About 170 years ago, land surveyors walked through the floodplains of the lower Fraser River, making careful note of the types of vegetation they came across. The information contained in their 1859 to 1890 notebooks is part of what allowed researchers in 2021 to conduct a study that found up to 85 per cent of historical salmon habitat has been lost or obstructed by human-made structures. 

According to lead author Riley Finn, a research associate with the Conservation Decisions Lab in the faculty of forestry at UBC, this study is the first to comprehensively quantify how much floodplain and upstream salmon habitat has been lost to structures like dams, flood gates and pump stations in the lower Fraser River — a key spawning and rearing habitat for Pacific salmon in B.C. that spans 20,203 square kilometres between Hope and Boundary Bay in South Delta.

“There always is this challenge in looking into history because we don’t explicitly have satellite imagery or the good data that we might have currently,” Finn told The Narwhal, explaining that access to vegetation records from the mid-1800s allowed him and his team to map where floodplain fish habitat used to be.

Complete and relevant datasets from historical surveys can be difficult to come by, Finn said, adding this kind of survey work can also tend to reflect the priorities of the people who were conducting them at the time. In this instance, the surveyors’ mission was part of a colonization expedition called the Dominion Land Survey, designed to identify how much agricultural land was available to be divided amongst settlers in the lower Fraser region.

Study lead author Riley Finn used historic land surveys to assess habitat loss for the Fraser River’s struggling salmon populations. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast Conservation Foundation

That focused objective brought about a shortcoming in the historic data: the surveyors didn’t bother to study salt flats or any other places that wouldn’t have made for good farmland.

Still, the 170-year-old data provides a unique entry point to assessing the impact of habitat loss for salmon, a species that is struggling, particularly in the Fraser River.

Last year saw the lowest sockeye salmon returns in the Fraser River on record. Although runs are forecast to be higher this year — at 1.3 million fish versus around 280,000 in 2020 — numbers still aren’t high enough to support a fishery. Last summer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada launched an emergency plan to restore and recover habitat for Chinook and limit commercial fishing, noting that 12 of the 13 wild Fraser River Chinook populations, assessed by a committee that identifies endangered species, were found to be at risk. 

Finn and his co-authors argue that while declining marine conditions due to climate change are an important factor in causing record low numbers of some salmon populations in the region in recent years, the magnitude of freshwater habitat loss is also playing a major role.

A map showing the extend of historical salmon habitat in the lower Fraser River, based on survey work conducted in 1859 to 1890. Map: Finn et al. / Ecosphere

On top of the loss of the majority of floodplain habitat, the new study also found that in-stream flood protection barriers are cutting off migrating salmon in up to 64 per cent of the streams in the lower Fraser watershed.

Culverts — tunnels built under roads to channel streams from one side to the other — created to expand forestry activities on the lower mainland also often do not allow salmon to pass through, creating another type of barrier.

Over the years, these structures have served to disconnect historical salmon habitats, taking away precious spawning and rearing grounds and lowering the capacity of the region’s freshwater systems to produce wild salmon. 

Researchers estimate that there are over 1,200 barriers blocking salmon access to about 2,224 kilometres of streams in the lower mainland. Of this, about 1,727 kilometres of in-stream habitat is believed to be lost after cities sprung up on top of them. 

Debris gathers near the upstream end of a floodgate in a water way in the lower Fraser River watershed. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast Conservation Foundation

“When you’re in the lower Fraser, closer to the city of Vancouver and Burnaby, there’s habitat that’s just been completely lost,” said Dave Scott, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s Fraser Estuary Research and Restoration Coordinator, who is also a PhD student at UBC. “In Vancouver, there’s a number of streams that were completely paved over as urban development occurred.”

Finding a balance

It is unrealistic to expect that historical salmon habitats will ever return to where they were in the 1850s given the large population of the Lower Mainland today, according to Scott. 

“A lot of these barriers are related to flood control and the municipalities are not just going to remove these structures and allow their [communities] to flood,” Scott said.

The Fraser floodplain is home to over 300,000 people who are at risk of floods, and the Fraser Basin Council estimates a major flood could cost up to $30 billion in damages.

The Dunbar neighbourhood in Vancouver is located near a Fraser River estuary. An estimated 1,727 kilometres of in-stream habitat is believed to have been lost to the development of city infrastructure in the lower Fraser River region. Photos: Alex Harris / Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Scott also pointed out the need to work with agricultural land owners to come up with better ways to provide fish passage through their streams and waterways, while still maintaining the ability to farm. 

Land conversion to agriculture is one of the ways in which freshwater stream systems have been disconnected and degraded in the area. Sumas Lake in the eastern portion of the Fraser Valley, for example, was drained in 1924 and is still kept dry with canals and pumps used for farming. 

But, Scott said, finding a balance between human needs and salmon needs in the area could help restore Pacific salmon populations to sustainable levels. This balance can be struck by upgrading the existing infrastructure to create a way for salmon to pass through unharmed. 

“A road culvert is really just supposed to pass water from one side of the road to the other, and maybe it does that now but it might not do it in a way that also allows salmon access,” Finn said. “It’s really about opening the conversation to having that infrastructure do more than just one thing, which is moving water, but also make sure that salmon capacity is [doing] well.”

• 

  Finn said he hopes his research can be used to guide decision-making about increasing salmon access to waterways along the lower Fraser River through infrastructure upgrades. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast Conservation Foundation

• 

  A juvenile eagle flies along the Fraser River estuary. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast Conservation Foundation

With over 1,200 structures keeping salmon from their historical habitats, the next step is to find ways to prioritize which barriers to upgrade first — something Finn says his next paper, to be published at a later date, focuses on. 

The process he has developed involves identifying areas that can be easily restored, figuring out how much habitat there is, and matching them with political will and funding opportunities.

Solutions in the works

Several organizations in B.C., like the Watershed Watch Salmon Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation, are already working on figuring out which flood control structures should be upgraded first. 

But even though the technology exists to build fish-friendly infrastructure, municipalities often continue to use outdated mechanisms that keep waterways off limits to salmon. 

In February 2020, for example, residents of Pitt Meadows saw hundreds of dead fish at the McKechnie pump station — used to remove water from the stream and pump it into the main river to prevent flooding when water levels get high — when the animals got caught in the machinery and were killed. 

Still, last year the city received one government grant and applied for another to replace two other pump stations with fish-friendly models. One of the major factors that keeps municipalities from switching to fish-friendly pumps is cost — machines that would allow salmon to pass through can be more expensive than existing designs.

A spokesperson from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development previously told The Narwhal  the province “encourages” fish-friendly infrastructure, but local authorities are responsible for developing that infrastructure.

Flood infrastructure: ‘the biggest salmon habitat issue you’ve never heard of’

For their part, the province and federal government have invested in a nearly $150-million salmon restoration and innovation fund to be distributed over five years to projects that protect and restore salmon populations. 

One of the beneficiaries of this fund, MakeWay (formerly Tides Canada) received nearly $600,000 in 2019 to partner with Watershed Watch Salmon Society to identify flood control structures across the lower Fraser River watershed that need to be prioritized for infrastructure upgrades. 

What these projects have not yet looked at are culverts in more rural or forested areas that also cut off in-stream access to migratory salmon.

The uncertain fate of the lower Fraser River’s last salmon island strongholds

“It’s kind of a mix of looking at the larger structures on the really large tributaries, and then the smaller structures that happen to isolate a lot of upstream habitat,” Scott said. “There’s definitely a lot of pieces to the puzzle to still figure out.” 

For Finn, this paper provides important context for what has been lost by mapping out where salmon used to be able to spawn. Its findings should also be taken into consideration when coming up with current development projects, he says, so as not to continue limiting salmon access to the lower Fraser waterways. 

Scott finds a silver lining in the study: “There’s a lot that we can actually do. I think our work shows the scale of habitat loss, but also shows the opportunity,” he said. “A lot of this habitat isn’t completely lost; it’s just behind a barrier.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Seven years after a tailings pond containing contaminated mining waste collapsed in interior B.C., sending 24 million cubic metres of mining waste into surrounding waterways, critics and an internal audit show the province is still falling short of having regulations that ensure the safety of the province’s mines. 

On Aug. 4, 2014, a four-square-kilometre pond holding copper and gold mining waste from the Mount Polley mine breached, spilling the toxic tailings into Polley Lake, Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake — sources of drinking water and spawning grounds for sockeye salmon. 

In the aftermath of this disaster, the provincial government promised to make changes to its regulatory framework for tailings storage facilities to prevent a repeat of the Mount Polley tailings dam collapse. 

However, the results of an internal audit, released this spring that assessed whether these changes were strong enough, found gaps, inconsistencies and ambiguity remain.  

The question of whether B.C.’s mining laws protect communities and waterways is especially relevant right now as the province faces the prospect of a new mining boom. 

The results of the latest annual British Columbia Mineral and Coal Exploration Survey found that, in spite of the COVID-19 pandemic, exploration spending increased by 28 per cent between 2019 and 2020. Currently, there are over 70 tailings storage facilities listed as either operating, closed, or undergoing maintenance in B.C.

The ministry of mines claims the mining industry is critical to economic recovery as a part of post-pandemic recovery. During a spring virtual ‘mining day’ at the B.C. legislature, the ministry also advertised that B.C.’s current regulations make the province a world leader in harvesting clean, responsibly sourced metals. 

“We have taken steps to strengthen health, safety and environmental compliance, to improve permitting and to advance reconciliation, distinguishing us as leaders in the growing global environmental, social and governance investment movement,” said Bruce Ralston, Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, in a mining day statement.

However the internal audit casts doubt on whether current regulations are enough to prevent another Mount Polley-like catastrophe, finding that the ministry is inconsistent in its approach to enforcing some safety code provisions and dealing with tailings storage facilities at mines that are no longer operating. 

Six years after Mount Polley disaster, expert recommendations not fully implemented: report

The audit made seven recommendations to resolve these inconsistencies — recommendations that Ralston publicly committed to implementing in June, as a step toward creating a better regulatory framework for tailings facilities.

Geophysicist David Chambers has been researching the issue of tailings dam breaches for about a decade and became familiar with the Mount Polley disaster in B.C. as it was the first major failure of a mining dam in Canada. 

“I think both mining companies and regulators, while they have taken some necessary steps to try to solve that problem, I’m not sure that they’ve gone far enough to really make the changes that we need to make,” Chambers told The Narwhal.

In a world that needs metals, how can we mine more responsibly?

Mining companies aren’t required to provide full up-front reclamation costs

Two years ago, the B.C. First Nations Energy and Mining Council issued a report that recommends the province require all mining companies to provide financial assurances to pay for possible future cleanup costs in case of a tailings dam breach, before they can go forward with their work. 

At the moment, B.C. relies on a phased system in which mining companies do not have to put up the full estimated clean-up cost up front and instead can rely in part on the value of the untapped commodities in the ground. 

The ministry of mines has not committed to adopting measures that would ask companies to provide up-front financial assurances for environmental damages. 

B.C. First Nations should require full clean-up costs up-front for mines: new study

As of 2018, a report from B.C. ‘s Chief Inspector of Mines stated that while mining companies have contributed $1.6 billion in bonds to cover land reclamation costs, the total estimated costs of reclamation has risen to $2.8 billion. In the event that a mining company goes bankrupt and abandons operations, taxpayers are left to make up the difference. 

“I think British Columbia is probably the perfect candidate to lead the way if they really want to be the world leader in tailings dam regulation,” Chambers said, further explaining that there are two reasons why requiring up-front assurances would be a step in the right direction. 

First, there needs to be a guarantee that companies are on the line to pay for environmental remediation as well as compensation to surrounding residents and businesses in case of damages — something that taxpayers were on the hook for during the Mount Polley disaster — even if they go bankrupt or claim insolvency. 

Second, having to put up funds for cleaning a potential tailings dam breach gives companies a significant financial incentive to make sure those accidents do not happen in the first place. 

Chambers also argues that the province’s current regulations don’t do enough to make sure safety is the main consideration when looking at the design, construction, operation and closure of tailings dams in B.C.

“In a B.C. environment, where in a lot of areas you have high earthquake hazards, where you have high precipitation … upstream tailings dams don’t really make sense,” he said. “We need to look at this whole issue of wet closures.”

There are two main ways to store tailings from a mine: wet and dry. The wet method involves sealing a deposit of waste with water and is typically used with tailings facilities located in pits. The dry method involves covering tailings with solid material. 

The expert panel convened in 2015 to investigate the Mount Polley tailings facility breach called for a reduction in the use of the wet storage method. Despite this finding, the B.C. ministry of mines decided to take a “site by site” approach and, according to Chambers, have sided with a wet closure approach in every situation where the issue of tailings storage has come up.

“The reason it’s not being done is a cost consideration, because [the wet method] is the cheapest way to close things,” Chambers said.

The issue of wet tailings in B.C. recently sparked international concern when a company applied to increase its tailings pond capacity by 70 per cent at the Copper Mountain mine, which straddles the Similkameen River that flows south through the province before draining across the Canada-U.S. border into Washington State’s Okanogan River.  

The Copper Mountain mine’s tailings pond dam, at 155 metres high, is already four times taller than the Mount Polley mine tailings dam. Downstream residents in both B.C. and Washington State are concerned the enormous wet tailings impoundment, which would hold up to 420 million cubic metres of tailings should the increase be approved, is being considered for an expansion that may not undergo a formal environmental assessment.

B.C.’s Copper Mountain mine proposes major tailings pond expansion, sparking cross-border concern

By comparison, the Mount Polley tailings impoundment contained about 44 million cubic metres of tailings, and released about 17 million cubic meters of water and 8 million cubic meters of tailings in the 2014 spill.

The Mount Polley expert panel found that without updates to mining regulations, the province can expect two tailings dam collapses every 10 years. 

In 2016, the cost of cleaning up the province’s abandoned mining sites — left behind by owners and operators that “no longer exist” — was estimated to be around $508 million. This amount represents an increase of 83.4 per cent compared to 2014. 

For Chambers, the number one factor standing in the way of better regulations for tailing storage facilities is the amount of money they would require, both for mining companies and for regulators who would then be required to enforce the rules they put in place.

“[B.C.] just makes safety a consideration, not the primary consideration,” he said. “When you take safety and put that on an even par with financial considerations … money is going to win that battle every time, quite frankly, because that’s the way the system is set up.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Sheryl Lightfoot didn’t expect there would be much interest in the news of her recent appointment to the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Yet reporters from across B.C. reached out following the March 24 announcement, eager to know more about the first Indigenous woman from Canada to represent North America on the expert mechanism, which is composed of seven independent experts on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The experts, who are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, assist member states like Canada in achieving the goals of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

“There’s been actually, both from Indigenous press and non-Indigenous press, a whole lot of interest … it’s blown me away,” said Lightfoot, an Anishinaabe from the Lake Superior Band of Ojibwe who is an associate professor at UBC in political science, Indigenous studies and the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs. 

She also holds the position of Canada Research Chair in Global Indigenous Rights and Politics, studying the implications of Indigenous rights movements, the implementation of Indigenous rights in theory and practice and state responses to rights claims. 

Lightfoot, who grew up in Minneapolis, believes part of the interest in her appointment stems from the Black Lives Matter movement and the summer of racial reckoning in Canada and worldwide last year. Another factor is her work at UBC, where she is senior advisor on Indigenous affairs to the UBC president and co-led development of UBC’s Indigenous strategic plan, which outlines the university’s commitment to supporting the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

“Even before the Black Lives Matter movement, we had huge interest from non-Indigenous communities at UBC in the [Indigenous strategic] plan,” Lightfoot said.

Heightened interest in Indigenous Rights and movements also stems from provincial legislation aimed at implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the introduction of similar federal legislation through Bill C-15, she said.

In her new role, Lightfoot will be following in the footsteps of Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild and Dr. Kristen Carpenter, both of whom served on the UN expert body before her. 

The Narwhal caught up with Lightfoot to discuss her new role and thoughts on how Canada and B.C. have fared on their promises to uphold the UN declaration, which affirms Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination, equality and non-discrimination.

How did you feel when you first heard the news about your appointment? What does the designation mean to you personally? 

When I was shoulder-tapped and asked to consider having my name come forward [for the position], I was of course honoured and humbled because I knew who my predecessors were and how honorable and prestigious they are. Then in late December, I was shortlisted and contacted for the interview process, which then happened in January. 

Four of us went through the interview. Following the interview process, the group that was doing the recommendation [ranked] three of the four names that they put forward. I came out as the number one ranking and had my moment of ‘oh my gosh, this could actually happen.’

The next step was for the president of the Human Rights Council to take a look at the candidates and put forward her recommendation. That letter came in February and that’s when I had my excitement and feelings of overwhelm, and honestly just readiness to dive in and start doing this work.

It was also difficult to keep it quiet because it was going to be almost six weeks before it was acted on by the Human Rights Council. So I did my best to keep my excitement [in check], to begin turning my mind to how I would transition and tailor my own academic work so that it would align with the work of the expert mechanism in the coming three years. But the excitement was building, and when the Human Rights Council acted by consensus on that recommendation, then of course, I was extremely excited and humbled.

It’s a bit daunting to be taking this step and expanding work to the global level. I’m not shy about taking on extra work, but I always am conscious of wanting to do it in the best possible way and also trying to make sure that I create supports around me, that I have students involved, that I have proper consultation going on so that I can do this work in an honourable way and with the highest integrity.

In March 2021 Lightfoot was named the North American member on the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The announcement marks the first time an Indigenous woman from Canada has been appointed to the prestigious position. Photo: Jimmy Jeong / The Narwhal

How would you say your childhood experiences and generational knowledge impacted your career so far?

I’m not a survivor of residential schools but the three generations ahead of me all were, so by the time I came to be, that [had] created a great deal of disruption, pain, trauma, language loss, migration.

Growing up in the ’70s, I think, was an advantage, ahead of what the previous generation had, because there was so much focus about revitalizing culture and refreshing language. For all of us that were in the urban spaces — and I grew up in the Minneapolis urban Indigenous community — there was a lot of attention there in the late ’60s, early ’70s, [on] the political movements that were the centre of the American Indian movement. But also associated with that was cultural revitalization. 

I think growing up in that place and in that time planted a seed. In some ways, I say that my current work as an academic even began when I was five years old, which was the time of the Wounded Knee Occupation in South Dakota. It was the time of a shift, also, from the American Indian movement into the international sphere with the launching of the organizations that did end up going international. 

Then there’s the socio-economic realm. I grew up as the child of a single mom who was the child of a single mom, so poverty and difficult socio-economic conditions were the reality. My mother’s big dream for both of her daughters was that we would go to university. To her, that was going to be the pathway out of the difficult socio-economic condition that we had been raised in.

But then again, if we go with the ethos of the time … [Anyone with an] education is expected by everyone to come back and help the people. We were also given that message early on too.

We both have done that in our own way. My sister has been an elementary school teacher for more than 25 years at an American Indian magnet school in St. Paul [Minnesota, where] they’re teaching our language and our neighbouring people’s language to the little ones. 

After I did some community-based work in the urban area first, I went back for a PhD mid career, in my late 30s. So I’m giving back in different ways. My sister always laughs and says we get students at opposite ends. So [she] starts them out. And then [I] graduate them from university and beyond. Together, we make a complete circle.

What will be some of your biggest priorities in your new role? 

A couple of projects that are currently underway will pass to me, and I’m very happy to pick up the baton on both of them. One is looking at the rights of the Indigenous child around the world, and the other one is a project on Indigenous self determination around the world and how the rights of self determination are being advanced by different stakeholders. 

Both those reports will prove tremendously informative to the UN system. If we think about the rights of the Indigenous child, that report will help create rules for how UNICEF does its work with Indigenous children.

Another key project going on on the international level in preparation for the next 10 years is the international decade on Indigenous languages after it became clear that one year was not enough — that focused attention needed to be for a decade in order to revitalize and save so many Indigenous languages. Those are three ongoing pieces of work that are already in place.

One of my main concerns is the question of free, prior, and informed consent. The expert mechanism did a significant report on it about five years ago, which was a good start, but I think we need to revisit this again because there are cases of unrealized free, prior and informed consent everywhere in the world.

It creates conflict when it’s not resolved and I think all sectors — governments, Indigenous Peoples, industry — are all seeking more clarity on what free, prior and informed consent means, how you get it, and how you know you have it. 

Do you plan on addressing Canada’s failure to acquire the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples before moving forward with projects like the Coastal GasLink pipeline, Trans Mountain pipeline and the Site C dam? 

How that gets handled is a matter of some delicacy. In order for the expert mechanism to be brought in, it has to be invited in. Before I was named as a member, you’ll find some writings and some quotes of mine from earlier articles that recommended that in our current conflicts, which sometimes feel irresolvable, it might be a good idea to bring in the expert mechanism to advise Canada and/or B.C. on best paths forward. 

I would still advise that, especially since the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) — a treaty body that monitors compliance by Canada — has issued multiple letters to Canada. The most recent one was in November 2020, advising a change of course on several projects and actually encouraging further discussion and development of appropriate legislation and policy practice. I weighed in on those on both letters and in both cases I recommended looking to the expert mechanism and issuing an invitation because it’s an expert panel of seven human rights experts from all regions of the world who have the ability to come in, listen to the various stakeholders and provide advice from the knowledge base that the mechanism has built up. 

Do you think upholding Indigenous rights also intersects with achieving climate change goals? 

I have every reason to believe so. This is not just an anecdote. There are clear correlations between the areas that are best protected and Indigenous territories.

Quite frankly, if Indigenous lands and territories and cultures are respected in the ways that the UN declaration asks for them to be respected, there will also be a lot more land that is cared for under Indigenous jurisdiction and that in and of itself enhances the climate picture.

Canada has much work to do to move forward on implementing the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Lightfoot says. Across the country, governments, industry and Indigenous Peoples will all benefit from greater clarity when it comes to securing free, prior and informed consent for development and projects on Indigenous territories, she says. Photo: Jimmy Jeong / The Narwhal

At a provincial level, is British Columbia doing enough to support Indigenous-led conservation efforts?

I think there are some important acknowledgments of Indigenous jurisdiction over particular areas. There are some important examples of partnerships or collaborations which are also positive. What’s left to talk about is the significant amount of Crown land that is also under Aboriginal rights and title.

I believe that, given the underlying rights and title of most of those areas of Crown land, there must be discussions concerning co-management, co-development or, actually, Indigenous ownership.

How much work does the federal government still need to do in order to fully comply with the standards and framework laid out by the UN declaration, which Canada promised five years ago to implement ?

Significant work in all areas: political, cultural, social, economic, health, education. Canada’s behind in almost everything, and far from having implemented the declaration.

I appreciate that in the current proposed legislation is the requirement for a national action plan. A lot of this work will need that action plan in order to really get rolling and get off the ground. I say that because bureaucracies are very resistant to change and they have a strong preference for whatever the status quo has been.

Speaking of the proposed legislation, can you expand on your thoughts on Bill C-15, Canada’s UNDRIP Act? What are its benefits and what are its limitations?

There’s quite a bit of controversy about it in a couple of different dimensions. 

[Some people are] concerned that if it is passed, that will place roadblocks for Canadian industry and investment. I view that similarly to the idea that change is frightening. I think that will dissipate because over time, industry will have a landscape that’s more clear. When a project has the consent of Indigenous people to go ahead, there will be fewer lawsuits, fewer protests, fewer disruptions — and that is actually good for business. But before you get there, you have to do the process correctly, and the people involved have to fully embrace the project. There will be an adjustment period, no doubt, but doing business in a way that aligns with Indigenous human rights is also an exportable model for Canada. It becomes something that Canada could eventually be very proud of and bring to other locations, if done thoughtfully.

At the same time, I have heard worries from Indigenous folks that this legislation could be limiting the constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. I hear their anxieties and I know the trust deficit that’s there. Having looked at the legislation, having given it careful thought, I don’t share that concern.

I think C-15 is actually a positive advancement that places those incentives for government officials and bureaucracies to advance the agenda that they might not otherwise have. I do worry a bit about proceeding without this legislation. On balance, [after] hearing all the concerns, the legislation does a great deal to advance implementation of the UN declaration. And it has already been five years since that last statement. It’s time to put more action on the ground.

Lightfoot says she has faith in Canada’s Bill C-15, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ Act, but says “it’s time to put more action on the ground.”  Photo: Jimmy Jeong / The Narwhal

Do you think B.C., the first province to unveil UNDRIP legislation, has upheld the standards laid out in the UN declaration or has it mostly been about offering lip service?

I think there have been successes, and I think there have been extreme challenges — both of those truths coexist. Most of the time since that legislation passed [in B.C.], we’ve been in pandemic times, so that’s not an ideal situation. But it is disturbing when there’s a commitment to implementing legislation, and then there’s such a dismal failure so quickly to demonstrate the principles of the UN Declaration in practice. That saddens me a lot, and it’s very discouraging.

However, I also see collaborative and cooperative work on smaller scales, that doesn’t get the visibility that the challenges or the failures do. But I think most of the work in implementing the declaration is going to be piece by piece, project by project and I want to also recognize those movements.

How is your work at the expert mechanism going to address or bridge the gap between what our governments promise to do and what they actually do on a national and international level?

The expert mechanism is charged with providing expertise to the Human Rights Council and is charged with advising states. So some of the work you’re talking about can happen through other channels, like the universal periodic review, like the CERD [Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination] committee, because those are the monitoring bodies.

So they will actually issue the opinions on whether Canada or any of its provinces are aligning or not aligning [with the declaration], and it will often recommend that they contact the expert mechanism to get advice on how to alleviate the issue or the problem that has been identified. 

I look forward to playing my role in that respect.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.