Will Canada’s next prime minister support Indigenous Rights and conservation projects? 

A $335 million funding commitment to fund 17 West Coast First Nations protecting the Great Bear Sea. $375 million for new protected and conserved areas, Indigenous Guardian programs, ecotourism, traditional economic activities and climate research in the Northwest Territories.

These are two of the big commitments the federal Liberal government made starting in 2018, as it pledged more than $1.2 billion towards Indigenous-led conservation projects as part of Canada’s ambitious international commitment to conserve 30 per cent of lands and waters by 2030. 

We were not quite halfway to meeting that commitment by the end of 2023 — the last time the federal government posted an update. It’s hard to predict if we’ll get there, since a lot has changed in Canada since Justin Trudeau was first elected in 2015, a shift that’s evident in how Canadians think about environmental issues. In 2019, climate change was a top priority for Canadian voters. In 2021, it was also a top-ranked issue for almost a quarter of Canadians, along with cost of living and healthcare.

But despite having so much further to go to reach our national conservation targets — and despite our worsening climate crisis — in a recent survey, fewer than four per cent of respondents told CBC the environment was their most important election issue. Instead, Canadians are preoccupied by threats of annexation by U.S. President Donald Trump, an economy destabilized by unpredictable tariffs and an Arctic region coveted by powerful geopolitical rivals. And as party leaders champion energy projects and critical minerals as the solution to Canada’s economic and sovereignty woes, the interrelated issues of Indigenous Rights and the environment have been pushed to the sidelines. 

Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilieve has emphasized repeatedly that he will get resource projects built fast — he promised that will financially benefit Indigenous communities that buy in, but also suggested he might forge ahead without consent if they don’t. And while Liberal Party Leader Mark Carney has promised to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and continue funding Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas, he continues to promise that major projects will happen quickly all across the country — without clarifying how consultation and consent could be expedited.

Investigating problems. Exploring solutions

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

SUBSCRIBE

Investigating problems. Exploring solutions

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

SUBSCRIBE

This has caught the attention of Indigenous leaders, who point out sovereignty is not up for debate. And in B.C., where speeding up industry projects is already being piloted by the provincial government, promises to fast-track projects have already been met with concern by Indigenous leaders. “If you want certainty and you want it quickly, the only way you can achieve that is with free, prior, informed consent of the First Nations that are impacted,” Tahltan Elder Allen Edzerza told The Narwhal in March. “There’s no shortcuts in that regard.”  

One way or another, we’re getting a new government. Carney, as he reminded Canadians repeatedly during last week’s leaders’ debates, is not Justin Trudeau — and Poilievre doesn’t need to remind us of that at all. So what could the next federal government mean for Indigenous conservation and rights? 

What has been achieved for Indigenous Rights and conservation so far?

Two major Indigenous-led conservation projects — the Great Bear Sea off the coast of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories Project Finance for Permanence — have been finalized in the past year, ensuring long-term funding for massive networks of protected lands and waters, led by Indigenous nations. Two more initiatives — one in northern Ontario and another in Nunavut — are still in negotiations. Whether or not they move ahead will depend on the next federal government. 

In addition, the federal government has worked with Indigenous nations, and in some cases provincial governments, to conserve areas through other mechanisms. In B.C., the Klinse-Za / Twin Sisters Park now covers almost 200,000 hectares of critical caribou habitat as part of an expanded provincial park. And in the Yukon, the Aullaviat/Anguniarvik Traditional Conservation Area was established last June, bringing the total protected area in the Yukon to just over 21 per cent.

Perhaps most significantly, in 2021 Canada adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. This enactment requires the federal government to align laws and policies with international standards.

Paul Seaman, a lawyer with Gowling WLG who specializes in Indigenous law, says Canada is still figuring out what UNDRIP means in practice. But he says a recent federal court case involving the Kebaowek First Nation and a proposed nuclear waste storage facility on their territory in Chalk River, Ont., offers some insight. “What the federal courts have said so far is that you have to approach the issue and the process with reference to Indigenous laws and Indigenous Knowledge and practices, and that the process you use has to be directed toward finding mutual agreement.” 

What this means, in part, is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to consultation; it must be considered in the context of a specific nation and its protocols. “You might have to do a process outside of the statutory process. You might have to enact regulations or something, to fill gaps on a case-by-case basis,” Seaman says. “But one way or another, you can’t just say, ‘Well, the process is the process, and we’re done with it.’” 

Jessica Clogg, executive director and senior counsel at West Coast Environmental Law, says Canadian politicians should have learned these lessons by now. “We know from extensive past history that if Indigenous Rights are kind of run roughshod over, or if environmental concerns are not addressed in assessment of projects, we end up with disasters like Mount Polley. We end up with things being tied up in the courts. We end up with land defense actions.” None of which, she points out, are resolved quickly — or cheaply. 

What do Mark Carney and Pierre Poilieve say about Indigenous Rights? 

As with many issues, Poilieve and Carney diverge on Indigenous Rights and conservation. 

In 2021, Poilievre opposed the adoption of UNDRIP, saying it was undemocratic because it gave “veto power” to First Nations opposed to projects on their territories. “If 19 First Nations communities supported a project and one opposed the project, the one would be able to overpower the 19,” he said at the time. “To me, that is not how we should function in a country that is a democracy.”

He appears to stand by that position. In the French language debate, leaders were asked whether they would impose a pipeline over First Nations objections. Poilievre demurred at first, suggesting there is a lot of support for pipelines from many nations, before saying he would, as translated during the debate, “side with the majority” for a project like Northern Gateway, a pipeline proposed between Alberta’s oilsands and Kitimat, B.C., that was cancelled in 2016. Though Poilievre claims it was supported by 80 per cent of impacted First Nations, many others brought legal challenges in opposition.

“There’s no concept that I’m aware of where you can ignore the rights of one [First Nation] in favour of the rights of another in a ‘majority rules’ kind of concept,” Seaman says. 

Seaman also emphasizes that Indigenous Rights — enshrined in the Constitution Act under Section 35 — are not something that any federal government can suspend. This is true despite the infamous notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which Poilievre has threatened to use to impose multiple life sentences on murderers. But, Seaman says, “the notwithstanding clause does not apply to section 35. There’s no equivalent to allow [Indigenous Rights] to not apply in some particular circumstances, or anything like that.” 

In contrast, Carney has stated his support for reconciliation and UNDRIP. Though he has emphasized the urgency and importance of natural resource and energy projects, he’s said he would not force projects through without approval from Indigenous nations. However, having it both ways might be impossible: in B.C., Premier David Eby’s NDP government has already run into legal challenges while trying to expedite projects that impact First Nations and it’s unclear how the requirement for free, prior and informed consent could be sped up. 

Seaman says that time and again, federal and provincial governments have learned the hard way that upholding the duty of consent is key to successful projects, which otherwise end up mired in litigation and delays. He points to the 2017 Supreme Court ruling on a case in Clyde River, which saw Nunavut Inuit successfully block seismic testing they said would hurt marine life. To Seaman, a line in the decision sums up the reality: “No one benefits — not project proponents, not Indigenous Peoples, and not non-Indigenous members of affected communities — when projects are prematurely approved only to be subjected to litigation.” 

Provinces play critical role in advancing conservation — but Indigenous nations aren’t waiting around

The Liberal Party has also committed to funding new Arctic Indigenous Guardians as well as “Indigenous-led conservation and protection projects,” though it has not promised any renewed or expanded financial support for other Guardians programs such as the National Guardians Network. The promise to fund new Arctic Guardians aligns with Carney’s Arctic sovereignty push, but his party has not offered any specific support for Indigenous-led conservation projects elsewhere. 

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party has said little about conservation, including Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas. But in 2023, Aaron Gunn, now the Conservative candidate for the hotly contested North Island-Powell River riding, attacked the Great Bear Sea proposal and suggested it be scrapped. However, the agreement for the Great Bear marine protected area was signed the following year, with two decades of funding committed. A Conservative government wouldn’t be able to undo that agreement — but it could withhold support and funding from other Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas.

And funding is “one of the most significant federal roles” when it comes to Indigenous-led conservation, Clogg says. The least she hopes for is that existing commitments, such as the Tripartite Nature Agreement among B.C., Canada and First Nations, will be honoured. “At minimum, we want to see those dollars begin to flow, but also we want to see sustained, robust funding from the federal government.”

But provinces and territories have jurisdiction over most natural resources — which means provincial support for Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas is crucial. In Ontario, Doug Ford’s government has stonewalled Indigenous-led conservation projects, including those with federal funding and support. The Ontario government is also trying to win First Nations over to its plan for mining and development in the Ring of Fire: the potential economic and infrastructure benefits have some nations interested, while others are staunch opponents because of the impact on environmentally-sensitive regions. 

In B.C., where a number of First Nations, including Gitanyow, Kitasoo Xai’Xais, Simpcw and Ḵwiḵwa̱sut’inux̱w Ha̱xwa’mis, have issued sovereign declarations to protect their lands and waters, the province has not offered support for these unilateral initiatives — and sometimes still issues permits for extraction and energy projects. “It has been extraordinarily challenging for them to get the Crown to stop issuing incompatible tenures, or really to do anything — even to provide interim protection for those areas while negotiations are ongoing,” Clogg says. 

In addition, she says, B.C. has flinched from the political backlash to its first tentative steps to align provincial legislation with UNDRIP, backtracking on proposed changes to the Land Act and halting other conservation efforts. Until these provincial-level barriers are addressed, Clogg says, “even the most robust federal action … is unlikely to result in impact on the ground.” 

Still, if there is a lesson to be gleaned from recent history, it’s that Indigenous nations are exercising their rights and moving forward with protections one way or another — no matter which party prevails after this election. 

As Dallas Smith, president of the Na̲nwak̲olas Council, told Canada’s National Observer, “First Nations have taken the lead [on the Great Bear Sea] and we’re willing to work with elected officials, but we’re not here to convince them of the direction we’re going in when it comes to the protection of our territories.” 

And as Canadians head to the polls on Monday with sovereignty in mind, Clogg says the next Prime Minister has an opportunity to unite the country around safeguarding the environment, and the critical role that Indigenous stewardship plays in doing so. “I really feel that at a time when Canada is under attack, it’s never been more important to uphold these values — to protect our land and water, to uphold constitutional rights and Indigenous human rights — because it’s these values that make us who we are.”