Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2018

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To our guests this afternoon, thank you, and thank you for your contribution to this study.

I would like to start with you Chief Bertrand.

First, I'm sorry to have missed part of your presentation. I arrived late because of a vote in the House this afternoon.

You talked about a process that continues to be drawn out in your case, even since the ruling in the Daniels case two years ago. The current government has been in power for two and a half years.

How do you think this process, or your case, would benefit from the framework proposed by Bill C-262?

What I'm really proposing here is a reconciliation framework. I would like to hear your comments on your specific case.

[National Chief Robert Bertrand]

The fact that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would now be framed in legislation could—I won't say “force”—push the government to negotiate a little more with us as to the scope of the decision in the ruling in the Daniels case.

As you know, as National Chief, I have to attend all the general assemblies of all our affiliates. Whether in Newfoundland, Labrador or Quebec, people are still wondering what we have gained from the Daniels affair.

As I mentioned earlier, we didn't discuss education, housing, hunting and fishing. There is so much to start the discussion. Many of these topics concern not only the federal government, but also the provincial and territorial governments. I was in Lac-Saint-Jean at the end of the week, and people were wondering about fishing on Lake Saint-Jean. Were they going to be allowed to as registered Indians? I couldn't answer them.

Maybe in five or six years, after discussions with both levels of government, we can come to some sort of agreement. But we haven't even started the discussion. I hope Bill C-262 will help us push the government to negotiate with us.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Before I turn to Mr. Russell, I have one last quick question for you. In response to another question, you mentioned that things are more complex than we think. This is the case in any negotiation process.

What dimension of your discussions with the federal government do you think would be the most difficult to deal with and would challenge both parties more? You just mentioned the issue of hunting and fishing, which has a territorial dimension.

Is this one of the dimensions that could pose difficulties?

[National Chief Robert Bertrand]

There are many. Hunting and fishing are one. There's housing as well.

I remember reading a study that talked about the impact of living conditions for indigenous people living off reserve. They have an effect on young people who don't have proper housing to return to at the end of the school day. If they don't live in adequate housing, it really hurts their performance at school.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

D'accord.

Mr. Russell, first of all, thank you. It's good to see you again. We met a couple of years ago.

I noted carefully some of the words you used in your presentation. I agree entirely with some of the things you said, including the fact that Bill C-262 does not go “far enough”. Those were the words you used.

Which part of Bill C-262 would you see the possibility of strengthening? Is it changing “free, prior and informed consent” to a veto or something else? I don't want to focus on FPIC, because it's an error to focus on those specific articles when we have 46 articles and a preamble and paragraphs that are important. That's not how our legal system works, in any case. I'd like you to elaborate on that.

[Todd Russell]

Well, I talked about the fact that this particular bill does not create new rights, and neither does the declaration. In that context, I believe that this in some ways strengthens certain laws that we have within Canada.

If we want to talk about FPIC, or free, prior and informed consent, that might be one place we could start. I think the declaration provides some clarity around that. While it provides clarity, I think it also strengthens the existing law that the Supreme Court of Canada decided on in Tsilhqot'in, which means that when we have title to our lands, when that is recognized and affirmed, then we have decision-making authority; we have decision-making power, which is consistent and is really at the heart of self-governance. I would think that the declaration would also shore up existing land claims agreements, particularly those that have self-governance agreements—

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

[Todd Russell]

—and those that do provide jurisdiction for indigenous governments.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

I understand that by agreement we have come to the end of our allotted time for the first panel. I want to thank you wholeheartedly for coming out again to see us and for providing your insights.

Meegwetch. Safe travels.

We're going to call up the second panel, so we'll take a short recess.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I'm going to ask that we get back into session. We have a guest from Vancouver who is waiting.

Welcome to our committee. We are very pleased to have you here.

We have three presentations. Geoff Plant is by video conference from Vancouver. In front of us, we have the Grand Council of the Crees and Thunderchild First Nation.

Each presenter will have up to 10 minutes. Then we'll go into a question session. Because we have three presenting groups, I will ask that the MPs direct their questions specifically to either our panellist in Vancouver or somebody who is here in person.

Welcome, everybody. I don't want to take more time. This session will end, by agreement, at 5:20.

We are beginning with you, Geoff. Welcome.

[Geoff Plant, Partner, Gall Legge Grant Zwack LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. I'm honoured to have been invited to appear in front of you.

I'm here today to speak in support of Bill C-262. I have a few minutes of prepared remarks, but I'm sure it will be less than 10.

I want to begin with two observations from most of a career spent as a lawyer and politician and also as a student of indigenous history and policy.

The first is this. Ever since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1973 Calder case, courts have led the development of indigenous rights recognition policy. Governments have been in response mode, and the responses have often been reluctant and incomplete.

Nearly half a century on from Calder, the recognition and implementation of UNDRIP, as I'll call it, presents a unique opportunity for governments to take back the mantle of policy leadership—to be proactive rather than reactive. As a Canadian, I'm proud of that opportunity. As a British Columbian, I should also say that there is a potentially important and rare convergence, because both Canada's government and B.C.'s are committed to embrace and implement UNDRIP.

The second general comment I want to make is a broad historical summary, which is probably dangerous because of its breadth, but let me suggest that our thinking about indigenous issues has changed over time. Mine certainly has.

A century and a half ago, the stated goal was assimilation. This objective gradually—and thankfully—evolved into a different approach. Recognizing that indigenous peoples had pre-existing rights, these rights were half-recognized or sometimes converted into the form of claims, and the goal became how to design processes that would settle these claims, as if by settling them the claims could be made to go away, certainty could be purchased, and title could be settled.

Now, I suggest, we may finally be ready for a new, much better paradigm. The starting point is that famous last sentence of Chief Justice Lamer in his judgment in the Delgamuukw case where he said, “Let us face it, we are all here to stay.”

This sentence invites us to think less in terms of claims and claimants and more in terms of relationships—enduring relationships. We can begin to imagine a dialogue that's not about closure but about openings, a dialogue based on an equality of policies, where we're not aiming to settle title but rather to give meaningful effect to the indigenous right of self-determination. UNDRIP is a powerful tool for this purpose.

If asked, I would be the first to admit that Bill C-262 is an unusual bill. As someone who has drafted, debated, and enforced legislation, I'm a bit of a traditionalist. If government intends to require something by law, I usually want to know precisely what is being required. This is so I can predict the impact and implications and also the cost of what is intended. As a lawyer, I also value precision because it allows me to advise my clients about their rights and obligations. This bill does not satisfy those typical requirements, but it's not a typical bill. It's closer to constitutional than conventional law. It's perfect for its purpose.

Most importantly, perhaps, this bill leaves the details and the mechanics of how Canada's laws and practices will be made consistent with the objectives of UNDRIP to be worked out with indigenous peoples. The language in clauses 4 and 5, that phrase “consultation and cooperation”, is very important. Those words capture the important reality that it is not for the Government of Canada to decide unilaterally how the principles and obligations of UNDRIP will be achieved. This bill requires government to engage with indigenous peoples to make this happen. That legitimizes and empowers the indigenous voice and authority on these fundamental issues.

There are three reasons why this high-level commitment to consult and co-operate is important.

First, it allows for nuanced, local, site-specific solutions to meet the wide variety of contexts and circumstances in which recognition of UNDRIP will arise. It's simply not possible, nor is it desirable, to anticipate all of those situations in one piece of legislation. This bill gives marching orders to those who will have to do the hard work on the ground of making this real.

Second, it increases the likelihood that the solutions that will be found will have shared buy-in, which, I respectfully suggest, is an increasingly elusive goal in public policy decision-making these days.

Third, consultation and co-operation are themselves foundational principles for the needed new relationships. I envision relationships not characterized by line-item vetoes where consent is conditional on agreement to every single clause and condition of every decision, but rather through negotiated give-and-take in a manner that is familiar to anyone who has participated in complex government-to-government negotiations and problem-solving.

I know there are concerns that the full recognition of UNDRIP, no matter how well intentioned, will simply add more roadblocks to the development of lands and resources. That is certainly a concern of some here in British Columbia.

The concern, as I'm sure you all know, is with UNDRIP's statement that resource development requires the “free, prior, and informed consent” of indigenous landowners. I don't dismiss this concern, but I strongly believe that adoption of UNDRIP standards represents a tremendous opportunity to change how land and resource decision-making is done, in a way that will benefit everyone. Properly implemented, UNDRIP offers an opportunity to replace conflict on the land with co-operation and to make real progress towards reconciliation.

The starting point for a consideration of the requirement of free, prior, and informed consent is the acknowledgement that governments do not seek permission from every single one of us before decisions are made. Rather, we elect governments to make such decisions on our behalf. The result of this process of self-determination—that is, the right to choose by whom and how we are governed—is that those who govern, broadly speaking, have our consent to do so.

I suggest that we ought to see the idea of free, prior, and informed consent in the same terms. Full inclusion in decision-making processes, acknowledgement of the legitimacy of diverse perspectives, and shared participation, responsibility, and accountability for outcomes become the means by which the necessary consent is obtained.

What's needed, then, I suggest, are new decision-making processes. Today, first nations are consulted about proposals, but non-indigenous governments usually have the last word. There's a need for new models that include first nations as shared decision-makers, so that they are not simply affected by the decision, but are partners in it.

Bill C-262 should cause the Government of Canada to initiate processes of consultation and co-operation that will lead to the design and implementation of these new models, at least within the fields of federal legislative authority. Full inclusion not only respects indigenous ownership of their lands and resources; it also respects the right of indigenous peoples to decide for themselves how their lands are to be used and how they are to be governed. Full inclusion is the pathway to real consent. It meets both the letter and the spirit of UNDRIP, and it will move us away from conflict to co-operation. Full inclusion is a necessary step on the road to reconciliation.

There's no certainty here. Mainly, there is an opportunity, but it's the right opportunity. Bill C-262, in my respectful opinion—

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you, Mr. Plant.

[Geoff Plant]

—creates a viable framework within which we will all have a chance at achieving real progress towards reconciliation.

Those are my remarks. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Those minutes just tick right by, don't they? You went a bit over. Thank you for those comments.

We're now moving to the grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees.

It's nice to have you here. We've heard great things about the agreement you have. Your member of Parliament says that it's a living example of UNDRIP. It's your turn.

[Grand Chief Abel Bosum, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable committee members.

I am Grand Chief Abel Bosum. On behalf of the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, I am pleased to appear before you today with Deputy Grand Chief Mandy Gull; Paul John Murdoch, corporate secretary; Tina Petawabano; Brian Craik; Paul Joffe; Bill Namagoose; Paul Workman; Melissa Saganash; and, our youth, Sehoneh Masty.

The Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee includes more than 18,000 Eeyouch, or Cree, occupying our traditional territory of Eeyou Istchee. This territory covers around 400,000 square kilometres and is located mainly to the east and south of James Bay and Hudson Bay.

Indigenous peoples in all regions of the world share common challenges and injustices. These include the debilitating effects of colonization, land and resource dispossession, racial discrimination, marginalization, and the devastating effects of severe impoverishment.

We are proud that Romeo Saganash, a member of our Cree Nation, is the sponsor of Bill C-262. The bill will significantly advance the human rights of indigenous people in Canada and, if adopted, Bill C-262 will also set an important precedent for indigenous peoples in other countries worldwide.

The central focus of the bill is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As underlined in call to action number 43, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls on the federal government and all levels of government to implement the UN declaration “as the framework for reconciliation”.

In regard to the UN declaration, collaborative processes will also be established with the federal government that will enhance harmonious and co-operative relations. In addition, the bill repudiates colonialism as well as fictitious and racist doctrines of superiority, such as as “discovery” and terra nullius. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that Bill C-262 is adopted by both Houses of Parliament. We urge every political party to support this human rights legislation.

Since the early 1980s, our leaders and representatives have attended and participated in the UN standard-setting processes that led to the adoption of the UN declaration in 2007. We always knew that we were both international and domestic actors. Our international personality has been repeatedly confirmed not only by the 20 plus years of negotiating the UN declaration, but also by the increasing number of indigenous issues and processes taking place at the United Nations with direct indigenous participation.

Our Cree Nation knows what it's like to be treated as if we have no inherent rights or no pre-existing rights. In the early 1970s, the construction of the James Bay hydroelectric project was announced by the premier of Quebec with no regard to our rights. At that time, it was the largest project in Canada's history. We had to go to the door of the Supreme Court of Canada before the government was willing to negotiate an agreement.

When the Cree entered into the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975, we saw it as a partnership in governance, environment, and development issues with Canada and Quebec. However, in the years after the signature of this agreement, relations between the Cree, Canada, and Quebec severely deteriorated. Both governments failed repeatedly to implement the agreement. For over 20 years, we were continually entangled in court cases with both governments, at great expense to all parties.

In February 2002 the Cree entered into a nation-to-nation agreement with the Quebec government. This 50-year agreement is referred to as the Paix des Braves. As affirmed in its preamble, this agreement “is based on a development model which relies on the principles of sustainable development, partnership and respect for the traditional way of life of the Crees”. To incorporate sustainable development in our treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the agreement was also amended.

Moreover, in February 2008 we entered into the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee. In particular, this agreement established the process of negotiating a Cree Nation government. We are pleased that the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee Governance Agreement Act, Bill C-70, was assented to on March 29, 2018.

La Paix des Braves and the Canada-Cree agreement both embrace the basic principles of co-operation, partnership, and mutual respect that are the highlights in the UN declaration. Both agreements reflect a consensual relationship. It has been about 47 years since Quebec's decision to proceed with the James Bay hydroelectric project in Eeyou Istchee without our consent. We have all learned that such unilateral action leads to bitter conflicts that are not in the interest of any party concerned. However, our consensual relations are not limited to governments. Consistent with our right to self-determination, we have entered into more than 90 agreements with Canada and business enterprises. I am well placed to emphasize this point relating to consent, or better yet adding value, since I have often been the chief negotiator in achieving such business and government agreements.

There may also be occasions when we turn down a proposed project. About five or six years ago, when a third party proposed a uranium project in Eeyou Istchee, the Cree Nation and the Government of Quebec rejected the proposal after careful examination and reflection. Our decision received support from the Quebec government and over 200 municipalities. We have the right to safeguard our environment, economy, and way of life from unacceptable risks. We have a responsibility to protect the health, security, and well-being of present and future generations.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that our treaties and other agreements must remain living and dynamic agreements for our present and future generations. When there are new and unforeseen circumstances, our treaties and agreements must be appropriately amended. In regard to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, there have been at least 24 complementary agreements. La Paix des Braves, similarly, was amended in December 2003.

We believe that the two collaborative processes in Bill C-262—to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN declaration and to develop and implement a national action plan—can be a useful complement to our treaties and agreements.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The final presentation is from Thunderchild First Nation.

We're very happy to have you, Delbert. Go ahead.

[Chief Delbert Wapass, Thunderchild First Nation]

Thank you very much.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

I want to say good afternoon to members of the esteemed standing committee. Thank you for inviting the Indian Resource Council to testify on Bill C-262. I have made this trip on behalf of the Indian Resource Council, and not on behalf of Thunderchild.

My name is Delbert Wapass. I'm the Chief of Thunderchild First Nation from Saskatchewan. We are located in the heart of oil and gas country, Lloydminster, on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border.

The Indian Resource Council is a national advocacy organization of chiefs. Our mandate is to represent resource-based first nations by ensuring that their oil and gas resources are managed in their best interests. We work with Canada through Indian Oil and Gas Canada, IOGC, and with industry to ensure that our people participate fully in the energy sector and that we derive maximum benefit from these resources.

On behalf of IRC, we are pleased to share our perspectives as you study Bill C-262.

First, we note and recognize that we are making our submission on unceded Anishinaabe lands.

We acknowledge the Honourable Romeo Saganash, member of Parliament, who is championing Bill C-262, which requires the laws of Canada to be in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The IRC is pleased to support Mr. Saganash's private member's bill and his recommendation for the adoption and implementation of UNDRIP into Canadian law.

We also acknowledge the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, the recommendations of which, among those of many others, have placed UNDRIP in the spotlight of our discussion today.

We also appreciate the best efforts of the Government of Canada, especially those of the Prime Minister, to make UNDRIP a priority in the context of Canada's reconciliation with the indigenous peoples. The Prime Minister, on many occasions, has reiterated this commitment, and especially with his concise statement that “the Government of Canada is committed to a renewed relationship with Indigenous Peoples, based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.” We take these words to heart and believe that Bill C-262 embodies and gives life to these words.

When the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the Hon. Carolyn Bennett, delivered a speech at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on April 25, 2017, she too made that statement.

In direct response to the declaration, the Prime Minister has mandated the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to chair a working group to review all federal laws and policies related to indigenous peoples to reverse the colonial paternalistic approaches. This is about breathing life into section 35 of Canada's Constitution, which formally entrenches the rights of indigenous peoples in Canadian law, and yet which, for far too long, has not been lived up to.

IRC is here today to support these proposals and sentiments and to formally express our support for Bill C-262 and the Prime Minister's responses to UNDRIP, including an internal legal review, and the adoption and implementation of Bill C-262 with its main goal of developing and implementing a national action plan.

Bill C-262 is a new approach to first nations issues. When enacted into law it will advance the process of Canada's framework for reconciliation. IRC recognizes that this federal legislation is needed to reject the colonial structures that continue to oppress the indigenous peoples of this land and to replace these structures with new frameworks that are based on reconciliation.

Further, IRC wants to state clearly that any new legislation must be consistent with Canada's duties and roles, which include fiduciary duties and the historical trust obligations of the crown with respect to first nations lands and resources.

The metaphor of braiding international, domestic, and indigenous laws is relevant to many indigenous traditions in Canada, as stated by some indigenous academics and professionals. The braiding of sweetgrass indicates strength and the drawing together of power and healing. A braid is a single object consisting of many fibres and separate strands. It does not gain its strength from any single fibre that runs its entire length, but from the many fibres woven together. Imagining a process of braiding together strands of constitutional, international, and indigenous law allows one to see the possibilities of reconciliation from different angles and perspectives, and thereby to begin to reimagine what a nation-to-nation relationship, justly encompassing these different legal traditions, might mean.

This is a fitting metaphor for what is contemplated by Bill C-262. It has been 10 years since UNDRIP was adopted by the United Nations on September 13, 2007. It is the right time for Canada to end the debate. Pass and enact Bill C-262.

As highlighted in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues document, the UNDRIP confirms the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and recognizes subsistence rights to lands, territories, and resources. The IRC submits that first nation oil and gas producers and other first nations with the potential to produce oil and gas want to achieve self-determination by asserting their jurisdiction, and want their subsistence rights to lands, territories, and resources recognized in Canadian law.

Bill C-262 purports to provide such assurance. Our organization has been an active participant in developing oil and gas legislation that impacts first nations across Canada. It is our intention to develop our own institutional structures that will shift control of oil and gas from Canada and IOGC. This would be a true exercise of sovereignty and self-determination, as contemplated by UNDRIP and Bill C-262.

In 2005, IRC appeared as a witness before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Northern Development for its study of Bill C-54, FNOGMMA. In 2009, we appeared again at the standing committee for its study of Bill C-5, An Act to Amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act. In 2009, IRC appeared as a witness before the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for its study on that same bill, Bill C-5. Presently, in 2018, IRC continues to do joint work with INAC and IOGC.

If this committee decides to proceed with Bill C-262, IRC is willing to share our experience and offer to work jointly with INAC to develop a national action plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP, and ensure that the fiduciary and historical trust obligations for first nation lands and resources are protected. Self-determination and indigenous sovereignty can be implemented in practice by UNDRIP through the implementation of free, prior, and informed consent. Critics of free, prior, and informed consent are concerned about the definition of this concept. Some have equated it to a veto. We at IRC have no such apprehensions. We know that we have rights and title to our land. Canadians courts, including the Supreme Court, did not create these rights; they merely confirmed the existence of these rights. UNDRIP did the same thing by confirming our rights, which existed long before we were colonized.

Free, prior, and informed consent is a tool that can be used to ensure respectful and meaningful consultation with indigenous people whenever and wherever their rights are being impacted. It is another tool for reconciliation.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

We're going to a round of questioning. First, you'll each have seven minutes.

We start with MP Gary Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the panel for joining us.

While I'm going to ask some questions, I do want to save one question for Sehoneh Masty, who is with the youth council, I believe.

This is directed to the grand chief. With respect to the recognition of rights framework that was introduced by the Prime Minister recently, what are your thoughts on it relation to UNDRIP? How do you see that working in conjunction with the legislation?

[Grand Chief Abel Bosum]

I think our position is that UNDRIP should be the framework for that legislation. I think what UNDRIP really lays out is very comprehensive in addressing all of the issues that indigenous people would like to deal with.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Does anybody else want to add anything to that?

Paul.

[Paul Joffe, Legal Counsel, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)]

The framework should definitely recognize that indigenous peoples' rights are human rights. When Canada goes to the UN, there's no question about that, whether it's a Conservative Government or a Liberal Government. When we come home, however, neither government shapes its arguments or describes indigenous rights as human rights. It's not right that the charter in part I is considered to be about human rights, but the human rights of indigenous peoples in part II aren't dealt with equally.

In the Tsilhqot'in Nation decision, when the Supreme Court said that part I and part II are sister provisions both limiting the powers of federal and provincial governments, that should be based first of all on our characterizing the rights accurately as human rights.

In terms of the framework, you have the UN declaration but there are many other elements. Some of the elements would be in Romeo's bill, which could be followed up on, such as repudiating colonialism, and a lot more needs to be done there. Certainly with regard to the doctrine of discovery and terra nullius, the Supreme Court went part of the way in, I believe, paragraph 69 of the Tsilhqot'in Nation decision when its said that terra nullius never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the royal proclamation. If it were confirmed by the royal proclamation, then it also must have confirmed that the doctrine of discovery doesn't apply.

It would be good to clear the air there, because it really disturbs indigenous peoples to think that they were here thousands of years before and yet discovery somehow gives the power and rights to someone else.

I'll stop there.

Thank you.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Joffe.

Chief Wapass, I just want to bring you back to the conversation about FPIC. I know that a considerable amount of discussion has taken place in these hearings with respect to FPIC.

As a council, how do you view and treat the issue of FPIC with respect to UNDRIP? Is it something for which there is already an existing framework or is it something that will come in as part of UNDRIP?

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

I think what's important to understand is that any entity or organization is not a rights and titles holder. The resource council respects the rights of those first nations it represents. The consultation has to be with them, and we help facilitate and mediate that.

In terms of the free, prior, and informed consent, definitely with any type of development, whether it's on their treaty lands or their traditional lands, there has to be that free, prior, and informed consent. Even among tribes, among nations, among ourselves, we have to respect each other's territory, and we do. That's always been our practice.