First opposed, then endorsed. It’s now pledged, but called “unworkable.”

In Canada the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is not ratified, nor from a legal perspective even really understood.

The history of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous rights has been a sordid one. But all that was supposed to change with the nation’s latecomer adoption of the declaration. After years of federal Conservative inaction on the file, Justin Trudeau took to the campaign trail with a promise to restore Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.

The doctrine of ‘free, prior and informed consent‘ is a touchstone element of the declaration and one that will have a potentially massive impact on how megaprojects — like pipelines, the Alberta oilsands, and Site C dam — are proposed and approved in traditional Indigenous territory.

Yet onlookers say the declaration’s implementation is now hung on an NDP private member’s bill in the House of Commons and while there is broad support for its implementation, the actual meaning of UNDRIP for Canada is unclear and, as a technically non-binding document, may mean less than many think it should.

Interpretation of UNDRIP Strongly Contested

This past week the private member’s bill C-262 — first tabled by NDP MP Romeo Saganash back in April 2016 — was debated following its second reading in the House of Commons.

The bill requires the federal government to “take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent” with UNDRIP and develop a national action plan to do so in “consultation and cooperation” with Indigenous peoples.

The concise bill received full support from the federal Liberals only two weeks prior to the second reading. That catapulted it very much into the realm of possibility.

Yet the actual interpretation of UNDRIP is strongly contested.

The declaration itself is a document that lays out the basic rights Indigenous peoples that should be afforded around the world. It outlines specific obligations on the part of nations in how they relate to Indigenous peoples and their land, and contains some clauses that fly in the face of Canada’s historic treatment of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit.

The federal Liberals have seemingly contradicted themselves on multiple occasions about what UNDRIP means while some Indigenous scholars have an altogether different take on what the declaration truly means for Indigenous sovereignty and nationhood.

“When they say they’re going to support Bill C-262, I just view it as a PR stunt,” said Russ Diabo, a Kahnawake Mohawk policy advisor, in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

The federal government isn’t prepared to fully face the implications of UNDRIP, Diabo said, and how it could challenge Canada’s current legal frameworks.

“A lot of people out there on both sides may not actually like what a court says UNDRIP means when push comes to shove.” https://t.co/rqeaRx2c8Q

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 12, 2017

UNDRIP: Opposed, Endorsed, Pledged, Unworkable, Supported

When UNDRIP was first adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007, there were only four opposing votes to the 46-article declaration: the United States, Australia, New Zealand and — you guessed it — Canada.

In 2010, the Conservative government under Harper endorsed UNDRIP, describing it as an “aspirational document,” but remained a permanent objector of the declaration. Despite the endorsement, the principles of UNDRIP were never applied in Canada in any tangible way.

The Liberal Party pledged to change that. In its 2015 election platform, the party clearly stated that it would “enact the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

In May 2016, Minister Carolyn Bennett officially announced Canada’s removal of its permanent objector status to UNDRIP, committing to “fully adopting this and working to implement it within the laws of Canada, which is our charter.”

But only two months later, Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould described the adoption of UNDRIP as “unworkable” and “a political distraction.”

Near the end of 2016, when questioned about the recently approved Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, Prime Minister Trudeau stated that Indigenous opponents “don’t have a veto,” directly contradiction previous promises that under his government ‘no would mean no’ for Indigenous peoples when it came to resource extraction and energy infrastructure projects.

Other have suggested Trudeau’s position also contradicts the key provision in UNDRIP of the need for governments to obtain “free, prior and informed consent” from Indigenous peoples prior to development.

UNDRIP Technically Non-Binding, Up to Canada To Define

In the recent House of Commons debate about Bill C-262, MP Romeo Saganash thanked the federal Liberals for “finally accepting that this should be a framework for reconciliation in this country.”

But there are still great disagreements about what legal ramifications of implementing such a “framework” will be. In international law, declarations, such as UNDRIP, are non-binding.

Robert James, principal lawyer at JFK Law in British Columbia and expert on Aboriginal law, said the eventual implementation of UNDRIP in Canadian law could impact how federal statutes are interpreted and applied, and how some elements of common law, such as duty to consult, are applied.

“One of the side effects of this is it may take what’s primarily a political document used to advance moral and political positions and really put it in the hands of the Western court to say, ‘well actually, here’s what UNDRIP really says,’” James told DeSmog Canada in an interview.

“A lot of people out there on both sides may not actually like what a court says UNDRIP means when push comes to shove.”

Tension over Indigenous Sovereignty

As to be expected, a main tension is about Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination.

James points out that Article 46 — the very last of the declaration — states that nothing in UNDRIP may be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging “any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.”

Canada is one of those “sovereign and independent states.”

Critical components of the declaration could be interpreted as having the ability to “dismember or impair” Canada as a nation, meaning Article 46 could have significant consequence for how fully UNDRIP is implemented and embraced.

Disputes over access to land, natural resources and water, for example, lie at the heart of many recent clashes between Indigenous peoples and Ottawa. And as the Mi’kmaq blockade in New Brunswick demonstrated, Indigenous peoples are often criminalized for exercising sovereignty over traditional lands.

Patricia Doyle-Bedwell, a Mi’kmaq lawyer and professor at Dalhousie University said the power of UNDRIP lies in its ability to strengthen Indigenous rights to protect land and water.

“That’s what that is about. We’re not going to have anything if we don’t have our land,” she told DeSmog Canada.

“We have the right to our survival, our dignity, our way of being as Indigenous people.”

How Does UNDRIP Fit In With Constitutionally Protected Aboriginal Rights?

In 1982 Canada amended its constitution to — for the first time — enshrine the rights of Canada’s indigenous peoples.

The amendment, Section 35, states simply: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”

The creation of Section 35 represented a turning point in Canada’s history and a monumental victory Canada’s Indigenous peoples fought very hard for. Yet the wording of the section has been criticized for its vagueness which doesn’t define what those rights are.

So in May 2016, when Minister Bennett told the UN, “By adopting and implementing the declaration, we are excited that we are breathing life into Section 35 and recognizing it as a full box of rights for Indigenous Peoples in Canada,” concerns emerged that Canada might restrict UNDRIP under the confines of the constitution.

“Bennett is trying to contain international laws and principles and standards into Canadian domestic constitutional law and court cases,” Diabo, the Kahnawake Mohawk policy advisor, told DeSmog Canada. “That’s the problem that I have.”

Diabo said the original negotiations between Indigenous nations and Canada about the constitution weren’t a success, leaving plenty of “unfinished business.”

Former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, recently called for the completion of those negotiations and the need for Canada to actually honour and fulfill its existing treaties with Indigenous peoples.

What Lies Ahead for UNDRIP?

Bill C-262 will be debated again in February 2018. A March will decide if the bill will move past second reading to committee. Given full support from the federal Liberals, it appears likely that will happen.

As that March vote approaches, the declaration will be put under increasing scrutiny. Past debate has been used to raise questions about the merits of the document and what uncertainties remain surrounding its legal implementation.

During the Dec. 5 debate in the House of Commons, Conservative MP and opposition critic for Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Cathy McLeod asked: “What is the difference between ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ and ‘consult and accommodate,’ which is what we have in law right now?”

She continued, “certainly there is no question that the declaration proposes that change in our law and we need to simply know what that is going to mean because it is important.”

As of right now, there aren’t any clear answers to that question.

For many Indigenous experts, the potential success of Bill C-262 and UNDRIP itself depends on the federal government’s perspective on Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination.

“To implement UNDRIP…we have to go back to nation-to-nation relationships,” Doyle-Bedwell said. “This idea that we have to fit it into these boxes will not advance our reconciliation.”

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.

B.C. hasn’t been particularly good at including Indigenous populations in the decision-making process. First Nations are often brought to the table after high-level political decisions have already been made — leading to significant social and legal conflict over consultation, consent and the management of natural resources.

Legal challenges of Site C, the cumulative impacts of B.C.’s sprawling oil and gas operations and the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline are all current examples of what these conflicts look like.

But it doesn’t have to be so, say a team of researchers from by the University of Victoria’s POLIS Water Sustainability Project and the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources in a new report, which proposes B.C. manage water resources via a co-governance model based on a principle of collaborative consent.

“Imagine Indigenous people being involved at the highest level of policy-making and reaching an agreement that is good for everyone,” said Merrell-Ann Phare, founding executive director of the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources and lead author of the report.

Water is a good issue for the collaborative consent approach as it concerns everyone in a community, Phare said.

Disputes between government and Indigenous communities are often clouded by a perceived need for legal clarity on rights, but there are many areas where, even without legal clarity, different levels of government are able to work out solutions, she added.

“We need to pull up the chairs to those tables for Indigenous governments and we need the federal and provincial governments to recognize that,” she said.

“Indigenous governments have a right to be there.”

Collaborative consent would not mean an end to legal challenges, but it would help find solutions to some of the battles that continue for generations, said Phare, adding that B.C. would not be breaking new ground as territorial and Indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories already use a collaborative consent approach.

Cowichan Watershed Revitalization a Collaborative Consent Success Story

A little more than a decade ago, the Cowichan watershed was a mess.

Clearcuts on surrounding slopes intensified run-off during winter storms. A 2003 drought resulted in critically low water levels that made it impossible for Chinook salmon to reach spawning grounds. Future droughts were on the horizon and water quality was threatened by sewage, fertilizer and a rapidly expanding population.

Catalyst Paper — the largest employer in the area — was on the verge of shutting down because of a water shortage.

“The management situation of the day was not working and the risks to the river and its communities were great,” says a 2014 case study of the evolution of the Cowichan Watershed Board by the University of Victoria’s POLIS Water Sustainability Project.

Management of the watershed was spread among a patchwork of federal, provincial, Indigenous and local governments, while waterfront home owners and local businesses wanted input on how to deal with ongoing droughts and the shrinking salmon runs.

There was general acknowledgement that action was needed to save Cowichan Lake and the iconic Cowichan River, but with the jigsaw of federal and provincial acts and the need for Cowichan Tribes to protect their interests, little was accomplished.

A 2007 plan set out a proactive approach to water management, but, two years later, implementation was minimal, largely because of lack of leadership and scattered responsibilities.

It was clear that a different type of management was needed, with local leadership, so, the Cowichan Watershed Board was formed with the chair of the Cowichan Valley Regional District and chief of Cowichan Tribes as joint chairs, while other agencies were encouraged follow board decisions.

That style of management typifies collaborative consent, which should be the model used in B.C. to defuse conflict around water and land use, the new report recommends.

Resolution for System of Delays, Court Cases with Water Co-Governance

Conflicts could be avoided if Indigenous governments were given an equal seat at the table at the start of a process, instead of being brought in after decisions are made, says the report.

Delays, court cases and disagreements are common as Indigenous communities battle to protect traditional territories, while other levels of government and, in some cases, major corporations, write legislation or set the rules, only to have them challenged by First Nations, who frequently claim inadequate consultation.

Collaborative consent, with all parties committed to working together as equals, takes the heat out of issues as everyone works towards decisions they can live with, says the report, which suggests that the method should be used to come up with regulations for B.C.’s new Water Sustainability Act.

Rosie Simms, co-author of the report and POLIS water law and policy researcher, said collaborative consent offers a way for B.C. to govern according to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people, as promised by Premier John Horgan.

Water is a compelling issue because jurisdictional overlaps and gaps pave the way for creative forms of co-governance, Simms said.

Indigenous History, Lessons Benefit Local Government

Back in the Cowichan Valley, the collaboration has helped people understand the extent of Cowichan Tribes’ history in the area and traditional knowledge is now used to help inform decisions, said Chief William Seymour.

“We all have the same concerns about our watershed. The logging that went on and what happened to our streams, what happened to our water levels and the water temperature, all the issues of contamination with sewage and fertilizer going into the river — everyone in the valley has those concerns,” Seymour said.

With everyone working towards the same goals, protection of the watershed is improving, he said.

Jon Lefebure, Cowichan Valley Regional District chair, said an excellent relationship has developed between Cowichan Tribes and the district because of the equal partnership on the Watershed Board.

“It has flowed into many other things we do around land use and the opioid crisis — which has an impact on all parts of our community,” he said.

The relationship has also brought local government a new awareness of First Nations culture and the advantages offered by their history and perceptions, Lefebure said.

For example, there is an emphasis on taking only what you need and leaving the rest for future generations, as opposed to the culture of taking all you can and damn the consequences, he said.

Priorities for the watershed are based on looking at the whole system, rather than individual pieces and are guided by a traditional Cowichan Tribes lesson that “everything on this earth is what sustains us, everything on this earth is connected together,” says the POLIS case study.

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.

The massive “Canada 150” celebrations of July 1 are finally over, leaving little in their wake but hangovers, a multi-million dollar price tag and mountains of trash.

But for some Indigenous peoples in Canada, the festivities remain a visceral reminder of their continued dispossession from ancestral lands and waters. That’s especially true for those on the frontlines of megaprojects — pipelines, hydro dams, oil and gas wells, liquefied natural gas terminals and mines — that infringe on Indigenous land rights.

DeSmog Canada caught up with three Indigenous people directly involved in local struggles to resist such projects.

Beatrice Hunter 

Beatrice Hunter is an Inuk woman living in Labrador. In May, she was arrested and jailed while defending ancestral territories threatened by Nalcor’s Muskrat Falls project. Hunter was released after 10 days in a men’s prison following a decision by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Have you returned to the site since the court ruling?

Yeah, I returned on Canada Day. It was my way of saying that I am not Canadian, I am Inuk. It was my way of saying that what the government is doing is not right.

How was the experience being back there?

It was good to be back there. It was excellent. Ever since I went to the gate last year with other Labradorians, it’s almost felt like a calling. It feels like you’re actually doing something and you’re not just sitting around waiting for stuff to happen. You’re trying to change it yourself. It was excellent to be with other Labrador Land Protectors.

Obviously there’s been a lot of talk about Canada 150. What do you make of it in the context of Muskrat Falls?

It’s very upsetting and heartbreaking when the Canadian government doesn’t listen to you when obviously the natives of this land were the first peoples here. It shows a lack of respect for Indigenous nations across the country and for them to not admit the wrongs that have been done through the years. It’s another slap in the face.

The federal government has also been talking a lot about “reconciliation.” Do you feel there’s been any progress on that in the last few years?

I feel personally that nothing has actually been happening. It’s the same old story: they make promises and then don’t follow through with them.

What outcome do you and other land protectors hope for?

The best outcome will be to shut Muskrat down. And I still feel the same way. Everybody talks about it being too late, but I feel it’s never too late. The damage is already done but we can try and fix the damage. There’s been billions of dollars been done on the project. Why aren’t government officials and leaders and politicians being audited for it? They obviously have something to hide. If they didn’t have anything to hide, they would just come out with all the information.

Do you plan to keep going to the site?

Yes! Of course! I’m not going to stop. We can’t stop. We have to try to change it. We can’t let big corporations and politicians get away with this because it’s always going to happen if we let them.

Any last words?

I just want to let everybody know that I’m going to keep fighting. That’s what I want everyone to know. Myself and the Labrador Land Protectors are going to keep fighting. We can’t give up. It’s the future. We’re fighting for those who can’t fight for themselves. We’re fighting for our children. We’re fighting for our grandchildren. We’re fighting for our ancestors that weren’t strong enough to go up against the big corporations and governments. I feel it’s like white supremacy. That’s what it feels like to me. Everywhere you look: on TV, on radio, you hear white supremacy. Everywhere. It has to change.

Sadie-Phoenix Lavoie 

Sadie-Phoenix Lavoie is an Anishinaabe woman living in Manitoba. She is a student at the University of Winnipeg, co-founder of Red Rising Magazine, previously served as the vice-president of external affairs for the students’ association and has been involved with the campaign to pressure the institution to divest from fossil fuels.

What do you make of Canada 150 in the context of pipelines and ongoing extraction projects in Manitoba?

I definitely think that Canada 150 is trying to instill this pride of ‘who we are?’ and ‘what is the Canadian identity?’ The fact is that part of the Canadian identity is that extraction of natural resources in their economy. Now, they’re instilling this pride where you have to be prideful of being Canadian which also includes being protective of these types of industries. That’s where it gets really convoluted. We need to dismantle that narrative.

What would you say to settlers and settler politicians?

You have to share responsibilities to these communities and respect Indigenous rights. You’ve done a horrible job historically on this. And you can’t just be approving pipelines using the Canadian identity as a justification of infringing on those Indigenous rights, and therefore having to present that to the Canadian public and government. It’s all fine and dandy that you want to celebrate who you are. However, we still have a lot of conflict that needs to get resolved.

What does that look like specifically for you?

Part of that is respecting Indigenous rights to the land and UNDRIP: free, prior and informed consent in terms of any development on our traditional territories. Even though Justin Trudeau is saying ‘yes,’ there’s no ‘yes’ from the actual majority of Indigenous communities that are going to be directly affected. I’m not going to say that there is 100 per cent consensus within the Indigenous communities on pipelines.

But part of the fiduciary duty to the best interests of Indigenous peoples is you actually having to see there’s a huge demographic of Indigenous peoples that are saying ‘no.’ We have a right to say ‘no’ and a consultation with us isn’t about getting to a ‘yes.’ It’s about meaningful dialogue and respecting the fact that we can say ‘no’ and that doesn’t change with consultation and engagement.

There are other procedures and other things that need to be in place to ensure that pipeline is able to go through. And they haven’t met those. They haven’t met Indigenous rights or the court challenge that’s going on. To assume this pipeline’s going to be jammed down our throats is highly disrespectful on the part of a government that says they want to reconcile with Indigenous communities.

Any final thoughts?

Canada 150 isn’t a celebration for me, as an Indigenous woman. I see it as a celebration for them, to instill pride in their identities. But part of their identity is still being a colonizer, and colonizing me. The historical understanding of taking pride in Canada for all the “good” things it’s done does not erase the actual history of genocide in this country. I think that’s a big thing that Canadians need to accept.

Caleb Behn 

Caleb Behn is an Eh-Cho Dene and Dunne Za/Cree man living in British Columbia. He was the focus of the 2015 documentary “Fractured Land” and previously worked as a lawyer. Behn has frequently criticized the Site C dam — which, if built, would greatly impact the West Moberly First Nation, where his mother is from.

What do you make of Canada 150?

People have to recognize — and it should be quite obvious — that Canada 150 is a brand. Behind the superficial and contrived nature of Canada 150, you see something darker and more painful for Indigenous people.

It’s like from Calvin and Hobbes: they throw down the transmogrifier on colonization and genocide and missing and murdered Indigenous women and rape of the land and chronic representation of Indigenous people in the justice system and massive dispossession of lands and resources. And that becomes — through this magic rebranding exercise — some series of images and motifs and memes that sanitize and normalize what is abuse of relationships and law and land and people.

How does this tie in with the struggles over Site C?

From my perspective in northeast B.C. looking at Site C: behind this sanitized, non-abusive narrative that brands Canada and this 150 year grand experiment of colonization, you have actual tangible violations of good accounting principles, representation in the political process, systemically problematic and dangerous developments.

This urgency that Indigenous people are feeling is an urgency that the dominant colonial society should have felt from its very inception 150 years ago because it was grounded in the deployment of extractive technology and the violation of appropriate relations with human and non-human beings and environments.

That is hyper-relevant for the 21st century. That’s why Site C, Muskrat Falls, Line 3, fossil fuels, violation of law, disrespect of treaties, abuse is all interconnected.

There’s a lot of talk about acknowledging Indigenous rights to land. What do you think this looks like?

Land is such a weak word. It’s the violation of something truly sacred. But then to dress that up as something to be celebrated or unquestionably adopted and marketed within this decaying, decrepit, spiritually and physically contaminated time: that should be the clarion call for all human beings, especially in Canada.

Any final thoughts?

I hope your readers appreciate that as you celebrate the nation-state of Canada and somehow ignore the genocide and the rape and the violation of peoples, principles and land: even if you can get that far internally colonized and simplistically adopting a mindset and model, it’s in your best interest individually and collectively to still question what it is that’s being sold to you and what it is you’re witnessing.

I know what the red stands for in that flag. And I know what the white stands for in that flag. You see so many people unquestionably celebrating. It was really sad. And to see how many Indigenous people and other solid settler allies with their head firmly extracted from their ass are criticizing and engaging that — to me, that was the only real hope in that.

It’s a sad time.

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.

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.