Natural Resources committee  I would say that some first nations in Saskatchewan have issued consultation or engagement policies that specify how they want to be worked with. Certainly, these identify their preferred ways, and might be very helpful where they exist. There's a huge diversity of communities within Saskatchewan in terms of size.

Natural Resources committee  No, nothing specific on this particular point.

Natural Resources committee  In terms of lessons to take from the chain, I would highlight particularly the chain from Haida onwards, on the proactive duty to consult. I would distinguish it a bit from Delgamuukw and other cases prior to Haida, which were focused on consultation as part of the test for whether a particular infringement of an aboriginal or treaty right was justified.

Natural Resources committee  I'll just say that, in general, yes, there's a lot of clarity on a lot of issues on consultation in Canada in terms of what's legally required. You've highlighted two of the issues that actually give rise to complexities. One of those is early engagement. In one way, that's actually very straightforward for a lot of contexts.

Natural Resources committee  Well, as in any community, there can be some differing viewpoints obviously, and any human community has differing views. The voices get unified together in some ways through the Sami parliament. Insofar as it's drawn into commenting on particular issues, there's a unified voice.

Natural Resources committee  On the issue of consultation, I think the Canadian courts have said more than probably any other court system in the world, in many ways. There are particular decisions from other jurisdictions that may be inspiring in particular ways. There's an ongoing judicial conversation that takes place between jurisdictions, and so the Canadian courts have heard about New Zealand decisions recently and considered them in the context of some of their indigenous rights cases.

Natural Resources committee  Sure. There would be a distinction between an indigenous industry agreement, the broader category, and the category of an impact benefit agreement, which is usually one type of indigenous industry agreement. However, indigenous industry agreements could be a broader category. Some joint venture agreements might also be impact benefit agreements, but some might not be.

Natural Resources committee  Good afternoon. My name is Dwight Newman. I work as a professor of law and Canada research chair in indigenous rights in constitutional and international law at the University of Saskatchewan. In this role, I carry on a broad-based program of research on indigenous rights law, with one significant focus within that being on global intersections of indigenous rights and resource development.

Natural Resources committee  Yes.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  May I answer? I'd just like to say that I think that choice should be avoided. I don't think the choice needs to be between making a firm commitment and the legalistic questions. A firm commitment can be offered and a sincere commitment could be offered without that being in the form of a statute in exactly this form, but further statutory measures should follow from commitment, and more specific statutory commitments.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I would follow the interpretation that's offered by Professor James Anaya to the effect that UNDRIP is essentially a normative statement at the international level of how human rights apply to the circumstances of indigenous peoples around the world. I don't say that to dodge the question; that's how I would answer the question.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  That's the first answer that I gave. Indigenous rights are human rights, and UNDRIP is an important international normative statement on how human rights apply to the circumstances—

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  You can go first.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  On the first question, I don't know if I have a view on that or not. A private member brought forth the bill. If the government chooses to support it, I don't know the implications for the parliamentary process of a government bill versus a private member's bill. What I would say is that if the government is supporting this bill, I would hope that it would invest government resources in ensuring that the drafting is the best that it can be and would support the private member— if it is a private member's bill— in ensuring that the drafting is the best that it can be.