As part of true modernization of the act, we ask you to revisit the act's original sources and acknowledge how the act's evolution over the past several decades has materialized against us. Stronger language in amendments pertaining to ecological and first nations rights protection is imperative. Otherwise, we appeal to this committee that this bill is a failed attempt at meaningful consultation with first nations communities and at modernized legislation as set out by this government.
I conclude these introductory remarks with no disrespect to your committee. Your work is both urgent and critical to all first nations in Canada. In fact, the Assembly of First Nations has a special assembly next week in Gatineau on this topic. I would urge you in all of your work leading to your final amendments to Bill C-69 to be resolute and determined that this piece of future legislation does operationalize first nations' perspectives, consistent with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Modernized legislation must not further disparage or trivialize our assertion of territory, our environmental knowledge, our constitutional rights, and the implementation of UNDRIP.
Clearly, there is a strong link between reconciliation and environmental assessment and the protection of our rights on our territories, a link that is becoming clearer to us every day. We see our youth interested in environmental science, and Algonquin socio-ecological knowledge is growing. We see the need to develop an Algonquin institute for environmental assessments on our territory. However, our terms for reconciliation must be supported in writing in this legislation and policy.
The problem is that government is defining what reconciliation relations are as a priori to extinguishment of rights and title under a planned federal legislative framework to transition bands currently under the Indian Act into self-government agreements, or into comprehensive claims agreements or modern treaties, which the government regards as self-determination. First nations' rights and title cannot be undermined by the colonial interpretation of reconciliation.
Reconciliation should be a stated purpose within the legislation, and it should further Canada's commitment to implement UNDRIP, including our right to our own interpretations of self-determination on our territories.
Furthermore, the legislation must be consistent with the protection of aboriginal rights and title recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
In terms of our second item, implementing the Algonquin institutions and the nation-to-nation relationships, we view that our nations' values, interests, and needs can be marginalized on a regional environmental assessment table or board where our constitutional rights and interests are diluted and/or ignored by the more dominant actors. Our constitutional provisions are unique and should be treated as such.
In our presentation to the expert panel, we introduced the concept of an Algonquin institution to encourage Algonquin involvement in Canadian environmental assessments in order to pay more careful attention to the matters that are of Algonquin concern. This is desirable not only to combat the development biases of proponents and government agencies that we have experienced under CEAA 2012, but also to explore the greater role that indigenous institutions can play in the economics of environmental impact assessment and ecosystem service planning, including evolving markets for project monitoring and other environmental services.
We request that Bill C-69 be amended to authorize nation-based indigenous institutions as a governing body to exercise powers or perform duties or functions in relation to impact assessments under this act, not excluding Indian Act bands with indigenous jurisdiction over unsurrendered title territories.
In terms of troubleshooting provincial environmental legislation, rather than relying on it for assessments and information gathering, I would like to bring your committee's attention to the Government of Quebec's recent reform of its Environment Quality Act by way of the adoption of Bill 102 on March 23, 2017. You should be concerned that, for a bill having potentially such an important impact on our aboriginal title and aboriginal rights, first nations in Quebec were not consulted. Furthermore, the new consolidated version of the EQA makes no reference whatsoever to the rights of first nations in Quebec.
This is shocking to us, that 35 years after the recognition of our rights in the Constitution of Canada and after years of jurisprudence, no reference is made to our rights, nor to the need to consult and accommodate, and in some cases, obtain our free, prior, and informed consent, despite the fact that we are often the main communities impacted by damages done to the environment.
We have aboriginal rights applicable in Quebec and that needs to be reflected in legislation and any directives, in order for our meaningful participation in environmental impact assessment and review processes in Quebec.
In closing, I advocate for legislating clear and mandatory protection and enhancement of section 35 rights in both federal and delegated review processes.
Chief St-Denis will now conclude with a couple of items.
Thank you.