The Confidence and Supply Agreement between the BC Greens and BC NDP committed government to take bold action in changing the relationship with Indigenous people.
Each member of Cabinet is mandated to deliver on this commitment. As a result, every Minister will be evaluated by how effective they are. It is a measure of success and failure.
It is not going to be an easy task to change the course of more than a century of government policy. So, here are three ideas on how the government can start to turn words into action this year.
Use the Aboriginal Affairs Committee
First, the government has had a Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs since the early 2000’s. This Committee has rarely sat, let’s change that! It can be a collaborative, multi-partisan space to hear testimony, ask questions, and seek advice on some of the most pressing and challenging issues of our time. It is time to leave this Committee idle no more!
More Indigenous advisors
Second, it is important that more of the incredible Indigenous leaders, academics and elders are advising the Ministers and Deputy Ministers. They have unique expertise on the issues and would increase the confidence of Indigenous people that government is willing to listen and to clearly understand the challenges from an Indigenous perspective.
Change the structure of government
Third, change the structure of government. Embracing a change from denial to recognition and respect represents a complete switch in direction from past administrations. The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (MIRR) should be more than a vertical silo, it should be a horizontal thread that weaves through all Ministries leading a whole of government approach. Thousands of people must be on board and they must understand and embrace this new mandate. MIRR must have the capacity to provide support, and the power to redefine how the Ministry operates and how it interacts with the rest of government.
Finally…
These ideas do not solve the problems created over centuries, it is going to be difficult work to fix the mess. We are at a pivotal moment in time. It is the time we decide how we want to take the next steps in our journey. Are we going to take bold, confident strides or two tentative steps forward and one back?
Hm, there’s nothing here about implementing UNDRIP with the principle of FPIC being made fully operational. It’s certainly what Bill C-262 intends at the federal level. I asked Andrew Weaver about this at the townhall meeting in West Kelowna a week ago. Before I get to that, let me fill in a little background.
What Grand Chief Stewart Phillip has said about FPIC is that it’s “the right to say yes and the right to say no to development on our lands and territories in order to safeguard the land and waters for future generations.” For those who may not know, the right to say no is often referred to as a “veto” or as the Indigenous veto.
Chief Bob Chamberlain of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs has said that FPIC, with its right to say yes or no, is critical to Indigenous decision-making. I think it’s no great leap to understand that FPIC is critical to Indigenous self-determination and to the reconciliation of historical wrongs. So it’s really a big concern for all of us in Canada.
In terms of federal politics, the Liberal government has said it will support the passage of Bill C-262, but Trudeau has also said flat out that there won’t be an Indigenous veto.
Provincially, when the government refused to approve an environmental assessment for Ajax Mine in Kamloops, environment minister George Heyman warned that the refusal didn’t relate in any way to an Indigenous veto. His warning makes me think the provincial government is probably not going to support one.
In his year-end interview with DeSmog, Andrew Weaver also said we shouldn’t expect to see an Indigenous veto. In that interview, and at the townhall, he suggested Indigenous aspirations could be met through environmental assessments. He said we were asking the wrong question when we talked about ‘yes or no’ to proposed land uses or resource development. Consensus-building was the thing we had to reach for, he said. He gave the example of Jumbo Glacier as a gong show, essentially the poster child for the need for change. The processes surrounding rejection of the Ajax mine at Kamloops was the change to celebrate.
So how did Ajax work?
KGHM International, a subsidiary of a Polish company, initiated its environmental evaluation process in January 2016. A few months after, in May, the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office put a temporary hold on the process, partly because it lacked consultation from the Stk’emlupsemc te Secwépemc Nation (SSN).
The Ajax Project became the first in B.C.’s history that was required to prepare a First Nations “consultation plan” as part of its environmental assessment process. The National Observer covered the story of the consultation here: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/04/21/news/indigenous-law-banishes-giant-bc-mine
The SSN ultimately rejected the proposal. They published a description of their decision-making process here, as well as their rationale for rejecting the proposal: https://stkemlups.ca/files/2013/11/2017-03-ssnajaxdecisionsummary_0.pdf
Reading those two information sources, you’ll see a lot of new ground was broken. This was not the typical consultation and accommodation process where if the state meets the minimum legal expectations, the project will go through whether the affected Indigenous group likes it or not. This was an Indigenous-led decision-making process that resulted in the answer ‘no’.
Said Chief Ron Ignace at the National Observer, “the days of colonial authoritarianism are over. It’s time for Canada to recognize that we are nations, as nations we have rights to our land, and if we are approached honourably, we can sit down and come to a fair and just conclusion.”
“We negotiated things that other people have never negotiated anywhere,” said SSN councillor Jeanette Jules. “We’re encouraging people across the country to pick up on this process and utilize this process and develop their own systems. That is applying your right to self-determination.”
All that sounds pretty good, and lots of people beyond the SNN were also incredibly pleased: Ugo Lapointe of MiningWatch Canada, Perry Bellegarde of the Assembly of First Nations, David Suzuki.
But here’s the kicker. The SSN decision to reject the project was not a final decision. Local media in Kamloops said the final decision on the mine would have to be made by both federal and provincial environment ministers as well as by BC’s minister of energy and mines.
Just this past December, the provincial government nixed the project. As the CBC reported:
“A statement from the SSN leadership said they were ‘exuberant’ to hear the news and recognized the provincial government for upholding the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. ‘We Secwépemc have never ceded or surrendered our rights or title. Our ancestors stood firm as have we, for the benefit of our future generations and guests in our territory’.”
What the CBC then reported is more complicated than what the Kamloops media reported. In fact, it’s pretty much a gong show:
“In a separate statement, Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna echoed the conclusions of the province about the adverse impacts of the mine proposal. She said she has now referred the project back to Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Natural Resources Canada, who will have to ask cabinet to make the final decision on whether the project will go ahead.”
The CBC continued: “But Heyman said that even if the feds decide to push ahead with the mine, KGHM will still require an environmental assessment certificate from the province.”
So, I really think that while the SNN have some reasons for jubilation, a crapshoot with provincial and federal ministers subsequent to Indigenous-led decision-making cannot be what Indigenous self-determination means.
So Adam, why aren’t you out there supporting full implementation of UNDRIP as described in Romeo Saganash’s Bill C-262?
Good evening Dianne. Thank you for your comment.
I support the full adoption of the UNDRIP. The Confidence and Supply Agreement I refer to states,
I interviewed Doug White and Roshan Danesh on November 9 and November 23, on a show called Indigenous Voice and they fully canvas the issue of “veto”.
Thank you again for this message. I will post a presentation I made at Vancouver Island University on Monday which is a more full discussion about this issue.
All the best,
Adam
Both these interviews run an hour — making for some juicy viewing this weekend, thank you! I’ll get back to you afterward. I look forward to discussion!
Adam, what a pleasure it was to listen to you three in interview. I have a question, perhaps best expressed in a scenario. If the absolutism of a veto for any nation must be avoided and a collaborative decision sought, where would we be in the instance of an aboriginal community absolutely not wanting a pipeline to cross their land (either because pipelines are inherently dangerous, say, or because they don’t want to lend support to fossil fuel extraction on scientific grounds) and the government absolutely wants the pipeline (they want revenue and jobs or they say it’s in the super-broad national interest — a ‘nation-building’ thing)?
I believe Tsilhqot’in would say, well then, the government has to “justify” the proposed incursion. There would, in other words, still be a chance for the government to overrule the Indigenous group. FPIC would say, the Indigenous group just said ‘no’, which means the government doesn’t have consent, and consent underwrites self-determination and sovereignty, so Canada can’t trump the Indigenous nation. Isn’t that a kind of an absolute situation — we said no, you don’t have consent, you can’t move forward?
Thank you Dianne. From my understanding of what Doug and Roshan are saying here is that veto’s are not something to be avoided, rather they don’t exist. It is a situation where there are multiple sovereigns at the table.