:
As we have quorum and are past the time, I accordingly call this meeting to order.
I start with the acknowledgement that in Ottawa we meet on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. All of us have land acknowledgements in our various places. In my case, it would be Anishinabe, Haudenosaunee and Chonnonton first nations.
Pursuant to the order of reference from the House of April 19, 2021, and the motion adopted on February 25, 2021, the committee is commencing its study—well, it has actually been under way for some time—of Bill , an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
I will clarify to members that the cited motion has the effect of merging our previous subject matter study with this new one under the order of reference.
To ensure an orderly meeting, best practices include just selecting language of choice. At the bottom of your screen is the globe. Touching the globe, you will find English, French or floor audio. Select the language that you prefer. If you're changing language as you speak, there's no need to change that selection. The technology, hopefully, will pick that up.
When speaking, make sure that your video is on, and speak slowly and clearly.
Pursuant to the motion adopted on March 9, 2021, I inform the committee that everyone has completed a technical pretest.
With us today is the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the Honourable Carolyn Bennett.
was to join us today. He has been unavoidably detained. His submission will be delivered by Minister Bennett.
Minister Bennett is accompanied by Ross Pattee, assistant deputy minister; Marla Israel, the director general; and Laurie Sargent, assistant deputy minister.
Thank you, all.
Minister Bennett, would you please begin with your statement?
I will read opening remarks, and then I will move on to mine, Mr. Chair. That will take a bit more time, but it's really important that the committee hears what Minister Lametti had prepared to say to all of you.
[Translation]
Good morning. It is my pleasure to appear at this committee to discuss Bill .
[English]
He was joining you from the Department of Justice, which sits on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
[Translation]
Before I start to discuss the main points in the bill, I would like to acknowledge the untiring work of parliamentarians and Indigenous leaders to have the declaration implemented in Canada.
In particular, I would like to recognize the work of my former colleague Romeo Saganash, who introduced private member's Bill in a previous Parliament. That bill was examined and studied in detail.
It will take determined work and a sustained commitment by Parliament, by the government, by Indigenous peoples and by all Canadians if we are to give concrete form to the vision of self-determination, of governmental autonomy and of the harmonious relations between peoples that the declaration foresees. That is exactly the work that Bill commits us to do together.
Bill has its foundations in former Bill and was developed in consultation and collaboration with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
[English]
The bill recognizes inherent rights and the right to recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. It also recognizes the role of the declaration as having application in Canadian law and as a source for interpreting Canadian law, including the Constitution. This is consistent with Canadian jurisprudence, which recognizes that, constitutionally, protected rights are not frozen in time. They are part of a living tree that grows and adapts to its surrounding context, including the development of new international norms, such as the declaration.
The legislation includes provisions emphasizing that measures to implement the declaration cannot be used to undermine aboriginal and treaty rights that are already constitutionally protected. To be clear, this provision does not seek to reinterpret or amend the rights in the declaration itself. It only confirms that this legislation cannot be used to derogate from the constitutional protection of section 35 rights, including treaty rights.
The legislation creates three specific obligations on the Government of Canada. The first requires the federal government to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples.
The second obligation requires developing an action plan in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples. The action plan would address injustices and combat prejudice while promoting mutual respect and understanding with an underpinning in human rights.
The third obligation contained in Bill is a requirement to prepare annual reports in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples. This would provide transparency on the measures taken to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration and the action plan.
[Translation]
To follow this path, we must work in collaboration to determine the way in which the standards and rights set out in the declaration will be put into practice. This includes the main aspects of the declaration such as free, prior and informed consent
[English]
Free, prior and informed consent is a manifestation of the right to self-determination. It is about providing the opportunity for clear, effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decisions that directly affect them. Achieving consent should be the goal of any good faith consultation or collaboration process. To be clear, the declaration does not confer a veto or require unanimity in these types of decisions. If consent cannot be secured, the facts and law applicable to the specific circumstances will determine the path forward.
Bill will not change Canada's existing duty to consult indigenous groups or other consultation and participation requirements set out in legislation like the Impact Assessment Act. What it will do is encourage ongoing work to build on these types of arrangements and approaches.
I would like to acknowledge that we have heard several potential proposed amendments and want to assure members that we are taking these suggestions very seriously. We welcome your recommendations.
[Translation]
Bill demonstrates a genuine commitment to champion reconciliation and to improve relations with Indigenous peoples. In so doing, we will build a better Canada for all current and future generations of Indigenous peoples and Canadians alike.
Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Chair, do you want me to go on with my own remarks?
I am speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. I wish to honour the waters they paddled and their moccasins which walked these lands.
It is my pleasure to appear at this committee to discuss Bill . I am joined today by two officials from the Implementation Sector: Ross Pattee, Assistant Deputy Minister, and Marla Israel, Director General of the Policy, Planning and Coordination Branch.
I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the leadership of former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash on developing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the “Declaration”) and on legislating a framework to implement it here in Canada and I thank him for Bill , which served as the foundation for Bill .
[English]
The declaration is of critical importance to indigenous peoples across Canada, including the indigenous leaders who participated directly in its development.
The declaration is the result of decades of tireless effort, negotiations and sustained advocacy within the United Nations system, including by inspiring indigenous leaders like Dr. Wilton Littlechild, who you heard from last week. As Dr. Littlechild recently told me, all together, is a reconciliation call for justice and respect through implementation of solutions-based international treaties.
I believe that implementing the declaration here in Canada is essential to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This has been made clear by both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, after six years of hearings, and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, after three years of listening to families and survivors.
The TRC said that the declaration charts a path for reconciliation to flourish in 21st century Canada. The inquiry's calls for justice also call on governments to immediately implement and fully comply with the declaration.
The introduction of fulfills our government's commitment to introduce legislation to implement the declaration, establishing Bill as the floor, rather than the ceiling.
Prior to the bill's introduction, 33 bilateral sessions took place with AFN, ITK and MNC. In addition, more than 450 people participated in 28 regional engagement sessions, providing feedback and advice on potential enhancements to the consultation draft. Provincial and territorial governments, experts and industry stakeholders also informed the development of the bill.
While we acknowledge that some would have preferred a longer engagement, it was inclusive and meaningful. The current bill reflects the content requested by many indigenous partners.
Extensive meetings were also held with indigenous partners and other stakeholders after its introduction, to explain the bill's content and work on further enhancements. As has noted, engagement post introduction informed some further amendments, which the government will be supporting.
Co-development of the action plan will be a further opportunity to work in close partnership on implementation.
We have already begun preliminary discussions with indigenous partners on the design of that process. Yesterday's budget 2021 proposes to provide $31.5 million over two years to support its co-development.
Recognizing and respecting indigenous rights mean that indigenous peoples are at the table for decisions that impact their rights. In many cases, it means that economic development and stronger economic outcomes will be advanced with indigenous peoples as partners.
The declaration is broader than economic development. I'm so grateful for my conversation with Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who you also heard from last week, on her findings about racism in health care and her report, “In Plain Sight”. She was very clear about article 24 of the declaration, which states:
Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right.
This will be very important in guiding the future legislation on indigenous health.
I also remember how important it was, during the summit on child welfare, to underline Article 7 of the declaration, which details the collective and individual rights to live free from violence, including “forcibly removing children”.
The declaration allows us all to develop a clear path so everyone can work together as partners with a shared stake in Canada's future.
As I said before, implementing the declaration is nothing to be frightened of. What is needed is fundamental and foundational change. It's about shedding our colonial past and writing the next chapter together, as partners with indigenous peoples.
It has been more than 13 years since the declaration was adopted by the General Assembly. I urge all members to support this fundamental and necessary change and support this bill.
Thank you. Meegwetch. Nakurmiik. Marsi.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Minister. Thank you very much for your words.
Minister, an infrastructure project such as the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline involved consultation with close to 120 indigenous groups. While the majority of these groups wanted to see the project proceed, four first nations opposed the government's approval of the project and challenged it all the way to the Supreme Court.
In the July 2020 Supreme Court decision, it was ruled that the federal government's approval of the project would not be overturned and that the project could proceed. The government had fulfilled its duty to consult, but some of these nations continued to fight it and vowed to do so, not recognizing the decision of the court.
Minister, can you confirm that with the passage of Bill , the federal government and provincial governments will retain their authority to make final decisions in the public interest on major projects, even where not all indigenous rights holders agree?
:
That's a great question, Jamie.
It really is important for people to understand that, even with Bill , the issue is “nothing about us without us”. This means that, for good projects to go forward, indigenous people should be at the table at the original design of the project. This is happening in the north all the time. Inuit are at the table to determine.... Good projects go forward; mediocre projects get made better; bad projects get rejected. That's known right from the beginning.
We're in a transition now where there are a number of projects that may have been seen as controversial, but this is what will provide the clarity, going forward, as to how it works.
I think you've also underlined an important point. Consensus is not unanimity. There are going to be times when certain people object, but I think the courts are holding up the duty to consult and accommodate, and this will be the way forward. I think that this is....
The work I'm doing on self-determination, nation rebuilding and trying to make sure that, like in the north, there's a voice for a nation that is consistent with the will of that community and that we are able to go forward with a true government-to-government, nation-to-nation approach, in a true partnership going forward.
:
Minister, the First Nations LNG Alliance, the Indigenous Resource Network and the Indian Resource Council have stated:
The uncertainty in the legislation makes it likely that it will be used as a legal strategy to delay and stymie resource development projects by groups that oppose extractive and other resource projects under any circumstances, even those where Indigenous nations are overwhelmingly in favour.
They went on to say:
We want to make sure C-15 protects Indigenous rights, as self-determining nations, to make decisions about our own resources.
Right now I don't think it's clear what changes on the day Bill passes, but we know there is a range of views and expectations on this legislation, including among indigenous groups. Some are saying it lacks clarity and that it will negatively impact the rights and ability of indigenous groups to form business partnerships and pursue economic independence.
Minister, again, concerning the definition of free, prior and informed consent in Bill , are you concerned that by not providing a definition, this could leave it up to interpretation in the courts and ultimately delay the process of reconciliation, including the Bill C-15 legislation or what comes next after it?
I would also like to start off by thanking Minister Bennett for her work on Bill and her tremendous work in terms of working with a number of organizations to get their support on Bill C-15.
I was really pleased to hear about the 33 bilateral sessions that were done with the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami to help co-develop this bill. This is on top of the 27 years at the United Nations; the UN working group was the first working group to have non-state actors at the same table during the drafting stages, where thousands of indigenous voices contributed to what we have within UNDRIP.
Also, I'm really pleased to see that within the budget there's $31.5 million allocated over two years to ensuring co-development of an action plan on UNDRIP. To me, it really seems that the work on reconciliation with Bill is just getting started.
I wanted to speak a bit about some of the fears that are out there that some people addressed through section 35 about the possible impact of aboriginal and treaty rights. I believe there's a strong derogation clause, but I'm wondering if you could take some time to speak to section 35 rights and how as a government we're ensuring that we protect these aboriginal and treaty rights within our government and within Bill .
So I will ask my questions anyway, even if Minister Bennett is not back with us.
First of all, I must thank her for being here. I also want to emphasize that I would like to have taken part in our meeting.
As a Bloc Québécois MP, I would like her, as a lawmaker, to explain her intention as to the presumed or real effects of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights Indigenous Peoples on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.
I would ask Minister Bennett if she can reassure us. In fact, since the beginning of the study, a lot of myths and assumptions, which may or may not be accurate, have been spread as to the consequences of passing this bill.
I would like to hear what she has to say about passing this bill. I would also like her to reassure us that it will not mean federal government interference into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.
:
I wonder whether Madam Minister would have preferred to answer that question. Although your answer was very clear, Mr. Quan-Watson, I would not like to deprive her of that pleasure, if she wishes.
Whatever the case, some other fears have occurred to me, and I would like you to clarify some points, Madam Minister.
Earlier, you brought up the distinction between free, prior and informed consent and the right of veto. That really is an idea that we hear regularly. Could you explain the exact distinction between the right of veto and free, prior and informed consent?
In addition, could you tell us more about section 35 of the Constitution as it relates to the declaration? The two are often linked. Some people wonder why we are adopting it because we already have section 35 and there is really no difference between the two. Others don't want to adopt it because there is a difference.
So we hear that there is a difference and that there is not, at the same time.
Can you clarify the matter, please?
:
Minister, I think we need to move on here, but I have to say, I'm not very proud of this current government and the fact that on their watch women and girls—and children—continue to die because of this incremental approach to justice that your government has shown.
I want to move on specifically to the bill. There have been several recommendations that have been brought forth to the committee in testimony and written submissions.
For example, the first is deleting paragraph 6 from the preamble.
The second is adding a subclause 2(4): “For greater certainty, the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights, must be interpreted flexibly so as to permit their evolution over time and any approach constituting frozen rights must be rejected.”
The third is another amendment, adding a subclause 2(5): “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to diminish or extinguish the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights.”
Is your government open to amending Bill to honour what has been called for by nations across this country, to include the living tree doctrine?
I would come back and say, if all these people say it's not a veto, let's just put it there and then we have clarity. Let me move on to something different, though.
Before the pandemic began, in the early part of 2020, the front pages in Canada were very much centred around who has the authority to withhold or provide consent in linear projects, and obviously you're right in the middle of that.
My follow-up question to you would be, would it not seem appropriate to allow some time and space for indigenous communities and their leaders to find the answer to the question as to who has the authority—who has the ability to speak on behalf of their people—before we jump into some of these things?
I get the importance of this. I support so much of what's in this legislation, but with the lack of consensus even within the first nations communities, does this lead to some challenges for us down the road—challenges that you were walking through, literally, personally, in the early part of 2020?
:
Thank you very much, and I come to you today from the unceded territory of the Mi’kma’ki.
Thank you, Minister. It's great to see you again, and thank you for all your hard work. There's so much to do on this file, and I just want to say I think you're doing an amazing job.
I was really glad you made a point in your notes earlier today, when you said it's very important that UNDRIP deals with more than consultation on resource development projects with impacted indigenous communities. This was a very good point, because last week we heard here on the committee from Beth Symes on behalf of the Pauktuutit, who also made this point. She asked us to look at this through the lens of indigenous women, and specifically articles 21 and 24 of UNDRIP, which deal with the promise of better social conditions for indigenous peoples.
Could you please speak to us more broadly on the nature of the principles in UNDRIP, and how important that is as a framework for everything from health care to family services to other issues of social well-being for indigenous people across Canada?
Thank you.
:
It speaks to what decolonizing means. People were saying.... I think in the Hollow Water study it said that what was once seen as healing is now decolonization therapy. It means that this is about leadership. This is about, as settlers, having the humility that was missing when Europeans arrived to think their ways were better.
What I see in article 21 is that it's about first nations, Inuit and Métis developing their own health and social programs, education, vocational training and retraining. All of that needs to be indigenous led. We certainly have seen that, Lenore, during COVID. When the indigenous leadership know exactly what needs to be done, and the government is there to support their priorities and support their way forward, we know we get much better results, as we've seen even during the third wave.
It is about humility and being able to support a way forward designed by indigenous professionals, but also their political leadership.
Going back to amendments that have been recommended to our committee through testimony and written submissions, I am asking if your government is willing to make the following amendments.
The first is deleting paragraph 6 of the preamble.
The second is adding a subclause 2(4): “For greater certainty, the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights, must be interpreted flexibly so as to permit their evolution over time and any approach constituting frozen rights must be rejected.”
The third is adding a subclause 2(5): “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to diminish or extinguish the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights.”
:
I will perhaps start with the B.C. example, which, as you say, is the one most familiar to us.
Again, the legislation in relation to the UN declaration does not define free, prior and informed consent. The approach taken was very much to articulate during legislative procedure as to what the government's understanding of that concept was, and the importance, of course, of aligning, in that case B.C.'s laws, with free, prior and informed consent as a guidepost and something that will be implemented in a number of different contexts— spoke to that as well—across social and economic resources and so on.
In terms of other countries' experience, as I understand it, there are not many other countries that have specifically legislated the UN declaration's implementation, but there are several in Latin America—I believe Colombia and elsewhere—that have looked to the declaration to inform their own constitutions. Of course, each country is unique and will take a different approach. Article 38 of the declaration really speaks to that: that it's for each country to take its own approach in implementing the declaration in a manner that reflects its traditions, its indigenous peoples, its Constitution and its laws.
:
I will be pleased to provide an initial response and then see if my colleague Ross Pattee from Crown-Indigenous Relations might wish to add, because it really has been a whole-of-government effort to implement and reflect the principles of the UN declaration across the federal system.
mentioned that there are already many laws that reflect the declaration itself in their language, their preambles or their purpose clauses. We have Bill , the act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; the Indigenous Languages Act passed in the previous session; and the preamble to Bill , the impact assessment legislation. There are many examples in legislation itself.
Then, of course, the declaration has been informing a lot of the work that Crown-Indigenous Relations is doing in a number of different areas, including in the recognition of rights tables and the negotiations there.
With the chair's permission, I could ask if Ross might also wish to add anything.
:
I'll take that answer also.
I want to remind folks that it says that the plan needs to be developed within three years, so it's up to three years. I also understand that there's a proposal to potentially look at shortening that time frame.
The reason we put the possibility of that time frame in is that we need to work in consultation. This needs to be a consultative engagement plan. That's going to take some time to do, and it's going to take some time to do effectively.
If we're given two years to do that, we will do it in two years for sure, but I want to just reiterate that it's about making sure we get the right voices heard to get the plan as strong and as effective as possible.
:
I can take that, and I might ask my colleague Sandra Leduc, who is also working on this file, to supplement.
From the government's perspective, I think what the focus is really on is free, prior and informed consent as a positive expression of the need for us to work in partnership and collaboration with indigenous peoples in all aspects of work that might impact on their rights and interests. The focus is very much on this more positive aspect of it, and less on this idea of veto, which of course finds no expression.
It's not found in the declaration itself. It is a way of articulating a lot of fears about what “free, prior and informed consent” means, but it is not grounded in the understanding of the declaration or the concept as we understand it.
Perhaps I'll ask if Sandra would like to add anything to that response.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank our witnesses for joining us for this discussion.
I'm not going to address my question to anyone specifically. Whoever wants to jump in, please do so.
One thing that has interested me is that we've heard a lot from indigenous people and organizations who don't feel there has been adequate consultation on Bill . We've even heard testimony in this committee from some indigenous organizations.... The Native Women's Association comes to mind. This is a group that had expressed concerns about the consultation process. I find it quite ironic that when we talk about Bill , obviously the government has been emphasizing that it is brought forward in the spirit of reconciliation. However, there seem to be some gaps and some failures of adequate consultation with indigenous peoples.
To me, this runs contrary to what the government is trying to do. I do not doubt for a second the intentions of this bill; however, it seems that the government has missed the mark.
Again, whoever wants to jump in may. I'm wondering whether anyone can share some insights into the consultation process that has happened for Bill and say whether you believe there could have been a greater diversity of indigenous organizations represented in this consultation.
:
I'm afraid the question cut off just before I got it, but I understood it was specifically with respect to “free, prior and informed consent” discussions with indigenous partners.
The issue of FPIC and how it is understood did come up, although I would say that in many ways the focus of engagement was much more on the legislation itself and what it should contain. As the term is not defined in the bill, as has been noted, it was not the key topic of discussion.
There were, however, round tables held with industry—mining, forestry, energy and petroleum—in which indigenous organizations also participated and there were discussions about the concept, its meaning and implications. Certainly we heard feedback on that as well.
I apologize in advance for my connection today. I'm experiencing the same Rogers challenges and difficulties that many people connecting in the GTA are. If I drop off, I'll simply cede my time to the chair.
My question is basically twofold. It starts with what I've perceived as the mischaracterization of what free, prior and informed consent is and will be. Initially, a few meetings ago, FPIC was characterized as a veto. We've kind of gotten past that a bit, which is good. We're making progress.
After that, we got to the point with the other side saying, oh, advance disclosure is the status quo; it's totally adequate and has always worked, and why would we change it? Again, that's not something I agree with, but it seems as though we're past that point now as well.
Most recently, including at today's meeting, the question is, don't we just need a definition of this ambiguous term, “free, prior and informed consent”? I disagree. I don't think it's ambiguous. It's very clear what it is, and it implies partnership, involvement and engagement rather than just telling somebody in advance what's going to happen.
In addition to that, more recently we've heard that since there are a variety of valid concerns and, not surprisingly, a lack of total unanimity on the final product of what this will look like and how it should be implemented, it lacked the adequate amount of consultation with community and industry.
My question, therefore, has two parts. One, is the definition of FPIC necessary, or does it already exist? Two, is total unanimity ever a reasonable ambition worthy of pursuing throughout these consultations?
I'd start with Madam Sargent.
:
There are some important threads in that question.
In respect to the first part, regarding a definition of free, prior and informed consent, I think provided very helpful responses: first, that because this concept or right is not defined in the legislation, it would in fact be somewhat strange to define it in the bill. Also, it is something that, as my colleague explained as well, has to be understood in context; therefore, trying to define it in a single way, in a one-shot definition, would be very challenging indeed. Those are considerations when we look to defining terms in legislation such as this bill.
With respect to your other question, about the pursuit of total unanimity, that is something that is a challenge in all contexts, for every bill in every context. It's not usually the standard, but I will leave it to others to speak more to the political considerations behind some of that.
Thank you.
:
I think that I can answer that question. However, perhaps I will turn to my colleague Mrs. Leduc again, since she took part in the discussions with the Indigenous women's groups.
As we do for all bills or proposed policies, we did conduct a GBA+. Normally, that information is protected because it is in Cabinet documents, but we will see whether it is possible to send the information.
In addition, as I mentioned before, we made some amendments to the bill to accommodate the contribution of indigenous women's groups. Clearly, it's up to the representatives of those groups to tell you whether or not they are satisfied with those amendments. However, I believe that they did so the other day.
Mrs. Leduc may wish to say more about the changes that were made.
:
Thank you so much, Chair.
Just building on the comments of Madam Gill, and even comments in terms of what has occurred in the committee, there's a real lack of indigenous voices and women's voices in the process. Going forward in consultation, how are women's and two-spirit voices going to be included in this process? Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA are on the forefront of this human rights crisis, including around resource extraction, where we see higher rates of violence perpetrated against indigenous women and girls on our very own lands
Our voices are often marginalized, even more marginalized than that of resource extraction companies. We've heard a lot of consultation with mining. I'm wondering, moving forward in the consultation process, how we will ensure that indigenous women's and two-spirit voices will be lifted up in this process.
To the witnesses, let me say that I'm not going to claim to be a lawyer here, but I'm going to read you something from a submission and ask for some clarification from your perspective. I'm not pretending to reflect legal opinion here.
The committee members received a submission from a Mr. Dwight Newman, who has a very impressive resumé as a professor of law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law at the University of Saskatchewan.
He talks about many of his writings being widely cited in Canadian courts and by scholars both within Canada and in the international community. He goes on to talk about some other things, but his is obviously a very respected voice on many of these issues.
In one comment in his brief, he says parliamentarians should seriously think about whether they wish to “adopt a statute that has these sorts of outstanding interpretative difficulties” or if it would be better to “improve upon the drafting to attain greater clarity”.
Skipping ahead a little, he goes on to say:
Parliament should consider asking for improved language that adds clarity, legal briefings on why particular language is thought to have certain effects, and ongoing scrutiny of these efforts through further outside analysis.
Finally, he specifically says:
There should...be further language to ensure that the final text affects only federal law. Section 4(a)'s use of the term “Canadian law” is different than the term “laws of Canada” used elsewhere in the bill. It is essential that the bill not include language that could be seen as impacting provincial law, or it will be susceptible to constitutional challenges.
Again, with my preface about not being an expert legal mind, I'm hoping somebody who has more of a legal mind might help us understand the concerns of somebody who, I think, is well spoken on this topic.
:
Thank you. I will do my best.
I can't resist mentioning that I clerked with Professor Newman way back when, so I know of his scholarly reputation and work. Of course, he has been flagging questions about Bill and this legislation along these lines for some time.
We have done our best, I would say, through the engagement process and the update and enhancements made to the bill to address some of the questions raised, notably by provinces and territories, in relation to the scope of application of this legislation.
Ultimately there is a very deliberate choice and use of words in various provisions in the bill. The one that was flagged with respect to application in Canadian law is intended to reflect the fact I spoke to at the beginning of this session, that the declaration can inform the interpretation of all laws in Canada—federal, provincial and constitutional—and so, to be accurate, would need to reflect that.
That said, you will see the obligation in clause 5 that relates to alignment of laws. It uses the terms “laws of Canada” and Government of Canada. That speaks to what and deputy minister Quan-Watson were emphasizing: that this obligation to align laws applies to federal laws—those enacted by the Parliament of Canada.
:
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I'm going to take a totally different angle here, so I will back off the legal stuff.
There has been a lot of talk with people at committee, over the time we have been hearing from witnesses, about the action plan and how the action plan.... Even the , I believe, talked about how the heavy lifting isn't going to be done in the action plan. There has, however, been a lot of talk about maybe doing that action plan prior to the introduction of the legislation, rather than letting the legislation invoke the action plan.
I will open this up to everybody. Was there any discussion in any of the departments about working on the action plan during the time between Bill and Bill ? Was any thought ever given to doing some of that heavy lifting prior to introducing the new Bill C-15?
:
I can start, and then perhaps Ross will have something to add.
As reflected in the response on what the government has done to align laws with the declaration, there has been a great deal of work done, not only in anticipation of this legislation potentially coming forward, but more generally in relation to the government's commitment to implement the declaration in Canada.
There continues to be work in relation to aligning laws with the declaration. There will, of course, be a further effort made to develop the action plan for the future, but again, this must reflect and respect the fact that the legislation requires it to be done in co-operation and consultation with indigenous peoples. There is no plan already set. It clearly needs to be done in a collaborative way.
:
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Recently I received a letter from the Royal Society of Canada. This is a senior colloquium of public intellectuals, academics and scholars who support Bill . I believe their input is valuable and should be incorporated into the study of Bill C-15, and I would like to put forward a motion to do so.
Earlier today I sent out the English version of the letter to committee members for reference and provided a copy to the committee clerk. Unfortunately, the Royal Society of Canada did not provide a French-language version. However, if adopted it would of course be translated and made available in both official languages.
Therefore, I move that, in relation to its study of Bill C-15, the committee accept the brief provided by the Royal Society of Canada.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I believe then, once again, seeing no objections, that the motion is accepted, and the document will be submitted in translation at the appropriate time after the deadline we submitted.
Thank you.
Next we have the question from Mr. Schmale.
Would you pose that again, Mr. Schmale, so that we can be clear?
I'll try to be quick. I know people have places to be.
It is in regard to 's appearance today. Obviously he wasn't here. We would like to, on this side anyway, hear from the minister, as he is the sponsor of the bill. He is the one, as Mr. Vidal pointed out, to invoke closure on the bill within the House of Commons during debate.
To meet Mr. Battiste's concerns in regard to timelines, I could be wrong, but I don't think it will take two hours to go clause by clause through the bill. It's not overly long. I don't think there are a ton of concerns.
If possible, I'd like my motion to be that the chair and the clerk attempt to secure 's appearance at the next committee meeting, April 22 at 11 o'clock.
I definitely appreciate everyone's comments here.
I think Ms. Gazan's suggestion is quite reasonable. Right now I think has already read the statement that was supposed to present today. I propose the opportunity for questions, and given the makeup of this committee, we'd have five questions for the Conservatives, five for the Liberals, four for the Bloc and four for the NDP, with a response deadline of five o'clock tomorrow. The information could then be presented and accepted as formal submissions to this committee.
It's fair to say that regrets not being here. He's been very engaged on this file. We've had a number of discussions over the past several weeks, and I know he regrets not being here. I think it's important and imperative that the information provided by our witnesses today, which has been exhaustive.... If further clarifications are needed, the suggestion that Ms. Gazan made, with minor modifications, would and should suffice to ensure that the minister's comments are on the record.