I rise today to speak to Bill C-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I also rise in my role as critic of this bill.

To be honest, colleagues, I feel some apprehension in taking that title. I know we have a critic and a sponsor for every bill, but, particularly with this bill, I find it difficult to fully embrace a title which insinuates that I am in any way opposed to the principles, goals and aspirations of this bill.

Some of you may know that I am the father to four Indigenous children. I have grandchildren who are Inuit beneficiaries of Nunavut. Let me be clear: It is of utmost importance to me to ensure that I am doing whatever I can to further the rights of Indigenous people in Canada because — and I believe this is true of all caring parents — I want to leave this world better for my children and their descendants.

I have listened with an open mind and an open heart to the discussions that have taken place in this chamber and to the many stakeholders who have reached out to my office via email or in person, and probably as well to your offices.

I know that this bill has taken on a huge meaning for many people and has huge symbolic importance.

In my 10 years as a senator, I have heard and participated in debate on the question of the Senate’s role as a protector of minorities. I have repeatedly stated my fervent belief that we must ensure the voices of the regions are also heard with every bill we debate in this place.

When I joined this hallowed chamber, I took an oath — the same oath as all of you. I promised to be loyal to Her Majesty. By agreeing to serve, I promised to uphold the laws of this great nation and to do everything in my power to ensure that the bills we passed here would not only protect minorities and respect regional concerns but would also respect and preserve the Canadian Constitution.

When listening to Senator Tannas’ thoughtful speech on this issue, I took note of his report back to this chamber on a meeting he had with Mr. Saganash, who sponsored this bill in the other place, and his legal adviser where they confirmed “...their intention to codify every last word of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law...”.

Now Senator Sinclair has told us, in response to concerns raised regarding the issue of consent versus veto, which Senator Tannas also discussed, that there exists a fairly lengthy body of court decisions that bring clarity to how this has been interpreted within the Canadian context.

I asked the Library of Parliament what the legal force of international declarations are in Canada. They responded:

Unlike conventions, international declarations “are not always legally binding.” Further, as opposed to conventions, declarations are not ratified by signatory countries and are simply endorsed. They also do not require countries to report on their compliance. Declarations are often seen as having moral force and generally represent, “universally recognized human rights principles.” (as per the UN Treaty Collection Glossary). According to the Government of Canada, they represent [what the Government of Canada in the Glossary of terms – human rights are described as] “a statement of principle rather than an agreement by which countries bind themselves under international law.”

In the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration), the Government of Canada, when it endorsed the Declaration in 2010, characterized it as an “aspirational document” and “a non-legally binding document that does not reflect customary international law nor change Canadian laws.” While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later vowed to implement the Declaration in Canadian law, the Government of Canada maintains that, “Declarations only represent political commitment from the states that vote in favour of adopting them.”

I struggle, in my mind, to reconcile how exactly we will be able to codify these general principles without the full force of the government behind it. I will repeat the Government of Canada’s position that, “Declarations only represent political commitment from the states that vote in favour of adopting them.”

I must say, colleagues, I am troubled that this is not a bill initiated by the state, although it could have been.

As former Attorney General Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould said:

... simplistic approaches, such as adopting the UNDRIP as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work actually required to implement it...

What we need is an efficient process of transition that lights a fire under the process of decolonization but does so in a controlled manner that respects where Indigenous communities are in terms of rebuilding.

The question I will take with me, as we give this bill the thorough and appropriate scrutiny it deserves in committee, is: Does this bill bring the “controlled manner” that will bring about true and meaningful rebuilding?

I look forward to hearing and learning more about what this bill means to the witnesses we will hear. Some argue that it is symbolic. Others say that this is one of, if not the most significant piece of legislation regarding reconciliation. I have heard the argument that this creates a veto and the rebuttal that Canadian law is clear and this is not a veto.

I will reserve my opinion on these important questions until after we have concluded our committee study.

Honourable senators, I support moving this bill to committee in order for us to give it proper and due consideration. Thank you.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

It is moved by Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by Honourable Senator Smith, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.

The vote will be at 4:56 p.m.

Call in the senators.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?