After years of refusal by the Conservative government, Canada is preparing to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) — a decision that could herald the beginning of a new era in relations between First Nations and the federal government.

In a mandate letter addressed to Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Carolyn Bennett, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau requested the minister “renew the relationship between Canada and Indigenous Peoples.”

The first item on Bennett’s long list of to-dos is to implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting first with the implementation of the UN declaration.

Implementing the declaration is a big deal for Canada, one of only four countries to not only abstain from voting on the declaration, but to actually vote against it. (The other three are the U.S., which has signaled its intention to revise its position, and New Zealand and Australia, both of which reversed their positions in 2009.)

The declaration, first adopted by the UN in 2007 after 25 years of consultation and deliberation, is meant to “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world.”

Collision of Resource Extraction and First Nations Rights and Title

The declaration, while signalling positive intention to work with First Nations, only lays out principles so it is unclear how it  will impact real decisions on the ground.

“It’s going to be interesting to see what the federal government chooses to move forward on the quickest,” Robert Janes, litigator and First Nations rights and title expert with JFK Law, told DeSmog Canada.

According to Janes, the declaration in an opportunity for the federal government to shift gears when it comes to engagement with First Nations.

“The UN declaration includes quite a bit of discussion around ensuring there are good self-government mechanisms in place — ensuring, for example, that First Nations are able to make internal decisions free from interference from other governments,” Janes said.

“But also that First Nations are given the necessary resources to implement self-government decisions and that they’re entitled to various social rights around services, education, health and general welfare.”

Addressing these concerns within First Nations communities is where the federal government could “make some very quick gains,” Janes said.

However there are some areas where federal involvement may conflict with provincial jurisdiction. Resource development is an obvious example, Janes added.

Janes, who is currently working with the Beaver Lake Cree in their fight against the cumulative impacts of the Alberta oilsands, said that case is a good example of the province’s influence over resources.

“Where it gets tricky…is with many contentious issues, for example, in resource development: respecting treaty rights within resource development, proper compensation for taking First Nations lands, trying to obtain free and informed consent before First Nations lands are developed and even identifying where First Nations lands are.”

Janes added that resource development is primarily a provincial issue and as such “it will be tricky for the federal government to move on those matters in a way that could possibly satisfy UNDRIP and at the same time deal with that division of power.”

“In any cases ongoing, including Beaver Lake, the federal government is as involved as the provinces in fighting the First Nations,” Janes said. “No doubt it has always offended First Nations that in every fight between the provinces and First Nations the Canadian government has shown up — not in a neutral position — but actively participating in defending the provincial government’s position.”

Implementing the UN declaration may give Ottawa the political cover to step back from these fights and occupy a more neutral position.

Janes added there is still a significant amount of room for the government to step into a more proactive role in defending First Nations rights and title.

“If they actually implemented many of those things in [minister’s] mandate, which will be hard — they’re not easy, and not cheap — but if they really started to address those few things, there are many First Nations who would view that as a fundamental change with the federal government “

Long Way to Go to Repair Relationships with First Nations

While a step in the right direction, Canada will have to go much further to truly repair relations with First Nations, according to Clayton Thomas-Muller, campaigner with 350.org and member of the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation, also known as Pukatawagan, in northern Manitoba.

“I think I share in the cautious optimism regarding the Liberal government’s announcement to ratify UNDRIP. I think it’s a bold step in right direction that carries with it the same spirit of the other symbolic actions the government has taken since it swept into power,” Thomas-Muller said.

Signing the declaration is “the bare minimum standard nation states need to adopt to have strong domestic relations with local indigenous populations,” he added.

However, the Liberal government’s support for oilsands expansion and building of pipelines is concerning, Thomas Muller said, especially where development of the oilsands conflicts with First Nations rights and title and Canada’s international climate commitments.

“There’s also concern about how Trudeau will respect the veto right of First Nations while supporting the expansion of tar sands and the building of pipelines,” Thomas-Muller said, adding that, according to Canadian law, it only takes one First Nation to stop a development project.

“Just because 30 out of 40 First Nations say ‘yes’ to a project doesn’t in any way undermine or take away the sovereign right of the other 10 who oppose it.”

“That’s how collective rights work. Each sovereign First Nation has its own sovereign-to-sovereign relation with the Canadian government that Trudeau has to treat in the exact same way.”

Thomas-Muller said at this point the Liberal government has a lot of work to do “to clarify how they will keep their election promises.”

“Now we get to the hard work where the Liberal government needs to lay out their 10-point methodology for how they aim to repair some of the polarity that exists in the discussion around the Canadian economy and indigenous rights and certainly how this relates to the issue of climate change.”

Clayton Thomas-Muller with Eriel Deranger of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (left) and Melina Laboucan-Massimo of the Lubicon Cree Nation (right). Photo by Zack Embree.

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.

Vivian Krause has spent years scrutinizing how Canadian environmental groups are funded, claiming she's just asking "fair questions."

But as the blogger-turned-newspaper-columnist has run rampant with her conspiracy theory that American charitable foundations' support of Canadian environmental groups is nefarious, she has continually avoided seeking a fair answer.

If Krause were seeking a fair answer, she'd quickly learn that both investment dollars and philanthropic dollars cross borders all the time. There isn’t anything special or surprising about environmental groups receiving funding from U.S. foundations that share their goals — especially when the increasingly global nature of environmental challenges, particularly climate change, is taken into consideration.

Despite this common-sense answer, Krause’s strategy has effectively diverted attention away from genuine debate of environmental issues, while simultaneously undermining the important role environmental groups play in Canadian society.

Creating Diversions a Trademark of Oil Industry Strategy

This diversion strategy is a well-known tactic of the oil industry. A strategy document leaked yesterday details how one of the world’s most powerful PR firms, Edelman, advised TransCanada to undermine opponents to the Energy East pipeline.

Edelman recommended TransCanada apply pressure to opponents by “distracting them from their mission and causing them to redirect their resources.” To achieve that, Edelman advises TransCanada to work with “supportive third parties who can in turn put the pressure on, particularly when TransCanada can’t.”

Sound familiar?

In Vivian Krause's resume, she proudly takes credit for spawning a Senate inquiry and Canada Revenue Agency audit — distractions that forced environmental groups to spend time defending themselves, rather than doing their important work as watchdogs and advocates for environmental protection.

While Krause has been busy maligning the funding of Canadian environmental groups, very little attention has been paid to where Krause gets her bread buttered.

Krause Receives 90% of Income From Resource Industries

Krause frequently claims her research is independent (PDF) and that her work is unaffiliated with any industry — yet she has admitted that since 2012, more than 90 per cent of her income has come from oil, gas and mining interests through honorariums and speaking fees.

Krause has been paid as much as $10,000 to speak to energy executives. While she may not be directly employed by the fossil fuel industry, her work certainly aligns with that industry’s interests.

Groups paying Krause speaker’s fees included the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Association for Mineral Exploration and the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Large speaking fees are increasingly being used as a handy way to support the work of industry allies without directly employing them.

To see just how contentious speaking fees can be, take a gander at the recent Rex Murphy or Peter Mansbridge controversies. CBC ended up adjusting its policy, requiring hosts to disclose their speaking fees.

What Was Vivian Krause’s Argument Again?

So let’s get this straight: Krause, who has relied on speaking fees from the multinational resource sector for 90 per cent of her income for the past three years, argues that Canada’s environmental organizations are fronts for U.S. interests because they receive a portion of their funding from across the border?

Despite the spurious logic, Krause is still given a platform to spread her misleading information in the Postmedia chain of newspapers, including the Financial Post and The Province, as well as on Global News shows where she's a regular panelist on Unfiltered with Jill Krop.

While Krause may spin a mysterious tale, the answer is simple: philanthropic dollars crossing borders to support work on global issues is the norm. And Canadian charities are required to disclose all significant donations from foreign sources annually.

The Real Debate Canada Needs

The continued debate over the funding sources of the environmental community is simply a diversion tactic that favours the fossil fuel industry's desire to avoid having the real debate about Canada’s energy future.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urges nations to phase out fossil fuels immediately to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

The report puts responsibility squarely on the shoulders of our elected leaders, saying they can “either put policies in place to achieve this essential shift, or they can spend the rest of their careers dealing with climate disaster after climate disaster.”

But Canada won’t meet its 2020 international climate target, according to Environment Commissioner Julie Gelfand.

“The federal government does not have an overall plan that maps out how Canada will achieve this target. Canadians have not been given the details about which regulations will be developed, when, nor what greenhouse gas reductions will be expected,” Gelfand wrote in a report last month.

Now that China and the U.S. have signed a deal agreeing to cut emissions, Canada is left with even fewer excuses not to act.

Meantime, the federal government’s mandate to advance an energy superpower agenda marches forth, resulting in controversy across the country — from the Kinder Morgan fiasco on Burnaby Mountain, to the First Nations legal battle against Enbridge Northern Gateway, to the Athabasca Chipewyan and Beaver Lake Cree First Nations’ fight to prevent oilsands expansion on their territory, to efforts to ban fracking in Nova Scotia.

These efforts are not the outcome of foreign conspiracy — they’re the outcome of a lack of any sensible national conversation about how to develop our natural resources while meeting our international climate change commitments.

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.