism, thanks to an important amendment. It recognizes self-determination of indigenous peoples, including an acknowledgement of their legal systems. It actually says, “the Government of Canada rejects all forms of colonialism and is committed to advancing relations...that are based on good faith and on the principles of justice, democracy, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and respect for human rights”.

Can we take these words at face value, or in good faith, as the bill proclaims? The criticisms of Bill C-15 are nuanced. The most obvious issue is that the notion of good faith itself is on shaky ground. For a bill that enshrines the notion of free, prior and informed consent, consultation is severely lacking. I know that is a contested point, but I must say I believe it was lacking.

It is not enough to have closed-door meetings with national bodies or organizations. The individual rights holders have a right to be heard and to weigh in on legislation with such significant implications. All Canadians, Québécois and indigenous peoples of this land require an understanding of the declaration and what it truly means to affirm it as a universal international human rights instrument.

A more complex problem some are having with this bill is that indigenous people are tired of the gaslighting. Indigenous rights are inherent. People are born with them and no one can take them away. These rights have existed since time immemorial, and yet Canadian history presents things as though indigenous peoples were handed those rights with the coming into force of the 1982 Constitution Act. It is a nice idea, but it misses hundreds of years of colonialism and abuse rooted in the doctrine of discovery. The notions that the Crown holds sovereignty over indigenous peoples, that indigenous laws and legal traditions have no place and that the Crown has ultimate title to the land held in trust underpin all of Canadian law. They are embedded in the Canadian charter, and they have placed the burden of labour on indigenous peoples and nations to establish their rights in Canadian courts.

Bill C-15 also fails to enshrine a distinctions-based approach to implementing UNDRIP in Canada and stands more as pan-indigenous legislation, disregarding the incredible diversity within indigenous nations. It is possible that Bill C-15 may be a tool in the tool kit for future court cases, but I have to question what the future holds for Canada and indigenous nationhood with this implication. Are we preparing for years of expensive legal battles? Are we asking once again for indigenous people to bear the burden of proof in the protection of their collective inherent rights?

What will happen with the Mi'kmaq fishery dispute, with a new season set to start in June? Fishers and leadership have had to call on the United Nations for protection from violence and racist intimidation. Will the passing of Bill C-15 prevent this from happening? Will it remind the non-indigenous fishers of their treaty obligations, of their history of settlement in Unama'ki? If B.C.'s UNDRIP law is any indication, sadly, I do not think it will.

I want to take a moment to talk about the journey I have been on when it comes to the study of this bill. My first step was with the Wolastoqiyik Grand Council, under Grand Chief Spasaqsit Possesom and Wolastoqiyik grandmothers. My next step was to meet with the Wabanaki Peace & Friendship Alliance.

I reviewed numerous analyses and interpretations. I met with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre to learn more about the work of Romeo Saganash with Bill C-262. I met with local community leadership. I met with our local friendship centre. I met with the association of Iroquois and allied nations, with my hon. colleague from Vancouver Granville. I met with the Assembly of First Nations and staff from Chief Bellegarde's office. I listened and I learned.

My last stop was again with the Wolastoqiyik grandmothers, scholars and leaders in my riding. I would encourage all members of the House to also seek out that guidance.

The assertion of these critical voices from Fredericton, from my mentors and most trusted allies, is to reject Bill C-15 at third reading. This is not easy for me. The Green Party of Canada stands by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we campaigned on passing it into law. However, that is not what Bill C-15 would accomplish.

I am told to celebrate Bill C-15 as it sets out the basic minimum standards for dignity and human rights for indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples already have these rights: charter rights. They already have title to their land and to hunt and fish for their livelihoods. They already have the right to self-determination. Canadians are the ones who have a problem upholding these rights, and Canada fails to enforce them.

We have a moral, legal and fiduciary responsibility as a nation to uphold our laws. However, we have broken these laws in pursuit of domination over indigenous nations, and there is significant work ahead in dismantling these systems and structures of oppression that got us here. There are no easy fixes, such as passing Bill C-15 to check the box of reconciliation.

Clarity on the implementation of UNDRIP would have been a golden opportunity to demonstrate what a new relationship could be, to demonstrate true respect and co-operation. Canada and sovereign indigenous nations could continue on a path in their own canoes, the lesson that the Two Row Wampum teaches us.

It is 2021, and it is time for us to face the truth. We cannot reconcile if we were never conciliatory; we can only work to repair the damage done. An essential part of these reparations is respecting the first treaty we all have as humans: the treaty with the land and with our planet. We forget far too often the interconnectedness of all life and our role and responsibility in preserving this place for future generations. What we have now is a race to consume resources.

There is a component of the bill that reflects sustainable development, but what this conversation must include is a re-evaluation of what that means. What is the value of protecting old-growth forests, food security and cultural safety? How are we to measure the success of Bill C-15? There are too many questions left unanswered.

The study of Bill C-15 has been a roller-coaster ride for me, and I wish to recognize the immense privilege I have as a non-indigenous person in pursuing this study. It has been difficult to see the infighting and division among people I look up to, among some of my personal heroes. I want to say for the record that it is okay to support the bill, and it is okay to reject it. What is not okay is ignoring our role and responsibilities as treaty people and treating each other with disrespect, which is a legacy that remains, with or without this bill.

Finally, whether Bill C-15 receives royal assent or not will not determine the future for my children. They are Wolastoqiyik. They are people of the beautiful and bountiful river. They are rooted to this land. They know who they are, and they know their rights.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like her to tell us what more should be added to a federal legislative measure to better respect the rights of first nations and indigenous people and to lead us toward meaningful reconciliation in Quebec and Canada.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, it is a reiteration of what we have heard a little about in this House, a more hands-off approach. Indigenous leadership and government structures are ready to lead in their own right. That is what self-determination means.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an excellent international covenant, and I stand by those principles. However, the bill is a plan to implement the plan and to enshrine it into law, so it just does not go far enough.

The consultation piece is highly debated, and it is a hot topic. The people in my riding have not had adequate consultation. They should be the ones to steer the direction of what real reconciliation would look like.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's comments, but I have to express a bit of disappointment in the position she is taking.

There has been extensive consultation. With respect to Bill C-262, I was with Romeo Saganash in many communities and on many travels with the INAN committee, where many people came out and talked about his direct engagement. The foundation of Bill C-15 is from Bill C-262, and our ministers, as well as other colleagues and I, were part of extensive consultations across Canada, even during the pandemic. In fact, during the INAN study itself we had many more people who came forward and spoke.

I do believe we have had a wide range of consultations, not perfect but extensive. We cannot say that we support UNDRIP in principle but are not ready to implement it. I would urge my colleague to reconsider her position, because this is a historic moment—

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

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

The hon. member for Fredericton.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, I must reiterate my respect, as well, for Romeo Saganash and the work he put in. I have to say, in the extensive conversations I have had in my home province of New Brunswick with the community members and inherent rights holders, they do not know what this bill means. They do not know what the implications are and they have not had adequate time to study the bill for themselves. These are scholars, activists and leaders. To say there has been extensive consultation, and to talk to actual indigenous people on the ground, who have not been consulted, does not add up to me. My role here is to represent Fredericton, and that is what I am doing.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Madam Speaker, I do not think my hon. colleague and I agree on much often, but today we do. My big criticism of the Liberals on this particular bill is that they should do what they say and say what they do. It does not come out any more clearly than when they say they have done extensive consultation. I sit on the committee. Everybody who appeared at committee had a recommendation for an amendment for the bill. All of the three major indigenous—

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

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

I am sorry; I have to cut the hon. member off, because we only have 30 seconds left for an answer before time is up.

The hon. member for Fredericton.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Green

Jenica Atwin Green Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, I do not know how much solace it brings me to be in agreeance with the Conservative Party of Canada on some of these issues.

I will go back to that consultation piece. The people I care about, who I speak to on a daily basis, have not had that thorough consultation. He is right that there were important amendments brought forward, and not all were adopted, including that important one about distinctions-based rights and the diversity that exists across this country. To say that there is consensus—

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

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

It being 1:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

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

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at two o'clock, so we can start Private Members' Business.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

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

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?