Evidence of meeting #104 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consent.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Check your clock. You've been very generously compensated.
MP Danny Vandal.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Thank you to both groups for your presentations. It's very much appreciated.
My first question is to the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, and if you've already said this in your presentation, please excuse me. My brief says,“a group of First Nations in British Columbia that works cooperatively to enhance the economic well-being...”.
How many first nations are represented in your coalition?
Vice-Chair, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
We're at 41 as of today.
Two years ago, we were at 11, so we've grown quite rapidly.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Okay. In what region of British Columbia would that be?
Vice-Chair, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
We have three sub-regions. We have the central interior, the northwest, and the northeast.
Liberal
Vice-Chair, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
Yes. It's mostly up in the northern area, but we do have a couple of others that are in different areas.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
I'm reading an article from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce about the role of indigenous peoples in land and resource planning, and I couldn't agree with it more.
Has your organization ever been involved with the regional government or the provincial government in regional land use planning, or with the municipalities in actual land use planning, where you can actually sit down, look at a region, and say, “This should be one utilization”? Have you ever embarked on an exercise like that?
Vice-Chair, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
No, not to that magnitude. We do have an environmental assessment stewardship program that looks at land use planning and we have developed a tool kit that allows the land use planning to be part of the process if we're going to have major program development in a certain area, but we haven't done anything to that magnitude as far as working with regional districts is concerned.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Okay. I'll ask Chief Knockwood or Derek Simon the same question: have you ever worked with a municipality, a regional local government, or a province on land use planning?
Legal Counsel, Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'taqnn Inc.
No. The organization is about two years old at this point, and we're really just starting to get more heavily involved in mapping out indigenous knowledge and land use. We're getting to the point where we have some of the information we need to be engaged in those processes. Previously, we didn't.
We're hoping, and it's something we're looking to our federal and provincial treaty partners for, to do a province-wide indigenous knowledge and land use study to enable us to fully map out where land use is taking place. That would arm us with the information we need to be engaged in those processes. However, to date, no, we haven't.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Let's assume UNDRIP gets approved. What should our next step be?
Let's go back to Chief Leween, or any of your group.
Vice-Chair, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
We've heard it a couple of times around the table today: consent and collaboration, as well as communication. If we all work together to support each other in some of the articles, it will be a success. It's a good foundation for our people. What we need to do now is build on it, and the only way we can truly build on it is with the first nations' informed consent and the collaboration between not only our first nations governments, but the provincial and federal governments, as well as the proponents that will come into our communities, because it's a reality.
Collaboration is the key word.
Fort Folly First Nation, Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'taqnn Inc.
I agree totally with Chief Leween that good communication and collaboration amongst everybody is really essential.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
All right. We don't have any more time in this session, so we'll pause for a short time and then reconvene after a short break.
Thank you for coming. Meegwetch. We appreciate your comments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Very good. I see that we are back together.
We have representatives here from two significant business associations. Mind you, we'll hear from the Forest Stewardship Council whether they're representing conservation or business, because I'm not quite sure.
Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that we are here to hear from you on UNDRIP and the impacts to Canada, whether you have any changes or amendments to the bill, and how you view this initiative in reconciliation.
Each group has 10 minutes to present. After the presentations, we'll do rounds of questioning.
My list starts with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Susanna, welcome; you can begin any time you are ready.
Susanna Cluff-Clyburne Director, Parliamentary Affairs, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Great. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm used to presenting for five minutes, so I'll be fast, and I'll give my co-panellists the remainder of my time.
First of all, thank you very much for the invitation to be here this afternoon. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce deeply appreciates it. I'm Susanna Cluff-Clyburne, obviously, and amongst my files at the Canadian chamber is the indigenous affairs file. I too wish to acknowledge, as I'm sure has been done previously this afternoon, the fact that we're meeting on unceded territory of the Algonquin people.
The Canadian chamber is not a newcomer to the examination of relationships between business and indigenous peoples. I've had the opportunity to meet several of the members of this committee to talk about our work in the past and in the present as well. Our members know that indigenous peoples, the youngest and fastest-growing segment of Canada's population, hold the promise of being a social and economic powerhouse if they have the same opportunities available to them as all Canadians do.
Over the past several years, Canadian chamber members have given us the mandate and resources to examine public policy tools and business practices that would improve indigenous peoples' participation in, and increase their benefits from, our economy. Indigenous peoples in what is now Canada once enjoyed strong, nation-to-nation, social, military, and commercial alliances with European colonists. Had it not been for the co-operation of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples—for example, during the War of 1812—Canada might not exist, and that was before the Indian Act, residential schools, and a spate of policies and programs aimed at assimilating indigenous peoples.
It wasn't just government policies that caused harm. Canada's businesses have often fallen short on seeking respectful relationships with indigenous peoples. Governments, businesses, and all Canadians need to do the hard work necessary to restore these nation-to-nation, partner-to-partner relationships throughout Canada. They're critical to the well-being of each and every one of us.
In its final report, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called upon Canadian businesses to adopt the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for their relationships. Many of our members are doing so and had respectful, mutually beneficial relationships prior to the declaration's existence. Our members support Bill C-262. It's time that indigenous rights took their proper place in Canadian laws and regulations.
Our members also support the objectives of the approach being taken by the government, first, with its review of the laws and policies affecting indigenous peoples, and more recently, with the process to recognize and implement indigenous rights.
However—and unfortunately, there is a however—our members are frustrated with the lack of a formal process to allow for their perspectives to be heard as the government moves forward. The environment has become extremely complex on the issue of reconciliation, and our repeated requests to be part of the reconciliation conversation have, to date, fallen on deaf ears.
Last year, we were encouraged when it was indicated that the government's review of laws and policies would include a formal process to seek the input of stakeholders, including business. The government's engagement process for the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights does not have the rigour we had expected and hoped for, for such an important issue. Those stakeholders not invited to face-to-face round tables can provide their perspectives through an email address or a Canada Post address. However, the engagement guide is still not available online—that's as of this morning—and the deadline for providing input is not clear. I was able to obtain the guide by contacting an ADM at Indigenous and Northern Affairs. That's the only way I could get it.
Canada's businesses and other stakeholders, as well as indigenous rights holders, need a principles-based, reliable, consistent framework for the governance of their relationships. Until then, we will all continue to rely on a project-by-project approach, based on what we can negotiate and not necessarily on the correct principles. Too often, as it is today, the ultimate outcome will be determined by the courts, and this is not in anyone's interests.
Improving indigenous peoples' engagement in our economy is in every Canadian's interest. Companies that have worked hard to establish and now enjoy strong relationships with indigenous communities are the most vocal on the benefits of doing so.
It's not clear to Canada's businesses and those who invest in them what the government's commitments to reconciliation with indigenous peoples mean for them. A clear, rigorous stakeholder engagement process would greatly assist. The sooner it's clear what the government's commitments mean for Canada's businesses, the better positioned they will be to deliver on sustainable economic reconciliation and the quality-of-life benefits that often accompany it.
Thanks again for the opportunity to be here this afternoon.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you.
Now we move to the Forest Stewardship Council of Canada.
You have up to 10 minutes.
François Dufresne President, Forest Stewardship Council of Canada
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name is François Dufresne. I am the President and CEO of the Forest Stewardship Council or FSC Canada.
I would to first acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples. FSC Canada has been welcomed onto this territory many times since our creation in 1996, and we have been honoured with their support for our work on sustainable forest management.
FSC Canada would like to recognize Mr. Saganash for introducing Bill C-262 to the Canadian public for review and debate. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been a guidepost for our work on establishing new standards for forest certification in Canada and around the world. We would like to thank this committee for including FSC in the lineup of distinguished guests to speak on the topic of indigenous rights; free, prior, and informed consent; and UNDRIP.
I will provide a brief introduction to FSC and then I will turn the microphone over to Pamela Perreault, our coordinator of aboriginal initiatives within FSC Canada, to provide an overview of our work on indigenous rights.
FSC is a global organization that is present in more than 80 countries with 200 million hectares of certified forests around the globe. It was created in 1993 after the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit as a voluntary forest certification system. Based on a consensus obtained with social, indigenous, environmental, and economic stakeholders, we set strict standards to ensure that FSC-certified forest products are issued from responsibly managed forests. The wood fibre from certified forests is tracked to retail stores through the FSC chain of custody system. FSC-certified wood, paper, and other forest products are then sold with the FSC label by certified companies in the marketplace. With 55 million hectares, Canada has the largest area of FSC-certified forests in the world. Sixteen per cent of Canada's forests are FSC-certified, and six of the 10 largest FSC-certified forests in the world are located here in Canada.
Pamela will now explain how FSC has worked within the UNDRIP framework to craft a standard that recognizes and upholds the rights of indigenous peoples.
Pamela Perreault Coordinator of Aboriginal Initiatives, Forest Stewardship Council of Canada
Aaniin Boozhoo. My name is Pamela Perreault and I am a member of Garden River First Nation, which is located at the centre of the three largest Great Lakes, just outside Sault Ste. Marie.
My mentors and elders have taught me the importance of full disclosure when we're talking about important topics such as our rights and responsibilities.
To begin, I am the coordinator of aboriginal initiatives for FSC Canada, but I'm also an elected councillor in my community of Garden River First Nation. I'm a mother, a wife, a sister, and an aunt. I have a degree in biology and a master's degree in science and forest management.
I also work for FSC International on the development of the global guidelines for the implementation of free, prior, and informed consent. This work has afforded me the opportunity to travel, meet, and learn from indigenous peoples around the world. My work with FSC and my approach to standard development is clearly guided and influenced by my own experience and understanding of indigenous peoples and community development.
Before we go into any further detail on our approach as FSC to FPIC and UNDRIP, I'll offer a couple of caveats.
We are not lawyers or experts in the legal interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution. We are a global, not-for-profit organization with a voluntary membership and a certification process. We do not and cannot claim to represent the voices or aspirations of indigenous peoples, but we strive to enable those voices to be heard at the national and global level.
Our national office here in Canada has a small staff that takes very seriously the responsibility of convening discussions, dialogue, and sometimes debates on hard topics. We often have been at the forefront of solution-building in terms of conservation and forest management. Our approach to caribou management and the implementation of UNDRIP are two examples. We rely on the knowledge of respected scientists, forest practitioners, indigenous peoples with expertise and experience in working with indigenous knowledge, and of course, knowledge holders themselves.
As an international organization, FSC developed the first guideline for implementing FPIC in the context of forest certification in 2012. We are currently revising those guidelines to reflect lessons learned through further research and field testing of our guidelines in 14 locations throughout the globe, including Canada.
FSC has just revised its entire standard and developed a preliminary guidance document on the implementation of FPIC in the context of Canada, which is a first for a national office within our system. This document was first released for public review in December 2017, and the second draft is now available on our website.
As far as our standard goes, I'll start with a quote from Michelangelo, who said, “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving [our] mark.”
The FSC standard for forest management certification and our efforts to protect indigenous rights affected by forest management activities is high, and we are well aware of this. But we also know that it is possible to achieve because we have examples right here in Canada of it being done. We also believe that to effect social change with positive environmental benefits, we have to set the bar high to encourage our certificate holders, forest companies, indigenous peoples, and other stakeholders involved in the certification to work harder, be more innovative, and be more compassionate.
However, it's also important to note that our system rewards this hard work through access to a growing market of informed consumers and responsive retailers. I believe some of the previous witnesses who have appeared before you have mentioned that while there might be wide support for UNDRIP, there are implementation gaps even in countries like our own with a strong legal framework that protects indigenous rights.
The question at the top of our minds might be, how do we move from legal recognition to implementation? Herein lies the work of FSC Canada. I'll start with our approach.
I have summarized our work into five broad categories. First, we lead by example by having a transparent and inclusive governance structure. Our governance structure in FSC is a reflection of the values and priorities of the organization. We use a model that we call “chamber representation”. Internationally, we have three chambers: the environment, social, and economic chambers. Here in Canada, since its inception, we have added a fourth chamber, the aboriginal chamber, to reflect the critical role of aboriginal peoples in the development and implementation of forest management standards.
Principle three on the rights of indigenous peoples has six criteria and 17 indicators related to the recognition and upholding of indigenous rights affected by forest management activities. A copy of principle three was included in our presentation package.
Our second approach is to develop a standard that is high in expectation but relatively low on prescription to allow for innovation, creativity, and relationship building. The requirement for certificate holders to obtain free and informed consent of indigenous peoples has been part of our standard since 2004. FSC revised their international indicators for certification in 2014, resulting in a significant change to our principle three on indigenous rights, which included free, prior, and informed consent. For the last four years, FSC has engaged in dialogue with experts, members of FSC, and indigenous peoples and reimagined what FPIC means in the Canadian context. Our principle three expresses to the fullest extent our understanding of the right to FPIC in a for-certification context here in Canada.
Because you might not have principle three in front of you, I'll read it out for you. Our principle states that the organization shall “identify and uphold indigenous peoples’ legal and customary rights of ownership, use and management of lands, territories, and resources affected by management activities”.
If we think of criterion indicators as a road map for achieving that principle, we have 17 of those. The one that I would like to draw people's attention to is indicator 3.2.4 that provides perhaps the most explicit direction for the protection of indigenous rights through the implementation of the right to free, prior, and informed consent. It says that free, prior, and informed consent is obtained “prior to management activities that affect their identified rights...through a process that” engages indigenous people in the assessment of “economic, social and environmental” values of forest management resource.
We document the approach of identifying the goals and aspirations of affected rights holders related to management activities. This includes a mutually agreed upon dispute resolution process. It includes a support for dialogue regarding the rights and responsibilities of indigenous peoples to those resources. The process informs affected indigenous peoples of their right to withhold consent or modify consent to the proposed management activities to the extent necessary to protect those rights, resources, lands, and territories.
Finally, the process supports decision-making by affected indigenous peoples that is free of coercion, manipulation, and intimidation.
